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   » What is going on with this trend of 'scope' sequels to 'flat' movies? (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: What is going on with this trend of 'scope' sequels to 'flat' movies?
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 05-26-2010 06:27 PM      Profile for Ian Parfrey   Email Ian Parfrey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How many releases are in 2.35 (2.40):1 lately?

Answer: Too many.

Its a byproduct of the mindset that my new, you-beaut plasma
[dlp] has a wide screen and dammit I want it filled!

The same goes for cinema audiences too. Some patrons feel ripped off if that big screen up front doesn't get filled.

Never mind that realistic and appropriate composition goes out the window, as long as the screen gets filled then thats got to be good.

Super 35mm as an originating format can be blamed in part for the general degradation of release print image quality, as can 2k DI's. Every Super 35 print released in 2.35 :1 goes through a conversion (blow up) and extraction process whether optical or digital. Contrast this with shooting in anamorphic, same scene-same shot, and the quality degradation is obvious. Frame size in film origination is everything and in this regard, the anamorphic 35mm frame size wins hands down.

So why aren't more films shot in anamorphic compared to Super 35? The answer here is cost. The lenses cost more to rent, the shallower depth of field requires (usually) more light and more time is needed in focus blocking.

The whole reason for the 'scope frame - larger frame more closely matching human field of vision - has been surplanted by the need to fill that screen irregardless of composition asthetics.

Thats sad indeed.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 05-26-2010 07:18 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Home HDTV screens are 16:9 or 1.77:1. The 1.85:1 ratio would some much closer to filling those screens than the 2.39:1 'scope format. The Super35 format allows the movie to fill the screen at most commercial movie theaters (except for those ghastly common width houses) and fill the screen on home video.

I'm still suspicious about the frequent use of 2.39:1 being a cost savings move to speed up rendering times and conserve optical disc bit budgets. How many movies on Blu-ray originated in Super35 have had their 2.39:1 cropped images opened up to 1.77:1? I can't think of any. Many in the public do not like letter-boxing yet there has been no move at this point to offer dual Blu-ray inventories of 1.77:1 and 2.39:1 framing options for movies shot in 'scope. Dual framing options either in the same package or two different retail packages were common on DVD.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

- posted 05-27-2010 09:24 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
I'm sure the Shrek thing has something to do with Technicolor 3D only really doing well for Scope, being an over/under format.
If it really was 1.85:1, for Technicolor 3D, couldn't they simply have window-boxed the image within the scope over/under frames just as is customarily done on scope trailers and what used to be done with 70mm blow-ups?

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 05-27-2010 09:44 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
They could...but you would have wild hard matting with that...and that only works for side masking theatres.

How about vertical masking theatres? The flat picture would look awfully small for a "premium" charge!

Steve

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

- posted 05-27-2010 11:23 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
Was I unclear in my original posting, or are some of you guys missing my point because you're multitasking while reading?
I can't speak for others, but as for myself I was driving when I initially read your post on my iPod Touch. Since the screen is so small, I kind of had to squint a bit and hold my hand up to block the sun from washing out the screen. It's all kind of hard to do when the other hand must be on the steering wheel.

 |  IP: Logged
Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

- posted 05-28-2010 03:05 AM      Profile for Chris Slycord   Email Chris Slycord   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
Switching up the format for a reboot doesn't really bother me, and, in some respects, it makes sense if they're going for a fresh approach. When I mentioned the reboot thing in my initial post it was simply to point out that some recent reboots and remakes were following a similar pattern/trend as sequels. (Was I unclear in my original posting, or are some of you guys missing my point because you're multitasking while reading?)
Yes. You were unclear.

Essentially, you said "This business of switching formats with sequels gets on my nerves" and followed it with "Even some reboots follow the same pattern." Since the second comes directly after the first, it would appear to be in the same vein (being part of your complaint).

 |  IP: Logged
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 05-28-2010 11:07 AM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When you see a sequel you want to feel like you’ve returned to the same world you visited before. To most of us, the first thing we notice is the shape of the frame. So, like Mike, I’m pretty distracted and I want a very good excuse for such a radical change. In the case of Batman Begins, the ‘scope frame was great! It said, “Remember those previous, horrible Batman movies? This is different.” Whew!

But what about those movies which change aspect ratios during the movie? (Does Che count? I never watched it.) The only time this “worked” for me was Galaxy Quest... maybe because it was part of the joke. It was an interesting effect in The Horse Whisperer only because I didn’t notice the exact moment when it happened. Still, it made me never want to watch the first reel of that movie again and, as a result, I’ve never bothered to watch any of that movie a second time.

