Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Super 8 (2011)

This is topic Super 8 (2011) 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=001779

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-10-2011, 06:41 PM:

CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

First thing I see on the outside marquee..."JUDY MOODY & THE NOT BUMMER SUMMER". Huh???

THE PLOT: A B-movie production is interrupted by an actual B-movie. Wackiness ensues.

Well, the 8-14 age group should love this. For us older punks, there's nothing here we haven't seen before. Lots of ideas ripped off from Spielberg flicks, but an overall feel that reminds me more of a Michael Bay production than anything.

I bought into the hype and expected way better.

Stuff shown during the credits was the best part.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-10-2011, 10:07 PM:

Avalon Theater / 35mm / Dolby Digital

the movie felt more Spielberg than Abrams - I was almost expecting some rolling clouds (Close Encounters, Poltergeist) and more slow camera pulls to mesmerized face shots. I thought the one F-bomb felt unnecessary and just there to push the film into it's PG-13 rating (there's a similiar scene in 'X-Men First Class' where the expletive is used just for shock value [thumbsdown]

) .

Posted by Michael McGovern (Member # 4807) on 06-10-2011, 10:14 PM:

This was about 3/4ths of a good movie. It was trying really hard to pay tribute to other (better) films from the past like E.T. and The Goonies, but the plot and emotional attachment just wasn't there. The plot itself just kind of meanders for an hour and a half, and things don't really start coming together until the last 30 minutes or so. Without spoiling anything, the ending was a let down, and incredibly anti-climactic. I get what Spielberg and Abrams were trying to accomplish, but the script could have benefited from another rewrite, so as not to make it seem like they were just half-assing it at the end.

On the plus side, the child actors were all very good, especially for relative unknowns, and their performance was enough to take this otherwise mediocre material and make it somewhat enjoyable. I'd give it a 7/10, don't rush out to see it, just wait for the rental.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-12-2011, 01:59 AM:

I loved the movie. Don't insult the movie by comparing it to Michael Bay crap. The style is definitely more Speilbergian than Bayish. Yes, the ending could have used a rewrite and fleshed out an extra 5 minutes. Kind of retro style works. Not just the 70s setting, but the tone reminds you of those old action movies. The monster part though is predictably JJ Abramsish which is both a positive and negative.

Dakota Fanning;s younger sis loooks older than her. Well cast.
I saw it in AMC IMAX Barret Parkway.
1) Was I the only one who noticed a weird geometric distortion of the people where they get slightly stretched horizontally (face area makes it obvvious) and then they look normal again. One scene where it was obvvious was the beginning where the dad kicks the Ron Eldard character out of the house and they focus on the son's face and as they fade out , his face shape gets less stretched. I noticed similar distortions a few other times in the movie.

I had a free AMC ticket to be used for any movie. SO I decided to cash it in for the LieMAx showing. Good pic and sound, but hardly IMAXian in dimensions for what would normally be a 16 dollar ticket. Also because of the screen curve, the horizontal borders of the picture are slightly bowed in shape. Looks cheap.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 06-12-2011, 02:05 AM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Was I the only one who noticed a weird geometric distortion of the people where they get slightly stretched horizontally (face area makes it obvvious) and then they look normal again. One scene where it was obvvious was the beginning where the dad kicks the Ron Eldard character out of the house and they focus on the son's face and as they fade out , his face shape gets less stretched. I noticed similar distortions a few other times in the movie.

I noticed the same thing in Star Trek (2009). I'm guessing it's a J.J. Abrams thing to use wide angle lenses for a lot more scenes than most directors would. That's just my guess though. Whatever he's doing, I love the look of his films... lens flares and all.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 06-12-2011, 02:39 PM:

Brendan Vacaville 16, Vacaville CA
Auditorium 4 10:05am
35mm Presentation.

I was hoping to be blown away more due to the hype than I was, but I enjoyed it like a good popcorn movie that it was. The kids really stole the show in this one. The end credits segment was probably the best part of the show.

