Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lucas composes Star Wars Episode 3 for shitty theaters

This is topic Lucas composes Star Wars Episode 3 for shitty theaters 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=007076

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-03-2005, 04:00 PM:

From The Making of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith E-book:

*** possible spoilers ***

quote:

Lead animator Virginie d'Annoville takes control of the computer and calls up a short sequence featuring Yoda on Kashyyyk, the Wookiee homeworld. Coleman asks Lucas what the Jedi Master is thinking, now that his exile has begun.

Lucas pauses for a moment and then says, "Oh, God, a new Sith has been born -- and one of our best guys!" He then cautions that Yoda's movements, the way they're now framed, might lose some of their impact in certain theaters. Moviemakers often have to consider the fact that movie houses, for one reason or another, may not project a film at its maximum aspect ratio, which means the audience may not see action that takes place close to the edges of the screen.

Before moving on to the next sequence, Lucas suggests that Yoda take a "deep breath" just before they cut away.

"That'll be great," Coleman agrees.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 04-03-2005, 04:33 PM:

As far as I know, all of my DVDs project the full frame width. Oh, wait... are you saying that Lucas is actually commenting on the short film release? [Roll Eyes]

"yoda at the edge of the frame" will be a feature of the special edition version. "As lucas originally wanted it, though his vision was ahead of its time"...

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 04-03-2005, 04:35 PM:

so I guess he will have to re-release a special edition for shitty theatres in 2006.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-03-2005, 04:52 PM:

I hate to say this, but I tend agree with George here (although I haven't seen this particular sequence.) Many theaters are not careful about showing the full image, and it's wise that a director understands this.

Here's where THX was good: They were a sort of UL, CE, ISO9000, TUV, etc, etc. approval for theaters.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-03-2005, 05:27 PM:

I'm all FOR directors that utilize every bit of the available picture real estate, particularly the width. When Friday Night Lights came out, one complex had 3 "compromise 2:1" screens and found immediately that they could never move it into those 3 screens (their smallest) because it would cut off titles, captions and such, so that burned them quite a bit.

But lookie what happened...new masking and such was installed due to it! At least something good came from that boring movie. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-03-2005, 07:37 PM:

I'm with Brad. When watching a SCOPE movie, I don't want to see a lot of "expendable" information --- or lack of information, on the sides of the screen. If a theater can't show it all because of some stupid pin head decision like the one AMC made in the early 90s (every theater should have the largest FLAT picture as possible, and then we'll shrink that down a little bit to show most of the SCOPE picture) then that's too bad for them.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2005, 09:53 PM:

This is really a sore point for me. We have a 2:1 screen and I hate it, but it's wall to wall so it can't get any wider. This building (75 years old this year) was designed for the old 1.33:1 screen, and part of the proscenium had to be removed in the 1950s when the current screen was installed.

If we were to mask it to show the full scope width, we'd lose 2.55 feet of height on the picture. Thing is, we've never had a single complaint about it in all my 25+ years of being here, including the rare occasion of titles being off the edge of the screen....but I'll bet if the picture suddenly got over 2-1/2 feet shorter, we would get complaints or at least comments. So I've learned to live with it, although it still drives me out of my frickin' mind.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-03-2005, 10:41 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So I've learned to live with it, although it still drives me out of my frickin' mind.

....there ya go, Mike. Put in adjustable upper masking, and this could easily be the manual type where you go down to the one side of the screen and do the adjusting with a crankscrew, or drawstring of sorts to raise and lower the upper masking. Nobody would even notice the change, since you're doing it the night before (unless you're doing dbl features with dbl lens formats).

The other version of the horizontal maskings is to have a "scissor" type where both lower and uppers are adjustable, so that the bulb stays centered in the picture.

The upper only adjustable masking needs the machine pitched down a hair for the bulb to remain centered on the screen. Then the Scope aperture plate needs trimmed and a new flat aperture needs to be cut. Also, a slightly longer focal length backup lens is needed for the anamporphic element to "shrink" down the picture a bit to fit that new ratioed screen.

