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

[Gary Palmer]

The problem is that the huge multiplexes have taken so much of the "experience" out of going to the theater that doing so no longer feels like an event. More often than not, it feels like a hassle. I can't blame the filmmakers if they're not terribly excited about the theatrical releases of their films nowadays when the home video release is what will be seen and studied for generations after the film has left the theaters.

Good point. These things aren't called 'cattleplexes' by some for nothing!! There's no showmanship, no sense of ballyhoo, and 'blockbusters' are two-a-penny these days (once Harry Potter has exited theaters, for instance, James Bond will take his place, or Narnian chronicles, or WAR OF THE WORLDS, or KING KONG, and so on and on and on...).

If the studios and theatrical venues ever found a way (besides 3D) to restore the event status of going to the movies... I think you'd see filmmakers embracing the theatrical release more than they are now.

Cameron and co. truly believe 3-D will bring back audiences to theaters in their droves, and if the technology is as good as they say it is, then there's definitely hope in that respect. I'm a little disheartened by the list of titles currently slated for 3-D release (mostly animated features, aimed at family audiences), none of which have taken my fancy at all, but it's still early days - good 3-D movies are clearly just around the corner. For all my doom-saying, there's always room for optimism.

 

[Vader]

OK, here is how I see the pros and cons of the whole "straight-to-dvd-bypassing-theaters" thing...

First, the pros of going to a public theater:
1) The size of the screen under specific circumstances. Really, I only know of two instances where the immense size of the screen added to the impact of the scene. First, the opening crawl of Star Wars, followed by the fist time we have ever seen a Star Destroyer. The second is any of the sequences in The Lord of the Rings where we watch entire armies clashing from above.
2) Recentness of the release (increasingly a mute point as DVD release windows get smaller)
3) Audience participation (especially important for "event" films)

And now for the cons:
1)Idiot parents bringing screaming children to inappropriate films because they couldn't find a babysitter.
2)Inconsiderate people with cell phones/beepers
3)Floors sticky with pop & candy
4)Theaters that leave the lighting up (even dimmed) during the presentation, washing out the image
5)Picture out-of-focus until someone complains (dedicated projectionists are a rare breed anymore... most of the time the theater manger is "trained" to know how to thread a film, and where the start button is. If there is a film break or a brain wrap - assuming a platter system - they generally don't have a clue)
6)Volume much too high and/or poor balance of surround channels. This is largely a result of the target audience being the Clearasil crowd, the ones with the ipod-thingies glues to their heads, listening to loud music 25 hours/day. They are already mostly deaf, and need the insanely high volumes to hear anything. Fortunately, I have retained my sensitive hearing, and a peak level of 95dB is just fine for me. When I went to "Batman Begins" at the local theater, it was so loud that when the blades clashed between Wayne and Ducard on the frozen lake, it was physically painful (I would not be surprised if it surpassed 110dB - judging from a live rock concert typically passing 120dB). Also, it was theatrical DTS that kept me from exploring the home version until just last year: to my ears, theatrical DTS sounds horrible, but the home version I found to be fantastic.
7) The dedicated movie house is nearly extinct, giving way to the "multiplex" - the visual equivelent of watching a movie on a big-screen TV in a bus.

I don't go to the theater much anymore, and find my extremely modest HT to give a superior presentation in almost every way (yes, even standard definition). Of course, this is only my opinion, and I'm sure that there are many waiting to lynch me when I'm not looking (or just ask me "How can you call yourself a movie-buff? You haven't even seen "Citizen Kane" - but that's another thread). And that's fine. But, the only real drawback to the demise of public theaters to me is the (already mentioned) fact that filmmakers tend to adapt their movies to the screen size they are aiming for (ie. Super35). The last thing I want to see is the epic scale of many films replaced by a "movie-of-the-week" quality. "King Kong" is one of the rare films I will see in the theater as I classify it as an "event film" (along with "Narnia", and "Harry Potter"), but that is only a bone until I can buy these films, and really enjoy them. Just my $0.02...

