Another fullscreen disaster: Iceman (1 Viewer)

[ScottCor]

hmmm..... John, I think you would have to be E.G. Marshall, as Jeff sounds a little more cranky and angry so he get's the Lee Cobb part..

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jeff,
yeah, that's usually what happens, but IMO it's healthy to exercise this issue every now and again, how else will newbies learn?

Being as devoted as I am, when I read such things, I must speak up and try to teach them, just as I was taught when I started learning about OAR. Sometimes it helps them out, other times it doesn't. I feel proud that I may have turned a few around over the years.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yup, I agree. I too must speak up and try to teach. My techniques are just a little more world weary than most. I feel most of the "I'm the only one who has ever challenged this" types need to know that it has all been said before and every "I have a new reason why MAR is OK" type needs to know that no "new" argument is really new. I guess every E.G. Marshall needs a Lee J. Cobb.

By the way, can't we assume a different role, at least one more sympathetic to our cause? Say, Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind"? I really can't relate OAR vs. MAR to going up against Henry Fonda.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Actually, Jeff, i've always fancied myself as Bruce Willis as John McClane in Die Hard.

I casually stroll into a thread expecting to have a good time and then without warning BAM!! all hell breaks loose and I end up fighting for what's right.

In fact, as I type this, I have no shoes or socks on.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Now I'm with you. Except my own personal view is that I'm Bruce Willis (hey, it is MY view - Yippee Ki Yay!) and you can be Reginald Vel Johnson, the calm, detached guy on the ground supporting my insanity with logic and insight. Course, with me as McClane, the lid usually blows off the building, er uhm, thread.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I hate Twinkies.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I too consider myself a hardened OAR supporter. I don't make exceptions for open matte films, or even Super35 films. I also agree that a filmaker cannot compose a film for two different ratio's. Film is meant to be shown at the theater, so if it is matted at the theater, then I want it matted to that same aspect ratio when I watch it on my home theater.

I make exceptions only for animated films that are animated at 1.66:1, because the animators would not spend time animating something that was not supposed to be shown.

 

[walter o]

I too consider myself a hardened OAR supporter. I don't make exceptions for open matte films, or even Super35 films. I also agree that a filmaker cannot compose a film for two different ratio's. Film is meant to be shown at the theater, so if it is matted at the theater, then I want it matted to that same aspect ratio when I watch it on my home theater.
-----

OK, but what about films shot at 16mm, or shot for tv, and the director had no idea he was to matte it for framing in the theatre? Good example, George Romero film MARTIN, or PINK FLAMINGO's (where there has been controversy that the dVD is over matted), or MR MIKES MONDO VIDEO, TRUTH MADLY DEEPLY, etc. Matting those at the theeatres caused you to LOSE images the filmmakers intended you to see.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Walter,
if a director had no idea that his film/tv show would be matted for theatrical exhibition, he would have naturally composed for 4x3, therfore, 4x3 would be it's OAR.

And 4x3 is how i'd want it.

 

[Gary Palmer]

And then, of course, there are those directors who use Super 35 and compose at 2.35 for theaters, only to reframe at 1.78 for home theater (cf. THE RECRUIT, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO, SET IT OFF). In fact, Roger Donaldson DELIBERATELY composed for 2.35/1.78 when he made THE RECRUIT, which means the damn thing isn't one thing or another, and he went on some kind of crusade to say this is a 'good' thing for DVD when it was released on disc! In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he makes all his subsequent movies this way (shudder)...

 

[Ira Siegel]

Compare:

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Gary,
yep, I remember that whole Roger Donaldson mess, and I still haven't even seen that film because of it.

His claim that he shot for 2.35:1 AND 1.78:1 at once is complete and utter bullshit. As stated, you cannot compose for two separate ratios, you have to pick one or the other. It's not possible to compose for 2.35:1 and have it still be visually pleasing (not to mention faithfully rendered) when opened up to 1.78:1 and vice versa.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ira,
I thought we settled this?

I must ask you, do you know what OAR stands for? It means Original Aspect Ratio, if a filmmaker composed for 1.33:1, that's what I want, if a filmmaker composed for 1.85:1, that's what I want, if a filmmaker composed for 2.35:1, that's what I want.