Presentation was good as always at this theater. Not a speck of dust on the print or trailer pack. For some reason, however the entire feature ran in SR and the image was a tad softer than I tend to like but not grossly out of focus. Oh and house lights did not come back until the film tailed out.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 06-14-2011, 06:09 PM:

I, too, hoped to enjoy it more than I did. I have to agree with Michael and Sean that the child actors' performances really added to the enjoyment of the film. About the only other thing I can add is that they should pass out glasses that have the ability to filter out the entire blue band of the visible spectrum. Seriously. The lens flares were literally distracting me from the story.

I wish I had known there was good stuff in the credits. I would have stayed. I'm sure I'll be able to catch them some time, though.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-15-2011, 01:42 AM:

CINEMA: AMC Flatirons Crossing 14, ???, Colorado
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Christie DLP I believe, ETX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: I'm sure AMC would insist that there were none since it functioned the way they designed it. See below.
RATING: 3 Earls out of half an apple.

The movie: I enjoyed it. Wasn't the best movie ever, of course, but I thought it was enjoyable. I didn't stay for the credits so I didn't see any of that nonsense. This might be one I pick up on Blu-ray, nothing about this movie really let me down. I don't think there was a single known actor in this movie (or at least, known to me) and that really helps bring you into the story. You get into the characters easier that way instead of looking at the screen constantly thinking "There's Tom Cruise, what a dickmunch". And that's a good example, too, because Tom Cruise is always Tom Cruise. He can't convince you he is anyone else and very few actors can.

As for the auditorium and presentation itself, I saw this in AMC's much lauded ETX auditorium. What does ETX stand for? It stands for (and this is factual information) Extreme Treble EXperience. I had a representative from AMC's corporate divulge the secret to how they make an ETX auditorium. First, they take a normal auditorium, make everything is digital and 3D, blah blah blah. Then (and this is the secret ingredient), they go into the EQ settings and turn the 4K for each speaker ALL THE WAY UP. Then, they take the surrounds and turn them down to about 75db instead of 83. Then they take the subwoofers and turn them down to about 45db. Then they turn off half of the subwoofer amps and saw off the power cords for the amplifiers to ensure very few low frequencies ever play in the auditorium. They want you feeling the treble on your skin, not the bass. Then they turn the volume knob to 8.5. That's it!

Yup, that's right! AMC's ETX auditorium is a candidate for the worst-sounding movie theater I have ever heard. Any, and I mean ANY auditorium anywhere can achieve the same exact sound quality by following the instructions in the paragraph above, for free. It sounds very distorted and is physically painful to listen to, and I like my movies damn loud. It's just that AMC doesn't have anyone who knows how to EQ an auditorium to save their lives. There is nothing special at all about ETX and AMC charges much more for this. AMC is assuming the customer is a downright idiot. Nobody in the auditorium seemed impressed. In fact I think one guy in front of me might have went to complain early on because he mentioned it was loud during the ETX snipe (yes, they have an ETX snipe which is all volume, no surround and no sub). AMC claims 7.1 audio and 600 amps piping 20 million watts to 230 speakers or some bullshit that doesn't make a shit of difference. Big time failure here, AMC. I am a fan of good sound, why can't ANYONE in Colorado deliver? I have yet to "experience" Regal's RPX or Cinemark's XD disasters, however. The Tamarac Square 6 sounded much better and we were a piece of shit who had no business having good sound!

One other thing; the movie was scheduled to start at 9:10. The trailers did. The actual movie itself started around 9:29. That's a little much, don't you think? It is bullshit like, movie theaters, this which will lead to your doom. It will all be your own fault. Stop this shit right now, all of you (including members here reading this). I can't wait for this VOD crap to kick in so you'll stop showing so many trailers like you promised.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-15-2011, 03:43 AM:

****

Super 8: The IMAX EXPERIENCE

I loved it. While the movie is heavily influenced by Steven Spielberg, I have to say that with a summer full of so many sequels and 3D movies, it was a pleasure to see something kind of original, even though it is a direct knock-off of Spielberg's stuff. Super 8 is like E.T, Close Encounters, The Goonies, War of the Worlds all rolled into one. I guess original is not the word I should use, more Spielberg nostalgia...

