Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is going on with this trend of 'scope' sequels to 'flat' movies?

This is topic What is going on with this trend of 'scope' sequels to 'flat' movies? 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=006168

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-25-2010, 10:12 AM:

What is going on with this trend(?) of "scope"-formatted sequels to movies that were originally "flat"? The new "Shrek" sequel, for example, is scope and, if I recall correctly, the previous "Shrek" movies were flat. And I recently saw some footage from Oliver Stone's new "Wall Street" sequel, with all indications being that it will be in scope (the original was flat).

As well, some recent remakes and reboots have followed this pattern (e.g. "Fame," "A Nightmare On Elm Street," and the Christopher Nolan "Batman" movies).

I support the idea that the filmmaker (artist) ought to be able to make whatever creative choices they wish, but I must admit I dislike it when they switch from flat to scope or vice versa when making a sequel. The first time I recall noticing this in a new, first-run movie was in 1986 when I saw "Aliens." The next year I noticed "Beverly Hills Cop II" did it. A couple years later: "Lethal Weapon 2."

Changing the aspect ratio in a subsequent entry in a film series often snaps me out of the movie. (Similarly, I'm not particularly fond of watching dubbed movies nor am I receptive to returning characters in a sequel being portrayed by a different actor.)

I should emphasize that by "scope," in this case, I'm referring strictly to the release format, not the origination. But...bringing origination into the mix, some recent sequels, prequels and reboots have been shot in High-Def or Super-35 whereas their predecessors may have been shot anamorphic. ("Casino Royale," "Star Wars"...). This bothers me, too, though less so than my other example because at least in these cases the aspect ratio remained the same, and it's the aspect ratio that, in a sense, establishes the "window" of the "world" the characters inhabit, and when that window is changed it is as if the characters are wandering around a different world than before.

Am I just being weird here, or do some of you share my view?

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 05-25-2010, 10:32 AM:

Wow. I have seriously never, ever even noticed that. Ever. But I tend to take one movie at a time, I can't remember which ones were flat and which were scope after they're done playing. Only in rare cases I might remember and even then it's usually when there's been a problem to correct with that movie so I've had to check multiple times.

I for one think that each movie should be _a_movie_ in the first place and only secondly a sequel to something else. They should all, no matter if it's the umpteent sequel, in my opinion, be able to stand on their own and represent themselves, not the series.

Different directors, different actors, different formats... the only thing I think I notice is the actors [Big Grin]

if I really like (or hate) a character, I do usually dislike to see it done by another actor, but... the latecomes may well do it better! You only know if you get over the initial "no..." and give it a go.

Ashamed to admit this, I truly am, but I liked the Victoria character in the Twilight series, done by Rachelle Lefevre. Bitchy enough. And for the next movie I notice she's been swapped for Bryce Dallas Howard. Initial reaction; same as any teenage fan of the series. (like, eeeewwhhh!!) Then remembered my age and to act accordingly, to see how she does it. I'm sure she'll be just as bitchy.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 05-25-2010, 11:11 AM:

Were the James Bond movies the first examples of going from flat to scope (with a brief reversion to flat in the early 1970s)?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-25-2010, 11:28 AM:

The ultimate is Soderberg's Che. Part 1 was flat, Part 2 was Scope. The roadshow version was both parts together, so they had to change lenses during intermission.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-25-2010, 11:34 AM:

I'm sure the Shrek thing has something to do with Technicolor 3D only really doing well for Scope, being an over/under format.

Steve

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-25-2010, 11:59 AM:

Per one of your examples:
Batman Begins isn't a sequel to the Tim Burton's Batman.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-25-2010, 01:09 PM:

Aspect ratio changes for movies in the same series is not all that common, but it is nothing new either. I don't care for the lack of consistency unless there is a good reason for the deviation. If the original movie is shot flat, then I think all of its sequels should be shot in the same aspect ratio.

The same thing goes for the shooting method. If the original movie is shot anamorphic, then all of its sequels should be filmed anamorphic as well. I don't like it when one movie is shot with anamorphic lenses and then a sequel is shot in Super35. Anamorphic has a very differnt look from spherical shooting, especially when depth of field gets narrow.

Some odd examples:

The Hustler was shot in CinemaScope, in black and white. Its sequel, The Color of Money, for which Paul Newman finally won as Oscar, was shot flat and in color. Even more funny, The Color of Money had 70mm blow-up prints.

