Harryhausen fans rejoice! THE THREE WORLDS OF GULLIVER coming from Columbia in April (1 Viewer)

[GerardoHP]

Good point, Robert, although it could be argued that Ray Harryhausen was much more than director of special effects on the films he worked on. He was integral to the entire process of conceptualizing and producing his films, and had major creative input in the stories, characters, scenes that were kept in and deleted, etc. I can't imagine that RH would not have had a say in how the films were formatted for the screen, or that his SFX would not have been designed with the screen format in mind.

 

[David Lambert]

Well, I DID successfully return mine.

Let me know when the debate is settled. If it's OAR, I'll repurchase.

If not, I'll wait...forever if necessary.

No original aspect ratio equals no sale!

¡Ninguna razón original del aspecto iguala no venta!

Aucune proportion d'aspect originale égale aucune vente!

Kein ursprüngliches Aspekt Verhältnis gleicht keinem Verkauf!

Nessuno rapporto di aspetto originale uguaglia nessuna vendita!

Ingen originalt aspektforhold ikke er lik noen salg!

Nenhum relação original de aspecto não iguala nenhum venda!

 

[Daniel Schenk]

I noticed that the upcoming R2 German release says "16x9 Widescreen 1.85:1".
Now is this the way to go or not?
Link to the Columbia page: Link Removed

 

[Douglas R]

UK version is due out on 22 April and the cover clearly states "Widescreen". So why have Columbia issued the film full frame in the USA and widescreen in Europe? Probably because widescreen is more widely (no pun intended!) accepted by Joe public in Europe.

 

[RobertR]

I can't imagine that RH would not have had a say in how the films were formatted for the screen, or that his SFX would not have been designed with the screen format in mind.

Good point, but then that would tend to support what Jack was saying. If RH composed his FX for full frame, shouldn't that be what's used?

I can foresee that this entire debate is going to be reignited when Mysterious Island is released. The IMDB says it was full frame. The LD of it is full frame. So will the DVD of it be full frame (the movie was made around 1961, BTW) or matted widescreen? Why or why not?

 

[GerardoHP]

I strongly suspect Ray Harryhausen's non-scope films were intended to be shown at 1.66:1. When films that were released in the 60's are released full frame on video, they almost certainly (99.99%) are not in their original theatrical aspect ratio.

My personal feeling is that this has to do more with the studio's perception that the American public prefers full frame to widescreen video than with the producers' original intent or to show the special effects in their entirety.

 

[RobertR]

I strongly suspect Ray Harryhausen's non-scope films were intended to be shown at 1.66:1.

It sounds like RH's films have never been shown correctly on video. BTW, I found an old newsgroup post from Joe Caps, which may clarify (or muddy!) the issue:

quote:

when I originally wanted to release Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, Mysterious Island, and Jason and the Argonauts

( which we later traded to Criterion) I wanted to letterbox all three films. In Europe it would have been shown at 1:66 to 1 and in American at 1:70 or 1:75 which is the ratio that, for ewxample, Disney and Warners used for their "widescreeen" movies. We found it impossible to do so because on the original interpositives each shot was a different aspect ratio. One shot would be 1:33, thenext would be 1:66 or 1:75, then the next would be something else. This was not a case of the live action being one ration and the effects shot being something else. The ratio were random. I asked Ray Harryhausen about this and he said it was based on whatever camera was available on which day!

 

[GerardoHP]

That makes sense to me. In any case, 1.33:1 is neither the "intended" nor the "original" aspect ratio.

 

[David Lambert]

One shot would be 1:33, thenext would be 1:66 or 1:75, then the next would be something else. This was not a case of the live action being one ratio and the effects shot being something else. The ratio were random. I asked Ray Harryhausen about this and he said it was based on whatever camera was available on which day!

Arrrrrrrrrrrggghhhhhhh! My head is now spinning!!!!
Q: What's the correct ratio of The Exorcist? A: 6.66:1! :p)

 

[soop.spoon]

That makes sense to me. In any case, 1.33:1 is neither the "intended" nor the "original"

And neither is 1.85:1, 1.70:1 or 1.66:1. So what to do?
IN THIS EXTREME AND UNUSAL CASE, I APPLAUD COLUMBIA FOR GIVING US THE MOST PICTURE POSSIBLE. In my opionion, Ray's artistry takes precendence over widescreen extremism. Mr. Caps even confirms my point about 7th Voyage being over-matted. Why should Columbia make the same mistake again?

 

[GerardoHP]

And neither is 1.85:1, 1.70:1 or 1.66:1.

Nonsense. It's a good guess that the OAR would be either 1.66 or 1.85, the formats at which this film was surely exhibited. On video, it would be a safe and reasonable bet to transfer this film at 1.78:1. Any one of those shapes would be closer to the original theatrical format than 1.33:1. Also, a lot of films are shot at different ratios, but they're all projected pretty much in one standard shape.

 

[GerardoHP]

Don't risk burning your TV. Watch it zoomed in and you will most likely be looking at what audiences saw in theaters when it opened, or a great approximation thereof. Unfortunately, the quality won't be the same as if it was anamorphic, but you'll spare your TV.

 

[soop.spoon]

Watch it zoomed in and you will most likely be looking at what audiences saw in theaters when it opened

[sarcasm]
Exactly. Because nothing is ever more important than how it may (or may not have been) projected. Joe Caps, Harryhausen enthusiasts and the people at Columbia are just dead wrong about the 4:3 framing.
[/sarcasm]
There's only so many times I can make my point... had to resort to sarcastic tactics sooner or later.

 

[GerardoHP]

And it seemed perfect to me, perfectly framed, nothing missing, or cut out of the picture.

Just as I thought. Now if only CTS would stop giving in to J6P pressure and go back to issuing widescreen films in anamorphic widescreen DVD!

 

[soop.spoon]

And now that you've insulted me by calling me (and Joe Caps) "J6P", I'll gracefully bow out of this thread. You seem determined to get the last dig in, so here you go, Gerardo.... it's all yours.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Let's keep this discussion nice, guys. As I said earlier in this thread, I'll be spending 2 entire days with Harryhausen (I've been appointed his official assistant/liasion/baggage carrier/whatever) at the Lake Placid Film Forum in June. I will bring printed out screenshots of all of the DVDs, corresponding scenes from the trailers, and anything else I can find. I will even bring my laptop and the actual DVDs to show him. I promise that I will ask him what he thinks *should* be the correct aspect ratio for these films.

Can we let the subject rest until then?

 

[Jonathan.e]

Details of the Spanish DVD:

Audio Features: Mono

Video Features: Pal 1.85:1, 16:9

Audio Languages: Mono: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian

Subtitles: English, German, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, Portuguese, Hebrew, Polish, Greek, Czech, Turkish, Hungarian, Icelandic, French, Italian, Arabic, Hindu, Bulgarian

Great news for Icelandic W/S TV owners!

 

[GerardoHP]

Details of the Spanish DVD:

Jonathan, what company is releasing this title in R2?

 

[Jonathan.e]

Gerardo - would you believe: it’s Columbia Tri Star! Don’t you just love those double standards?

 

[GerardoHP]

Just as I figured, Jonathan. Obviously CTS's decision to issue it full screen in the US has nothing to do with artistic considerations but with catering to the US mass market. As much as I hate this choice, I can't blame them for being in it for the money, but I would still like them to make it available to us in enhanced widescreen. Maybe some day, and maybe if they got some mail from those of us who care about seeing the films in widescreen...