By far the best part of the film were the actors. They worked well, Elle Fanning was the stand out. They were a bunch of nobody's but by the end of the film, I want to know who Fanning was. The special effects were fine, as they played secondary to the story. I really liked the 70s settings.

Unfortunately, Toronto media totally ruined this movie is some way. The National Post had a front page Entertainment section stating "J.J.(in E.T font) Abrams really likes E.T." and then the radio station simply states, J.J. Abrams see's Aliens. Its sad and unfortunete because there are some folks who try to stay away from spoilers, trailers etc. It was not hard to figure out that the alien wants to go home and that he is trying to build his spaceship....thanks Toronto media.

So there were a few flaws, the connection between humans and alien was not there...but that didn't really matter. It was kind of convienent that the past relationships between father/daughter got patched up so easy near the end...and finally I did not like the choice of music during the credits, it should of just been the music score. I think the closing credits are an important part of the movie expeience, especially if it is a good movie.

Where the movie did go from *** to **** was the letting go of the locket, I thought that was a good touch. I also loved the short film at the conclusion, that was a very interesting surprise that I did not see coming.

Overall, once I heard that this movie was very similar to past Speilberg movies, it was then on my to-do-list and I had to see it, I actually seeked out IMAX as I have always enjoyed The IMAX EXPERIENCE in AMC IMAX theatres. I also knew going in thanks to the Toronto media about the spoilers..even though I knew this, there were still a few surprises.

I mention earlier about Spielberg nostaliga, for some reason, the entire time I was sitting there watching this movie, I felt as though Super 8 was some sort of test film to see if audiences would still respond to past Spielberg type movies.

It would be interesting to see the reaction from the younger generation who did not grow up watching Steven Spielberg movies.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-18-2011, 10:41 PM:

Jesus, people- the end credits bit started just about right when the credits started (this movie has no opening credits so the end starts with what would have been the opening credits there), so it's not even like this was at the VERY end like some movies put 'hidden' stuff- was the experience really that awful that you just HAD to get out of there right away? I'll never understand why people go to movies then want to leave as soon as possible- why not even hang out in the theater and discuss it after it's over, maybe even stick around to see it again if the ushers don't throw you out??

Anyways, I haven't seen too many recent movies but I saw this today at the Esquire IMAX in Sacramento because my dad wanted to see it. Thought the movie was entertaining but nothing exceptional. Certainly wasn't worth the $16 per person to get in (my mom and dad were a little less since they're senior citizens now.) There were only about 20 people at the showing on a Saturday- they probably would've gotten a lot more customers and taken in more money altogether had the tickets been reasonably priced. I live close enough to it that I could go to every movie they show but because of the prices I only go once every few years. This theater is still running film; focus seemed a bit off but probably still better than anyplace else in the area who might be running it in 35mm.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-18-2011, 10:54 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
It's just that AMC doesn't have anyone who knows how to EQ an auditorium to save their lives

Gee, and I be that a lof of us know how to make a house sound good and being paid peanuts whereas, I bet, that the AMC EQ'ers are paid tonnage for stuff they don't know what they're doing ....

..something is wrong here for sure

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-18-2011, 11:39 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
so it's not even like this was at the VERY end like some movies put 'hidden' stuff- was the experience really that awful that you just HAD to get out of there right away?

