Anthony Mann's The Heroes of The Telemark (1965)?? (1 Viewer)

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by Point-Blank

Great news about a pressed release!


I just tried to watch it the other night from the SONY HD Channel and was shocked to see that they letterboxed the opening credits in 2:35, only to reduce it to 1:85 once the credits had ended. !!! This is a practice I have noticed on HBO and SHOWTIME HD Channels and am very dismayed by it. I guess they are trying to eliminate any black bars whatsoever so that people can fill their entire widescreen TVs. Will this signal the end of complete letteroboxing and new filmmakers forgoing shooting in full scope?

There are more 'Scope ratio films shot now than in the mid-1980s when VHS threatened to kill off the ratio. But there is another factor now, the 2.4:1 format enables filmmakers to get the biggest image even in smaller cinemas, so it has that advantage that 1.85:1 can't match.


The practice of channels showing 2.4:1 films cropped to 16:9 is just proof that no matter what consumer video technology comes along (e.g. 50" plasmas and HD projectors), TV stations will figure out a way to screw things up. They did it in the analogue and VHS era, and now they are doing it again in the HD era.

 

[Professor Echo]

Beth,your assessment about the lack of full scope films in the 80's is quite true. I mentioned this in another thread, but in the early 90's I was invited to a seminar by some of the most noted cinematographers working at that time and all on the panel admitted that it had not been for letterboxing on laserdiscs, widescreen movies probably would have ultimately faded away. They said that directors were frustrated in seeing their movies cropped and pan and scanned on home video. They didn't want to have those altered versions serve as their directorial legacy. It wasn't until Scorsese decided to shoot CAPE FEAR in widescreen, based on his guarantee of a laserdisc release in the correct aspect ratio, that the practice became more prevalent again.


It's just ridiculous how television, as you say, is finding yet another way to circumvent what is the obvious preference of the filmmakers. Perhaps this may yet be another signal that we are heading toward a generation of streaming on hand held devices where aspect ratios won't be much of a factor, if any.

 

[Thomas T]

In an interview, Sydney Pollack stated he wanted to shoot [COLOR= #0000cd]OUT OF AFRICA[/COLOR] in 2.35 wide screen but ultimately decided to shoot in the 1.85 format because he feared the film would be compromised visually for TV and home video. David Lean wanted to shoot [COLOR= #0000cd]PASSAGE TO INDIA[/COLOR] in 2.35 wide screen but HBO which had money invested in it nixed the 2.35 ratio and insisted on a more TV friendly 1.85 ratio.

 

[Worth]

The industry might as well adaopt 16:9 as a universal standard for all film and television production at this point. Given the way the vast majority of films are shot and edited - lots of close-ups and fast cuts - there are very few movies that fully utilize the widescreen frame.

 

[Professor Echo]

BLACK SWAN was shot with so many close-ups and so much shaky cam, it might just as well have been about secretaries than ballet dancers.


What will future generations of filmgoers have to say about the claustrophobic and nausea inducing camerawork of most films from the past 15 years?