Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

But wouldn't OAR for Fantasia 2000 have a lot to do with the O part of that, and it originally ran in IMAX theaters before being converted for regular theaters and DVD.

Disney considers OAR for all of their animated features to generally be that which the animators prefer. For example, their animated features after The Little Mermaid all originally ran at 1.85:1 in theatres, but their AR is 1.66:1 on DVD, as per the animators preference (and the AR at which the features were animated on their software). Fantasia 2000 continues this trend of being in the AR of the animator's preference on DVD.
DJ

 

[Quentin]

I saw this last week...because, frankly, it was free.
I did not like it much. The AR cropping didn't bother me noticably, but the 20 minutes edited out bothered me a lot. I've seen the film several times at home and believe it's Howard's best...and editing the film did not sit well with me.
But, ultimately, the real problem here for me was that there are only one or two scenes worthy of IMAX in the film. The launch being the big one. As Ebert notes, the rest of the film is character and story based. I'd rather watch it at home...
Maybe AOTC will be better...

 

[Seth Paxton]

Jason and Damin, obviously I didn't realize this. Thanks for the info. I thought F2K had been made for IMAX.

However, it was still released first to IMAX anyway. Not that I don't respect the artists' wishes in the matter, but rather that such things as OAR can be a bit tricky in these instances.

So bascially F2K was the first to really do what Apollo 13 and AOTC are now doing. True conversion for IMAX presentation.

The picture was so brilliant for F2K that its amazing to me to find out that it was 35mm originally.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Oh, and I plan on skipping both of these.

The AOTC DVD will be amazing and the Apollo 13 DVD already is. I like big pictures and big sound as much as the next guy, but then that's why I saw these films at the theater in the first place...properly cut and framed.

I'd rather see an original IMAX film at this point over one of these.

 

[Damin J Toell]

However, it was still released first to IMAX anyway. Not that I don't respect the artists' wishes in the matter, but rather that such things as OAR can be a bit tricky in these instances.

And it's in these instances, I think, when dogmatic adherence to the "first theatre in which a film is released" shows itself as being a rather useless goal. The main consideration should always, it seems to me, be that which the filmmakers prefer. If you ignore the "tricky" nature of having to consider what the AR happens to be in IMAX, the intentions of the animators provide us with the simple, non-tricky answer that we seek. In the vast majority of cases, thankfully, the "first venue" and "filmmakers' preference" considerations line up exactly. In situations like these, however, the superiority of the ideal of preserving filmmakers' intent shows itself. People make movies, not theatres. As such, we should care about what the filmmakers want, not what the AR happened to be in the first venue in which a film ran. Theatres are not always perfectly equipped to deal with every filmmaker's desires when it comes to AR. The desires themselves, however, exist outside of the practical problems of theatrical exhibitions. If we seek the proper AR of a film, it is that transcendantly perfect AR of the filmmakers' desires to which we should aspire.

Just MNSHO. It doesn't quite go along with the segment of the pro-OAR crowd that subscribe to the "first venue" definition of the "O" in "OAR," but I think it fits in precisely with HTF's stated goal of respecting artistic integrity. I think that, all too often, that goal gets lost in a sea of formalism; artistic integrity is the substance we should seek over the formalism of a theatrical numbers game which we too often get trapped in obsessing over. And I'm not exempting myself from these critiques; I consider myself to be guilty of these charges, as well, but I always try to steer myself back onto the course I feel is of greatest importance.

DJ

 

[Scott Merryfield]

People make movies, not theatres.

Actually, people make theatres, too.
I'm just kidding, Damin, I understood your well-articulated point and agree. If the animators designed a feature film with a certain aspect ratio in mind, then any change in that AR will be a compromise in the frame composition, regardless of whether the altered aspect ratio is shown first to the public.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I'm certainly NOT going to pay $13.50 to see an edited movie in MAR format to boot..

