Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Wild Thornberrys, "CinemaScope" (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Wild Thornberrys, "CinemaScope"
Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 12-15-2002 07:07 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OK, so he makes the distinction that it isn't just in scope, but he says it's in CinemaScope. So what makes it CinemaScope? Theoretically, wouldn't it have to be shot with old Bausch & Lomb CinemaScope anamorphic lenses for him to call it CinemaScope? Then again, CinemaScope really isn't the process, it's just the name....Fox's trademark moniker for the anamporphic process. So how does Csupo get to call it CinemaScope? He had to get permission from Fox for sure (is the film a Fox release?). He couldn't very well have used Panavision anamorphic lenses to shoot it. That would be weird credit crawl -- A CinemaScope Picture filmed with Panavision Lenses.

Mind you, I love the idea that the CinemaScope name is once again coming back to life (I never for the life of me could figure out why Fox abandoned it so unceremoniouly), but I just wonder what exactly does it mean in this context.

Frank

 |  IP: Logged
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 12-15-2002 09:46 AM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I believe that the recent Warner Bros. cartoon version of "The King and I" was scope.

If I'm remembering the right movie, I think they were making a big deal about it because it was the first animated feature in a long time to use scope.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 12-15-2002 04:51 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Manny wrote:
quote:
I believe that the recent Warner Bros. cartoon version of "The King and I" was scope.
Nope, it was flat.

Frank wrote:
quote:
That would be weird credit crawl -- A CinemaScope Picture filmed with Panavision Lenses.
Several pictures (many from MGM) from the late 1950s/early '60s *did* contain that very credit (or one worded in a similar manner).

quote:
So what makes it CinemaScope? Theoretically, wouldn't it have to be shot with old Bausch & Lomb CinemaScope anamorphic lenses for him to call it CinemaScope?
With animated productions today, who knows. Most contemporary animated productions seem to be created as a digital file then recorded out to a film negative. Which may explain why some sources cite these types of productions as being in generic "Digital Widescreen." Some animated productions have, however, used "process" credits such as "Celco" (Osmosis Jones and The Iron Giant) or "PixarVision" (Monsters, Inc.) and, as previously pointed out here, "CinemaScope" (Anastasia and Titan A.E.).

Paul wrote:
quote:
[For Lady And The Tramp] Both a standard academy and scope version were filmed.
And in a really dumb move (if you ask me), Disney chose to pan-and-scan the scope version in the mid-80s when it was prepared for its first video release rather than simply using the Academy version and transferring it "as is."

 |  IP: Logged
Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

- posted 12-15-2002 05:39 PM      Profile for Jack Ondracek   Author's Homepage   Email Jack Ondracek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
from Steve K:...
..."Anastasia" (1997) which was officially in CinemaScope per the credits although what that actually meant from a production standpoint we never did figure out. But I don't think any others can make that claim.
Does Fox still "own" the name?... or has that somehow gone the way of public domain? Seems I recall past unsuccessful lawsuits over terms that might once have been trademarks but later became part of the industrial lexicon.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 12-15-2002 05:57 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
David wrote:
quote:
Note that my point wasn't that the film is in scope, it was that the makers are actively promoting scope as a superior format.
Your point is taken, and appreciated. Sorry to cause your thread to "drift" by having it turn into a discussion of animated scope films in general. "Drifting" has to be expected in these forums. Obviously, there are many here who have a love of or preference for the scope format, though one has to wonder if it truly is superior anymore given the plethora of digital and spherical origination formats converted to scope and far-too-many theaters set up with fixed or common-width screens (scope was never intended to be smaller than flat!!!).

Since others have thrown out several scope titles in this thread, here's a more complete animated scope filmography for you guys to digest, discuss, criticize, add to, etc...

Animated scope feature films:
Lady And The Tramp (1955/CinemaScope)
Sleeping Beauty (1958/Technirama)
Metamorphoses (aka Winds Of Change/1977/Panavision)
The Black Cauldron (1985/Technirama)
The Thief And The Cobbler (aka Arabian Knight/1995/Panavision)
Anastasia (1997/CinemaScope)
A Bug's Life (1998)
The Iron Giant (1999/Celco)
Titan A.E. (2000/CinemaScope)
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
Spirit: Stallion Of The Cimarron (2002)
The Wild Thornberrys Movie (2002)

Live-action/animation combo scope productions:
Guitar Picks & Roach Clips (1976/Panavision)
Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982/Panavision)
Tron (1982/Super Panavision-VistaVision)
Osmosis Jones (2001/Clairmont-Celco)
Looney Tunes: Back In Action (2003/Super 35)

Unsure of process:
Raggedy Ann and Andy (1977/might be Panavision)
Akira (1988/some sources suggest 65mm origination)

What's missing (excluding shorts)?

One could add substantially to this list depending on how one defines "animation." With today's productions and the extensive use of CGI, the definition of animation has certainly broadened. A common credit today is: "Visual Effects & Animation By..."

 |  IP: Logged
David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

- posted 12-15-2002 06:07 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I realized after my initial post that someone might read it and think "He's excited about the release of a cartoon in 'scope -- what's the big deal?" when in fact what I was really getting at was how rare it is to hear a film (any film, let alone a cartoon) being actively promoted as being in 'scope.

