Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Apollo 13

This is topic Apollo 13 in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=000397

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-22-2002, 11:46 AM:

I saw that IMAX thing. I have very mixed feelings about it. The image quality is stunning. It's far better than I imagined it would be. It's also really big. That's kinda cool, but the effect wears off after a little while. The awe is gone, and you're left just watching a movie on a giant screen. Which is fine, I suppose. But the images are such that there's never any reason to look up or down, because nothing is there is but empty space (no pun intended). This becomes rather obvious during close-ups, where the characters' massive heads are framed by a whole bunch of nothing on all sides. It looks pretty silly. Since all sense of composition is lost, I think that they would have been better off just letterboxing the image down to the proper aspect ratio. But that would kinda destroy the whole point.

In terms of the film's new cut, I have mixed feelings about it as well. Except for one scene, there is really no point where any essential footage is missing. It's been probably four years since I've seen this movie, and I only noticed about four or five things which were gone. Some of them I missed, some of them I most definitely did not miss. What's interesting, though, is the noticeable change in the film's pace. Some sections seem to go by too quickly. It's as if they cut out all of the character development in order to make it much more fact-driven. What's weird is that when they get to a particulary cheesy scene which has not been lost, its cheesiness is now amplified about a hundred times. Looking at the sequences which seem to go faster than they should, they tend to be the sequences which I already hated the most. I'm glad that they're shorter so that I don't have to sit through them as long. But I think that the effect that the missing scenes have on the pace really fucks the movie up more than it helps it.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-02-2002, 10:26 PM:

quote:
It's as if they cut out all of the character development in order to make it much more fact-driven.

Or to make it fit on an IMAX platter?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-02-2002, 11:38 PM:

I'm surprised some of the close up shots seem as big as they do given this was a movie shot in Super35 format. If they scanned in the original negative or some kind of full frame interpostive or whatever, there should have been at least a little more headroom.

But it all comes down to framing for where it will be shown. Most Super35 films are framed to work better on home video. So the tradition is to protect the 2.35:1 area across the upper center of the frame. You get a lot of extra play below for accomodating 4:3 ratio home video.

IMAX framing is the reverse of that. You compose more of your shots across the lower third of the frame and leave lots of headroom above. IMAX Dome (Omnimax) framing requires an even greater, more exggerated amount of headroom.

I'll gladly forgive the framing problems of "Apollo 13" since it was really never meant to be blown up to IMAX. But future film productions eyeing this exhibition method should take it into account in terms of both composition and editorial pace. This new outlet for feature film exhibition is also another argument for shooting the production photography in 5/65mm, 8/35mm before using the scanning process.

An even better method, which would allow more sensible framing options would be filming in IMAX 15/70 and then extracting a 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 area out of that frame for traditional 35mm theatrical showings. It kind of pushes the Super35 concept to an extreme.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-03-2002, 04:17 AM:

Obviously, they cut stuff out to make it fit on an IMAX platter. But once it had been established that stuff needed to go, the filmmakers had to make a decision as to what footage was more or less expendable. The fact that they chose to cut mainly character development says a lot about why these movies are made, what the IMAX audience is looking for, and what some of the problems are with historically-based pictures in general, and APOLLO 13 in particular.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-03-2002, 09:01 AM:

quote:
...says a lot about why these movies are made, what the IMAX audience is looking for, and what some of the problems are with historically-based pictures in general, and APOLLO 13 in particular.

It doesn't say THAT much to me so maybe you should expand this to make it more clear as to just what it is you are trying to say. I can't take anything for granted in any of the three troublesome areas to which you refer...

What (in your opinion) is the IMAX audience looking for?
What are the problems with historically-based pictures?
What do you mean by "APOLLO 13 in particular"?

Something else...You really can't expect to have it both ways...

quote:
It's as if they cut out all of the character development in order to make it much more fact-driven.

and then...

quote:
Obviously, they cut stuff out to make it fit on an IMAX platter.

Mike -- I'm dying to see this version of the movie. It doesn't spoil things for me that you have mixed feelings. I'm just asking you to be more specific, if you have the time (and the inclination) to oblige.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-03-2002, 09:32 AM:

I think that IMAX audiences tend to look for movies which rely on information more than emotion. I don't really know why, but I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that many IMAX theaters are attached to museums and such. Another reason is that there are a lot of school groups who go to see IMAX films (hell, there was even one when I went to see APOLLO 13). In order to justify a class trip, the content being viewed almost has to have some sort of educational value (not that character-driven stories don't, but no one's getting out of school for one of those). I just found it strange how, up until this point, I had never seen a fictional film in the IMAX format. Then I finally see one, and not only is it based on fact, but much af the apparent fiction had been removed.

The problem with most historically based films is that they often try to build a story around the history. I don't have a problem with this in general. If it works, great. If it doesn't, it's very distracting. A lot of time could be spent on some sort of sub-plot which draws focus away from the main purpose of the picture, usually in an attempt to, more than anything else, get the running time up to feature length. This, to me, is a waste of time. If you can tell your story in an hour, then good! That leaves me with an extra forty-five minutes to eat my cheeseburger after the show. Of course, we live in the real world, and hour-long movies do not exist. But I still think it's interesting that once one of these films is put in a position where it has to lose footage, the first thing to go is character development. It makes you wonder whether or not it was really necessary in the first place.

In the case of APOLLO 13, I don't think that the film's emotional "padding" is as harmful as it is in other films. It's still a good movie, I suppose. But it's biggest problems lie in that padding. With the padding gone, except for the issues of pace, I feel that the film plays much better.

As far as those two statements that I made, I'm confused. Do they seem contradictory? If so, what I meant was that, yes, the primary reason for cutting the film was to have it fit on IMAX platters. But within that overall goal, it's seems that they decided to cut it so that the content would fit in IMAX theaters as well. It's also worth noting that this version lacks certain non-family-friendly things, like vomit and men and women taking showers together.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 10-03-2002, 02:13 PM:

quote:
I just found it strange how, up until this point, I had never seen a fictional film in the IMAX format.

]

Wasn't there a Terminator IMAX film done? I understand it was quite fun to watch. We don't have an IMAX here in Utah, so I just have to trust the news stories.

Dave

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-03-2002, 05:49 PM:

Could you be thinking about T2 3-D: BATTLE ACROSS TIME? That's a cool interactive 3-D show at Universal Studios which I believe was shot in 70mm 3-D.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-26-2003, 08:27 PM:

Well I'm here in Ft. Lauderdale and we drove all the way down to Miami to see APOLLO 13: THE IMAX EXPERIENCE and I have to say it was really good to be seeing this movie in a theatre again. I know the movie quite well but there were only a few moments where I was able to sense that something had been cut and in only one instance could I specifically identify what exactly was gone. None of the trimming bothered me too much.

As for the IMAX experience, I have to agree that the screen was simply too damn big and the composition was funny looking. The efficient use of the scope aspect ratio is gone. We tried sitting in the first 1/3 of the seating area and that was just impossible. Once we settled into seats in the midsection, and could see the entire image at once, it became more tolerable. Closeups did not bother me as much as they bothered other people who have commented about this movie (here and elsewhere). The sound quality was excellent but the lip-sync was off throughout the picture. I have to agree about the impressive image quality: I really tried to look for artifacts but soon abandoned that pursuit, thanks in large part to the enjoyability of the movie.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-27-2003, 12:24 AM:

Lip sync was off. They must not of had the film synced correctly at the start point.