DVD Release Window and the Movie Theater versus Television viewing experience. (1 Viewer)

[Kyle_D]

Listen to James Cameron's commentary on Aliens. He specifically mentions that one of the reasons he didn't shoot the film in Anamorphic Scope was because of the problems Anamorphic lenses caused during his experience working as an effects technician on Escape From New York.

Mark,

Wonderful post. Summed up my thoughts on this debate completely.

 

[Mark Lucas]

I thought this was closer or exactly 1.6:1. 1.78:1/16x9 is a ratio that was created for HDTV obviously.

 

[Mark-W]

Thanks Kyle.

Marcus, you are correct.
Golden ratio = 1: 1.6180339887498948482045868343656

I will edit my post and start talking about King Kong.



-mw

 

[Gary Palmer]

Listen to James Cameron's commentary on Aliens. He specifically mentions that one of the reasons he didn't shoot the film in Anamorphic Scope was because of the problems Anamorphic lenses caused during his experience working as an effects technician on Escape From New York.

Cameron has never liked anamorphic, and that's his prerogative, but his viewpoint means he's always going to find reasons to moan about it. Several other technicians from the 1980's also bitched about anamorphic during the creation of FX sequences, but that was only one problem among many which it was their job to overcome - and they did. Besides, Cameron's work in Super 35 is about as TV-friendly as it gets - all of his 2.35 movies substitute size for width, in a manner which renders them less cinematic, in my view, though - paradoxically - they all tend to work better on a big screen because the size works in their favor. On home video, however, the AR is basically immaterial - they don't look any different at 1.33, 1.78 or 2.35, as a direct result of Cameron's stylistic concerns. Yes, some of them have garnered Oscar attention (I thought I'd better mention it, in case someone uses this fact as an example in Cameron's favor). But who votes for Best Cinematographer? Fellow DP's, most of whom have been using 2.35 in a TV-friendly manner for the last ten years, just like Cameron.

 

[SteveJKo]

Gary, does anyone use 65mm or VistaVision for effects work anymore? I would think these formats would be a wonderful wide canvas on which the fx artist could work, while not having to deal with the anamorphic element. I know the original Star Wars used VistaVision back in '77 and the fx for Close Encounters were done in 65mm that same year. But I haven't heard of any film use 65mm for fx since at least Alien 3 back in the early 1990's.

Am I correct in assuming Mr. Jackson's new Kong is being done (principle photography and special effects work) in Super 35?

 

[Gary Palmer]

Gary, does anyone use 65mm or VistaVision for effects work anymore? I would think these formats would be a wonderful wide canvas on which the fx artist could work, while not having to deal with the anamorphic element.

Good question, Steve, and one I'm not equipped to answer at the moment. Using 65mm or VistaVision was, of course, a mainstay of the 1980's blockbusters (for FX sequences), which rather begs the question: Why can't these things be used for today's anamorphic productions (I may be wrong, but I think PEARL HARBOR may have used either 65mm or VistaVision)? As I understand it, one of the 'problems' of using these spherical formats is matching the various anamorphic 'artifacts' (squeezed lights in backgrounds, horizontal flares, etc.) from the 65mm/VistaVision footage to the 35mm material, though this kind of thing is simply part of the everyday workload of FX shops. It isn't really a barrier at all.

I suspect the reason 65mm/VistaVision isn't used as much these days is because - as Ken Kwapis said in that interview I quoted earlier - directors are being forced by studio executives to utilize Super 35 for 2.35:1 movies, whether they want to use it or not, so there's no need for these larger formats. Sad, but true.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Mark Walker and Kyle_D:

It would appear, from all the comments you've given here, that your appreciation of cinema begins and ends at the TV screen. If you're happy with the ongoing subjugation of film, then nothing I can say will change your minds. You're well-served by today's 'moviemaking' practices, and the results are playing in multiplexes as we speak, fulfilling brief contractual obligations before heading to DVD where they belong. Clearly, it isn't just filmmakers and studio mandarins who are responsible for the current malaise, but large sections of the audience, too.

 

[Kyle_D]

Gary,

You are so ignorant to assume I don't enjoy movies on the big screen with wonderful compositions. Some of my favorite directors are the Japanese masters of compostion like Ozu and Kurosawa. I love the 2.55:1 composition of the early 50s Cinemascope films. My favorite place to see movies is a local movie palace that dates back to the 20s, can project 70mm and seats 1600. It's only through adherence to forum rules that I'm keeping my language toward you in check right now. Needless to say, we all know what happens you assume.

Your posts come across as those of an elitist cineaste whose appreciation of film begins and ends with anamorphic lenses and full, exclusive use of the widescreen frame. There's so much more to cinema and aesthetics, as Mark so wonderfully articulated earlier. I can still see a world of difference between TV and Film. I'm sorry you can't.

There's no point in arguing this any further. The topic of this thread is supposed to be the Kong DVD. I'm sad to see it has been hijacked.

