This is topic Minority Report in forum Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets 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=3;t=000527
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-05-2002, 03:44 PM:
Minority Report
Fox
8 reels (~2:20)
Scope (Super 35) / MUL (all digitals)
Studio Print
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-05-2002, 04:07 PM:
If this is indeed in scope, it marks a return to the scope format by Steven Spielberg: 
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0181689 But imdb lists it as flat:
http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0181689
Which is it?
(P.S. , Since my original posting on June 5, the IMDB has updated their technical specifications listing to show that prints are anamorphic --- they must be reading Film-Tech, the DEFINITIVE source for movie information. )
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-05-2002, 04:56 PM:
Could it be linked to Cruse producing?
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-05-2002, 05:21 PM:
Why is there chatter here?Anyhow, it should be no surprise it's scope. Like I said on the Ides of March in Yak, "Blade II - Flat instead Scope...", studio publicity clearly labels it scope. And I'm sure Steve can tell the difference ;-)
--jhawk
Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 06-07-2002, 08:01 PM:
8 reels long.....ouch! what's with the long movies as of late?
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-07-2002, 08:13 PM:
So finally is it definitely scope??
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-08-2002, 07:59 PM:
To repeat, it is in Scope. Not real Scope --has Janusz ever made an anamorphic film? --but a Super 35 blowup. Grainy but that's part of the look of the film. Assistant editor remarked on the sharp picture (I have Blue Star anamorphics).
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-09-2002, 06:44 PM:
Sorry, Brad, about the "chit chat," but since my post isn't a question or an opinion I don't feel it necessary to create a new thread in a different forum just to answer this simple question.
quote:
has Janusz ever made an anamorphic film?
"Tall Tale" (1995)
Posted by Mark Lucas (Member # 791) on 06-14-2002, 02:24 AM:
It has to be 1.85:1. All the trailers I've seen for it have been either 1.85:1 or vertically cropped to fit in the scope shape. Right? What the heck would Spielberg be shooting in Super-35 for? That's like James Cameron shooting in anamorphic.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-14-2002, 02:44 AM:
Mark, I think Steve is far more than qualified to report whether the film is scope or flat. Steve has ran the film, not you. Steve says it is scope, and he has now verified that was not a typo, thus it IS scope. When a movie is shot in Super 35, it gives the option of re-framing for 1.85 and video release, hence the reason why you saw "extra" picture information. Please note this at the top of each forum page:"Do not post information regarding a given film unless you have PERSONALLY handled a print. Posting second hand information is not permitted in any form."
Any further chit chat on this needs to have it's own dedicated thread created in FHF or Yak. I want to leave this thread open so trailer info may be added at release.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-14-2002, 05:55 AM:
It appears that the Internet Movie Database has corrected their listing of technical specifications. It now indicates that it was photographed in Super 35 and prints are anamorphic. Wonder if someone at IMDB reads Film-Tech (the DEFINITIVE source for movie information )?------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Mark Lucas (Member # 791) on 06-14-2002, 11:38 AM:
RarrI guess I'll find out for sure when I actually see it.
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 4594) on 06-16-2002, 07:51 PM:
Grow up, it's Scope.
Posted by Mark Lucas (Member # 791) on 06-17-2002, 12:58 AM:
Be nice. 
I was just shocked that it wouldn't be in 1.85:1. Spielberg hasn't shot a film in 2.35:1 in a while, and never in Super-35.
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 4594) on 06-17-2002, 08:06 PM:
I'm always nice which is why Brad is not going to yell at me for chit-chatting. It really is scope though (had to add in something to do with the film).
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-19-2002, 09:27 PM:
Since no one else has posted this yet:Enclosed: Bloodwork, Signs, Swimfan, XXX, Road to Perdition, Red Dragon, K19, Austin Powers.
Attached: Dare Devil (hand-spliced on to head of R1; mine was spliced out of frame).
ETS depot.
On my print, the head leader was lab-spliced onto R7 (or was this just a coincidence that the lab splice would be in the right place and in frame?)
And, yes, it's scope.
Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 06-19-2002, 10:03 PM:
"And, yes, it's scope."Are you sure?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-19-2002, 10:32 PM:
Thank you Scott. This thread was becoming un-chipper. 
If anyone has any more info they really feel needs to be added to this thread, email me. Otherwise...
THREAD CLOSED!!!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-21-2002, 04:10 PM:
Addendum:This movie was mixed for EX playback.