If I have no idea that there are scenes in the credits, I have zero reason to hang around. Even if the music is awesome, I don't want to sit there and listen to it in a movie theater auditorium with a bunch of idiots (re: average moviegoers) or ushers as I'd rather listen to it privately at home. I'm perfectly content to talk about the movie in the car where it is far quieter rather than shouting about it over the credit music. It's not like the movie-going experience is so enthralling that I am paralyzed in my seat because I am so mesmerized that I must "recover" from the "experience" before I am able to move and leave.

quote: Jesse Skeen
maybe even stick around to see it again if the ushers don't throw you out??

I would, but I have this thing I need to tend to called "life". I do not have unlimited free time like you apparently do.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-18-2011, 11:44 PM:

quote:
I'll never understand why people go to movies then want to leave as soon as possible-

Well, I don't usually stick around for bad movies. If the movie is above 2stars in my book. I always stay for the credits, I don't stay hoping to find some extra in the end, I stay because it completes the whole experience IMO.

I think the credit music is very important and can ruin my opinion on the film, Buried and Super 8 have the wrong music for the credits. Buried should of been a sombre score during the credits while Super 8 should of been an extension of the film original score.

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 06-20-2011, 04:51 AM:

My Brother and I saw this last week at the Beacon Cinema's in New Smyrna Beach in 35mm. Interestingly his reaction was pretty much the same as mine. The movie was very enjoyable, with a lot of eye candy for the disaster minded. I didn't think the train wreck would ever end. The story line was unusual enough to keep my curiosity on edge. It accomplished what we went to the theatre for... a couple hours away from the reality we face every time we dare turn the TV on. Now that can be a real trip! I did notice several times especially during the train wreck, discoloration and splotches, some I'm sure were lens reflections from filming at night, but other times it appeared as if someone just purposely placed horizontal streaks across the print. They were somewhat annoying and happened more than a few times. It looked like pretty shoddy work in processing the print. Maybe it was an attempt to turn patrons off to film... but, I don't think they will ever clean up digital enough in my lifetime to merit abandoning film. Wonder what will replace digital when the sunspots wipe out electronics next year? Maybe carbon arc?? That would make a good plot for a movie!!

Posted by Jonathan Froes (Member # 5861) on 06-20-2011, 08:22 AM:

"Wonder what will replace digital when the sunspots wipe out electronics next year? Maybe carbon arc?? That would make a good plot for a movie!!"

Nope...calcium carbide lamphouses and handcranked projectors...hehe!!! that would be funny...downside is we won't have film-tech for the technical instructions to operate the projectors.

how about a change over using handcrancked projectors?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-20-2011, 04:56 PM:

quote: Tony Gallimore
I did notice several times especially during the train wreck, discoloration and splotches, some I'm sure were lens reflections from filming at night, but other times it appeared as if someone just purposely placed horizontal streaks across the print. They were somewhat annoying and happened more than a few times. It looked like pretty shoddy work in processing the print. Maybe it was an attempt to turn patrons off to film... but, I don't think they will ever clean up digital enough in my lifetime to merit abandoning film.

I saw Super 8 in IMAX. The streaks across the image were present, apparantly they were put there intentionally by the director. At first I thought there was something wrong with the IMAX digital, when I saw it again in 35mm at my friends theatres, I noticed the horizontal lines on teh 35mm print

quote: Tony Gallimore
Maybe it was an attempt to turn patrons off to film...

lol, I highly doubt that. It was present in IMAX digital. I actually seeked out the IMAX screening in digital becuase I have always had a great experience.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 06-21-2011, 11:01 PM:

Folks:

Saw this last Saturday at the Vogue Theatre (single screen) in San Francisco. Nice single that seats 300.

The picture started out good. Engaging etc. Then it slowly turns into a by-the-number alien film. Not a total loss but not that great either.

The best part was being able to enjoy the film at the quaint Vogue Theatre.

Mike

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 06-21-2011, 11:46 PM:

Saw it yesterday during lunch time.

SCREEN #2, Cinema City (Galeria Kazimierz), Kraków PL.
35mm on a Kinoton projector, Dolby Digital on JBL speakers.