 

[Sean*O]

Planning ahead to release your film to DVD 3.5 to 4 months after it's theatrical run does not = shooting the film so it plays better on a TV screen.

It's almost certainly a marketing move to capitalize upon the buzz surrounding the film's release, as well as maximize the effectiveness of the advertising money being spent. These things would have nothing to do with the artistic choices made by the director, or the composition of the cinematography.

Directors who wish to shoot wide as an artistic choice will always do so, I think, regardless of the native aspect ratio of most people's TV's... If that is the concern,

 

[Gary Palmer]

These things would have nothing to do with the artistic choices made by the director, or the composition of the cinematography.

Sean, I have to disagree with you. Take a look at any widescreen movie from the 1950's-1980's and compare it with today's 'TV-friendly' movies, and the compositional differences tell a story all their own. I always point to the '62 and '99 versions of THE HAUNTING (both shot anamorphic Panavision) - the former uses the scope frame in a wholly expressive, cinematic manner, while the latter makes no distinctive use of the wide frame at all. There may be a handful of shots during the course of the movie which uses the frame, but the rest of it is clearly designed in TV-fashion. Cinematographers and directors have argued defiantly that they don't compose with TV in mind, but as a viewer with a near-lifetime interest in scope movies, I see the evidence in front of me every time I watch a modern 2.35 movie, either theatrically or on home video/TV, especially when compared with the compositional qualities of older movies. Take a look at DRESSED TO KILL (1980) for an example of outstanding widescreen composition, and compare it with virtually anything produced today.

 

[Ruz-El]

Your ignoring the background of the film makers. Robert Wise was a highly effective film editor before getting moved up into directing, and as such, had a better understanding of the importance of the film frame and how through editing and such you can manipulate the audience. Jan De Bont, IIRC, comes from a cinematographer background, mostly concentrating on action/special effects films in the 80's, making a big summer special effects block buster. He clearly has a different mandate in his film, Wise being from the "less is more" class of film maker, relying on audience manipulation, and Bont being in the "more is more" camp, relying on hitting the audience on the head with visuals. They both used the technology of their times to the best of their abilities. One is more cinematic to you because of your personal preference.

I like movies in the theaters, I don;t like other people in the theaters. 90% of the time I can better appreciate the film makers intent in my own home. As an aspiring film maker, I don't have a problem with gearing films to the home market, especially with the technology now gaining headway in making the lines blure even more than ever before. Film as a medium is going to be in question, in the next 10-20 years.

 

[Gary Palmer]

what counts in making a good movie is the story. The technology is there to tell that story in the best way possible.

These are good points. But filmmakers from the 1950's to the 1980's seemed to know how to combine the two, and in a manner that was never detrimental to the films themselves. From the smallest exploitation movie to the biggest blockbuster, they would use widescreen and (in some cases) multichannel sound to 'sell' the story, without skimping on the human dimension. SPARTACUS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA are good examples of this, though both are from the upper end of the movie scale. Smaller scale entries (both of which I've seen recently) would include exploitation movies such as THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED and HUMAN LANTERNS, beautiful examples of plot, character and widescreen composition.

For better or worse, movies are being seen and studied out of the theaters. Most people haven't seen any of the classic film examples Gary states in the theater, but have grown to love them on TV.

Hence the current worrying state of affairs.

The early wide screen films where as gimiky as 3D films when they came out, with wide open cinimatic shots being the "paddle Ball guy" of 3D films.

Not quite. Like any new technology, some of the very first scope movies really emphasized the wide frame in the manner you suggest, but what you describe as a 'gimmick' (ie. lateral composition) lasted well into the 1980's! This can be seen by viewing almost any scope movie from that particular period!