You should check into this somewhere. If you're going to keep the quality of presentations up quite high, then go all the way with full ratioed anamorphic presentations.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
....every theater should have the largest FLAT picture as possible....

MAN! I agree with this one. I know a small company that DID this in their theatre construction: LARGE FLAT screens,clear to the edge of the walls and to the very top of the ceiling (upper picture bleed reflects off of the matt black painted ceiling tiles), that turns out CRAPPY scope 1.85/1 to 2.00/1 scope movies, due to no adjustable maskings-just them damned "floating" screens!

thx-Monte

-Monte

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 04-04-2005, 02:56 AM:

Mike may have no room above the screen for horizontal masking. It's usually a fabric panel that just moves up & down, & it's got to go somewhere when it's out.

As far as losing 2.5 feet off the picture, I agree that when most masking comes in, it's usually just a big chunk of black, & the audience is annoyed & disappointed because they just see the screen getting smaller. This business of just a black panel was a cheapo one-size-fits-all component availability for horizontal masking, & it could (& has) been done much better. Only the leading 6" to 8" of masking must be black. The rest of the panel should be a decorative panel that will not only be unobjectionable, but must be enjoyed by the people looking at it. It's also got to conform to the decoration of the rest of the theater. 6" of black on the bottom, then a border that appears to be the bottom edge of the decorative panel (in a French bordello auditorium, it would be a real or believably painted fringe, in a deco house it could be a straight painted border or apparent pipe, etc.), then the decorative panel above.

In a Thomas Lamb/Rapp & Rapp/etc. drapes & tassels to hellandgone house, the decorative panel would resemble any other lambrequin: pleated or painted fabric applied flat to the panel. In a deco house, you could have some deco-y background & then some deco-y ornamentation applied or painted on top like a frieze of Forsyth Illuminating The World or your logo freaked out all over it. It's a stage designer's & painter's job. But whatever it is, it's got to be a treat when it comes in.

Everything is being called Art Deco these days, but the real stuff is geometric. Look at the Pantages (but pull WAY back to the appropriate level of ornamentation), & the art & statuary around Rockefeller Center for the style.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-04-2005, 07:38 AM:

I more-or-less agree with Brad, although I do think that there is something to be said for accommodating the realities of exhibition. Filmmakers need to be aware of the "safe title area" concept so that titles and other critical elements do not fall into areas that might not appear on screen if, for example, the film is shown in a theatre with a steep projection angle and the plates must be cut such that some image area is cut off, even when the screen is in the correct aspect ratio.

The same goes for having dialogue and music run right up to (or even span) reel changes. In an ideal world, every frame would be shown and this would be a nonissue, but not every theatre employs Brad Miller or Steve Guttag and it is wise to make accommodation for the handful of frames that will be chopped off or lost in a changeover in a "typical" theatre.

Is this making accommodation for shitty theatres? Yes, but it is also what any smart filmmaker would do to avoid having his work butchered in all but the very best theatres.

As for composing a scope film to play properly on 2:1 screens, that's just stupid. Any theatre with a 2:1 screen should be blown up immediately.

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 04-04-2005, 08:45 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
This is really a sore point for me. We have a 2:1 screen and I hate it, but it's wall to wall so it can't get any wider. This building (75 years old this year) was designed for the old 1.33:1 screen, and part of the proscenium had to be removed in the 1950s when the current screen was installed.

Mike, this is exactly the situation in my theater. The screen is wall to wall so I installed top masking to make the screen shorter for scope shows. With my lens setup, I'm able to run the full scope aspect ratio. The picture is nearly two feet shorter than when I'm presenting flat features, but I've never had a complaint about the picture being "smaller" when I play scope features. With this setup the picture fills the full width of the screen whether I'm running flat or scope. Thus - side masking is stationary.

Steve Hart

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-04-2005, 08:52 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
We have a 2:1 screen

quote: Scott Norwood
that's just stupid. Any theatre with a 2:1 screen should be blown up immediately.

