Harryhausen fans rejoice! THE THREE WORLDS OF GULLIVER coming from Columbia in April (1 Viewer)

[Mark Zimmer]

The case has a cryptic notation regarding the aspect ratio. I don't have it in front of me but it doesn't say original theatrical presentation or modified to fit your screen, but something like presented full frame to fit your screen. So I guess it's not modified, I think, kinda.

 

[David Lambert]

OAR for this film is 1.37:1 Academy Ratio; check earlier in this thread for various notations to that effect. So "Full Frame" IS correct OAR.

 

[GerardoHP]

OAR for this film is 1.37:1 Academy Ratio; check earlier in this thread for various notations to that effect. So "Full Frame" IS correct OAR.

I don't think so. These films were released at 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, not 1.37:1. The IMDb is far from 100% accurate on these matters.

 

[John Blankenship]

I just got the DVD. It does say "This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit this screen". Odd too, that the trailer included is in widescreen. I hope that the imdb is right on this one, but I would like a bit more proof that this is the OAR.

 

[GerardoHP]

The message "This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit this screen" means very little, since it's often erroneously attached to pre-1953 films that were made in 1.33:1 like SINGING IN THE RAIN.

By 1960, when THE THREE WORLS OF GULLIVER came out, virtually no major releases were shown theatrically in that aspect ratio. In fact, even films that had been shot in 1.33:1 were cropped for theatrical exhibition.

I also can't imagine that any major company would produce a film in those days with the intention of showing it at 1.33:1. I think the IMDb is wrong about 1.33:1 being the OAR for GULLIVER and I think the DVD is open matte. I think this film was intended to be shown at either 1.66 or 1.85, and that this is another title Columbia Tristar decided to release full frame.

 

[David Lambert]

Now that I've had time to look it over, I see what everyone means in the past few posts.

To the guys who said this was an OAR title, give me some help here. I hope you can convince me that this is supposed to be 1.37:1, or else I'm heading over to take it back for a refund.

 

[soop.spoon]

and that this is another title Columbia Tristar decided to release full frame.

And thank goodness for it!
Before you all jump on the widescreen absolutism bandwagon, let's take this title as an individual case.
The master craftsman Ray Harryhausen used the entire 35MM frame (4:3) to compose his effects. This is true for his other films of this era as well. Harryhausen fans flipped out when The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad was released widescreen-only. Why? Because a significant portion of Mr. Harryhausen's meticulous work was lost under unnecessary matting. The Golden Voyage of Sinbad DVD was released in both formats, certainly a wise move. The 4:3 version can be viewed (with nothing cropped from the sides) by Harryhausen fans who want to see his entire compostion. The widescreen version can be viewed by people more concerned with theatrical composition and a some extra resolution.
Should OAR be supported? Of Course.
Should this have been a dual format disc? Certainly.
But given a choice between 4:3 and widescreen on the early Harryhausen titles, I'd choose 4:3 every time.
Few as they may be, there are occasional exceptions to the OAR rule.
Just do yourselves a favor... watch the disc before you decide to return it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the 4:3 composition.
Thanks for considering my opinion,
Jack

 

[John Blankenship]

OK, you've convinced me, Jack. After actually watching the disc, it does look good. The framing doesn't appear to be off. Still, it would have been best to have both versions on the same disc...the original 1.33:1 (or 1.37:1) frame and the wider screen version that I am sure was shown in theaters at the time. However, I certainly won't be taking it back, and I'm glad to finally own it.

 

[GerardoHP]

The master craftsman Ray Harryhausen used the entire 35MM frame (4:3) to compose his effects.

You have it from a good source that Harryhausen composed for 4:3? If you don't, I personally don't think your argument is any more valid than saying 4:3 is just better because you get more picture information at the top and bottom of the screen.

I would be almost certain that RH knew exactly how his films would be cropped when they reached the theater and, later, when they were shown on television, and that he would have composed them accordingly -- not just intended for 4:3.

 

[soop.spoon]

You have it from a good source that Harryhausen composed for 4:3?