Chinatown was shot in anamorphic Panavision. The Two Jakes was composed flat, yet was another odd 1.85:1 movie with 70mm blow up prints.

The original installment of Blade was shot in anamorphic 'scope, but Guillermo del Toro shot Blade II flat. Blade: Trinity was shot in Super35. Guillermo del Toro filmed the first Hellboy movie flat. He also directed the sequel, but shot that one in Super35 instead.

Alien and Aliens is one of the more glaringly obvious examples due to the enduring popularity of those films. At least both had 70mm blow up prints.

The first Spiderman movie was shot flat. Then Sam Raimi filmed the two sequels in Super35. He even made some use of 65mm cameras for the L-train sequence in Spiderman 2.

I could go on and on.

Back in the late 1980s the flat format had a tyrannical dominance over aspect ratio choices thanks in part to the influence of the booming VHS home video industry. Even a lot of movies shot in 'scope during the 1980s were careful to confine much of the important action into a safe pan and scan zone. Scope movies that made good use of the wide frame (I think Ghostbusters is a good example) were rare in the 1980s.

Today, the 'scope format has a tyranny of its own on major movie releases. Super35 has allowed many productions to fill the screen at the movie theater and fill the screen on home video. Unfortunately with trying to be all things to all movie distribution mediums Super35 is prone to bland compositions. With anamorphic you're locked into a specific frame shape. I also believe the 'scope format is being overused due to pop cultural fashions. Lots of music videos and TV commercials are shot with anamorphic lenses and letter-boxed. The novelty of doing this wore off years ago.

I also wonder if the 2.39:1 ratio is being chosen to save a few pennies on rendering time and conserve disc space. A flat movie in 2K is 1998 X 1080 pixels, a total of 2157840 pixels. A 'scope movie in 2K is 2048 X 852, a total of 1744896 pixels -412944 fewer pixels. Bump things up to 4K levels and that difference gets even bigger.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-25-2010, 02:43 PM:

Michael you make a really interesting point about the characters almost inhabiting a different world because of the ratio change. It's something I've never really noticed but will look out for.

The aspect ratio change worked well in 'Che', saw the film over consecutive days so noticed the change in ratio here. The first part is full of battles, and the plot is more epic and congratulatory in its tone, great for scope. The second part is more intimate and has less action and for me this suits a flat frame.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-25-2010, 07:40 PM:

Smokey and the Bandit 3 was scope while 1 and 2 were flat.

I thought 'Che' was the other war around...Part one in Scope and part two in flat.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-25-2010, 10:39 PM:

I am always taken aback when the format changes in a sequel!It makes me instantly start analysing the reason for such a switch.

What happens when a flat movie goes to Tech 3d?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-26-2010, 04:07 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Per one of your examples: Batman Begins isn't a sequel to the Tim Burton's Batman.

I didn't claim it was. What I claimed was that it falls into the "reboot" category.

quote: Michael Coate
As well, some recent remakes and reboots have followed this pattern (e.g. "Fame," "A Nightmare On Elm Street," and the Christopher Nolan "Batman" movies).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2010, 04:14 PM:

So the reboot should be flat as well? Batman Begins being scope actually bothers you? WTF, man?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-26-2010, 05:02 PM:

No, it doesn't really bother me, Joe. It does bother me, though, that Tim Burton made his 1989 Batman in flat; I really think it ought to have been scope. I recall a WTF moment when I found out it was flat.

Switching up the format for a reboot doesn't really bother me, and, in some respects, it makes sense if they're going for a fresh approach. When I mentioned the reboot thing in my initial post it was simply to point out that some recent reboots and remakes were following a similar pattern/trend as sequels. (Was I unclear in my original posting, or are some of you guys missing my point because you're multitasking while reading?)

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-26-2010, 05:14 PM:

In a lot of cases, a new film means a new DP and Director, and they want to express their creative vision as they see fit. That may mean a change of format.

Especially for something like the Bond franchise, where everybody gets to put their own stamp on it, rather than trying to look like every previous film...

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-26-2010, 05:54 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
No, it doesn't really bother me, Joe. It does bother me, though, that Tim Burton made his 1989 Batman in flat; I really think it ought to have been scope. I recall a WTF moment when I found out it was flat.

Tim Burtin is a 'Flat' director.

His two scope movies are a deviation from the norm. I recall in the 'making of' book about Mars Attacks he originally was going to shoot flat but was urged by the DP to shoot scope.