The emphasis on w-i-d-e imagery was actually a mainstay of scope photography until VHS began to make serious in-roads within the marketplace. Around 1984 (the year Superscope was reintroduced as 'Super Techniscope', later known as Super 35), anamorphic movies began a gradual shift from lateral composition to 'shoot-and-protect', where important imagery was loaded into a TV friendly area of the screen. There are dozens of examples of this kind of thing, well into the 1990's (many of the STAR TREK movies, CROCODILE DUNDEE I and II, etc.), until Super 35 took off in the mid-1990's.

I think the fault of crammed film concentrating on medium shots and close ups could be blamed on the 70's with directors concentrating on character over action

There was a lot of experimentation during the 1970's, when independent filmmakers began to challenge established Hollywood norms, and the 'formal' compositions of previous decades came under pressure from new points of view and new techniques. But 'formal' composition still prevailed for the most part, as can be seen in any of the scope blockbusters of the period (THE TOWERING INFERNO, JAWS, STAR WARS, etc.). The over-reliance on close-ups and medium shots became prevalent toward the end of the 1980's, following the introduction of VHS, and wasn't particularly noticeable during the 1970's.

Robert Wise was a highly effective film editor before getting moved up into directing, and as such, had a better understanding of the importance of the film frame and how through editing and such you can manipulate the audience. Jan De Bont... comes from a cinematographer background, mostly concentrating on action/special effects films in the 80's, making a big summer special effects block buster.

Well, the HAUNTING movies are only one example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. But if we use these as specific examples, I'm not sure why de Bont's background makes him more prone to using 'TV-friendly' compositions, when movie history is loaded with blockbusters which all used the scope frame in a cinematic fashion.

[De Bont] clearly has a different mandate in his film, Wise being from the "less is more" class of film maker, relying on audience manipulation, and Bont being in the "more is more" camp, relying on hitting the audience on the head with visuals.

Again, that doesn't explain why so many scope films from the 1950's to the 1980's - whether quiet, emotional dramas or hit-'em-over-the-head exploitation movies - were able to use expansive widescreen images and tell a worthwhile story, while modern filmmakers can only tell their stories in one particular way. And as I said earlier, the likes of REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE play just fine on 16:9 TV, so there's no need for today's filmmakers to shy away from lateral composition.

One is more cinematic to you because of your personal preference.

Well, like I said in an earlier post, I prefer my movies to look like movies, and not like glorified TV shows.

As an aspiring film maker, I don't have a problem with gearing films to the home market, especially with the technology now gaining headway in making the lines blure even more than ever before.

It may be a while until technology reaches that point. In the meantime, do you think we should just close theaters and release everything to television and home video? That seems to be the gist of your argument - the status quo is fine, going to theaters is too much of a hassle, film is dying, and we might just as well concentrate on making television rather than big screen images. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you sound as though your natural forte might be television, not film. I mean, if you don't have a problem with gearing material to the home market, what's the point of making 'films' at all?

Film as a medium is going to be in question, in the next 10-20 years.

Sadly, film is already under threat, thanks to DVD, multiplex mentality, an over-reliance on blockbuster material, and movies whose visual style is virtually indistinguishable from television.

Cheery, ain't I?

 

[Ruz-El]

Really good points Gary. Again, I can't really argue with you, but well anyways!


As a 31 year old who has had no success in selling a film, your probably right, and no offense is taken. My feelings are this. I hate the 4:3 frame, after shooting so much video, I can hardly stand it. I like wide screen films. Shooting film is expensive, and a pain in the ass if you don't have a high budget. I'd rather shoot HD-DV. I can still film in scope, as the new tv's are wide screen, can still transfer it to film with a satisfactory image, and be ready for it to be digitally projected in the future. I think the writtings on the wall for film, as I'm sure there are more DIY guys like me, than people rushing into film itself.

 

[Sean*O]

Gary, it may be the case that you have seen many different examples of movies that were composed to be more watchable on a smaller screen, but that does no mean that it's a rule.