Flawless projection, but one of those dreadfully steep stadium-seating theaters making you feel like in the Mount Rushmore sequence of North by Northwest, with a wall-to-wall screen in a theater as wide as deep, so you see the grain (or pixels) even when sitting at the very back.

The Goonies meet Close encounters of the third kind, with an attempt for an emotional touch from E.T. for teenagers who will be weak enough to buy it. The film was enjoyable to some extent, and well made, although totally unnecessary. What's the point with Super 8 there?

The story could have been set a few years ago and called MiniDV, or today and called Smartphone. That way we could all have agreed on how unnecessary this film is. But marketing played well, and even I went to see it because of the 8mm thing. Which reminded me of the films I was making with my friends 25 years ago. And probably the most captivating part is, as Sam Graham mentioned, the completed Super 8 amateur production playing during the end credits, all with mechanical noise from the projector in the surrounds.

Posted by Gregory Jones Jr. (Member # 6354) on 06-22-2011, 01:55 AM:

Arclight Sherman Oaks, CA
Screen 2
35mm Presentation

I saw it during Arclight's all day sneak preview. I'd like to use my first post to say that Super 8 is just about everything I was hoping it would be. I'm a huge fan of pretty much every movie that inspired it so I found myself geeking out throughout the whole thing. It's not perfect, but few films are.

I have to say, I was quite delighted to see that it was on 35. I hadn't been to the Arclight in a while and I thought they went all digital. It just seemed appropriate considering the premise. We're finally getting it at my theater so I'll definitely be seeing it again.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-03-2011, 05:44 PM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Don't insult the movie by comparing it to Michael Bay crap. The style is definitely more Speilbergian than Bayish.

Only on the most superficial level.

Just as with vomit, this regurgitation bears some resemblance to the original, has the same ingredients. But isn't anywhere near as delicious. Better to disregard (or analyze to learn what went wrong).

SUPER 8 lacks the heart of the Spielberg movies it seeks to imitate. Which is a remarkable shame, since Abrams had direct access to "the man himself."

Spielberg is also a far more efficient storyteller. The plot of SUPER 8 took waaaay too long to kick in. Spielberg would have likely collapsed the first 70 minutes of this movie down to just 30 minutes.

As a side note - Spielberg does not like the 2.39 format. And not even he would subject us to THIS many lens flares! Personally, I agree they are an annoying distraction.

I'm not surprised that so many people bolted out of their seats at the final fade-out. Many stopped in their tracks to watch the mini-movie at the end, but most did not. They just kept moving. I, too, agree that the mini-movie was better that the actual movie.

AMC Showplace 12 (formerly Kerasotes)
Bloomington, Indiana
Auditorium #6
35mm with Digital Sound (format uncertain)

Focus was a tad soft.
Aperture plate not adequately masked.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-10-2011, 12:41 PM:

This wasn't the greatest movie ever, but I enjoyed it.

Regarding lens flares, JJ needs to cool it. I wasn't particularly thrilled to run across town with a light engine from our shop only to find out that the blue horizontal lens flares was the problem and not a failed light engine. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-10-2011, 03:37 PM:

Not to drift too far off topic, but...

quote: Manny Knowles
Spielberg does not like the 2.39 format.

Says who?

If you analyze Spielberg's theatrical filmography (as director), the flat vs scope breakdown is practically 50/50. I count twenty-four and one-fourth* films that he's directed, with the format breakdown being thirteen and one-fourth (flat) and eleven (scope).

(It's 13 1/4 to 12 if you want to count Poltergeist, and 13 1/4 to 13 if you want to count his upcoming War Horse.)

Now, does that sound like a filmmaker who hates scope?