As for Planet of The Apes, his other scope movie, who knows? DP on that movie Philippe Rousselot shoots flat and scope, (and went on to shoot two flat movies with Burton (Big Fish and Charlie & The Chocolate Factory)

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 05-26-2010, 06:27 PM:

How many releases are in 2.35 (2.40):1 lately?

Answer: Too many.

Its a byproduct of the mindset that my new, you-beaut plasma
[dlp]

has a wide screen and dammit I want it filled!

The same goes for cinema audiences too. Some patrons feel ripped off if that big screen up front doesn't get filled.

Never mind that realistic and appropriate composition goes out the window, as long as the screen gets filled then thats got to be good.

Super 35mm as an originating format can be blamed in part for the general degradation of release print image quality, as can 2k DI's. Every Super 35 print released in 2.35 :1 goes through a conversion (blow up) and extraction process whether optical or digital. Contrast this with shooting in anamorphic, same scene-same shot, and the quality degradation is obvious. Frame size in film origination is everything and in this regard, the anamorphic 35mm frame size wins hands down.

So why aren't more films shot in anamorphic compared to Super 35? The answer here is cost. The lenses cost more to rent, the shallower depth of field requires (usually) more light and more time is needed in focus blocking.

The whole reason for the 'scope frame - larger frame more closely matching human field of vision - has been surplanted by the need to fill that screen irregardless of composition asthetics.

Thats sad indeed.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-26-2010, 07:18 PM:

Home HDTV screens are 16:9 or 1.77:1. The 1.85:1 ratio would some much closer to filling those screens than the 2.39:1 'scope format. The Super35 format allows the movie to fill the screen at most commercial movie theaters (except for those ghastly common width houses) and fill the screen on home video.

I'm still suspicious about the frequent use of 2.39:1 being a cost savings move to speed up rendering times and conserve optical disc bit budgets. How many movies on Blu-ray originated in Super35 have had their 2.39:1 cropped images opened up to 1.77:1? I can't think of any. Many in the public do not like letter-boxing yet there has been no move at this point to offer dual Blu-ray inventories of 1.77:1 and 2.39:1 framing options for movies shot in 'scope. Dual framing options either in the same package or two different retail packages were common on DVD.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-27-2010, 09:24 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I'm sure the Shrek thing has something to do with Technicolor 3D only really doing well for Scope, being an over/under format.

If it really was 1.85:1, for Technicolor 3D, couldn't they simply have window-boxed the image within the scope over/under frames just as is customarily done on scope trailers and what used to be done with 70mm blow-ups?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-27-2010, 09:44 PM:

They could...but you would have wild hard matting with that...and that only works for side masking theatres.

How about vertical masking theatres? The flat picture would look awfully small for a "premium" charge!

Steve

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-27-2010, 11:23 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
Was I unclear in my original posting, or are some of you guys missing my point because you're multitasking while reading?

I can't speak for others, but as for myself I was driving when I initially read your post on my iPod Touch. Since the screen is so small, I kind of had to squint a bit and hold my hand up to block the sun from washing out the screen. It's all kind of hard to do when the other hand must be on the steering wheel.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-28-2010, 03:05 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
Switching up the format for a reboot doesn't really bother me, and, in some respects, it makes sense if they're going for a fresh approach. When I mentioned the reboot thing in my initial post it was simply to point out that some recent reboots and remakes were following a similar pattern/trend as sequels. (Was I unclear in my original posting, or are some of you guys missing my point because you're multitasking while reading?)

Yes. You were unclear.

Essentially, you said "This business of switching formats with sequels gets on my nerves" and followed it with "Even some reboots follow the same pattern." Since the second comes directly after the first, it would appear to be in the same vein (being part of your complaint).

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-28-2010, 11:07 AM:

When you see a sequel you want to feel like you’ve returned to the same world you visited before. To most of us, the first thing we notice is the shape of the frame. So, like Mike, I’m pretty distracted and I want a very good excuse for such a radical change. In the case of Batman Begins, the ‘scope frame was great! It said, “Remember those previous, horrible Batman movies? This is different.” Whew!

But what about those movies which change aspect ratios during the movie? (Does Che count? I never watched it.) The only time this “worked” for me was Galaxy Quest... maybe because it was part of the joke. It was an interesting effect in The Horse Whisperer only because I didn’t notice the exact moment when it happened. Still, it made me never want to watch the first reel of that movie again and, as a result, I’ve never bothered to watch any of that movie a second time.