I know there are people out there who have enough experience with composing visuals for various sizes, and understand how things will read differently on a large scale than a small one. There are many examples of films from the same period you mentioned which play optimally on a large, wide screen. It all depends on who is behind the movie making, and depends on wise use of the technology and the tools available.

I do understand what you are saying though, but it's a cultural shift, and things will never be the same as they once were.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Russell:

I'm glad you took my comments in the spirit of debate, as they were intended. And I agree with you - I much prefer scope over 4:3!

Sean:

Gary, it may be the case that you have seen many different examples of movies that were composed to be more watchable on a smaller screen, but that does no mean that it's a rule.

Unfortunately, that's all I've seen for the last couple of years, especially in movies shot in Super 35. I just saw a trailer for upcoming war drama JARHEAD, which appears to have been filmed in S35 and framed at 2.35, and though the preview was extremely brief, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the wider frame - it's all closeups and quick cuts, and looks like nothing more than a 1.85 movie with the top and bottom cut off. And, in effect, that's what Super 35 is - it's not so much 'widescreen' as 'crop-screen', completely the opposite of what 'scope' photography is supposed to be about.

[NB. For some odd reason, I've seen a number of trailers framed at 2.35 for films which were actually photographed at 1.85, and JARHEAD may well be an example of that, so I just thought I'd best qualify my comments!]

Thanks for all your responses, guys! It's always good to debate these issues on forums such as this.

 

[SteveJKo]

Gary, thank you for bringing up so many excellent points. In the movie forum there was a thread on the decline of Hollywood. One idea that I shared was, that for me, so many of todays movies don't "feel" like movies:

I don't really know how to explain this preception, it's just something "there" that I can't quite put my finger on. It's almost as if most of the films playing at the local multiplex are all made for TV movies of the week that escaped, killed the real movies (or should that be reel movies?) and put themselves on that throne we all call the big screen.

I then went on to rhetorically ask why this is taking place:

Is it the over reliance on CGI? Is it that so many film makers now come from TV and don't know how to think big screen (and yesterdays small intimate films come across as "big screen" while some of today’s wannabe epics feel like a bad 1980's mini-series). Is it the use of super 35, with directors trying to compose the image for TV as well as the cinema and failing the cinema? Is it overly quick TV style editing? Is it the reliance on catching an audience with some gimmick instead of good story telling? Is it the "big corporation" aspect of current Hollywood? Whatever it is, I want my movies back! Even small independent cinema has fallen prey to this perception. Instead of coming across as avant-garde, today’s indy cinema comes across like "bad video work shop".

Someone brought up the use of computer editing for film as a factor. I agree that it contributes to this, but more and more I feel that the use of super 35 is the primary culprit in this case. Oops, let me correct that statement. I feel that composing the picture safely for TV (which can include using Super 35) has become more important than composing an interesting cinematic image, and thus more and more movies are looking to me like being "made-for-tv".

Now I am not someone who thinks Super 35 is a spawn of the devil. I do prefer anamorphic photography, but I understand that there are many reasons a director may want the scope aspect ratio while achieving it with Super 35. And both "Kingdom Of Heaven" and "Alexander" were two recent Super 35 projects that stunned me with their amazing cinematography. But apparently most of todays directors and/or their cinematographers just don't understand the use of a camera the same way as Ridley Scott or Oliver Stone, because there's way too many scope aspect ratio films out there that are cinematically dead. What I find really interesting is that so many of todays new directors rave on about seeing some classic wide-screen films, yet in their own work they go the "TV safe" route, ignoring the fact that their beloved wide-screen classic played just fine letterboxed on TV. Let's face facts, it was the excellent wide-screen composition that was the attraction in the first place, not playing it safe for TV. My advice to upcoming directors would be to compose the film for the cinema, our TV's are becoming good (and BIG) enough to really show off your photographic style.