 

[Mark Lucas]

I wouldn't call any of Cameron's movies shot as "tv friendly". He just knows how to protect the Super-35 frame so he can have room to play around with in post. Also, with the Super-35 vs anamorphic thing. Some directors just don't like putting another piece of glass in front of the lens, especially for low light situations.

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

Guys, aspect ratio is a creative decision. This argument is boardering on ridiculous. Changing aspect ratios or keeping your format in mind during your work does not make you some kind of cinema whore, it makes you smart. It means you have foresight and want to make a movie that people can watch on video that doesn't look like crap.

Guess what: Kurosawa shot Kagemusha 1.85/1 because... gasp... he thought more people were going to watch it on video than in the theaters. Guess what: he was right. The movie bombed at the box-office but lived on forever on VHS as fullscreen and is a classic piece of cinematographic art.

Did he maybe compose his shots a little tighter so people wouldn't have to squint at their TVs?

Is Kurosawa an Aspect-Ratio Whore?

How about Stanley Kubrick? His films post-Spartacus are all Academy ratio. Which must have taken a lot of guts, since apparently you aren't an artist unless you shoot widescreen.

Let's remember one thing: widescreen is a gimmick. It was created as a gimmick to make movies seem "cooler" than boring-'ol TV, which was using the Academy ratio.

And widescreen is a weird ratio: it's wider than the human field of vision, making it unnatural. Howard Hawks disliked it, saying it was difficult to edit and almost impossible to compose shots of single people. It was only good for crowds and landscapes - which is why David Lean used it later in his career, when he made films in deserts, around icy plains, and on beaches, which are very horizontal things.

Oh, and about King Kong - to me it looks like it was composed for a cinema screen. If it looks just as good on your television six months from now, we'll go find Andrew Lesnie, take away his camera and... no, wait, actually if it looked good on a TV screen, that'd be pretty nice.



I also wonder what Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, Akira Kurosawa, Stanley Kubrick, James Cameron, Brian dePalma, Alfonso Cuaron, Orson Welles and all their cameramen would think if they heard us sitting around, passing judgment on whether or not their movies were "legitimately" photographed. :rolleyes

 

[Gary Palmer]

You are so ignorant to assume I don't enjoy movies on the big screen with wonderful compositions.

I also enjoy movies on the big screen with wonderful compositions. That's the point of this entire discussion.

It's only through adherence to forum rules that I'm keeping my language toward you in check right now.

I felt the same way when you ended your first message in this thread with a 'rolling eyes' icon, setting a snotty tone which has prevailed through all your posts since. I chose not to respond in kind, for the sake of the debate.

Your posts come across as those of an elitist cineaste whose appreciation of film begins and ends with anamorphic lenses and full, exclusive use of the widescreen frame. There's so much more to cinema and aesthetics

This discussion is specifically about widescreen composition and Big Screen aesthetics. Of course I understand there's more to 'cinema' than one particular format (they all have their strengths and weaknesses), but this debate has a narrower focus. It would have done no good widening the debate when we were focusing on one specific example of screen technology.

The topic of this thread is supposed to be the Kong DVD. I'm sad to see it has been hijacked.

As happens sometimes, this discussion began to travel in a particular direction, sparked by Peter Jackson's decision to announce the DVD release date for KING KONG before the movie is even completed, let alone playing in theaters. It doesn't surprise me at all that you describe my contribution as a 'hijack', because you (and Mark Walker) seem to have taken an instant dislike to what I was saying from the outset. I cherish friendly debate, but there's been very little 'friendliness' in your postings, just 'attack'.

It's sad that the debate has ended in acrimony (mild acrimony, I trust!), and I hope it can be revived on other threads in the future, at a point when cooler heads prevail.

 

[SteveJKo]

Again, for me this is about cinematography in ALL formats, not just 'scope. However I must point out that Fred Waller developed Cinerama with a field of view of 146 degrees by 55 degrees to as closely as possible cover the human field of vision which is at 160 degrees by 60 degrees. Seems to me that Cinerama, one of the widest of all processes, was still not as wide as the human field of vision.

Lastly, my apologies also for any hand I've had in this thread going off subject. The fact of the King Kong DVD coming out so quickly after the theatrical release is what lead to it (will directors think more TV screen than movie screen with films getting to DVD so quickly?) but you are all correct, this conversation should be in the movie section.

 

[Gary Palmer]

this conversation should be in the movie section.

Steve, I know things have gone off the rails around here, but I don't want you to think I'm 'having a go' at you when I say I disagree with this.

This conversation is very much about DVD, and the way some of us feel it has impacted on the 'theatrical experience' (as made clear by Jackson's approach to KING KONG), so it's equally at home in either section. I should have made the point earlier, when Mark Walker said the same thing, but I don't think it would have made much difference.