* The 1/4 represents his segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983). Also, the formats represent projection format, not origination, as some of Spielberg's scope films have been originated in Super-35.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-10-2011, 09:32 PM:

The reason some of us are convinced that Steven Spielberg doesn't like the 'scope format is that we read stuff like this back when he was talking about Saving Private Ryan...

quote:
Why did you choose to shoot Private Ryan in the 1.85:1 format rather than a widescreen format?

Spielberg: To me, widescreen formats like CinemaScope were a Hollywood invention of the 1950s. I find widescreen to be an artificial aspect ratio, whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we see as high to low as we do from side to side. If I had to make a choice, I’d rather see from high to low. I think the most human perspective is [the range] from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The slickest format for theaters is 2.35:1. I’ve chosen 1.85:1 for my last four pictures because they were intended to be more lifelike.

Source: American Cinematographer interview, August 1998 issue

Seriously, Michael, you're gonna lose your position as "Mr. Research" around here. [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-10-2011, 10:12 PM:

Keep in mind Steven Spielberg has filmed other movies for 'scope format since the 1998 release of Saving Private Ryan:

War Horse (2011) Super 35 2.39:1
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) anamorphic 2.39:1
Munich (2005) Super 35 2.39:1
Minority Report (2002) Super 35 2.39:1

I can't find anything detailing the aspect ratios of Lincoln (2012) and Robopocalypse (2013) although I would guess the robot movie would likely be 'scope.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)
IMDB lists three aspect ratios for this one: 1.44:1 for IMAX 3D, 1.85:1 for digital 3D and 2.35:1 for 2D release.

quote: Brad Miller
Regarding lens flares, JJ needs to cool it.

I agree Abrams really overdoes it with the flares. His reboot of Star Trek was littered with the anamorphic style things, even in the CGI which isn't really anamorphic.

I think the anamorphic look is pretty cool at times, particularly when so many 2.39:1 movies are shot Super 35 or digital and merely cropped down to that ratio. OTOH, the 1970's movies from which Super 8 riffs really don't have very many of the light artifacts. A few shots with elliptical halos and horizontal flares do stand out in films like Jaws, Sugarland Express and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but I think movies like Die Hard and Heat played up those anamorphic artifacts more dramatically. Certain P.T. Anderson movies have quite a few of them. But I think J.J. Abrams outdoes them all and pushes it to a distracting level.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-10-2011, 10:30 PM:

quote:
...blah, blah, blah...whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we see as high to low as we do from side to side.

Absolutely no offense at all Mr. Spielberg, but most people see with BOTH eyes. The last time I checked, I could see more than double the width as I can height.

Maybe Steve wasn't too good in math classes.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-11-2011, 12:11 PM:

I've got a Tintin trailer in front of both my IMAX movies presently (Cars and Transformers), and the trailer is formatted at 2.39:1.

As for Super 8, it's 80% a good movie, which is about 60% better than I expected. The lens flares didn't bother me, since I expect that from this director.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-11-2011, 01:41 PM:

If Spielberg's Tintin is scope, then that further supports my contention that he doesn't dislike the scope format and that he selects format on a title-by-title basis. His upcoming Tintin and War Horse now push his scope total higher than his flat films. Take that, naysayers!

As a longtime reader of American Cinematographer, I'm well aware of that Saving Private Ryan interview, and I fully expected someone to mention it as their "proof" that Spielberg dislikes the scope format. The thing is, Spielberg in that interview never actually stated a dislike for scope; he simply stated that he had a preference for flat for certain films. The fact that he has made several scope films since Saving Private Ryan supports my contention.

I think some may interpret Spielberg's comments in that interview to mean that he felt scope was an old-fashioned, out-of-date and unrealistic format, that he regretted using it on his earlier films, and that his intent for all future films would be to shoot flat.