 

[Gary Palmer]

It's almost as if most of the films playing at the local multiplex are all made for TV movies of the week that escaped, killed the real movies (or should that be reel movies?) and put themselves on that throne we all call the big screen.

So that makes two of us who've noticed this shift (well, three if you include George Lucas, who recently complained about the shift from widescreen to TV aesthetics in a recent online interview). All we need now is about six billion other people to see it, and things should start to improve!!

Is it that so many film makers now come from TV and don't know how to think big screen

Well, there's always been that cross-pollination of directors from film to TV (and vice versa). I think Russell hit the problem squarely on the head when he said most directors working today were raised on TV and DVD, and they tailor their 'product' accordingly. But your own perceptions were definitely on the right track.

Is it the use of super 35, with directors trying to compose the image for TV as well as the cinema and failing the cinema?

Most will deny this to the grave. But James Cameron is quite open about why he uses it, and Roger Donaldson rather let the cat out of the bag with THE RECRUIT, which he specifically composed as a 2.35 theatrical image and a 1.78 DVD image, which means the film is neither one thing or another. I may have moaned earlier about Peter Jackson's approach to things, but Donaldson's approach is infinitely worse. In his case, that's definitely not 'moviemaking' as we know it.

Is it overly quick TV style editing?... Is it the "big corporation" aspect of current Hollywood?

All these things, allied to the widespread adoption of Super 35, have contributed to the current lack of cinematic aesthetics.

Whatever it is, I want my movies back!

Here, here! Given that you've demonstrated tons of common sense in this posting, Steve, I'm afraid any aspirations you may have of getting work in Hollywood are about zero!!

I feel that composing the picture safely for TV (which can include using Super 35) has become more important than composing an interesting cinematic image, and thus more and more movies are looking to me like being "made-for-tv".

This is exactly the case. They used to do it with anamorphic movies from the mid-1980's onwards until Super 35 became the dominant format.

Now I am not someone who thinks Super 35 is a spawn of the devil.

Some days, I think it is devilspawn, because it was never intended to be used as a sop to television. But that's how it's being used today, and the results are 'crop-screen', not 'widescreen'. If you want a quick comparison, check out the films of Wes Anderson (THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS, THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU), photographed in anamorphic Panavision, which appear to be deliberately framed with the widest, most expansive compositions possible! Anderson understands completely that the people who want to see his films as they were originally intended will either view them theatrically, or as letterboxed DVD's (preferably on 16:9 TV's). He also seems to understand that such images will play perfectly well on wider TV screens, so he uses the 2.35 frame to its optimum advantage. I applaud his defiance of current trends.

I understand that there are many reasons a director may want the scope aspect ratio while achieving it with Super 35.

And there have been many examples of fine-looking S35 entries over the last few years (X2 and URBAN LEGEND are favorites of mine in this regard). But 95% of all S35 movies are cramped, ugly-looking things, riddled with grain. It isn't the format which is devilspawn, it's the way it's being used by clueless filmmakers. Worse still, studios are actively denying filmmakers the option of shooting anamorphic. Bill Condon wanted to shoot GODS AND MONSTERS that way, as a homage to 1950's scope movies of the era in which the story is set, but his backers refused permission because they wanted an 'easy' TV print (he subsequently shot KINSEY with J-D-C anamorphic lenses). And recently, Ken Kwapis had to fight to shoot THE SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PANTS in Panavision. As he explained:

"[The studio's] reservations [about shooting anamorphic] are about one thing only, namely, whether an unwieldy aspect ratio will have an adverse effect on the - I love this phrase - 'revenue stream' of the film. Meaning: ancillary markets. For example, Wal-Mart is the country's biggest retailer of DVDs and they simply will not put widescreen editions of films on their shelves. I know, this point-of-view is shockingly prehistoric, but that's one example of why studios are scared of 'Scope."

What I find really interesting is that so many of todays new directors rave on about seeing some classic wide-screen films, yet in their own work they go the "TV safe" route, ignoring the fact that their beloved wide-screen classic played just fine letterboxed on TV.