 

[SteveJKo]

Very good point Gary. No matter if the window between a films theatrical release and DVD release grows or shrinks, it will eventually end up on DVD.

 

[TravisR]

They'd probably laugh and laugh and laugh...

 

[SteveJKo]

Or perhaps they'd weep at the lack of good cinematography currently taking place in Hollywood. Again, this is NOT an issue of aspect ratio. The wider ratio may more obviously show off the "TV mentality" that's being discussed here, but it's become present in all formats. Look at early 1960's TV (specifically in dramatic series of the time). It's photography has more in common with pre-scope cinema than TV of today, yet all three (pre-scope cinema, '60's TV, and modern non-HD TV) are the same aspect ratio. The "cinematic" language was still being used in television photography back then. Over the years television has developed it's own photographic language, and unfortunatey for us, it's now heavily influencing the language of theatrical film.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Guys, aspect ratio is a creative decision.

No argument there.

This argument is boardering on ridiculous.

No, only the belligerence with which some people choose to pursue it.

Changing aspect ratios or keeping your format in mind during your work does not make you some kind of cinema whore, it makes you smart. It means you have foresight and want to make a movie that people can watch on video that doesn't look like crap.

With 16:9 TV now the de facto worldwide standard, it isn't necessary to do that. Some territories (such as the US) still have a little catching-up to do as far as the market penetration of 16:9 sets is concerned, but no one doubts this will have come to pass before the end of the decade. Sets are becoming wider, bigger and - with the introduction of HD - clearer. Sooner or later, all the grain inherent in Super 35 movies which is plainly visible on the big-screen but easily hidden on DVD and television, will make an unwelcome reappearance on home video.

Is Kurosawa an Aspect-Ratio Whore?

Kurosawa didn't make movies during the era of widescreen TV. He might have felt differently had this kind of technology been available to consumers. Who knows one way or the other?

How about Stanley Kubrick? His films post-Spartacus are all Academy ratio. Which must have taken a lot of guts, since apparently you aren't an artist unless you shoot widescreen.

We're talking about widescreen, not about other formats - 1.37 and 1.85 are whole different discussions. And point to any of my posts where I said 2.35 is the only legitimate screen ratio.

passing judgment on whether or not their movies were "legitimately" photographed.

Nobody's passing judgment on anything. A director may prefer to use cramped, grainy compositions for whatever reason. But my argument is that we're seeing virtually nothing but cramped, grainy compositions these days (in 2.35 movies), as a direct result of the importance most directors place on TV and DVD. I'm not saying 'lateral configuration' is the only way to go, but that it has vanished altogether, for the very reasons I cited.



Look, guys, if anyone has anything more to contribute to this debate, then please don't bother if it's just some snide crack, or bad-tempered assault on someone else's point of view. It's an important issue, and worth debating. But this thread has turned really sour, and for no good reason except that some people are unable to express their opposing viewpoint without condescension and tactlessness. If this is the level of 'debate' around here, then what's the point?

Any more hostile postings (as opposed to respectful disagreement), and that really will be the end of the debate for me.

 

[Ryan-G]

Theaters have lost alot of attraction for me over the last few years.

As has been noted previously in this thread, other people are...problematic..., As well as shoddy sound systems in an age where Sound is as instrumental as Video.

But what's really done it for me is the one-two punch of Prices and Travel Time.

Prices are out of hand. At 8 bucks a pop, or 16 bucks with a date, buying the movie is a better value.

But Travel Time, that's insured that the *only* movie I will see this year was Episode 3. I live in Pittsburgh, not a small city, though certainly not a really big one either. I live in a heavily populated portion of the suburbs, next to one of the cities 3 biggest commercial areas.

The nearest Theater to me, with more than 1 screen and a sound system from this decade, is at *least* 30 minutes away. The commercial area I live beside had it's sole remaining Theater close down last year. No one's even tried to buy it.

So, add in the movie prices, the people, the sound, and the fact that going to see a Movie is now a 3 hour+ process and I'm at the point where I'd just rather wait for the disc and see it at home. It's a better value on every front.

 

[Gary Palmer]

As well as shoddy sound systems in an age where Sound is as instrumental as Video.

Funny you should mention this, Ryan, because at the same time I noticed a slide in compositional values, I also noticed a simultaneous rise in the value theaters (and, apparently, moviemakers) placed on sound formats. Nowadays, Dolby, DTS and SDDS are mentioned on advertising as a matter of course, whereas screen formats have virtually disappeared from movie posters (even Panavision rarely gets a mention these days). The loss of this kind of ballyhoo is a source of some regret. And, as you say, some theaters don't even have a decent sound system anyway, though I'd like to think they're in a minority.

 

[Mark-W]

I am removing this post because it pertained to thread hijacking of the King Kong thread and has nothing to do with the issue of films being composed diffrently in the last 25 years. Now that this thread is here (Bless you Crawdaddy!), this post can go away. -mw