my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » "Up" is flat...bummer (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "Up" is flat...bummer Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-14-2009 12:31 PM                     I remember something about the 1990 release of Fantasia being window-boxed in order to force commercial theaters to show it in 1.37:1 rather than crop the image. Too bad it reduced image quality. That made it seem a little strange to see it in 70mm in order to watch a properly reproduced 4:3 image. Regarding Up being composed in 1.85:1, I have no problem with that choice. Not everything needs to be 'scope. I'm pretty annoyed by so many mundane comedies and dramas being shot in Super 35 and shown theatrically in 2.40:1 when their subject matter and shot framing doesn't even serve the super wide format well at all. It's sort of like mono-mixed Woody Allen movies showing Dolby Digital and DTS logos on the movie poster. I see the overuse of 2.40:1 in commercial theaters as being a reverse form of panning and scanning similar to "full screen" 1.33:1 framed movies on DVD. One camp wants all of the commercial movie theater screen filled with imagery. Another camp wants all of the old 4:3 TV set filled with imagery. Both demands sound strangely similar.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 05-14-2009 01:38 PM                    Well, one thing to consider is this is the first Pixar 3-D attempt. Maybe in their eyes this aspect ratio was the best way to go. For the release of Fantasia in the early 90's you had to use a 1.66 lens to project it. A lens was brought in just for that engagement. THey set it up in a medium size auditorium and it stayed there the entire run wich was 2 or 3 weeks.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-14-2009 02:43 PM                     On this side topic of "Fantasia(1990)": At our 4plex theatre, we ran the required 1.37:1 presentation using a longer lens and added side maskings to fit this ratio. Sadly, a lot of this newer generation had a hard time accempting this "Concert Feature" by Disney. They wanted to be entertained, not being bored with classical music.  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 05-14-2009 04:33 PM                     "Sam Graham opens letterbox can of worms." Wackiness ensued.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-14-2009 04:55 PM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer Sadly, a lot of this newer generation had a hard time accempting this "Concert Feature" by Disney. They wanted to be entertained, not being bored with classical music. Does anyone remember how well (or not) Fantasia 2000 performed commercially? Just wondering. "They should have played this movie at the Ziegfeld where they have that Panavision stuff" - a comment I overheard at a 70mm screening of Fantasia at the City Cinemas Gramercy theater on 23rd Street in New York.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-14-2009 06:18 PM                        quote: Lyle Romer you have a house hanging from a bunch of balloons as the main visual I would guess the "view from the house" will be shown more often than the house+balloons.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-14-2009 06:45 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson Does anyone remember how well (or not) Fantasia 2000 performed commercially? Just wondering. When it was on our local IMAX screen, the turnout was impressive since the new stories in this film was more entertaining than what Disney had with the first one. Course, 60 years does make a different generation and attitude towards classical music - including the writers to make the sequences more entertaining. Yet, when the 35mm releases came out, sadly as with the 1940 original, it didn't create a good fan base.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-14-2009 06:55 PM                        Part of the reason Fantasia 2000 did poor business was because they got all snooty about it and wouldn't give it to just anyone. You had to play it four weeks, it was ridiculously expensive (I think our booker said it was 70/70/60/50 or something like that) and they didn't make all that many prints. We never played it and I've never seen it, even though I'd like to.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-14-2009 07:26 PM                        As one who found the original Fantasia to be a way-too-abstract, snooze-inducing obligation (after all, some people said it was the greatest animation ever produced), I had very little interest in watching Fantasia 2000 (plus, it wasn't playing at just any local cinema). When I finally saw Fantasia 2000 on DVD I thought it was fantastic... everything the original aspired to be but failed to be.  |  IP: Logged Tristan Lane Master Film Handler Posts: 444 From: Nampa, Idaho Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-16-2009 10:48 AM                     quote: Michael Hossen Greg, I can't see how it would cost more either to do it in Scope rather than Flat. If anything, scope should be cheaper. There are less pixels in a scope image  |  IP: Logged Mike Croaro Master Film Handler Posts: 394 From: Millbrae, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 05-16-2009 12:02 PM                     Hi Folks: I much prefer the 1.85 image as I find it eaier to view. I also enjoy 1.66 but you don't see it much anymore. Sometimes a current foreign film will be in 1.66. Mike  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-16-2009 01:14 PM                     The scope ratio of all the aspect ratios out there most closely matches the human eye's ratio. The reason many people don't like it, is because they are watching it in poorly designed theaters...and yes ALL theaters with top, bottom, or top and bottom "scissor" style masking are poorly designed.  |  IP: Logged Mike Croaro Master Film Handler Posts: 394 From: Millbrae, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 07-26-2009 12:02 PM                     Hi Folks: I'm suprised that nobody is beacuse Ice Age 3 is 1.85! Mike  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-26-2009 01:08 PM                     That's because nobody cares about Ice Age 3.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-27-2009 01:22 AM                        I couldn't have said it better myself.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.