Oh, I love it when a director claims he/she 'loves' the scope aspect ratio in interviews, and waxes rhapsodic about how he/she prefers the wider frame over everything else, and then you watch their movie, and it's just 1.85 with the top and bottom shaved off, with no sense of width in the compositions at all. Most of these movies are S35, but some of them don't know how to use anamorphic, either. And you're absolutely right: There's no need to adopt this approach, when lateral composition plays just fine on 16:9 televisions.

our TV's are becoming good (and BIG) enough to really show off your photographic style.

Couldn't agree more.

Are you listening, Hollywood?...

 

[SteveJKo]

Gary, again I must thank you for giving voice to so many things that have bothered me about the current state of cinematography. I would respond to you with some further thoughts on this matter, but your statement quoted above is keeping me too busy laughing hysterically. Guess I'm doomed to always remain a film buff!

 

[Mark Lucas]

It's all about composition and what a director wants it to look like. I've seen some equally claustrophic anamorphic photography and some spacious Super-35 shoots.

 

[Mark-W]

While I do not share Gary's concerns, the fact is film has always been a medium that was actively evolving...with people saying one thing or another was going to be its demise. Chaplin said sound would do it, killing the VISUAL side of film. While Woody Allen’s films would almost always not work as silent films, we cannot say that about every director.

Also, does that mean Chaplin was right?

Is Allen’s work inferior because the dialogue is the thing it is most remembered for? Hitchcock, who was a skilled silent film director, was at his peak in the 1950s and early 60s in both sound and picture, even if that meant that we have almost thirty minutes of music and nearly no dialogue as Scottie follows Madeleine.

If SOME directors are choosing to compose for the small screen instead of the big screen, I blame the director, not the medium or the evolution of home entertainment.

The fact is, without DVD, this entire buzz about restoring this classic film or that classic film would be MUCH quieter. VHS simply didn't need a higher quality version of North By Northwest, Citizen Kane or le Grande Illusion. DVD has pushed studios to factor in print quality and restoration before releasing classic films on DVD. Home Theater IS a factor in film restoration now.. These films have a niche market now and they can make a profit.

Anyone know if Warner Bros would've made a gangster or film noir boxed set on VHS with all the restoration we've been seeing?

Would they have restored the 1933 King Kong and given it all the attention they are giving it if there was not a home theater market for it?

Yes, some directors have said that they factored in television viewing when shooting their films, Scorsese amongst them. But that was more about pan-and-scanning and OAR than the actual scale of the film.

The rise of the home theater has also helped in the OAR battle, too.

I think if you're going to bemoan a DVD release window as the cause for a less epic scaled or widely composed film, you'll need to do a much better job of showing causation.

Fact is, unlike the olden days, film directors now often started by directing television shows or little independent films with handy cams: Spielberg directed "Night Gallery." Ron Howard directed I don't know what.. Neither IMHO would ever be mistaken for David Lean. But then David Lean never worked directing television programs, did he?
Ridley Scott started out by directing television commercials.

Heck, even David Lynch warped a failed television show into an Academy Award nominated film: Mulholland Drive.

Are you going to tell me television hampered Lynch's creative vision???

Yes, the first two Harry Potter films both look better 1.33:1 than 2.35:1, but that is Chris Columbus' fault, not DVD's.

Truth is, stylistically, the whole push of "reality programming," neo-realism, and independant filmmaking have made many a director find value in utilizing a more documentary style within their work.

Anyone remember Lars Von Trier's Dogma 95 style?

Oh, and the comic book movie most everyone is raving about is constantly praised for taking Batman in a more REALISTIC direction with as little artifice as one can imagine in a "comic book" film.