You'd have a point about a dislike for scope if Spielberg had made no scope films since 1982 (the year he released his first flat film), and you'd have a point if, say, the Indiana Jones sequels had been the only scope films he made since 1982 since in such a case it would be easy to conclude scope was only used to preserve visual continuity with the original movie. But the fact is he's made several scope films since then, and not just the fantasy/escapist fare.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-11-2011, 03:40 PM:

quote:
As a longtime reader of American Cinematographer, I'm well aware of that Saving Private Ryan interview, and I fully expected someone to mention it as their "proof" that Spielberg dislikes the scope format. The thing is, Spielberg in that interview never actually stated a dislike for scope; he simply stated that he had a preference for flat for certain films.

If I am correct, the whole scope vs flat this is because home video and tv. He is not a fan of pan and scan. Flat helps. For dramas, no big deal with flat.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-11-2011, 06:13 PM:

Spielberg is choosing aspect ratio purely based on the subject matter of the movie and how best to compose it within a given frame.

Saving Private Ryan was meant to convey the look or feel of old combat film footage. CinemaScope wouldn't be invented for another several years. The flat format was more appropriate for Schindler's List.

Many disliked his choice of shooting Jurassic Park in the "flat" 1.85:1 ratio. However, he gave a good explanation for the choice. The flat format allows for more headroom in compositions and that was needed for the height of the dinosaurs. The reasoning was the same for War of the Worlds. The "tripods" could be composed to look taller in the 1.85:1 ratio than they would in 'scope.

I don't think the 'scope format is in any immediate danger. Spielberg and J.J. Abrams are both likely to shoot more movies in that aspect ratio.

If anything too many movies are made in 'scope. Lots of throw-away dramas and comedies are shot in Super35 or digital and cropped down to 'scope. Even some low budget indie movies shot with relatively low cost video gear have the footage cropped to 2.39:1. It's pretentious. I've seen it lots of times in recent years where every single movie playing in a multiplex is formatted in 'scope.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-11-2011, 09:10 PM:

I always felt Spielberg shot the Indy movies in scope because of George's insistence. Just a guess, though.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-11-2011, 09:49 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I always felt Spielberg shot the Indy movies in scope because of George's insistence. Just a guess, though.

If so, I'm glad George insisted. IMHO 'scope was more appropriate for the Indy movies than the flat ratio.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-11-2011, 11:00 PM:

I would agree with Joe. Lucas is smarter in that department. Flat is claustrophobic in comparison. It is NOT closer to a human with 2 functioning eyes.

quote: Bobby Henderson
If anything too many movies are made in 'scope. Lots of throw-away dramas and comedies are shot in Super35 or digital and cropped down to 'scope. Even some low budget indie movies shot with relatively low cost video gear have the footage cropped to 2.39:1. It's pretentious. I've seen it lots of times in recent years where every single movie playing in a multiplex is formatted in 'scope.

Remind me to slap you the next time you're in town. Shame on you for even speaking such hogwash. Even a movie like Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2 was made better by it being in scope. [thumbsup]

Posted by Robby Golosino (Member # 6325) on 07-12-2011, 12:58 AM:

wahhaha...this film cost great damage to our amplifiers...when the train submits itself into the air...our suwoofer amplifiers submits itself as well....its signal gain is not only huge but monstrous...hahaha

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-12-2011, 08:11 AM:

Those who assumed Spielberg was down on the 'scope format thought that words like "artificial" and "slickest" sounded negative while things like "human perspective" and "lifelike" sounded positive. Could it be possible that Spielberg thinks some of his movies are more important or meaningful than ohers? Would he lend his name to projects that are just there to make money when he knows that he's really just pandering to what he thinks is a lower standard? No. That's not possible. Not THE Steven Spielberg. (Who said "Transformers"?)

I had a chance to meet Lawrence Kasdan about 20 years ago and I asked him specifically what he thought of using different aspect ratios. He said he loved the way he could place actors in the 'scope frame. And he used that aspect ratio quite a bit. As for Spielberg's contention that dinosaurs would look taller in the 1.85 frame, well, that's really a matter of composition. One of the things I really like about older movies is that they're not afraid to compose for the big screen. They're not afraid to use wide shots even when actors are talking! Too many directors are losing their perspective when they watch the video assist all day on the set... and then so much of the post work is done on TV and computer monitors too.