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The contemporary Disney films (exception: 'Atlantis') are all composed (from the drawing of the first frame) for:

1.66:1 European theatrical projection
1.85:1 North American theatrical projection
1.66:1 DVD

...and now, 1.66:1 IMAX. If you watch it in IMAX, you are watching a really big version of what is actually shown on many screens in Europe.

The animation paper the pencil drawings are made on has guides that show where the 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 frames fall.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yes, but Damin my point is that people often fall back on "first theatrical exhibition" for the OAR, especially when the artist has passed on.
Do I even need to bring up the Kubrick debate?
I was simply saying that such an argument becomes tricky because the 2 things (theater, artist) don't always match.
So what do you say to someone who makes the rather valid point that they are trying to recreate the theatrical experience, and the way the film was presented in the theater was in 1.85, not 1.33? Just as an example.
After all, we are all aware of the limits with theatrical exhibition as it stands now. So when are the artists adhering to those limits and when is it their intent?
And then how do you resolve something like The Abyss if the artist says that for cetain mediums he prefers a different AR from the theatrical one? Wouldn't you then be dogmatic to tell JC that you want the DVD to give you the chance to recreate the theatrical experience as if that standard were the absolute one.
I respect the artistic wishes too. But you speak as if the theatrical exhibition was not the goal of filmmakers in the first place.
That's why people fall back on theatrical exhibition. Not in some attempt to "trap" the artist, but simply by the apparently naive belief that the artists were part of the process of developing the art for this presentation primarily.
From what you say now, it sounds like its quite dogmatic for us to hold Howard and Apollo 13 to the first theatrical presentation standard either. Doesn't this mean then that this new IMAX could be deemed MORE VALID as the "proper" version then? After all, since the artist is directly involved here which one takes precidence?
And do I dare go into the Star Wars or Apocolypse Now avenues in regards to respecting the artistic wishes versus theatrical exhibition?
The animators of Fantasia weren't tricked here. It's not like the IMAX presentation was sprung upon them.
Don't get me wrong. I do understand the point here that all the animation was done with respect to a 1.85 AR. That this was done with an initial theatrical target of IMAX ratio/presentation is a tad confusing, but I can respect it.
But holding artists to the standards with which they themselves present their art is not dogmatic.
I know I said something very stupid here, but my intent was to say something very clever, so let's just count it as something clever and from now on remember it as such, shall we.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The animators of Fantasia weren't tricked here. It's not like the IMAX presentation was sprung upon them.

Actually, It was sprung on them, and the computer animators were pissed off. They said they would have rendered the animation at a much higher resolution if they had known it was going to be projected at that scale.

But I digress...

 

[Damin J Toell]

But holding artists to the standards with which they themselves present their art is not dogmatic.

Standards that they themselves present? SMPTE and poor projectionists present the standards of theatrical exhibition, not filmmakers. Choosing to work in that format may be considered a grudging acquiesance, at best, but certainly not a standard that a given artist has presented upon himself.

So what is a filmmaker to do when he or she wants to make a film in an AR other than that which is practically possible in modern theatrical exhibition? If respecting the integrity of artists is our main goal (and it's certainly stated as a main goal in the HTF Mission Statement), how is not dogmatic to say "well, buddy, because theatrical exhibition has certain limits, we're gonna hold you to those limits even on formats where no such limit exists." One of the possibly great things about home video is that unusual ARs can be achieved. Does it seem right to preclude a filmmaker from taking advantage of that possibility because theatrical exhibition does have limits? Does it seem in any way respective of artistic integrity to forever lock a piece of artwork into the arbitrary structural limits of the necessary initial venue? Is it not a pointless preclusion of the creative freedom of the artist to use a given format in the way that said artist feels best? I can't see defining such a preclusion of artistic freedom as anything other than mere dogmatism that ignores the goals of respecting filmmaker integrity.

