Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors

This is topic Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=004490

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-09-2006, 02:52 AM:

"Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors, OR: Did The Filmmakers Make A Wise Decision?"

I just checked the new postings for "Final Destination 3" and "The Pink Panther," and was a bit surprised to see the projection format notations: Scope for "Final Destination 3" and Flat for "The Pink Panther." If I recall correctly, the previous "Final Destination" flicks were flat, and the numerous "Pink Panther" movies were scope.

I cannot imagine a "Pink Panther" movie not being in scope!!! But then, without the likes of Blake Edwards, Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, et al., I suppose the point is moot. Nonetheless, I thought it might be interesting for us to explore the topic of movie series' (sequels, prequels, remakes, even movies based upon TV shows) that have mixed formats from one film to the next and the impact this has on how an audience may respond to the material (if such a thing actually happens).

For example, when I first saw "Aliens" (1986), I was disappointed to observe it was not in scope like the original "Alien" (1979). But...once the movie got going, the narrower frame did not bother me as I was completely absorbed into the movie and enjoyed it very much. (And I don't think it mattered that the next two movies in the "Alien" series went back to scope because, frankly, I thought those ones sucked ass.)

An example where I disliked the decision to go with scope was with "Beverly Hills Cop II" (the first and third movies were flat). Here, I thought the movie seemed "bigger" than it needed to be, this time feeling like a big, noisy summer action movie (which, I guess *is* what it actually was) with too much emphasis on action and not enough humor. The tone differed from the original movie in a way that did not appeal to me. "Cop II" seemed like it belonged to another movie series. In fact, it seemed more like "Top Gun In Beverly Hills."

So, what do the rest of you think? Does an audience even notice this stuff? Should filmmakers be criticized/commended for their selection of film format? Care to share some observations regarding the topic?

[BTW, origination format isn't really the point here; I'm referring to the final release format. In other words, I don't want this thread to become a "Super-35 vs. Anamorphic" discussion. For instance, the ten "Star Trek" movies have all been released in scope. Nine of them were anamorpic, one of them ("VI") was Super-35. Or, six "Star Wars" movies in scope, four of which were anamorphic and two that were high-def. These examples, I think, suggest a topic that differs from the one I've initiated. But if anyone thinks it is related, then feel free to post away.]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-09-2006, 03:05 AM:

I think a lot depends on the director. Blake Edwards I believe filmed everything scope. Tony Scott is another scope lover along with his brother Ridley. That's why Cop 2 was scope and looked like Top Gun photography wise.

Poltergeist 1 and 2 were scope but 3 was flat.

I think in some cases you are going to see more and more movies with the scope aspect because wide screen HDTV's will start to become more popular as time goes on.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 02-09-2006, 11:46 AM:

James Cameron filmed Predator flat, the same era as Aliens. I agree with Michael's reasoning about the "big movie" look of scope. And I have to believe that at some point while filming some of these repetitive monsters, the director or cinematographer has to ask themselves why they're forcing themselves and their perspecitive audience to observe so much crap.

Not speaking about Aliens though. [thumbsup]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-09-2006, 12:20 PM:

I can understand a remake of an older movie going with a different format -but I will not agree with the move 100% of the time.

For instance, I agree it is a bad move to make a new Pink Panther movie flat 1.85:1 format when all the previous films were 'scope. The series was in a way a send up of the James Bond rage of the 1960's. But then one could argue not all the James Bond movies were in 'scope either (Dr. No, Goldfinger, Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun). Still the different cast, crew and framing make the new Pink Panther quite a bit different.

quote: Steve Scott
James Cameron filmed Predator flat, the same era as Aliens.

Acutally John McTiernan directed Predator, and then he went on to shoot his next film, Die Hard in 'scope. In fact, I think he shot ALL of his following movies after Predator in 'scope.

The Lethal Weapon series is another inconsistent framing saga. The first one was shot flat 1.85:1, even though it sported 70mm Dolby mag prints in its inventory. The next three were shot in true anamorphic. I don't really mind the look of the first LW installment, but the 'scope look boosted the feel of LW2.

