Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spiderman 2

This is topic Spiderman 2 - Scope? 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=005827

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-06-2004, 08:53 PM:

I've just seen a flat copy of the S2 teaser trailer than was letterboxed to 2.35:1. Does it seem that Sam Rami has decided to film Spiderman 2 in Scope?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-06-2004, 08:58 PM:

I remember noticing that the scope trailer on LOTR wasn't "pillar boxed" and wondering the same thing, so maybe.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-06-2004, 09:41 PM:

Hmmmm I must confess I have seen full-with scope trailers for films that turn out to be flat before though Mark. A while back at the university we had a print with a full scope width Jurassic Park 3 trailer attached. And if I remember correctly before Batman & Robin came out there were full width scope trailers for that. (Which along with JP3 turned out to be a flat movie.)

But a 2.35:1 letterboxed flat trailer - certainly suggests a scope movie. If it was a flat movie it doesn't make sense- why would they mask off the top and bottom of the image to make a trailer?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-06-2004, 10:27 PM:

I remember noticing that the scope trailer on LOTR wasn't "pillar boxed"

Why would you expect a Scope trailer for a Scope release to be anything but full frame Scope?

The local Kodak rep told me the FX crew for Spiderman II was shooting 65mm when they were in town last year. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-06-2004, 10:31 PM:

I think Mark was talking about The Spiderman trailer on LOTR. Not a LOTR trailer. Providing evidence that Spiderman 2 could be scope.

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 02-07-2004, 12:19 AM:

Making full screen scope trailers for flat films isn't that uncommon. But if you get a scope trailer with the sides blacked out to make a 1.85 picture, it means the film's gotta be flat, right? Not always!

Recent example: Scope trailers for Sylvia, which had the sides matted out so you got the same picture as the flat trailers - but the actual movie was in scope.

You can't trust nobody.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-07-2004, 01:36 AM:

i prefer trailers without pillarboxing. anything to make our keystoning less apparent.

carl

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-07-2004, 09:09 AM:

We all know that the Internet Movie Database isn't an air-tight source of facts, but it does state that Spider-man 2 is a Super 35 film to be released in Scope.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/technical

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-07-2004, 12:24 PM:

quote:
I think Mark was talking about The Spiderman trailer on LOTR.

Yep. Sorry for the confusion! [Big Grin]

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 02-07-2004, 01:12 PM:

Greg Said:

quote:
We all know that the Internet Movie Database isn't an air-tight source of facts, but it does state that Spider-man 2 is a Super 35 film to be released in Scope.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316654/technical

It also says filmed with Panivision Cameras and Lenses.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-07-2004, 03:38 PM:

The trailer I've seen of "Spiderman 2" clearly looks like spherical photography. And the staging of things looks more geared toward a flat composition. Raimi typically shoots and shows his movies in 1.85:1. So that's the ratio I am expecting.

Speaking of 'scope trailers, yes it is very common for flat films to have 'scope trailers. "Total Recall" is one that typically comes up, particularly since it had a very cool 70mm widescreen trailer on the front of "Glory" and "Mountains of the Moon." Lots of other films have done it. I'm not sure why though. I prefer for a flat film's trailer to be pillarboxed on a 'scope release so it does not misrepresent itself.

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 02-07-2004, 03:41 PM:

Oh, lots of flat films have that credit. Not the same as "filmed in Panavision".

Ten years or so ago, you could count on posters or print ads to at least mention if a film was Panavision or some other type of scope. Today nobody bothers.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-07-2004, 03:52 PM:

While the occurence is rare, some flat films have used the "Filmed In Panavision" tag. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is one such example. The "Seinfeld" TV series also did it.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-07-2004, 04:47 PM:

Yes, but you see that Spider-man 2 is the only movie listed on the entire Internet Movie Database which was filmed in Panivision.

Posted by Rich Ferrando (Member # 2056) on 02-07-2004, 05:46 PM:

I remember on the "Spider-Man" DVD release, they have test footage on the second disc that is letterboxed to Scope, though the movie itself is Flat. I always thought that was interesting.

Perhaps he wanted to shoot scope for the original, but for some reason didn't, and instead is shooting the sequel for scope? (Purely speculation, of course.)