Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

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

Criterion

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 of 55 OFFLINE   Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter



  • 1,747 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted April 21 2013 - 10:57 PM



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.

 

I never assumed nor suggested that indie filmmakers "were idiots and didn't care about how their films were shown" at all.  If you could point out where I said such a thing I'd like to see it.

 

BTW, I love how when you are questioned it suddently does not "warrant further discussion".

 

Vincent



#42 of 55 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,366 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted April 22 2013 - 12:35 AM

Vince, I'm actually sympathetic to the points you are making. I do think that even into the 1960s 1.37:1 composition wasn't quite as obsolete as Mr. Furmanek and Mr. Kimmel believe it was. I know Disney for one was still filming stuff in Academy that was originally intended for TV but wound up in theaters instead. My instinct is that Criterion has sufficient knowledge of Lord of the Flies to asses that 1.37:1 is the correct ratio. Even Robert Harris says that trade papers and studio edicts are not absolute, but examining what is actually on the camera negative will tell the whole story. Warner Archives examined original elements of Private Eyes (Bowery Boys), and Hammer examined original elements of Curse of Frankenstein, and in each case it was determined that 1.37:1 was correct in spite of all documentation stating otherwise.



#43 of 55 OFFLINE   John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer



  • 4,464 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted April 22 2013 - 03:03 AM

It's one thing to have doubts regarding a small budget, hugely independent project; you could even be uncertain about a movie that comes from a larger commercial studio during the very early period of transition.

 

But a film from a larger commercial studio like Hammer several years into the widescreen era? Not a chance; CoF was shot wide.

 

As for LoTF, my initial thoughts were that, made on a shoestring, with a largely rookie crew, and no great hopes of commercial success (indeed he told investors that it was unlikely they'd get their money back), it's possible that Brook shot it full frame. It still is possible, but I'm swaying towards the position that it's unlikely that he didn't at least pay lip service to widescreen projection. It may look better full frame, it might be how the film makers involved now prefer it to be seen - but that's a whole different kettle of fish.


Edited by John Hodson, April 22 2013 - 03:04 AM.

So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#44 of 55 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,314 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted April 22 2013 - 04:04 AM

It's one thing to have doubts regarding a small budget, hugely independent project; you could even be uncertain about a movie that comes from a larger commercial studio during the very early period of transition.

 

But a film from a larger commercial studio like Hammer several years into the widescreen era? Not a chance; CoF was shot wide.

 

As for LoTF, my initial thoughts were that, made on a shoestring, with a largely rookie crew, and no great hopes of commercial success (indeed he told investors that it was unlikely they'd get their money back), it's possible that Brook shot it full frame. It still is possible, but I'm swaying towards the position that it's unlikely that he didn't at least pay lip service to widescreen projection. It may look better full frame, it might be how the film makers involved now prefer it to be seen - but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

John, I think it's pretty clear from an article Bob has published regarding UK films that all directors and cinematographers were told to frame their films so that no vital action took place outside the 1.85:1 area, even if they were shooting for 1.37:1.

 

How much they listened is open to conjecture, but I doubt anyone would film with portions deliberately in the potentially cropped area knowing that it would almost certainly be cropped.

 

I think pretty much anything filmed from '53 onwards - including titles filmed best at 1.37:1 - will still look acceptable cropped to 1.85:1.  But that's not to say that's how they should be shown, of course.

 

Interestingly, another article Bob uncovered said that all UK widescreen films should ensure their titles are all uncropped at 2.00:1, which is most certainly not the case with CoF.  But that's another film for another thread.

 

Steve W


Edited by Yorkshire, April 22 2013 - 04:04 AM.

Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#45 of 55 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,648 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 22 2013 - 08:17 AM

Mark: I can see there being some question on PRIVATE EYES as they were midway through filming when Allied Artists announced their widescreen policy. Production began on June 24 and Allied announced widescreen on July 4. The bread and butter bookings for the Bowery Boys films were the small-town theaters so I can understand why this may have started for 1.37:1.

 

But COF? Exclusive went fully widescreen three years before production on this film.

 

More details can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarc...n-documentation


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#46 of 55 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter



  • 2,366 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 22 2013 - 08:27 AM

I never assumed nor suggested that indie filmmakers "were idiots and didn't care about how their films were shown" at all.  If you could point out where I said such a thing I'd like to see it.

 

BTW, I love how when you are questioned it suddently does not "warrant further discussion".

 

Vincent

I have responded to every post you've made that has involved this film.  What doesn't warrant further discussion is when you get antagonistic, start with the exclamation points, etc.  



#47 of 55 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,366 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted April 22 2013 - 02:36 PM

Mark: I can see there being some question on PRIVATE EYES as they were midway through filming when Allied Artists announced their widescreen policy. Production began on June 24 and Allied announced widescreen on July 4. The bread and butter bookings for the Bowery Boys films were the small-town theaters so I can understand why this may have started for 1.37:1.

 

But COF? Exclusive went fully widescreen three years before production on this film.

 

More details can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarc...n-documentation

Bob, I have no doubt that Curse of Frankenstein played everywhere in the world in widescreen and looked just as badly cropped as Shane did in its theatrical run. The proof is that to appease fans Hammer released it with a static widescreen extraction and lots of people complained about the horrible framing that produced. Warner also had the exact same problem when producing their earlier widescreen DVD of CoF, because for that, they did a scene by scene reframing (exactly what was proposed for Shane) to get the best composition. So two studios found Curse of Frankenstein to be problematic in widescreen. That speaks volumes about it's original composition.


Edited by Mark-P, April 22 2013 - 02:40 PM.


#48 of 55 OFFLINE   John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer



  • 4,464 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted April 22 2013 - 02:58 PM

So, your 'proof' that it was originally framed in Academy is that the Warner DVD wasn't particularly good, and as for Hammer's efforts, well, the least said about them the better. In fact, your whole reasoning appears to be (a) because Hammer say so, and (b) based solely on the evidence of video masters?

 

It's no coincidence, BTW, that (a) and (b) are connected.


  • Moe Dickstein and lark144 like this
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#49 of 55 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter



  • 2,366 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 22 2013 - 03:01 PM

I agree with Mr. Hodson completely about Curse of Frankenstein.



#50 of 55 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,167 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted April 22 2013 - 08:31 PM

Petition to ban discussion of aspect ratios ever again. Any takers?



#51 of 55 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,648 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 22 2013 - 08:39 PM

Count me in!


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#52 of 55 OFFLINE   Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer



  • 11,566 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted April 23 2013 - 04:27 AM

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



#53 of 55 OFFLINE   Lord Dalek

Lord Dalek

    Screenwriter



  • 2,167 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2005

Posted April 23 2013 - 07:01 AM

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh come on Lord Vader, the one thing people DON'T complain about your film is OAR.


  • Stephen_J_H likes this

#54 of 55 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie



  • 4,075 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted April 23 2013 - 07:12 AM

I second (third?) the motion.


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#55 of 55 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,648 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 23 2013 - 10:43 AM

Lord Dalek: it's been a while but weren't you the one who said that none of Ed Wood's films were composed for widescreen?


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Criterion

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users