Batman Begins is a movie I was glad to see framed in 'scope (true anamorphic no less). Some of that goes back to my huge disappointment on the framing of Tim Burton's Batman. The NY Times had its big 70mm emblazoned ads. But then I check the show out at Cinema One on 3rd Avenue and its flat. Total Recall and Mountains of the Moon were other flat 70mm disappointments. They had 'scope trailers, even on some 70mm prints during that time. So I felt a bit mislead.

However...

Not all movies should be shot in 'scope.

There's a lot of regular dramas and comedies being shot in Super35 so they can be framed in 'scope at the theater and then shown "fool screen" on DVD with little problem. However, I don't think the 'scope look really helps comedies like Wedding Crashers.

I think the knee jerk habit of Super35 on so many shows is one reason why the flat framing of The Pink Panther is even more of an odd surprise.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-09-2006, 12:24 PM:

Look at how the "Blade" series went. The first one was scope then "Blade 2" went flat and finally "Blade: Trinity" went back to scope.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-09-2006, 12:44 PM:

...and another one that we can easily forget about was 1995's Kevin Costner's water disaster "Waterworld."

All that summer before this toilet flusher came out, the trailers that were in scope made this movie looked great.

When I got the print and had everything ready for scope, opened up the cans and had a sudden shock: the friggen thing was in flat. Who was the dumbass that filmed this thing in flat? With all the action and scenery that took place, some idiot filmed this thing in flat.

What a massive letdown, until we employees saw the movie, then I didn't care - it was so bad. It was like seeing "Mad Max on the Ocean"

Yes, kinda struck me odd why the new "Pink Panther" was in flat and it had two film companies go together on this one.

I remember when "Live and Let Die" was released in flat for a new James Bond in 1973. That one sorta made me wonder who really goofed up in the camera department. I had just finished playing "Diamonds are Forever" in scope the year before at a second run house (and with a glorious dye transfer print - then on to Eastman for the rest of the series) Granted, the first two Bond films were in flat as well, but we can forgive them on this one, but in 1973 when Bond was really getting popular and had to introduce Roger Moore...get real.....!

-Monte

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-09-2006, 12:58 PM:

I was hoping the "flat vs. scope" issue would be discussed for "Pink Panther". It's unfathomable to me why they didn't film this new version in scope. Who's the friggin' director? (goes to imdb to check...) Shawn/Shaun/Sean Levy. Look at his filmography: He's done a lot of TV stuff. He's probably not man enough to handle a scope production. I bet he drives a Geo Metro. What a loser! [Razz]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-09-2006, 01:07 PM:

..I was going to say that he drives a Yugo just from how the trailers looked for the movie... [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-09-2006, 01:29 PM:

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Donner wanted to shoot LETHAL WEAPON in scope, but he was hired after another director had been fired, and work had already begun in 1.85:1

Also, Cameron wanted to shoot ALIENS in Super 35, but the studio wouldn't let him because it was new and relatively untested.

An example where I think it worked really well is ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO which was in scope. It was a much more epic story, so the visuals were bigger too. Actually DESPERADO was in 1.85:1 and EL MARIACHI was in 1.66:1, so that series got wider with each movie.

A case where it doesn't work is Gus van Sant's death trilogy. GERRY was in beautiful anamorphic, but then ELEPHANT and LAST DAYS were both 1.33:1. Stylistically, everything is the same about these three movies except for the aspect ratio. That's annoying.

In general, I think everything looks better in scope, but that's just me.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-09-2006, 03:13 PM:

Considering how the release date of The Pink Panther remake was pushed back again and again, I have a pretty strong feeling this movie is going to suck ass. Some of the posters for this thing are a year old.

quote: Mike Schindler
An example where I think it worked really well is ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO which was in scope.

Yeah, but Once Upon A Time in Mexico was shot on videotape. The 'Scope aspect ratio isn't exactly native for HDTV.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-09-2006, 03:56 PM:

So what? The Super 35 ratio isn't native for 35mm, either. What difference does that make? I thought we were talking about release formats.

EDIT: By the way, the new PINK PANTHER movie does indeed suck ass.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 02-09-2006, 09:45 PM:

The heading of this thread clearly reads "SHOT in a different format", not necessarily "released" ... but then, videotape is indeed a different format. Oh, nevermind. [Big Grin]

Besides, I didn't care much at all for the look of Once Upon A Time in Mexico. And I didn't recall the aspect ratio, either. [Razz]

In this day and age, aren't most sequels basically commissioned by the studios and produced/directed by different teams of people anyway? I don't think there's a sense of continuity between what turn out to be "chapters" of a movie franchise, not in the way some series do: for instance like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Matrix, etc. where there's a distinct cohesive unit in all the sequels included with each other.

