This is topic Interesting "We Were Soldiers" Trailer in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003197
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 03-11-2002, 05:16 PM:
I just went to see Oceans 11 and was treated to a We Were Soldiers trailer before the movie. The image was strange. It looked vertically stretched. I am pretty sure it wasnt a scope trailer accidentally being played with flat lense/masking.
Firstly the vertically stretch was not as servere as watching scope through a flat lense. Also the text at the end was perfectly fine not stretched x2. Also some shots looked normal.
I am assuming this is a new way of producing 1.85:1 flat trailers from scope movies. Normally either the image is horizontally cropped ie pann ans scann. Or it is shrunk down giving black bars at the top of the image. ie the 2.35:1 letterbox trailers.
Is this a third way?
Posted by Joshua Wood (Member # 1020) on 03-14-2002, 03:36 PM:
I believe Ocean’s 11 is scope
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 03-14-2002, 04:22 PM:
But i'm talking about the 1.85:1 Ads and trailer package played before the movie.This is the UK. Ads and trailers are always flat. If it is a scope movie, the ads /trailers are in 1.85, Then there is silence for a few seconds while, the masking opens (quiet impressive) and the lense turret rotates/aperture plate changes.
Unless its manual. Such as my place and the museum. Curtains close for a minute, then open after the projector is converted to scope.
Posted by Richard Topping (Member # 871) on 03-14-2002, 06:29 PM:
Yeah, We had that trailer at my cinema. It was a flat trailer, just looked very weird! i.e. it looked stretched, but not to the point where you could play it in C/S, if you know what I mean. Did you also notice that in certain parts of the trailer the lip sync was way off? Looked like a badly dubbed foreign movie!
Posted by William Bunch (Member # 1040) on 03-14-2002, 06:33 PM:
I wonder if this might be some sort of trick to get the trailers to play in either flat or scope. The image is "squeezed" just enough to make it "passable" on either lens.I am in Japan and like the UK we are "supposed" to receive all our trailer flat. Once in a blue moon one will arrive in scope version. If the inpecting person catches it on the table it is removed and not shown because we still run changeovers without any automation. But if we were to receive a format of which you speak of then we might be able to show it flat. Interesting. You probably took big notice of it because you are a film professional. I wonder how the rest of the viewing public perceived it.
Bill BuncH
Misawa, Japan
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 03-14-2002, 07:03 PM:
quote:
Yeah, We had that trailer at my cinema. It was a flat trailer, just looked very weird! i.e. it looked stretched, but not to the point where you could play it in C/S, if you know what I mean.
Yep, thats exactly what i noticed.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-14-2002, 07:05 PM:
The audience probably thought it was a special effect.
Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 03-15-2002, 08:23 AM:
It's just wrong. Studios should send the correct aspect or expect thier trailer not to be used. It's film done wrong. The UK is wierd but as long as the whole ad package is flat and ample time for changeover I can dig it.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-15-2002, 12:46 PM:
Sounds like another job for a Panatar or Tushinsky Bros.' SuperScope with their adjustable squeeze ratio.
Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 03-15-2002, 01:16 PM:
Yep , ive a couple of versions of this trailers and certain shots, not all are squeezed to fit more Scope image into 1.85:1.
Also the 'Hearts in atlantis' trailer has the odd shot squezed in.This is also a Scope feature.
But as the shots on both the trailers are so short, who cares! its a trailer, as long as the feature is shown in the correct format and not cropped etc.
Darren