1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Criterion Press Release: Lord of the Flies (Blu-ray)

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Apr 15, 2013.

Tags:
  1. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    And I'm sure it looked fine at that ratio. It certainly looked fine at 1.85 in the US - I saw it about ten times during the week it played.
     
  2. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Well, having made a very low-budget independent film back in 1975 I can assure you we all knew how it was going to be shown in theaters - we certainly weren't shooting it for our own amusement in some ratio we knew couldn't be projected anywhere. We didn't have the fanciest 35mm cameras, but we certainly had the 1.85 markings and certainly watched the dailies in that ratio. I could have transferred it to Blu-ray in Academy and said any kind of malarky I wanted thirty years later - but I didn't because that would have been inane.
     
  3. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    303
    How sure are you that it wasn't shown in 1.37:1 in the UK?

    Steve W
     
  4. ahollis

    ahollis Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,288
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Real Name:
    Allen
    I think Bob pretty well made the point that UK was well into 1.77:1 aspect ratio by the time the film was made in an earlier post on this thread. I do have a problem with the thought of a director going rogue and filming in an aspect ratio that was not norm at the time of production or release. Yes, I'm sure Theatres still had the proper lens and perhaps masking for a 1.37:1 presentation but as time moved along those lens disapeared as widescreen became the norm.
     
  5. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Yes, I'm sure for all the reasons you well know.
     
  6. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
  7. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    916
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    Users there like to have all sorts of imaginary fantasies.
     
  8. John Hodson

    John Hodson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    303
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    He is quoting a small arthouse cinema in Cambridge, not his local Odeon; it's not inconceivable.
     
  9. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Yeah, right - I think we all know about that forum and the hardheads who post there. They were the very ones saying that Sirk's Magnificent Obsession was Academy. Uh huh. I can only tell you that in the year that Lord of the Flies was released, very few cinemas ANYWHERE would have had the capability to show the film in Academy - both in the UK and most definitely in the US.
     
  10. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    Is this due to the lenses required for 1.37:1 presentation, and their abandonment after the switch to widescreen? I don't know much about projection standards/capabilities back in the day.

    Would cinemas that didn't upgrade, that kept their 4x3 screens, have been able to project widescreen films matted top and bottom to retain the correct composition, rather than projecting open matte if they wanted to?
     
  11. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    They had neither the real estate nor the lenses by 1962. There were no real movie theaters that hadn't converted by that year - only a handful - remember, there were no real repertory theaters back then. I suppose there was perhaps one theater in all of LA that could show Academy. For example, I saw several Academy film reissues at an LA theater in the 60s, each of which was projected in 1.85 - a joke, of course, especially for Singin' in the Rain, where everyone's feet were missing.
     
  12. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    As much as Coppola wanted to screen One from the Heart in Academy, he couldn't. I wonder why?
     
  13. ahollis

    ahollis Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,288
    Likes Received:
    1,320
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Real Name:
    Allen
    There would be a different lens needed for each aspect ratio. Not only for the length and width of the screen but for the distance. I played the late nineties WIZARD OF OZ re-release and we had to purchase a new lens for the 1.37:1 ratio plus had to manually change the masking by adding and hanging masking material. It is possible that small town and second run Theatres that could not afford the renovations to add widescreen and scope screens could have purchased the lens and used the flat screen but it would be a very poor presentation and the picture would be tiny. I would expect that if they did not have the money to convert then they did not have money to purchase lens needed and soon closed.
     
  14. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    I'm normally not a huge advocate of random frame-grabs to make a point. However, there is no question that PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE is composed for 1.85. I've screened it that way many times in 35mm, and a watchful eye can see quite a few instances of Thompson tilting the camera in order to keep the actors safe in the 1.85 area.

    Members of that group insist that it is composed for 1.37:1. What do these comparison frames tell you?

    plan9wide_edited-1.jpg
     
  15. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Oh, there's no question it's widescreen - only a total film neophyte who knows NOTHING about cinematography would argue that point - but argue they do because, you know, they know everything over there. Just HOW they know is anyone's guess, since they were all raised in the video age. But that's another story.
     
    ahollis likes this.
  16. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    24,968
    Likes Received:
    2,773
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    It must have to do with not being able to admit that they're wrong too. Bob has posted those Plan 9 comparisons before and prior to seeing them, I would have assumed that Plan 9 was shot 1.37 but seeing those compatisons, it's undeniable that the movie was shot 1.85.
     
  17. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    189
    So because you made "a very low-budget independent film back in 1975", that means that ALL low-budget independent films followed your lead? Interesting, thanks for correcting me!

    Vincent
     
  18. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    I think you're being a little too antagonistic in this and other threads to warrant further discussion. It's simple - low-budget, high-budget, who gives a flying Wallenda - if they were making a MOVIE that they wanted shown in THEATERS, they knew it would be shown, at least in the US, at 1.85 and in the UK in 1.76 or 1.66 or whatever their ratio was at that time, one of those two. The End. If you want to assume that indie filmmakers of old were idiots and didn't care about how their films were shown, or intended from the beginning that they were making a TV movie, well, you go right ahead.
     
  19. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    As research has shown, 1.37:1 in the mainstream UK distribution circuit was gone by the summer of 1955. Would they have made this film strictly for the small, neighborhood cinemas that had not upgraded their presentation capabilities, or were they hoping for a general release?
     
  20. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    I think the answer is rather obvious, don't you? Well, I know you do. :)
     

Share This Page