The Harry Potter movies, though directed by different people, are still meant, eventually, to be one big story. I seriously doubt that the original writer of Final Destination envisioned a large story, to be told in distinct units. (I may be wrong there, but substitute the title with any other movie that got sequels as mere moneymaking afterthoughts, you get my point.)

So, I don't see any particular need for staying true to the "original" format, or whathaveyou. I guess it just depends on the project. It would have really struck me as odd, for instance, if Matrix Revolutions was flat.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-09-2006, 10:04 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
So what? The Super 35 ratio isn't native for 35mm, either. What difference does that make?

What difference does that make? Answer: a whole lot of image detail. Even if you videotaped the movie in full 1920 X 1080 native HD resolution, to crop it to 'scope you're reducing the image height to a little over 800 pixels. IMHO, movies shot on HD video should be kept as close to 1.77:1 ratio to preserve as much of that native pixel grid as possible.

Anyway...

How about Spiderman and Spiderman II?

I suppose it was okay to film the first movie in flat aspect ratio, maybe to get more "height" out of the frame (the same reason Spielberg used to shoot Jurassic Park flat). But overall, the movie kind of felt like Spidey was in a Tim Burton version of the movie.

Spiderman II seemed to have a much more epic feel to it and I think the 'scope format helped add that. Better bad guy, better storyline, overall much better movie. Those wild cable driven flying camera shots (not CG, but real 2 mile long flying camera moves) added even more realism. Add to that some of the visual effects background shots, along an elevated train line in Chicago, were shot in 65mm using an Arri 765 camera.

I'm just wondering if the third installment will be 'scope or flat.

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 02-09-2006, 11:11 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
I think in some cases you are going to see more and more movies with the scope aspect because wide screen HDTV's will start to become more popular as time goes on.

Although I agree on the reasoning, I don't think that will truely happen. Just the other week, I was in Wal-Mart and over heard a man complaining about the fact that they didn't have the movie he was looking for in "Full Screen." After he was done with the associate, and he continued to look at the movies available, I kindly informed him why sometimes you can't find movies in Full Screen and some in Wide Screen.

Basicly, I gave him a little Screen Size 101. When I told him about films that are shot in scope (I said widescreen while I spoke with him so not to confuse him) and then edited for full screen DVD/VHS, he was shocked that you loose about 1/3 or more of the picture. I gave him the classic example that I knew of, Remember the Titan. He owned it on DVD in full screen. I told him to either rent or purchase the widescreen version of Remember the Titans, and watch the movie in widescreen, and then watch it in full screen, and notice the difference. I will say that when I was done, and I went about my business, I watched him walk off with the last Remember the Titans DVD.

Enough of my babbling. Thing is, I don't think until everyone understands this will directors and producers start making most non-animated films in scope. Infact, I have a feeling it might actually go the other way. Why? Cause people don't like the "Black Bars" at the top and bottem of the screens. Until they realize what that is, and why will they truely come to appriciate widescreen DVD/VHS movies.

So not to get off topic, Does Widescreen matter when purchasing a DVD/VHS?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-09-2006, 11:35 PM:

One that struck me as odd was the third "Smokey and the Bandit" film... it was 'scope. The first two were flat (which worked fine for the subject).

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-10-2006, 12:28 AM:

quote:
...and it [Pink Panther] had two film companies go together on this one.

Remember, MGM is owned by Sony now. 'Pink Panther' was finished prior to the sale, IIRC. Sony just isn't putting the 'A Sony Pictures Entertainment Company' line under the MGM logo. Yet.

-Aaron

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-10-2006, 03:02 AM:

The First terminator was flat. The other two were scope.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I found it interesting that Capote was scope.

They need to take in these walmart stores and any store that sells TVs and put a standard TV next to a Wide screen TV playing the same movie only one full screen on the standard set and wide screen 16:9 on the wide screen set. Maybe people will realize the difference. Probably not....

the first three Halloween movies were scope. John Carpenter is another director that has I believe shot everything scope. Then you had 3 flat Halloweens then I think the last two were scope.

