[Rolando]

First of all yes I do feel dirty at having watched the Fool Screen to know this.

My guess is it was shot in Super 35 because the OAR is 2.35:1 on 1.85 where the Fool Screen would be open matte.

I just saw this for the first time this week. I know, shame on me especially being such a fan of both franchises and owning the DVDs of each. Well when I put in the DVD I obviously chose the OAR and was pleased to see the example when chose showed the widescreen with more info on the sides and the same info on the top and bottom.

However since it was a borrowed copy I decided to view it again before I gave it back. While checking out scenes I thought I would do a small comparison between them since the OAR was 2.35:1 it obviously had to be PAN and SCAN. Well imagine my shock to learn otherwise.

Yup, just checked IMDB and looks like Super 35. Damn it why do they do this? Just confuses the crap out of consumers when even with a 2:35 OAR the Fool Screen version has more info. especially when some of the "extra" visuals are gore and more nudity. It's like the director WANTS us to watch the Fool Screen version

anyway, just ranting...

[Shawn_KE]

Isn't this the same thing with Terminator 3?

The widescreen version is what the director wanted us to see.

[Adam Tyner]

Quote:

Isn't this the same thing with Terminator 3?

It's the same thing with a lot of movies, which is why the "WTF?" in the subject line baffles me. OAR isn't about getting "more" information...it's about getting the right information.

[WillG]

Super 35 has been around for a long time. This is not anything new. Also, Full screen transfers of Super 35 films are often cropped in many places. Sometimes it is not very major, sometimes quite substantially.

Better get used to it as it is replacing anamorphic photography.

[Tim-H.]

especially when some of the "extra" visuals are gore and more nudity. It's like the director WANTS us to watch the Fool Screen version

Hold fast, OAR advocate, this is the true test of your mettle!

[Rolando]

I know what you Adam. The WTF? was not so much a "since when" but more of a Why? I know James Cameron loves this process. From Abyss to T2 I he has used it. I know the 3 Harry Potters and the 3 Lord of the Rings movies are like this and it irks me that it confuses people who don't understand OAR Vs P&S.

I understand that it's about seeing what is intended. NOT MORE and surely NOT LESS. We were not meant to see John Cleese was wearing boxers. We were not meant to see Booms/Microphones. We were not meant to see above X actor's hair line or see their shoes.

But when what is revealed is extra blood/gore FX and more frontal nudity tell me who will want to watch OAR? don't get me wrong. I will watch OAR because I am so darn anal about it. But let's face it how many people see these kinds of movies for dialogue or admiring scenery? We will watch it for suspense, chills, scares and thrills. we want to see cool FX and T&A. let's not be coy. 80% of target audience is hoping for it, waiting on it.

It should not be the MAR version that has the extra intestines on the floor or the better/longer view of frontal nudity.

[Malcolm R]

Sigh.

"More" does not always equal "better."

[Jeff B.]

Quote:

OAR isn't about getting "more" information...it's about getting the right information.

So where does that put us with dvd's such as Full Metal Jacket? It certainly isn't OAR -- but it is how Kubrick preferred the film, open matte 1.33:1 ratio.

Anyways Rolando, all I can say is that sometimes the director chooses to shoot in an aspect that would not be optimum for the theater (Kubrick). This film was shot in Super 35, so I don't know about their decision to open matte the fullscreen. I guess if there has to be fullscreen, more is better then less right?

[WillG]

Quote:

But let's face it how many people see these kinds of movies for dialogue or admiring scenery? We will watch it for suspense, chills, scares and thrills. we want to see cool FX and T&A.

It seems that you are contradicting yourself here. You seem to suggest that most people don't really care about framing, and watch a movie for content. Fair enough. But then you point out that we want to see T&A and more gore. So then, it is about framing.

I guess what I am asking is, does it really matter that in FvJ you see a half a second of more breast in the MAR version? Most Open Matte Super35 transfers look awful to me, just way to much headroom in many shots or even full blown pan and scan.

I'm sure you know that there are, in many cases, very practical reasons for shooting in Super 35. In the case of FvJ where most of the action took place at night, I'm sure it was much easier using Super 35 where lighting challenges are made much easier as opposed to shooting anamorphic.

I do sometimes lament that it seems like nowadays 4 out of 5 2.35:1 films are derived from Super 35 photography as opposed to true scope. I do agree that it does blur the agruement for the layman to embrace widescreen presentations. But, as I said, were going to have to get used to it.

[Travis W.]

Some friends and I film short movies for the fun of it and we always go for the "matted" look...which technically in our case is cutting off the picture...but it makes it look cool...not sure if this helped at all .

What I'm trying to say, as has been repeated earlier, is that the director obviously didn't want that information shown so that's the way we should watch it.

[TonyD]

off topic..

what are those quote boxes? is that new?

on topic...
what is the point of this thread?
i guess i dont understand the question in the title "wtf?"

arent there numerous threads that explain the difference between open matte and what was intended to be seen by the viewer.

this doesnt seem to be the same as the t-3 situation were that may be an error in framing.