P.S. I’m a little tired of the word “prequel.” And “reboot” isn’t really true. They’re just spoiler words which still mean “sequel.”

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-28-2010, 12:26 PM:

For Lethal Weapon I remember reading or hearing a commentary from Richard Donner stating that the original director of the film, I don't remember the name or if it was mentioned, was fired or had to leave the project for some reason. After viewing the already shot footage he decided that re-shooting scenes would apparently stress the already stretched budget so he decided to just finish the film with minor re-shoots. This was apparently why the format stayed flat and not his usual scope style of film making.

There is the stupid artistic decision Spike Lee made on Crooklyn where he used an anamorphic lens for a 20 minute segment on a film that is projected flat. Every time that reel ran through someone would come out complaining about the picture.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2010, 01:06 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
But what about those movies which change aspect ratios during the movie? (Does Che count? I never watched it.) The only time this “worked” for me was Galaxy Quest... maybe because it was part of the joke.

If there is a logical reason for the aspect ratio change during the movie I probably won't be bothered much by it.

Superman: The Movie, The Road Warrior and The Incredibles are all 'scope movies that feature 1.33:1 footage in the very beginning. All three use the old news reel motif for the 1.33:1 footage. And all three make very good, dramatic transitions in opening the frame to 'scope.

quote:
P.S. I’m a little tired of the word “prequel.” And “reboot” isn’t really true. They’re just spoiler words which still mean “sequel.”

In the case of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight those movies are indeed part of a "reboot" or "reimagining" of the Batman saga. They absolutely are not sequels of the Tim Burton series of Batman movies. There's really no way at all for The Dark Knight to be a sequel to the 1989 version of Batman. The Joker is in both movies, but The Joker dies in the end of the '89 version.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-28-2010, 01:33 PM:

But from the point of view of the "suits" who green-light these projects, they're all sequels. They're only remade or "rebooted" based on the ability to lure people in because the public already showed an interest in the franchise.

Try to explain to the non-fanboy how the newest Star Trek movie is related to the rest of that franchise. The simple explanation is: It's a sequel.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2010, 02:39 PM:

The "suits" running movie studios and the "suits" running the parent companies of movie studios absolutely do love selling the same kind of movie over and over again. Nevertheless, I still disagree with your definition of sequel. It's far too broad and non-specific. Any further broadening of the term "sequel" and it would apply to any dramatic work performed in front of a camera.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-28-2010, 02:54 PM:

When I hear "prequel," "reboot" and "re-imagining" I think someone's trying to sell me snake oil. These are gimmick words which imply that, somehow, these will be better than normal sequels. I've decided to stop falling for that.

Just sayin'.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-28-2010, 03:10 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Essentially, you said "This business of switching formats with sequels gets on my nerves" and followed it with "Even some reboots follow the same pattern." Since the second comes directly after the first, it would appear to be in the same vein (being part of your complaint).

I didn't say those things in that order. (Come on, Chris! That's twice now that you've misquoted and misunderstood me.)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-28-2010, 04:59 PM:

I don't see what the big deal is. It's generally 3 years or more between entries in a franchise, so who cares if the format changes? It's probably driven by the director and/or the budget.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-28-2010, 07:43 PM:

As far as the terms "prequel" and "reboot", I don't think anyone is trying to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes. They are very discriptive terms. "Prequel" means the movie takes place before the established tmeline. "Reboot" means that while the same characters, world and events may be similar, it's a different story altogether. "Sequel" means the story is a continuation that takes place after the established timeline. I guess Romeo + Juliet is a sequel since it's been made multiple times. I think the term you are looking for instead of sequel is "installment". That makes more sense. It doesn't matter if it is a reboot, prequel or sequel... if you say "the next installment in the Batman franchise", it works.

Michael Coate, yes, you could have been more clear. In fact, there was no reason for you to mention the reboots because it is irrelevant to the subject matter of your post which is how format changes in sequels bother you. So why mention them at all? If I were your editor, that section would have been omitted as it does nothing to explain your case and instead simply adds noise to the point you are trying to get across. And yes, you did post it in the order in which Chris quoted you, though not verbatim.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-28-2010, 09:46 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
And yes, you did post it in the order in which Chris quoted you, though not verbatim.