[ 02-10-2006, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Darryl Spicer ]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-10-2006, 05:14 PM:

Carpenter's first movie, DARK STAR, was flat, but that started off as a student film.

What about color sequels to black and white movies? The only one I can think of is GODZILLA. Are there any others?

It seems that most sequels or remakes get wider and, in my opinion, better. But I don't think that that would be true in going from black and white to color. A clear cut case of where it absolutely doesn't work is PSYCHO.

As a side note, Steven Soderbergh wanted to shoot OCEAN'S ELEVEN in black and white, but the studio wouldn't let him.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 02-10-2006, 06:08 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
What about color sequels to black and white movies?

The Hustler & The Color of Money ... first one was b&w scope, second was color flat ... right? Unless it doesn't count as a sequel when it comes out 25 years later. [Razz]

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 02-11-2006, 12:48 AM:

The Shaggy Dog=b/w; Sequels/Remakes=color

Short Circuit = scope
Short Circuit 2 = flat

If you think of AVP as a sequel to the "Predator" franchise, both "Predator"s were flat, AVP was super-35.

Also, with one exception, all the Three Stooges films were b/w academy. The exception, of course, is Snow White And The Three Stooges which was in color and 'scope.

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-11-2006, 04:13 PM:

Okay, let's add to the list the original "Shaft." It was flat while the two sequels, "Shaft's Big Score" and "Shaft in Africa" were scope. Finally, the remake of "Shaft" was scope, IIRC.

Burt Reynolds made two movies featuring the same character named Gator McCluskey back in the 70s. The first, "White Lightning," was flat and the sequel, "Gator," was scope.

"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" was scope and "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey" was flat.

"King Kong" (1933) was Academy flat and the two remakes were scope.

The first two Godzilla movies were black and white Academy ratio, with the following bunch scope and color through 1975. The next series of Godzillas were all flat. The third series, which started with "Godzilla 2000" have all been scope.

Also, I think the "Scary Movie" pictures began as scope and switched to flat. As did the Jim Varney "Ernest" pictures.

And then there are the Pixar/Disney movies which change aspect ratio from project to project.

I remember Martin Scorcese used to favor shooting 1.85 so his films would look okay on TV. Once widescreen laserdiscs arrived, he changed over to scope. That TV excuse was used also by Warren Beatty when he did "Dick Tracy" flat.

[ 02-11-2006, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Robert Harrison ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-11-2006, 04:29 PM:

IFC shows a lot of Zatoichi movies. The character, Zatoichi, is a blind Japanese swordsman. Some of the early installments in the saga were standard frame and in black and white. This afternoon, IFC was showing The Blind Swordsman, which was in color and anamorphic widescreen (don't know if it was CinemaScope, TohoScope or whatever).

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-11-2006, 05:07 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
What about color sequels to black and white movies? The only one I can think of is GODZILLA. Are there any others?

A remake as distinct from a sequel, but notable because Technicolor was a a key feature of the later version: The Wizard of Oz 1925/1939.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-11-2006, 10:06 PM:

I always thought it was cool how the new Shaft movie actually fits into the same continuity as the original films.

I can't believe I forgot Kevin Smith's films. CLERKS was B/W, the others, including the upcoming THE PASSION OF THE CLERKS, are color. Also, DOGMA and JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK were scope, which is fitting, given their much larger scale.

That being said, I love when scope is used for intimate little character movies. Look at Billy Wilder's work. ONE, TWO, THREE is basically a play, but it wouldn't be the same if it weren't scope. Black and white scope is about as cool as it gets.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2006, 11:44 AM:

I don't really consider the Kevin Smith movies so much as sequels or sagas or anything like that. Clerks, Chasing Amy and Mallrats are all different movies with different characters. You just have Jay and Silent Bob showing up in all of them. Ben Affleck plays different characters in Chasing Amy, Mallrats and Dogma. The different formats aren't really that much of a disruption or continuity error. I think the black and white thing works pretty well for Clerks.

I like 'scope when the dramatic narrative and visuals are improved by the format.

However, I've been growing to dislike it more and more how so many movies are being released Super35 just to fill up the width of any movie screen. The composition in many of these shows is "safe" (and as a result, pretty loose and dead as well). They look okay in movie theaters and look okay on foolscreen DVDs. Basically, this is like an odd-ball version of pan and scan.