Frankly, I think Spielberg doesn't micro-manage the technical side of things as much as people think he does. He has so much trust and loyalty towards Kaminski that he'd probably let Kaminski try anything he wanted. And I think that's already happened a lot.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-12-2011, 10:29 AM:

quote: Greg Anderson
Those who assumed Spielberg was down on the 'scope format thought that words like "artificial" and "slickest" sounded negative while things like "human perspective" and "lifelike" sounded positive. Could it be possible that Spielberg thinks some of his movies are more important or meaningful than [others]?

The implication here seems to be that Spielberg prefers scope for his "popcorn" movies and flat for the "important" projects? That may seem reasonable at first thought, but the argument falls apart when one considers his "popcorn" flicks like Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds were done flat while "important" stuff like Munich was done in scope. So, again, we're right back to the idea that the selection of aspect ratio is being made on a title-by-title basis as I (and Bobby) previously speculated.

quote: Greg Anderson
Frankly, I think Spielberg doesn't micro-manage the technical side of things as much as people think he does. He has so much trust and loyalty towards [his DP Janusz] Kaminski that he'd probably let Kaminski try anything he wanted. And I think that's already happened a lot.

You may be right about that. Moreover, I think, in general, critics and movie buffs are guilty of giving far too much credit to movie directors, naively assuming that directors make every single decision.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2011, 03:03 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Flat is claustrophobic in comparison. It is NOT closer to a human with 2 functioning eyes.

No standard motion picture framing format, video format or still photography process accurately mimicks the field of view of human vision. The only processes that attempt to come close are dome screen formats like Omnimax.

One difference is the human vision field of view is more like a big oval than any sort of rectangular shape. The outer edge of that field of view is blurry, not hard like the edge of a photograph. Image quality at the periphreal edge of human vision is significantly lower than what is seen in the center of view.

Photographs typically have hard boundaries with some kind of rectangular shape. They're subject to many of the same compositional rules that have applied to paintings for hundreds of years. Obviously paintings have a number of different framing formats, with portrait and landscape being the two general ones. Frederic Edwin Church was an American landscape painter who had great success creating wide aspect ratio "marine" paintings. Niagara is one of his most popular works. Its 2.18:1 aspect ratio is very close to that of a 5-perf 70mm film frame.

People don't consciously look at objects of interest with their own eyes the way a photographer, cinematographer or director has to frame shots. I'm not thinking about things like head room, look space, rules of thirds, line and object direction or other stuff like that when I look at something. Normally the object of interest is going to be viewed in the center of the field of view. That's usually a big no no in photography and is frowned upon in graphic design. Centering everything looks boring. But that's how people usually look at things.

quote:
As for Spielberg's contention that dinosaurs would look taller in the 1.85 frame, well, that's really a matter of composition. One of the things I really like about older movies is that they're not afraid to compose for the big screen. They're not afraid to use wide shots even when actors are talking!

A cinematographer cannot compose within a 'scope frame the way he would in a flat 1.85:1 frame. The shots would look way too loose, especially on the left and right ends. The 'scope format can be tricky in how things have to be vertically cropped to make shots look dynamic. My big complaint with Super35 is it doesn't force the director and DP to pick a specific format and compose for that frame. The end result can be a movie whose compositions look boring in both theaters and on home video. At least with 35mm anamorphic (and 5/65mm) specific decisions must be made.

Older 'scope movies often made good use of the frame. The advent of home video and the horrors of panning and scanning killed some of that. A lot of 1980's 'scope movies made attempts to keep subjects in home video safe zones leaving huge areas of space to the left or right. Ghostbusters was a notable exception. I think the situation has been improving in recent years. HDTV and Blu-ray have helped. The public understands letter-boxing a little better.