Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Up" is flat...bummer

This is topic "Up" is flat...bummer 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=009890

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-13-2009, 08:49 PM:

Too bad, after the last 3 Pixar films have been in scope, that they've gone back to flat for "Up." Director's choice maybe? I'm sad about it but still looking forward to the film. Yes, even after "Wall-E" was not to my taste, I'm giving Pixar another chance. "Monsters Inc." was cool and this has the same director.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-13-2009, 08:55 PM:

Wow, that totally sucks. Booooo Pixar!

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-13-2009, 09:13 PM:

Is it anything to do with the film being in 3-D?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-13-2009, 10:36 PM:

There have been scope 3D films. "UP" doesn't look very interesting to me, but it's just gotta be better than "Cars".

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-14-2009, 02:20 AM:

"Monsters and Aliens" was Scope/3D. Yea, noticed that on the trailers of "UP" being in Flat.

Would look kinda tacky on a 'floating screen' with no adj. maskings...esp in a digital house.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 05-14-2009, 03:21 AM:

Geez... you guys are jaded.

Wall-E was great.

Cars was Awesome.

Both films kicked A$$ out here.

More, please!

[Big Grin]

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-14-2009, 09:24 AM:

Maybe they thought that a "taller" image would be better for a movie about vertical movement. Spielberg's excuse for doing Jurassic Park flat was that the dinosaurs were so tall.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-14-2009, 09:42 AM:

My guess is, it's a cost cutting move. I can just hear the suits at Disney saying 'it won't make any difference to the grosses.'

It's too bad...the nice big scope picture was one of the things that set Pixar animation apart from the rest...now they are "retreating." I would think THIS movie would really benefit from nice wide vistas!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-14-2009, 10:02 AM:

I doubt it was cost cutting. There are more pixels to render in flat since I doubt that the older scope pixars were rendered in anamorphic to take full advantage of the 35mm negative. I'm sure they were rendered in cropped 2.39:1 and then that was processed anamorphically for the print production.

For this movie, I would tend to think it was an artistic decision probably since you have a house hanging from a bunch of balloons as the main visual which would benefit from a taller frame.

PS - Discounting the quality of the animation, Wall-E was probably one of the worst animated movies I've ever seen. If that were made by Fox animation or Dreamworks (or anybody but Pixar) everybody would have hated it.

Cars was good but about 20 minutes too long especially for Kids. Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo were definitely the best two Pixar movies. I just hope that wasn't the top of the pixar mountain like Little Mermaid - Aladdin - Beauty and the Beast - Lion King were for modern Disney animation. It was all down hill for them after Lion King and so far it's been down hill for Pixar since Finding Nemo (hopefully bottoming out with the craptacular Wall-E.........Wall-E, EVA, Wall-E, EVA, Wall-E, EVA......download freaking speak synthesizer software you dumb robots).

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-14-2009, 10:06 AM:

Isn't there a chance that, as an artistic choice, the 1.85 aspect ratio might be better for some movies? Why is it assumed that 2.4 is always right? And why would 1.85 on a Pixar movie cost less? It's not like they saved money on lens rentals.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-14-2009, 10:53 AM:

1.85 is close to 16:9. (It comes out to 1.78.)
That makes it easier to transfer to video.

That's probably why they chose flat. :roll:

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 05-14-2009, 10:56 AM:

Ohh, come on. That's pretty lame.

Greg, I can't see how it would cost more either to do it in Scope rather than Flat. Maybe the choice has been made for aesthetic purposes. Who knows?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-14-2009, 11:47 AM:

From what I was told from one of the local optical houses that processing time of the cgi effects cost more because of the larger frame area of the release print when converted to anamorphic

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-14-2009, 12:03 PM:

BV almost never used scope or 70mm. Flat being cheaper, historically. When they released Fantasia in 1.37 there was an outcry because no one had those lenses. It was proposed to release the next old film in scope, because we HAD those lenses and scope would work well. Imagine my shock when Pinochio was released in 1.37, inside the 1.85 box. The image was very good, but it was .445 high and about .609 wide, not too far off of 16mm. Way to go, BV. Louis

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-14-2009, 12:23 PM:

See the review thread for "Monsters vs Aliens" where I inadvertently opened the "3-D scope letterboxed" can of worms.

Maybe they went flat because they saw wide potential of this happening with "Up", and thought they'd be better off this way.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-14-2009, 12:31 PM:

I remember something about the 1990 release of Fantasia being window-boxed in order to force commercial theaters to show it in 1.37:1 rather than crop the image. Too bad it reduced image quality. That made it seem a little strange to see it in 70mm in order to watch a properly reproduced 4:3 image.