Very few directors seem to actually compose for 'scope with a Super35 frame. James Cameron and David Fincher both do it. A few other Super35 movies feel like normal 'scope movies. But there's a lot of others that really didn't feel like the format was properly used.

For instance, Top Gun actually looks better when its frame isn't cropped down to 2.39:1. Many of the aerial shots simply were not composed for that frame; they were composed more for 1.85:1 or even 1:33:1. That is one specific case where I really feel like something is being hidden by those black bars. The composition just feels like it.

This is one reason why I prefer the anamorphic lens format for widescreen. It forces the director, cinematographer (as well as the set decorator) to work with the 'scope frame rather than doing some half-hearted bridge between 'scope and TV formats.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 02-12-2006, 01:34 PM:

An actor playing a different character in different movies shouldn't be a factor in determining whether one of those two movies is a sequel to the other or not.

Also, I feel that if a director or DP is going to play it safe (with regard to framing), s/he'll play it safe whether they are shooting anamorphic, spherical, film, video ... whatever. You certainly may have a point that if they are choosing to shoot anamorphic, they might be the type of person with a tendency to try and get more out of the framing of a film.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-12-2006, 05:37 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Some of the early installments in the saga were standard frame and in black and white.

While some of the early BLIND SWORDSMAN (Zatoichi) series were filmed in B&W, all were shot in TohoScope.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-12-2006, 05:44 PM:

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
An actor playing a different character in different movies shouldn't be a factor in determining whether one of those two movies is a sequel to the other or not.

Not only that, but Ben Affleck and Jason Lee both play multiple characters in JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK.

Super 35 used to be practically unwatchable with its incredibly grainy images. But since digital intermediates have become more and more popular, Super 35 has become less of a problem. It's now a matter of personal preference on the part of the filmmaker. But as far as I'm concerned, anamorphic is much better looking.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-12-2006, 08:03 PM:

Okey, let's go back to "Snow White and the Three Stooges" - (and do a bit off-topic on this one as well) This movie, I believe in all as I know was the only film that FOX had DeLuxe print up on the smaller "fox sprockethole" film, yet no mag tracks were added to the film stock. Just the regular optical track.

Thus, do we remember the paper bands that had color assignments per lens for the FOX releases: Flat was green, Scope was Red, Black was a mag/optical print,...and Blue was this Fox Sprocket optical release....

..and Walter Lang destroyed this movie being that he wasn't a comedy director. Thus, he shoved the boys far in the background to bring out Carol Heiss and her skating talents...and her only movie.

-Monte

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-12-2006, 08:45 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
For instance, Top Gun actually looks better when its frame isn't cropped down to 2.39:1. Many of the aerial shots simply were not composed for that frame; they were composed more for 1.85:1 or even 1:33:1. That is one specific case where I really feel like something is being hidden by those black bars. The composition just feels like it.

All arieal shots in Top Gun were shot in super35 do to the stress that was put on the cameras it was to expensive and to risky to use the anamorphic lenses on the planes.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-14-2006, 02:45 AM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
All arieal shots in Top Gun were shot in super35

As was the rest of the movie.

Speaking of "Top Gun"...

quote:
Very few directors seem to actually compose for 'scope with a Super35 frame. For instance, Top Gun actually looks better when its frame isn't cropped down to 2.39:1.

Might you and others feel this way due to the more "open" 1.85-ish framing found on the laserdisc and initial DVD being your point of reference? After all, between the original '86 release and the '04 DVD, the only versions people had an opportunity to see (excepting rare opportunities to see a theatrical screening) were the 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 (actually, I think it was closer to 2.00:1) versions, both of which showed more vertical imagery than the theatrical prints.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Many of the aerial shots simply were not composed for that frame; they were composed more for 1.85:1 or even 1:33:1.

Yes, many of those shots looked "poorly" composed. But think about how difficult it must've been to have the cameras mounted on a moving aircraft attempting to shoot other moving aircraft. I imagine it's similar to shooting a live concert and then bitching about lousy composition. Even with storyboards and lots of communication, I still think aerial footage of the type seen in "Top Gun" is a difficult thing to capture. I think much credit should go to the film's editors for figuring out how to "make it all work."