I cannot prove definitely that he composed for 4:3, but he certainly did his work that way:
1) Watch The Golden Voyage Of Sinbad, fullframe. You'll notice that nothing is lost on the sides and more is gained on the top and bottom, even during the FX shots. Thus, he used the whole 35MM frame when bringing his creations to life.
2) Watch the widescreen version of The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad. It looks terrible. Pay close attention to the sword fight with the skeleton... the overmatting is noticable to the point of distraction.
I don't buy non-OAR films on DVD. Even open matte films. But in the case of Ray Harryhausen, I want to see every possible inch of his masterful creations on the screen.

 

[GerardoHP]

But in the case of Ray Harryhausen, I want to see every possible inch of his masterful creations on the screen.

While I respect this as your personal preference, I still don't think films that were released in widescreen should be put on video only in 4:3 or that this should be "hoped" for.

 

[soop.spoon]

You seem to have ignored the rest of my post in which I give 2 pieces of possible evidence that perhaps these films were not shown (or meant to be shown) in widescreen.

 

[GerardoHP]

perhaps these films were not shown (or meant to be shown) in widescreen.

I didn't ignore it, Jack, but I believe you're wrong and perhaps confusing your personal preference with RH's intent. Back in the late fifties and early sixties, making an adventure and SFX movie intended for 1.37:1 projection would have been, to say the least, rather unlikely.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I'll be seeing Ray Harryhausen (at the Lake Placid Film Forum) in June and I'll ask him what the intended aspect ratio of these films should be. We can hope his answer is a definitive one.

 

[GerardoHP]

Peter, what Lake Placid theater is the Film Forum being held at?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

There's only one theater left in town, the Palace on Main Street (or whatever that road is), which is used for films in 35mm. The Forum also utilizes Digital projection in other venues - the Center for the Arts, the Hilton Ballrooms, and one other new venue this year - probably the High School auditorium. A good friend is the Chairman of the Board of the festival and I'll be going up there to work as a volunteer; last year I ran digital shows at the Center for the Arts. This year, I'm supposed to hang out with Harryhausen! It's a very nice festival in a great resort town. More info here: www.lakeplacidfilmforum.com .

 

[GerardoHP]

I lived in Lake Placid for awhile some 22 years ago but I have been a hardcore widescreen enthusiast much longer than that. I saw THE BLACK HOLE (Technovision 2.35:1) on opening week at the Palace projected at about 1.85:1 because the theater screen wasn't wide enough (and in mono sound to boot!) I could only hope their display technology has improved.
Anyway, I look forward to whatever information you can extract from RH.

 

[David Lambert]

I believe I'll return this disc for now and perhaps repurchase it in June after we get a definative answer. NO OAR = NO SALE!

 

[Stephen Pickard]

Frankly, I am not rejoicing. I purchased my copy yesterday and, while I am very happy with the color and the audio, I am disappointed with the fact that this 4x3 image is cropped on the sides, and no I do not have any overscan on my monitor. Sony somehow aggravate the problem by putting on a widescreen version of the trailer, and while it still looks cropped on the sides (and the top and bottom) it reveals more information on the sides. I just don't see the sense in Sony spreading their P&S policy over to older titles, especially "Gulliver" which is unlikely to capture the attention of the masses - which I pray it does! - and instead only to the Harryhausen fans and to the film buffs, of which I am both.

 

[RobertR]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have it from a good source that Harryhausen composed for 4:3?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot prove definitely that he composed for 4:3, but he certainly did his work that way:
-------------------------------------------------------------
1) Watch The Golden Voyage Of Sinbad, fullframe. You'll notice that nothing is lost on the sides and more is gained on the top and bottom, even during the FX shots. Thus, he used the whole 35MM frame when bringing his creations to life.
2) Watch the widescreen version of The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad. It looks terrible. Pay close attention to the sword fight with the skeleton... the overmatting is noticable to the point of distraction.
I don't buy non-OAR films on DVD. Even open matte films. But in the case of Ray Harryhausen, I want to see every possible inch of his masterful creations on the screen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This debate drives me crazy. When 7th Voyage of Sinbad came out, I heard grumbling from some quarters that it should have been full frame, because that's how Harryhausen would have wanted it. Now I'm hearing grumbling from the opposite direction!
What I want to know is: Who's the "final authority" on what the AR should be? The director? The cinematographer? Harryhausen didn't have EITHER title for EITHER film. As much as I respect him, I'm having trouble understanding why the director of special effects has the final say so on film composition.