You're wrong, Joe (and Chris). If you go back to my original posting, you'll see that it wasn't until the third paragraph that I said anything about disliking these changes in aspect ratio. I mentioned "Batman" and the reboot stuff before that in the second paragraph.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-28-2010, 10:36 PM:

That's why I said "not verbatim". Regardless of the order, reboots were still needlessly grouped in. You could have done better, being a published author and all.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-29-2010, 01:09 AM:

Jeez. What the hell? I guess Mike can dish out the correctiveness but can never ever take being corrected by anyone else.
[Razz]

BTW Mike, any insults you direct at me over this response will only reinforce your image as the Internet policeman guy who is always on watch to correct anyone at all times. You know more than anyone else and must always remind anyone and everyone of this fact. Heh heh.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-29-2010, 07:58 AM:

Quite frankly, I don't care if a movie is flat, scope, true Imax or shown on the back of a cereal box...I just care if it's a good story with compelling characters.

Same with 3-D or silent films with musical sound track...after the first few minutes one should become unaware of the peripherals. If I start noticing formats or gimmicks during the movie, the moviemaker just isn't doing their job.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-29-2010, 08:41 AM:

Frank Tashlin had a solution for these format problems:

The Girl Can't Help it Intro

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-29-2010, 09:02 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
I didn't say those things in that order. (Come on, Chris! That's twice now that you've misquoted and misunderstood me.)

quote: Michael Coate
You're wrong, Joe (and Chris). If you go back to my original posting, you'll see that it wasn't until the third paragraph that I said anything about disliking these changes in aspect ratio. I mentioned "Batman" and the reboot stuff before that in the second paragraph.

The first paragraph alone already implies that you didn't really care for the changes of aspect ratios. Just because you took until paragraph three to be explicit about it doesn't mean I'm so dumb to have not figured it out already.

edit:
In any case, even if I hadn't noticed the implication early, sandwiching something you didn't intend to complain about between your complaint and the example of the thing your complaining about makes them seem like they should all be together as one general thought/idea.

Hope that makes sense.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-29-2010, 10:02 PM:

I do not appreciate being misquoted or accused of being a hypocrite. Nevertheless, I will concede that I could have written my original post more effectively. I should have ended my post after the first paragraph.

I guess my error in judgment was that I thought my post would be more interesting and inspire additional comments if I followed up my initial paragraph with some more examples and an opinion. I suspect some of you, though, after reading the whole post thought my main point was that I dislike it when aspect ratios are changed when sequels are made. Not so. My original point was simply to ask if anyone had noticed that some recent sequels had been made in a ratio different than previous entries in their series and to consider whether it is part of a trend. That's what appeared in the subject header and initial paragraph, but because I devoted the majority of my post to providing examples and an opinion, plus closing the post with a question, I think that misled some of you into thinking my point was about my dislike for the format switch-ups.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-29-2010, 10:14 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
I do not appreciate being misquoted or accused of being a hypocrite.

No one accused you of being a hypocrite. Talk about a misquote...

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-30-2010, 09:00 AM:

[sleep]

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 05-30-2010, 10:26 AM:

Folks:

For me it really does not matter if the sequel changes formats.

What bother me the most are films being shot in scope when flat would be the more appropriate aspect ratio. I agree, this is most likely a result of the wide screen TV fetish.

Mike

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2010, 10:34 AM:

But again, Flat is closer to widescreen TV. Scope still leaves black bars. Flat will appear to cover all/most of a 16:9 screen, so Flat would be the widescreen TV choice.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-30-2010, 12:28 PM:

It is a ugly scenario for film in that flat more closely matches HDTV screens yet scope is the best way to use the potential of 35mm compared to flat.At least it was that way before common width!

I really hope 70mm makes a comeback for shooting at least!
Thank you Christopher Nolan!

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 05-31-2010, 04:41 AM:

You all need to [sex]

more.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 05-31-2010, 05:35 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Guillermo del Toro filmed the first Hellboy movie flat. He also directed the sequel, but shot that one in Super35 instead.

I know there have been a lot of complaints on this thread of people misunderstanding & misquoting ... so let me ask to be clear, are you claiming Hellboy II The Golden Army is scope? Because it was definitely released in cinemas flat. (I've not watched it on DVD)

--

Also, on a side note, Tim Burton's was not the first time Batman made it to the big screen... nobody has mentioned the 1943 15-part theatrical release of Batman (B&W with a 1.37:1 aspect ratio) or the 1966 (color, 1.85) one between seasons one and two of the TV series starring Adam West.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2010, 01:01 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
You all need to more.