Watch out, Mike. [Wink]

[Disclaimer]I'm not suggesting that Scott, or Mike, or I condone violence in any way shape or form.[/Disclaimer]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-04-2005, 09:51 AM:

Caring About Composition

quote:
Let's be frank: the main reason for this "one size fits all" mentality is to save money by not installing adjustable masking. Another poor reason may be to save a bit on the cost the screen and its frame. In my humble opinion, only
historic "landmark" theatres with fixed narrow prosceniums built before the advent of CinemaScope have any legitimate excuse for not installing a screen able to provide a large scope image with the full 2.39:1 aspect ratio intended by filmmakers.

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 04-04-2005, 03:24 PM:

My Cinemascope-screen is using all possible height and width,
with an aspect ratio of 2,25:1. The reason from the beginning
was to be able to show both CS and 70mm (both slightly
compromised) on the same screen without moving vertical
masking. The screen can be masked sideways for all other
formats.

CS aperture plate is cut to max allowed height, and cropped
about 5% sideways. Would you consider this within the "safe
area"?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-05-2005, 01:54 AM:

..and then what gets me is when theatre doesn't get the backup lens size matched up (too short) for the proper throw, thus having to massively undercut the scope apertures (almost a 1.45/1 cut) where the characters on the screen looks massively crowded due to the undercut of the aperture, even though the theatre has the proper 2.39/1 screen size. When one frames one on one of these, there is a lot of turn, both directions, of the FRAME knob before the framelines begin to show.

Just tacky....

-Monte

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-05-2005, 02:15 AM:

the way i'm reading lucas's comment, it looks like he's worried about how the shot won't be as effective in shitty theaters. i.e. he is not compromising his composition for them. am i missing something?

carl

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 04-05-2005, 03:35 AM:

Could be a new trend for directors to plot camera shots based on poorly masked theaters.

Like with the advent of cinemascope, we'd have "shittamascope".

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-05-2005, 12:51 PM:

Well, I certainly "care about composition" and I would love to dynamite the walls of my building out so we could make the screen wider, but the businesses on either side would probably not like that! But the current screen was put in in 1953, before I was even born, so I didn't have any say on the issue.

The screen is curved and is not on a regular "frame" but instead it is tied to hooks which are screwed into the walls surrounding it. There is about 12" or so of masking on all 4 sides and absolutely no room beyond the masking, so I don't know how movable masking would work or even IF it would work or be possible. However I am willing to discuss possibilities with anyone here, or with my CLACO buddies next time they are in town. Because like I said above, it drives me crazy and although we get no complaints, I'd love to fix the problem.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-05-2005, 01:02 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
or with my CLACO buddies next time they are in town...

I'll give Mark a holler on this one for you since I have to talk to him later on today. Putting up maskings on slightly curved screen isn't that too difficult, for we had them with our curve screens at our 21 plex that I used to work at. - Monte

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 04-06-2005, 01:50 AM:

Others might disagree with me, but I don't think a fixed-height screen is good for theatres like yours. You need adjustable vertical masking (for scope) & adjustable horizontal masking (for flat formats). Fixed-height is sort of disappointing to the audience; it *does* reduce picture sizes from what they could be, & leaves lots of obvious non-picture space.

Remember for the top masking, the masking is only a 6" to 8" wide strip, so the rest of that should be something that matches/works with the decoration of the theatre. The 2' at the top of your screen is going to be covered if you put in horizontal masking, so look at your screen, & think about what would look good over the top 2'. It can be either a flat, decorated panel (painted or with fabric glued to it), or a valance curtain (not so straightforward to attach to movable masking, but can be done). You don't even have to think about the masking until you've made the decision about what would look good over the top 2', because the masking is just 6" or 8" of black hanging at the bottom & is visually irrelevant. The main thing is to make a design decision about what you think would look good there. Remember, for flat movies, it will all be gone anyway, moving out with the masking.