Regarding Up being composed in 1.85:1, I have no problem with that choice. Not everything needs to be 'scope. I'm pretty annoyed by so many mundane comedies and dramas being shot in Super 35 and shown theatrically in 2.40:1 when their subject matter and shot framing doesn't even serve the super wide format well at all. It's sort of like mono-mixed Woody Allen movies showing Dolby Digital and DTS logos on the movie poster.

I see the overuse of 2.40:1 in commercial theaters as being a reverse form of panning and scanning similar to "full screen" 1.33:1 framed movies on DVD. One camp wants all of the commercial movie theater screen filled with imagery. Another camp wants all of the old 4:3 TV set filled with imagery. Both demands sound strangely similar.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-14-2009, 01:38 PM:

Well, one thing to consider is this is the first Pixar 3-D attempt. Maybe in their eyes this aspect ratio was the best way to go.

For the release of Fantasia in the early 90's you had to use a 1.66 lens to project it. A lens was brought in just for that engagement. THey set it up in a medium size auditorium and it stayed there the entire run wich was 2 or 3 weeks.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-14-2009, 02:43 PM:

On this side topic of "Fantasia(1990)": At our 4plex theatre, we ran the required 1.37:1 presentation using a longer lens and added side maskings to fit this ratio.

Sadly, a lot of this newer generation had a hard time accempting this "Concert Feature" by Disney. They wanted to be entertained, not being bored with classical music.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 05-14-2009, 04:33 PM:

"Sam Graham opens letterbox can of worms."

Wackiness ensued.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-14-2009, 04:55 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Sadly, a lot of this newer generation had a hard time accempting this "Concert Feature" by Disney. They wanted to be entertained, not being bored with classical music.

Does anyone remember how well (or not) Fantasia 2000 performed commercially? Just wondering.

"They should have played this movie at the Ziegfeld where they have that Panavision stuff" - a comment I overheard at a 70mm screening of Fantasia at the City Cinemas Gramercy theater on 23rd Street in New York.
[uhoh]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-14-2009, 06:18 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
you have a house hanging from a bunch of balloons as the main visual

I would guess the "view from the house" will be shown more often than the house+balloons.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-14-2009, 06:45 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Does anyone remember how well (or not) Fantasia 2000 performed commercially? Just wondering.

When it was on our local IMAX screen, the turnout was impressive since the new stories in this film was more entertaining than what Disney had with the first one. Course, 60 years does make a different generation and attitude towards classical music - including the writers to make the sequences more entertaining.

Yet, when the 35mm releases came out, sadly as with the 1940 original, it didn't create a good fan base.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-14-2009, 06:55 PM:

Part of the reason Fantasia 2000 did poor business was because they got all snooty about it and wouldn't give it to just anyone. You had to play it four weeks, it was ridiculously expensive (I think our booker said it was 70/70/60/50 or something like that) and they didn't make all that many prints. We never played it and I've never seen it, even though I'd like to.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-14-2009, 07:26 PM:

As one who found the original Fantasia to be a way-too-abstract, snooze-inducing obligation (after all, some people said it was the greatest animation ever produced), I had very little interest in watching Fantasia 2000 (plus, it wasn't playing at just any local cinema). When I finally saw Fantasia 2000 on DVD I thought it was fantastic... everything the original aspired to be but failed to be.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 05-16-2009, 10:48 AM:

quote: Michael Hossen
Greg, I can't see how it would cost more either to do it in Scope rather than Flat.

If anything, scope should be cheaper. There are less pixels in a scope image [Wink]

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 05-16-2009, 12:02 PM:

Hi Folks:

I much prefer the 1.85 image as I find it eaier to view. I also enjoy 1.66 but you don't see it much anymore. Sometimes a current foreign film will be in 1.66.

Mike

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-16-2009, 01:14 PM:

The scope ratio of all the aspect ratios out there most closely matches the human eye's ratio. The reason many people don't like it, is because they are watching it in poorly designed theaters...and yes ALL theaters with top, bottom, or top and bottom "scissor" style masking are poorly designed.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 07-26-2009, 12:02 PM:

Hi Folks:

I'm suprised that nobody is [scream]

beacuse Ice Age 3 is 1.85! [Big Grin]

Mike

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-26-2009, 01:08 PM:

That's because nobody cares about Ice Age 3.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2009, 01:22 AM:

I couldn't have said it better myself. [thumbsup]