Thanks for the advice AND your valuable contribution to the thread.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-31-2010, 03:06 PM:

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
I know there have been a lot of complaints on this thread of people misunderstanding & misquoting ... so let me ask to be clear, are you claiming Hellboy II The Golden Army is scope? Because it was definitely released in cinemas flat. (I've not watched it on DVD)

I didn't see Hellboy II: The Golden Army in the theater. I could have sworn it was 2.39:1 on Blu-ray. But looking it up again the movie is indeed 1.85:1. My bad.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-01-2010, 08:32 AM:

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
I know there have been a lot of complaints on this thread of people misunderstanding & misquoting ... so let me ask to be clear, are you claiming Hellboy II The Golden Army is scope? Because it was definitely released in cinemas flat. (I've not watched it on DVD)

It is possible to shoot in Super 35 and project at 1.85.
True most Super 35 films are projected at 2.35 but not all.

Most recent example of a 'flat' Super35 movie was The Spy Next Door.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 06-01-2010, 07:06 PM:

quote: Michael Brown
It is possible to shoot in Super 35 and project at 1.85

I thought so, that's why I wanted to clarify. [Smile]

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 06-02-2010, 09:56 AM:

Indeed, it is the Super 1.85 format.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-03-2010, 01:16 PM:

Is this really a problem? COme on, guys. Maybe if they went from scope to flat, I would be complaining. I don't see how this is a bad thing.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-03-2010, 03:53 PM:

That has happened in the past.

Alien to Aliens

Legally Blonde to Legally Blond 2

Blade to Blade 2.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 06-03-2010, 04:11 PM:

Also "Diamonds Are Forever" to "Live and Let Die"

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-03-2010, 06:39 PM:

Also The Man With The Golden Gun to The Spy Who Loved Me!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-03-2010, 06:56 PM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Maybe if they went from scope to flat, I would be complaining.

quote: Michael Brown
That has happened in the past.

Alien to Aliens

quote: Hillary Charles
Also "Diamonds Are Forever" to "Live and Let Die"

quote:
Also The Man With The Golden Gun to The Spy Who Loved Me!

That last one went the other way.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-03-2010, 07:25 PM:

Yes sorry i forgot to say flat to scope on that one!
[Frown]

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-08-2010, 08:43 PM:

Seriously, is this really a problem?
I would understand if it was scope to flat.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-08-2010, 10:05 PM:

If IMDB is to be believed, the sequels to the scope The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo are both flat.

Posted by Paer Hoegberg (Member # 3133) on 06-09-2010, 11:05 AM:

Korrekt.
The reason was: The first (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) was made for the cinemas - the sequels was supposed to go right to TV.
But - because of the success of the first film they showed all thee on cinemas.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-09-2010, 11:40 AM:

The second two must be a lot lighter on all of the raping, smoking and the vomiting (the only things I ever see when walking past the projector playing the first one) if they were meant for a TV audience.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-09-2010, 11:51 AM:

Yeah, just dying to see how they clean it up for the American remake.

We're showing DragonTattoo right now and doing very well. The weird part is the audience is the little old broad brit lit twit shit audience. I guess that's the demo that reads books. So far not a single complaint or walkout. Though one teenager did sit out the first rape scene in the lobby.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-09-2010, 12:09 PM:

I have a hard time even looking at the main actress in that movie because she is so fugly it makes me turn my eyes away from the screen as quickly as possible. We haven't gotten any complaints, either, but we did get a lot of complaints about Greenberg for whatever reason.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-09-2010, 12:20 PM:

We showed Greenburg last week. No complaints, but not much of an audience either.

DragonTatto is a much better looking film than Greenburg, no matter what you think of the leads. I'm hoping Greenburg was shot that ugly on purpose as an artistic choice. I thought something may be wrong with our projectors, but DragonTattoo is sharp and bright and looks really good.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-09-2010, 01:39 PM:

Definitely agree there. I assume it uses special Swede film stock as it wraps slightly looser than our other prints.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-09-2010, 03:51 PM:

It looks great on screen...as opposed to the horribly awful Date Night lensed by Academy Award winning cinematographer Dean Semler. I couldn't believe the credit I saw on that movie.

Just awful.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-17-2010, 03:41 AM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
If IMDB is to be believed, the sequels to the scope The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo are both flat.

the flat trailer for the girl who played with fire is letterboxed. what up with that?