The term OAR does not mean widescreen all the time, that's why I never use that term, it's dangerous, it's too limiting. The term OAR covers everything.

So, if you thought that you somehow caught me making two contradictory statements, your mistaken.

 

[Ira Siegel]

John,
Perhaps I am wrong about the following fact:
At least the first season of Smallville was intended to be shown 4:3 and therefore it was composed 4;3 (OAR) and perhaps protected for wider screen.

If I am not wrong, then yes, you have made contradictory statements.
If I am wrong about the foregoing fact, then I am mistaken about your making contradictory statements.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Good job John, you have stumped the opposition by being completely consistent in your stance. What's next, are you going to support black & white movies that were originally filmed in black & white? You heathen!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Ira,
again, this can't be done.

If the creators of Smallville were composing for a 1.78:1 frame, then everything outside that 1.78:1 frame would be extranious content, in other words, useless dead space intended only for 4x3 veiwing.

The only thing they could really do is keep things like boom mikes, cables and dolly tracks out of the 4x3 area. And in some cases, even in films, they don't even go that far, that's why occasionaly you'll see a boom mike at the top of the screen during an open matte film.

These are called open matte mistakes. If the film or tv show was presented in it's proper matted AR, these problems would be concealed. Look at the film Pee Wees Big Adventure for a really good example of this phenominon, several actually.

When Pee Wee get's to the mall on his bike in the start of the film, he chains his bike to a clown, as he's pulling a seemingly endless chain from his saddlebag, you can see the chain being fed up through a hole undernieth the bag, if the film had been in it's proper AR of 1.85:1, that would have been covered thus not destroying the illusion.

I can go on.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Thanks, Jeff, and yes, if I get within ten feet of a colorized B&W film, I start to convulse.

 

[walter o]

another trend I do not support is matting programs that was meant to be seem fullscreen, like MARTIN, PINK FLAMINGOS, but also older TV shows like KUNG-FU and HOGANS HEROES! To me, widescreening them is a travesty, and is just as wrong as presenting a widescreen scope movie as fullscreen, for both cases, you are going to lose images filmmakers intended you to see.

 

[Dick]

Roger Ebert's web site lists ICEMAN among new DVD releases. It appears to be his original 1982 review, and there is no appendage indicating that the DVD is going to be pan-and-scan. I have sent him an e-mail alterting him to this, in case he isn't aware, as follows:

Mr. Ebert (or whoever reads his e-mails):

You have posted your nice review of ICEMAN in your New-To-DVD column, but perhaps you are unaware that the movie, like a bunch of other Universal films about to emerge on DVD, is being released pan-and-scan only. And that is from a 2.35:1 image, so those who share your enthusiasm for this breathtaking movie (as well as for COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT, another 2.35:1 sci-fi classic) are going to have a bad day when they receive their discs.

I urge you to help those of us who have started or contributed to threads in various forums on the net (including a good one at Home Theater Forum) to question Universal for this abominable decision and encourage them on your web site or t.v. program to release a full letterbox edition in the near future. Disney swallowed its pride with THE ABSENT-MINDED PROFESSOR and Columbia/Sony did for CASTLE KEEP. I'd say it's Universal's turn with this latest batch of budget-priced movies. Seems to me they are shooting themselves in the foot by releasing desecrated DVD's of films that mostly have sales potential among cults and science-fiction aficionados, most of whom will not buy anything but a fully-realized widescreen release.

Thank you in advance for any support you might offer in this matter.

Hope it helps!

 

[PaulaJ]

Dear Dick,

Thanks to your e-mail to Roger Ebert. I hope he puts something up at his site about it.

LOL, I never considered the possibility that posting about the forthcoming Iceman fullscreen disaster would turn this thread into a, shall we say, give and take about OAR vs. open matte. (I am one of the OAR purists -- I don't like open matte, I really do think it destroys composition most of the time and can make energetic, dynamic shots look dull and plain and unimaginative.)

Anyway, the bad news is still a-comin' -- Iceman in 4:3 fullscreen.

I would really, really like to know the name of the person responsible for the decision to release Iceman in this unacceptable format.