As far as the thread drifting, heck, it's all good. [Wink] Let me assist the thread in drifting even more: Why did filmmakers stop using the Panavision (or CinemaScope) logo in the opening credits the way they did in the past? If the makers go the whole 9 yards and film anamorphically, they should stick the logo in their movie right up front and be proud of it. It's a simple thing they could do to make seeing their film in a theatre a little special. It seems like these days the Panavision logo rarely shows up in the end credits, and half of those times it's misused.

 |  IP: Logged
Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

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

- posted 12-15-2002 06:09 PM      Profile for Aaron Sisemore   Email Aaron Sisemore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Does Fox still "own" the name?
Yes, they do. Matter of fact they had let it slip for a good number of years, and 're-registered' it in 1996

-Aaron

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 12-15-2002 06:35 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why did filmmakers stop using the Panavision (or CinemaScope) logo in the opening credits the way they did in the past?
I imagine that has more to do with most productions from the last few decades having all of the credits being moved to the end save for the stars and department heads/key above-the-line personnel that remained at the beginning.

I agree that the process, especially if it's worth blabbing about (genuine anamorphic or better yet a 65mm process), would be ideal along side the director of photography's credit in the opening titles (e.g. "Photographed by so-and-so in Super Panavision 70").

Believe it or not, at many of the recent 70mm screenings at the American Cinematheque in L.A., the "70mm" process credit received applause (Patton, Lord Jim, 2001, Hello, Dolly!, etc)

 |  IP: Logged
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 12-16-2002 01:23 AM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Disney chose to pan-and-scan the scope version in the mid-80s when it was prepared for its first video release rather than simply using the Academy version and transferring it "as is."
Is it possible the original 1.37 version was in bad shape and transferring it "as is" wouldn't have made a very pretty transfer? Have no idea, just guessing here. It would have been nice that since they did use the 1.37 version for the last full-frame release that they could have included both on the DVD, but of course they didnt.

 |  IP: Logged
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 12-16-2002 01:28 AM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Disney chose to pan-and-scan the scope version in the mid-80s when it was prepared for its first video release rather than simply using the Academy version and transferring it "as is."
Is it possible the original 1.37 version was in bad shape and transferring it "as is" wouldn't have made a very pretty transfer? Have no idea, just guessing here. It would have been nice that since they did use the 1.37 version for the last full-frame release that they could have included both on the DVD, but of course they didnt.

 |  IP: Logged
Josh Jones
Redhat

Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000

- posted 12-16-2002 01:40 AM      Profile for Josh Jones   Author's Homepage   Email Josh Jones   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Akira was shot on 70mm, as the documentary short on it mentions retransferring the origional 70mm negative.

Josh

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 12-16-2002 03:15 AM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Paul wrote:
quote:
Is it possible the original 1.37 version was in bad shape and transferring it "as is" wouldn't have made a very pretty transfer?
I meant "as is" as in no reframing would need to be performed if the Academy version was used. As for Disney choosing not to use the Academy version...not according to a telecine colorist involved with the project, who claimed the Disney decision-makers didn't even know to look for an alternate, Academy-format version.

 |  IP: Logged
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 12-16-2002 01:56 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There was a time when the end credits would specify either "cameras and lenses by Panavision" (flat) or "filmed in Panavision" (scope). They don't seem to make a distinction anymore, they just put the Panavision logo in there with the Dolby, DTS and IATSE logos.

There's a lot of confusion out there regarding what Panavision is.

Also -- speaking of confusion -- could we clarify whether the "v" in "Panavision" is upper or lower case. I've never seen it capitalized, but that doesn't mean it isn't correct.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 12-16-2002 02:23 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There was a time when the end credits would specify either "cameras and lenses by Panavision" (flat) or "filmed in Panavision" (scope). They don't seem to make a distinction anymore, they just put the Panavision logo in there with the Dolby, DTS and IATSE logos. There's a lot of confusion out there regarding what Panavision is.
Actually, I could point to numerous instances of inconsistent usage of the Panavision credits dating back to the 1960s. The misuse of the credits is not a recent thing. The camera credit usage isn't "governed" in much the same way the digital sound logos aren't. Blaming the (mis)use of the credits for someone not being able to correctly identify the process a particular film was shot in seems silly to me. (I'm reminded of the time someone insisted I was full of crap for stating in print that Titanic was a Super 35 production when this person "knew" it was anamorphic due to the "Filmed in Panavision" credit that appears in the end titles.) All one needs to do is learn what to observe during the course of the movie, or use reputable sources for obtaining the information.

quote:
Also -- speaking of confusion -- could we clarify whether the "v" in "Panavision" is upper or lower case.
Based on all of the communication I've done with the company as well as the company literature I've seen, I am led to believe the "v" is lower case... "Panavision"

 |  IP: Logged
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 12-16-2002 02:58 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Akira was shot on 70mm, as the documentary short on it mentions retransferring the origional 70mm negative.
Did the Japanese use 70mm negative instead of 65? And why not use the full apeture that 65mm photography allows for (seems a waste to me, although I guess it was done for the Jaque Tati film PLAYTIME. BTW, was PLAYTIME matted in the camera at 1.66, or hard-matted in the film lab?)

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.