P.S. I’m a little tired of the word “prequel.” And “reboot” isn’t really true. They’re just spoiler words which still mean “sequel.”

 |  IP: Logged
Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

- posted 05-28-2010 12:26 PM      Profile for Darryl Spicer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
For Lethal Weapon I remember reading or hearing a commentary from Richard Donner stating that the original director of the film, I don't remember the name or if it was mentioned, was fired or had to leave the project for some reason. After viewing the already shot footage he decided that re-shooting scenes would apparently stress the already stretched budget so he decided to just finish the film with minor re-shoots. This was apparently why the format stayed flat and not his usual scope style of film making.

There is the stupid artistic decision Spike Lee made on Crooklyn where he used an anamorphic lens for a 20 minute segment on a film that is projected flat. Every time that reel ran through someone would come out complaining about the picture.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 05-28-2010 01:06 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Greg Anderson
But what about those movies which change aspect ratios during the movie? (Does Che count? I never watched it.) The only time this “worked” for me was Galaxy Quest... maybe because it was part of the joke.
If there is a logical reason for the aspect ratio change during the movie I probably won't be bothered much by it.

Superman: The Movie, The Road Warrior and The Incredibles are all 'scope movies that feature 1.33:1 footage in the very beginning. All three use the old news reel motif for the 1.33:1 footage. And all three make very good, dramatic transitions in opening the frame to 'scope.

quote:
P.S. I’m a little tired of the word “prequel.” And “reboot” isn’t really true. They’re just spoiler words which still mean “sequel.”
In the case of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight those movies are indeed part of a "reboot" or "reimagining" of the Batman saga. They absolutely are not sequels of the Tim Burton series of Batman movies. There's really no way at all for The Dark Knight to be a sequel to the 1989 version of Batman. The Joker is in both movies, but The Joker dies in the end of the '89 version.

 |  IP: Logged
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 05-28-2010 01:33 PM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
But from the point of view of the "suits" who green-light these projects, they're all sequels. They're only remade or "rebooted" based on the ability to lure people in because the public already showed an interest in the franchise.

Try to explain to the non-fanboy how the newest Star Trek movie is related to the rest of that franchise. The simple explanation is: It's a sequel.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 05-28-2010 02:39 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The "suits" running movie studios and the "suits" running the parent companies of movie studios absolutely do love selling the same kind of movie over and over again. Nevertheless, I still disagree with your definition of sequel. It's far too broad and non-specific. Any further broadening of the term "sequel" and it would apply to any dramatic work performed in front of a camera.

 |  IP: Logged
Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 05-28-2010 02:54 PM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When I hear "prequel," "reboot" and "re-imagining" I think someone's trying to sell me snake oil. These are gimmick words which imply that, somehow, these will be better than normal sequels. I've decided to stop falling for that.

Just sayin'.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

- posted 05-28-2010 03:10 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Chris Slycord
Essentially, you said "This business of switching formats with sequels gets on my nerves" and followed it with "Even some reboots follow the same pattern." Since the second comes directly after the first, it would appear to be in the same vein (being part of your complaint).
I didn't say those things in that order. (Come on, Chris! That's twice now that you've misquoted and misunderstood me.)

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 05-28-2010 04:59 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see what the big deal is. It's generally 3 years or more between entries in a franchise, so who cares if the format changes? It's probably driven by the director and/or the budget.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

- posted 05-28-2010 07:43 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As far as the terms "prequel" and "reboot", I don't think anyone is trying to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes. They are very discriptive terms. "Prequel" means the movie takes place before the established tmeline. "Reboot" means that while the same characters, world and events may be similar, it's a different story altogether. "Sequel" means the story is a continuation that takes place after the established timeline. I guess Romeo + Juliet is a sequel since it's been made multiple times. I think the term you are looking for instead of sequel is "installment". That makes more sense. It doesn't matter if it is a reboot, prequel or sequel... if you say "the next installment in the Batman franchise", it works.

Michael Coate, yes, you could have been more clear. In fact, there was no reason for you to mention the reboots because it is irrelevant to the subject matter of your post which is how format changes in sequels bother you. So why mention them at all? If I were your editor, that section would have been omitted as it does nothing to explain your case and instead simply adds noise to the point you are trying to get across. And yes, you did post it in the order in which Chris quoted you, though not verbatim.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
   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.