If you go for a valance curtain, PLEASE don't make it a "straight valance", i.e., a piece of fabric going straight across with vertical pleats. They look like short shower curtains at movie screen scale. The problem is that the pleats go the wrong way (vertically) when it's hung across the top. To minimize the appearance of masked space, the divisions should be vertical. Like a panel with painted vertical sections going all the way across.

The key to misdirecting from unused space is to make it look "busy", & to direct the eye toward the inner space. Drapes around old theatre prosceniums did it with tons of swags, loops, fringes, & cords; in deco-type theatres (yours is more like that), its done by arranging geometric shapes (longitudinally, when over the screen). Think of the concentric circles on the opening logo for Looney Tunes, & how much space they use around the center space with the WB shield. Square that image, & you get concentric, longitudinal divisions running across the top & bottom, concentric divisions running up the sides. I dunno if I'm making this clear. Lines run horizontally across the top & bottom, vertically on the sides. It doesn't matter if you're just doing the top or sides, that's the way the lines need to run.

For the masking that comes in at the sides, the lines should run vertically, but that happens anyway because the pleats in the drapes run vertically. I don't know how big your screen is, but at 2:1, the masking won't come in far. If it was a 20' high screen, & 40' wide, 1.85 would mean that you'd need a 37' wide screen & you'd only be biting off 1.5' at each side. Only 6" or 8" of that would be black, so that's about 1' of colored drapes over the screen at each side (your numbers may be even smaller, especially if the screen isn't 40' wide). Drapes are ordered as x% fullness, that is, to hang in pleats, you need more fabric than just that 1' you're covering. You'll still want AT LEAST 100% fullness when they're all the way in, so they'll hang in pleats.
http://www.sewwhatinc.com/Custom_Sewing/Finishes/Curtain_Finishes.htm
Theatre curtains typically look best at 150% or 200% fullness. Otherwise, they look sort of skimpy household-curtainy brought in.

In the black part, you'll have that pocket for a board to maintain the straight edge (both in the horizontal & vertical masking.

I don't know who you may order the screen masking from, or if you'll DIY there, but you'll need something fireproof & sheer like scrim material to let sound through at the sides. You don't need heavy velours except for the black edges on side or top masking, because the aperture plate & black masking edges keep the light from reflecting off the screen through the sheer material.

I really believe you should think hardest to create what you want for looks for the top panel. That's what will most affect audience satisfaction, & distraction from masking. I'd try to come up with something that was segmented horizontally all the way across that works with your present interior. And if it was me, I'd then put something absolutely fascinating in the center to boggle people when it was in - that's why the old proscenium valances had big center swags & tassels. In a deco theatre, I'd make it a horizontally segmented panel, with a great big RCA meatball right in the middle. Others might want something else.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-10-2005, 01:22 PM:

quote:
Filmmakers need to be aware of the "safe title area" concept so that titles and other critical elements do not fall into areas that might not appear on screen if, for example,

This was a continual consideration on the trailers I have made. I composed for a safe action area of 10% crop, and 20% for titles.

These were all flat subjects, and I found that they could've been cropped even more, due to variations between theatres.

It boils down to whether you want you please yourself, or please the bulk of your audience.

Posted by Charlie Frisby (Member # 2927) on 04-10-2005, 08:24 PM:

quote: Tim Reed
It boils down to whether you want you please yourself, or please the bulk of your audience.

But now it is also a matter of whether or not you please George Lucas.

At leasT he is adapting to theaters that do not have the ability to view the film in full aspect.

FRiZ

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-10-2005, 11:54 PM:

quote: Charlie Frisby
But now it is also a matter of whether or not you please George Lucas.

George Lucas really does not care about presentation. If he did, he would never release any of his films on video, where he has no control over sound, screen size, viewing conditions, or even whether the movie gets run from beginning to end or not. The only thing he really cares about is money.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-11-2005, 12:18 AM:

quote: Charlie Frisby
At leasT he is adapting to theaters that do not have the ability to view the film in full aspect.

Well, then, screw standards. Let's start building theaters with wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling screens so we can have the best marketing gimmicks! Who cares what the movie is *supposed* to look like ... we've got the biggest picture!