DJ

 

[Ted Lee]

i'm as pro OAR as anyone else here, but i don't think that's what the whole imax thing is about.
it's an opportunity to see a film presented a different way. you get an eight-foot tall screen, a bazillion watts of sound coming out of a hundred speakers, etc.
if i want to see the movie OAR, i'll watch the dvd at home. if i want to try a different sensory experience, then maybe the imax thing will fit the bill.
i agree that apollo 13 may not have been the best choice for imax. overall, the movie is definitely more story based than visually driven.
btw, why is the directors vision okay for the theatrical release, but a director approved cut for imax not okay?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

btw, why is the directors vision okay for the theatrical release, but a director approved cut for imax not okay?

The Director of Photography and Director of Special Effects composed the film for 2.35:1.
A film is a collaboration of artists. Recomposing the film years later is a corruption of the original artistic intent.
Hey, if you like it, and the director likes it, go for it. You don't have to rationalize your opinion here (unless you feel you need to). If I'm confident about how I feel about something, I don't bother rationalizing it to anybody.
The sad thing is that they are considering these the same film as far as box office goes. Star Wars sites are all abuzz that this is Lucas' only chance to beat Spiderman and Fellowship in the domestic box office charts. Frankly, they are different films (Apollo 13 and AotC) from the originals and should not share the same space in history.

 

[Ted Lee]

i admit i don't know much about the film-making process, but don't the director of photography and special effects still have to get the "final" director's approval? i don't imagine they can go, "hey ron, that's the way it's going to be. so there!"
anyway, as the director, i suppose he gets final say and that's his right - even years later. was the same complaint made when coppola put out redux? i dunno...just asking.
finally, who is "rationalizing" anything. (i haven't even seen the imax version.) heck, i can barely spell it. i'm just presenting another viewpoint...albeit a probably whacked one.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Ted,
I might disagree with your viewpoint, but that doesn't make it whacked.
IF you understand that the film is cropped and reformatted and don't think you will have a problem with that, by all means check it out and let us know what you think.

 

[Ted Lee]

thanks mike!
actually, my argument is that if you see the imax version, you should see it because it's a different way (bigger screen and sound) than the theatrical release.
i actually agree with you that (if at all possible) the movie should be seen as originally released, but because of the limitations of the imax technology, that won't be possible.
so instead...go see the movie for the unique presentation.
okay, i'm done babbling.

 

[Bill Slack]

I'm all for seeing a normal, feature length, hollywood film in IMAX. That sounds great; but FILM IT IN IMAX!
It's 35mm blown up, cropped and edited to work on IMAX?? Ooook...
My local IMAX has a 65ft widescreen. I've seen 35mm projected onto a 75ft 2.4:1 screen before, and loved it. I would much rather see that than this silly Imax blow-up. It's not as tall, but we're talking huge vs. umm.. huger.
A regular film on 15-perf 70mm. Now THAT would impress me... And it would cost a pretty penny to film. Not to mention FX would take much longer to render and cost more in order to keep the quality consistent.
On technical points I've seen Ebert make puzzling statements in the past, and this is another...

 

[Brian W.]

Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio

And the full interview can be found here:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/
Were the cinematographers of Kubrick's films consulted when Kubrick decided to release them full frame on DVD? No.
I'm just wondering why Ron Howard is being demonized for creating an alternate version of his film (while the original will remain available), but Stanley Kubrick, who not only altered the presentation of his own films but made them only available full frame, even though his assistant editor on The Shining says in the aforementioned interview that the screen on the editing machine was actually masked off with black masking tape -- they couldn't even see what it would look like full frame!
At least the Apollo 13 IMAX transfer was approved by its editor, Dan Hanley.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Brian, I don't think that whole situation went by the HTF without a great deal of debate, which is exactly why I mentioned it - "Do I even need to bring up Kubrick here?"

The biggest issue in that situation seems to be contradictory opinions by critical participants in the making of the Kubrick films. Some say 1.33 was the goal with 1.85 only in mind due to American theater restrictions. Others say 1.85 was the target of the composition.


Now for this

After all, since the artist is directly involved here which one takes precedence?

Pick one and give us your reasons please.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Pick one and give us your reasons please.

The one that the artist says "takes precedence." I don't presume myself to be in the position to speak for someone else.

DJ