Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 02:45 AM

quote: Darryl Spicer
All arieal shots in Top Gun were shot in super35

As was the rest of the movie.

Speaking of "Top Gun"...

quote:
Very few directors seem to actually compose for 'scope with a Super35 frame. For instance, Top Gun actually looks better when its frame isn't cropped down to 2.39:1.

Might you and others feel this way due to the more "open" 1.85-ish framing found on the laserdisc and initial DVD being your point of reference? After all, between the original '86 release and the '04 DVD, the only versions people had an opportunity to see (excepting rare opportunities to see a theatrical screening) were the 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 (actually, I think it was closer to 2.00:1) versions, both of which showed more vertical imagery than the theatrical prints.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Many of the aerial shots simply were not composed for that frame; they were composed more for 1.85:1 or even 1:33:1.

Yes, many of those shots looked "poorly" composed. But think about how difficult it must've been to have the cameras mounted on a moving aircraft attempting to shoot other moving aircraft. I imagine it's similar to shooting a live concert and then bitching about lousy composition. Even with storyboards and lots of communication, I still think aerial footage of the type seen in "Top Gun" is a difficult thing to capture. I think much credit should go to the film's editors for figuring out how to "make it all work."

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 02-14-2006 03:45 AM

All of "THE BLIND SWORDSMAN" (Zatoichi) films were released by Japan's Daiei Studio in DaieiScope. All pictures released by Toho in scope were labled TohoScope and the same with ToeiScope from Toei studio, NikatsuScope from Nikatsu studio and ShichikuScope from Shichiku Eiga Kaisha. I know this to be a fact because I am Japanese and Honolulu as well as Los Angeles with it's large Japanese-American community had motion picture exhibition venues showing all of the new films from every Japanese studios in their own theatres and I used to frequent them all when I was a young man. This was long before most Americans knew anything about Japanese cinema.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-14-2006 03:13 PM

quote: Michael Coate
Might you and others feel this way due to the more "open" 1.85-ish framing found on the laserdisc and initial DVD being your point of reference?

My initial point of reference on Top Gun was the theatrical version; however, I did see the videotape and laserdisc versions on more on repeat viewings. And I do prefer the taller framing. This is one of few exceptions where I think it would have been better to make the 70mm prints in 1.85:1 ratio.

But that's not crux of my argument about Super35 and what I feel regarding a broad, bad use of the format. I think my contention that most Super35 productions use a "safe" and arguably bland method of framing is valid. Not very many movies shot in Super35 really look like they're making dynamic use of the 'scope frame. Most look no different than 1.85:1 movies whose trailers are cropped to 'scope in support of 'scope features.

I mentioned James Cameron and David Fincher as noteable exceptions to that Super35 rule. The framing on their movies usually screams 'scope, but does so without the tell-tale anamorphic optical abberations. Some of Ridley Scott's Super35 efforts are also very well framed.

More often than not, it usually takes someone shooting in true anamorphic 35mm 'scope and working with the boundaries of that frame to do dynamic stuff.

quote: Michael Coate
Yes, many of those shots looked "poorly" composed. But think about how difficult it must've been to have the cameras mounted on a moving aircraft attempting to shoot other moving aircraft.

One of the extras on the newest DVD version of Top Gun mentioned the original intention was to film the movie in anamorphic 35mm. But the 'scope camera lenses were heavier than their spherical counterparts. The concern was various physical forces during jet flights could damange the camera and lenses. So they stuck with spherical methods.

My immediate thought upon hearing that was, "why didn't they film the rest of the movie in 'scope?" Lots of true anamorphic 35mm movies have drop in shots here and there made with spherical lensed cameras. Heat is a great looking anamorphic movie, but it has a number of spherical shots. The shoot out sequence at the drive-in is one that comes to mind.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 02-14-2006 04:47 PM

..yet, didn't Blake Edwards shoot"Pink Panther"(1964) in (*gasp*..lol) 70mm 'Technirama'?

-monte

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 08:24 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..yet, didn't Blake Edwards shoot"Pink Panther"(1964) in (*gasp*..lol) 70mm 'Technirama'

Nope. Good ol' 35mm Technirama

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 08:26 PM

quote:
My initial point of reference on Top Gun was the theatrical version; however, I did see the videotape and laserdisc versions on more on repeat viewings.

Bobby, I was under the impression you missed seeing Top Gun in the theater and first saw it on TV. At least this is what I gathered based on some postings of yours on the rec.arts.movies.tech newsgroup.

In the 1999 thread "70mm Films Released in the Blow Up Age," which you initiated, you listed Top Gun as "Flat."

In the 2000 thread "Aliens in 70mm Question," when another reader posted that Top Gun had been shot in Super-35 and released in full-width 70mm and 35-scope, you replied: "I seem to remember that one being a 1.85:1 film."

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-14-2006 10:15 PM

Yes, and I did seem to remember the movie being flat. I saw it once in the theater in 1986 when it was first released. Then I saw it a lot more on video and laserdisc later. Another thing which fogged my memory about it was how there were so many 1.85:1 films being blown up to 70mm throughout the rest of the 1980s. You'll have to forgive me for making a Usenet post some 13 or 14 years later, and not remembering the OAR of a spherically shot movie.

Nevertheless, Top Gun does look better framed in 1.85:1, even for the entire movie. Not only do the aerial scenes look better, but you can also see more of Kelly McGillis in the make out scene too!
[thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.