Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85)

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85)

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 06-30-2005 09:16 AM

I assume Spielberg shot this flat for the same reason he shot Jurassic Park flat. In that one he said he wanted the flat ratio so the dinosaurs would look taller. I can only assume he wanted the tripods to look taller.

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Fuentes
Mmmm, Dr. Pepper!

Posts: 1168
From: Corpus Christi, TX United States
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-30-2005 09:36 AM

I only saw 5 minutes of it the other night, but of those 5 minutes, I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.

| IP: Logged

Stephanie M. Brosche
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 06-30-2005 02:17 PM

I agree with the general consensus that this was disappointing. This isn't as bad as Speilberg's AI...though Ms. Fanning's constant shrieking almost pushed it there. Two things bothered me that nobody as mentioned thus far. I haven't read the novel, so perhaps this makes sense to everyone but me. If this is so, someone please explain it to me.

***Potential Spoilers***

1. Why did the aliens vaporize people at the begining if they wanted to eat/drink them, which is the case by the end? This seems a little inefficient to me. If I was planning a mass attack on earth for millions of years, I sure wouldn't waste by time screwing around.

2. How come there was a tongue/mouth on the SPACE SHIP that the aliens were driving. It's like the entire crowd forgot that those tripods are not the actual aliens. We are reminded of this later when an alien comes sliding out of a craft, but by then every one seems to have forgotten that they tried to pass off a mouth on the damn things.

These two things have annoyed me tremendously since my viewing last night. Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

Oh, and did that foghorn sound come from another Spielberg flick or not? That's an argument I'm having with a co-worker.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-30-2005 04:34 PM

quote: Stephanie M. Brosche
Oh, and did that foghorn sound come from another Spielberg flick or not? That's an argument I'm having with a co-worker.

It does sound an awful lot like the 'foghorn' blast (which later became 'musical') from the mothership in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Maybe it was a little 'homage' to CE3K... [Smile]

-Aaron

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 06-30-2005 05:49 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
Why do the tripods vaporize everything excep Tom Cruise when he is near everybody getting vaporized?

They didn't see him because he is so short.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-30-2005 06:50 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
I assume Spielberg shot this flat for the same reason he shot Jurassic Park flat. In that one he said he wanted the flat ratio so the dinosaurs would look taller. I can only assume he wanted the tripods to look taller.

Spielberg needs to stop watching his movies in shitty multiplex auditoriums with top masking! [Mad]

Any director who shoots movies in flat is KNOWINGLY going to get a worse presentation regardless of the theater too. I don't know of ANY theater where the brightness of a flat picture is better than scope. Same goes for resolution and picture steadiness. These are simple facts of the 35mm format. Come on Spielberg, wake up!

| IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-30-2005 10:55 PM

SPOILERS AHOY!

quote:
P.S. - *beware of spoiler*
In the scene where Rachel asks her dad (Ray) to sing her a lullaby and he couldn't think of any it's fun to start singing "It's the end of the world as we know!"

What? No. The song was "Little Duce Coup". Did you see it in 35mm? Could this be a dlp variation? Unlikeley with Speilberg.

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-30-2005 11:42 PM

Mike, there is no DLP version.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-30-2005 11:58 PM

Read his sentence again Mike. Then send me $100 for no reason.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 07-01-2005 02:04 AM

quote:
Any director who shoots movies in flat is KNOWINGLY going to get a worse presentation regardless of the theater too. I don't know of ANY theater where the brightness of a flat picture is better than scope. Same goes for resolution and picture steadiness. These are simple facts of the 35mm format. Come on Spielberg, wake up!

I'm sure many in the business, including Spielberg, understand that by shooting in flat, the presentation on our end may suffer. Nevertheless, I think him and his DP Kaminski have a reason behind their decision. In the case of "War of the Worlds", the flat ratio seems to have a better effect than a scope ratio would. A major visual effect in the movie, the tripods, are extremely tall, and the flat ratio makes this effect much more convincing. Films like ID4 work better in scope because the ships are so wide, and thus scope can convey that. I think it's silly to knock a film maker for using flat over scope when it is nothing more than artistic intent.

It'd be nice to see, however, a format develop for 35mm that used anamorphic lenses for flat films too. That way, we could have the best of both worlds. Isn't DLP using something similar and not unlike the 16:9 format on DVD?

AJG

| IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: California, U.S.A.
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 07-01-2005 02:45 AM

quote: Stephanie M. Brosche
Oh, and did that foghorn sound come from another Spielberg flick or not? That's an argument I'm having with a co-worker.

I think it's more of a coincidence. It sounds similar at first, but if you listen closely the timing is all wrong and the pitch is different.
Oh well, it'll be a mystery for a while [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-01-2005 04:51 AM

Aaron, I would ask what you've been smoking, but then I noticed it in your member pic.

Seriously, you must work at one of those suck-o-matic "top masking" multiplexes. Properly set up, the scope image is exactly the same height as flat. You just get extra width (and resolution, and brightness, and steadiness, etc, etc, etc). Shooting in flat just makes it as if you have your hands up against the sides of your eyes, blocking out all peripheral vision. Artistic intent my ass. It's just being stupid.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-01-2005 05:13 AM

So, Brad, you would be opposed to intentionally shooting in Academy 1.33 (err, 1.37) as well? It should have nearly all the light efficiency advantages as scope and the format can be shown full-frame on television without butchering the original framing.

I agree that 1.85 is a sucky format, however.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-01-2005 05:25 AM

If Spielberg REALLY wanted to make the tripods look tall, he should have shot it in the 1.33 aspect ratio like Scott suggests. What an ass (Spielberg, not Scott). To me the tripods seem tiny and short because 1.85 is just too god damned wide. But 1.33... oh man Spielberg's artistic vision would be truly realized!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-01-2005 09:21 AM

quote:
Any director who shoots movies in flat is KNOWINGLY going to get a worse presentation regardless of the theater too. I don't know of ANY theater where the brightness of a flat picture is better than scope. Same goes for resolution and picture steadiness. These are simple facts of the 35mm format. Come on Spielberg, wake up!

quote: Aaron Garman
It'd be nice to see, however, a format develop for 35mm that used anamorphic lenses for flat films too. That way, we could have the best of both worlds. Isn't DLP using something similar and not unlike the 16:9 format on DVD?

Kodak tried to revive "IscoVision" as "Scope 1.5X":

Proposal for a 1.5X Scope "flat" format

quote:
Scope and Flat Apertures
In the previous issue of this publication, we discussed the advantages of the
"scope" format. Compared to the nonanamorphic 1.85: 1 aspect ratio "flat"
format, the "scope" format is usually brighter, sharper, and less grainy.

SMPTE Presentation "Scope 1.5X" (SMPTE Member Library)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.