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-14-2006, 03:45 AM:

All of "THE BLIND SWORDSMAN" (Zatoichi) films were released by Japan's Daiei Studio in DaieiScope. All pictures released by Toho in scope were labled TohoScope and the same with ToeiScope from Toei studio, NikatsuScope from Nikatsu studio and ShichikuScope from Shichiku Eiga Kaisha. I know this to be a fact because I am Japanese and Honolulu as well as Los Angeles with it's large Japanese-American community had motion picture exhibition venues showing all of the new films from every Japanese studios in their own theatres and I used to frequent them all when I was a young man. This was long before most Americans knew anything about Japanese cinema.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-14-2006, 03:13 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
Might you and others feel this way due to the more "open" 1.85-ish framing found on the laserdisc and initial DVD being your point of reference?

My initial point of reference on Top Gun was the theatrical version; however, I did see the videotape and laserdisc versions on more on repeat viewings. And I do prefer the taller framing. This is one of few exceptions where I think it would have been better to make the 70mm prints in 1.85:1 ratio.

But that's not crux of my argument about Super35 and what I feel regarding a broad, bad use of the format. I think my contention that most Super35 productions use a "safe" and arguably bland method of framing is valid. Not very many movies shot in Super35 really look like they're making dynamic use of the 'scope frame. Most look no different than 1.85:1 movies whose trailers are cropped to 'scope in support of 'scope features.

I mentioned James Cameron and David Fincher as noteable exceptions to that Super35 rule. The framing on their movies usually screams 'scope, but does so without the tell-tale anamorphic optical abberations. Some of Ridley Scott's Super35 efforts are also very well framed.

More often than not, it usually takes someone shooting in true anamorphic 35mm 'scope and working with the boundaries of that frame to do dynamic stuff.

quote: Michael Coate
Yes, many of those shots looked "poorly" composed. But think about how difficult it must've been to have the cameras mounted on a moving aircraft attempting to shoot other moving aircraft.

One of the extras on the newest DVD version of Top Gun mentioned the original intention was to film the movie in anamorphic 35mm. But the 'scope camera lenses were heavier than their spherical counterparts. The concern was various physical forces during jet flights could damange the camera and lenses. So they stuck with spherical methods.

My immediate thought upon hearing that was, "why didn't they film the rest of the movie in 'scope?" Lots of true anamorphic 35mm movies have drop in shots here and there made with spherical lensed cameras. Heat is a great looking anamorphic movie, but it has a number of spherical shots. The shoot out sequence at the drive-in is one that comes to mind.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-14-2006, 04:47 PM:

..yet, didn't Blake Edwards shoot"Pink Panther"(1964) in (*gasp*..lol) 70mm 'Technirama'?

-monte

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-14-2006, 08:24 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..yet, didn't Blake Edwards shoot"Pink Panther"(1964) in (*gasp*..lol) 70mm 'Technirama'

Nope. Good ol' 35mm Technirama

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-14-2006, 08:26 PM:

quote:
My initial point of reference on Top Gun was the theatrical version; however, I did see the videotape and laserdisc versions on more on repeat viewings.

Bobby, I was under the impression you missed seeing Top Gun in the theater and first saw it on TV. At least this is what I gathered based on some postings of yours on the rec.arts.movies.tech newsgroup.

In the 1999 thread "70mm Films Released in the Blow Up Age," which you initiated, you listed Top Gun as "Flat."

In the 2000 thread "Aliens in 70mm Question," when another reader posted that Top Gun had been shot in Super-35 and released in full-width 70mm and 35-scope, you replied: "I seem to remember that one being a 1.85:1 film."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-14-2006, 10:15 PM:

Yes, and I did seem to remember the movie being flat. I saw it once in the theater in 1986 when it was first released. Then I saw it a lot more on video and laserdisc later. Another thing which fogged my memory about it was how there were so many 1.85:1 films being blown up to 70mm throughout the rest of the 1980s. You'll have to forgive me for making a Usenet post some 13 or 14 years later, and not remembering the OAR of a spherically shot movie.

Nevertheless, Top Gun does look better framed in 1.85:1, even for the entire movie. Not only do the aerial scenes look better, but you can also see more of Kelly McGillis in the make out scene too!
[thumbsup]