Did Galaxy Quest have 3 aspect ratios in the theaters, and will (or even should?) we ever see it on the home release? (1 Viewer)

[cadavra]

It's Paramount, they'll screw that up too!!

They did. I attended the premiere of the "restored" version on the lot, and it went right from 1.37 to 'Scope. I wonder if Parisot knows that they did this.

So right now the correct presentation can only be seen in any surviving 35mm prints.

 

[Capt D McMars]

They did. I attended the premiere of the "restored" version on the lot, and it went right from 1.37 to 'Scope. I wonder if Parisot knows that they did this.

So right now the correct presentation can only be seen in any surviving 35mm prints.

You have to laugh to keep from crying!! Oh Paramount, get off the crack pipe, please!!!

 

[B-ROLL]

Of course, one of the ironies of all this is that after years of people getting used to seeing letterboxed 2.39 movies on TVs, some theaters have come to the conclusion that this is acceptable in theaters, too.

One of my biggest pet peeves right now is the lack of screen masking in a lot of theaters. It just looks tacky to me unless the movie was specifically designed to switch between ratios (and even then I'm not a huge fan of it), and it removes some of the allure of seeing a movie on a theater screen. Fortunately, I live in an area with a number of theaters, some of which do still pretty consistently use their masking (or at least have a mixture of CIH and CIW screens), so I have options. But a lot of people don't anymore.

One argument I've heard in favor of not using masking is that more movies nowadays use unusual ratios like 2:1 or 2.20, but to me that's all the more reason to mask for at least right container. If you have a 2.20: film framed within a 1.85 DCP (like NOPE) and show it on an umasked 2.39 screen, the entire movie is windowboxed, which looks ridiculous. And that's on top of the fact that, although more movies do indeed use those ratios nowadays, the vast majority are still either 1.85 or 2.39. So it's a silly excuse, IMO.

Sorry; this is one of my soap boxes right now.

Back in oldene tymes we didn't need masks we had CURTAINS (or DRAPERIES) that could be moved back or forth(e) and up to change the "size" of the seen screen remotely ...of course some those might get stuck on discarded containers

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I’ve mostly given up on theaters now mainly for the lack of masking, and so many screens being common-width. Galaxy Quest is one movie that should never be shown on a common-width screen, except at home of course. The existing video transfer is “wrong” by my standards.

 

[jayembee]

You assume that framing the shot to only see half of each actor's head is incorrect. That's a legitimate framing as well. However, I can understand why it would feel "wrong" if you're used to seeing the wider version of the shot.

I remember all the debate about letterboxing back in the old Usenet newsgroup days. One instance I recall was someone complaining about the Criterion's letterboxed laserdisc of Blade Runner, specifically calling out an early scene with a close-up of Deckard in his aircar, where the complaint was that the upper black bar cuts off the top of Harrison Ford's head.

I had replied suggesting that if he should watch the "full screen" version, he'll see that the top of Ford's head is still cut off, only this time it's being cut off by the top of the TV set instead of a black bar. Ridley Scott deliberately framed it that way.

 

[Vern Dias]

Back in oldene tymes we didn't need masks we had CURTAINS (or DRAPERIES) that could be moved back or forth(e) and up to change the "size" of the seen screen remotely ...of course some those might get stuck on discarded containers

View attachment 180480

Yes, but in back of those curtains, most likely there was also adjustable masking.

Curtains were almost never used to mask the actual image as they were never black and rarely if ever was the edge of the curtain a perfectly straight line.

A photo from one of my previous home theatres showing an integrated curtain / masking setup. Most theatres that had this setup, however, used a separate motor and track to handle the masking.

 

[SimonTC]

Rumor has it that the decision to use the 2.39:1 aspect ratio for all but the opening TV clip for home video was made by the film's director so as not to confuse viewers that their DVD might be defective, as the first 20 minutes would appear pillarboxed, and likely more frustrating considering when the movie was first released on DVD, most viewers were still watching on their 27-inch 4:3 CRT. The film was shot in Super 35.

Hopefully, if and when Paramount decides to strike a new home video master (they have been recycling that old HD transfer created for the initial DVD release for decades now), they will restore the three different aspect ratios.

The movie was shot 35MM anamorphic Panavision, not Super35.

 

[Todd Erwin]

The movie was shot 35MM anamorphic Panavision, not Super35.

Ok, Ok, I stand corrected.