While I love Lawrence of Arabia and find a that one could take hundreds of stills from it, frame them, and hang them on the walls of any art gallery, that style of cinematography, unfortunately, looks "dated" and "less real" than current appetites appear to dictate. It doesn't make it a less brilliant film. Few films measure up when compared to Lawrence of Arabia. But that visual style does contain a lot of artifice. Someone like Todd Haynes creates a film like Far From Heaven using the pallete and visual style of Douglas Sirk's 50's melodramas and that artifice in and of itself adds a whole layer to the film's depth.

What about Curtis Hanson's L.A. Confidential? Brilliant visually and thematically. But his next film was the visually forgettable Wonder Boys. Why? My guess would be he didn't want the cinematography to be noticeable is such a quiet little film. In other words, the "invisible" cinematography fit the material.

Hollywood is listening. They're giving us the great classics on DVD, spending money on painstaking restorations so we can have access to them and enjoy them on DVD is way many of us born in the mid-to-late 60s never could have before.

Gary, are you going to hate DVD as you pop in an OAR copy of Lawrence of Arabia in your home theater?
I didn't know you could go to a theater whenever you wanted to see that film. You must live near a revival house that shows classic films all the time.
Did you ever get excited about popping in a low-rez Pan-and-Scan VHS of Lawrence of Arabia?

Fact is, DVD has given many a classic film a whole new life and audience. I don't even want to think about Carol Reed's The Third Man on VHS.
UGH!

This whole idea that "widescreen composition = true cinema" is just false and ignorant.

Are you going to tell me Greg Tolldand's
1.37: 1 work in Citizen Kane is not a visual masterpiece?
How about any of Jack Cardiff's work for
Powell and Pressburger?
Have you seen Black Narcissus?
Even Lean's 1.33 : 1 Oliver Twist is a better triumph of visual art over all but a very few shots in his widescreen Doctor Zhivago.

Metropolis? Man! What a piece of visual crap that Fritz Lang academy ratio film is! He must have been thinking of the home theater market when he made that. Same for Cooper, who make a little film called King Kong. But that film isn't widescreen, so I guess it is an example subpar filmmaking, too.

I blame The Blair Witch Project for the demise of widescreen! Then again, maybe there just aren't any more Greg Tollands or Jack Cardiffs out there. But I don't blame DVD for that.

Back to Jackson's King Kong,
the new "a look inside" trailer took my breath away. Also, Jackson says he shoots on Super35 because it is easier for his FX team to work with that over an anamorphic image.

 

[Vader]

Honestly, I don't understand where this hatred of Columbus comes from...

 

[Gary Palmer]

Is Allen's work inferior because the dialogue is the thing it is most remembered for?

Allen's forte is small, intimate comedy/drama, which - for me - isn't terribly cinematic. But that's his style, and no one's saying there isn't room for that kind of small-scale moviemaking.

If SOME directors are choosing to compose for the small screen instead of the big screen, I blame the director, not the medium or the evolution of home entertainment.

You're suggesting this problem is confined to a small number of filmmakers, when I'd argue it's endemic within Hollywood and the international movie community, to the point where any attempt to enlarge (or widen) the visual canvas is almost immediately noticeable because of its rarity in modern cinema. That's why I cited the work of Wes Anderson.

And if it wasn't for the evolution of home entertainment, directors wouldn't be tailoring their material for that particular format. And, I say again: There's no need to do it that way, because modern televisions are more than capable of displaying everything from small, intimate dramas to widescreen extravaganzas.

The fact is, without DVD, this entire buzz about restoring this classic film or that classic film would be MUCH quieter... Home Theater IS a factor in film restoration now.. These films have a niche market now and they can make a profit.

You'll get no argument from me there. I'm not saying DVD and home theater are bad things, I'm saying filmmakers have sacrificed the Big Screen aesthetic in a manner that favors DVD over everything else, and that there's no reason for it. Once HD discs become available (followed by ultra-HD), there will be even less reason to tailor images to the small screen.

Yes, some directors have said that they factored in television viewing when shooting their films, Scorsese amongst them. But that was more about pan-and-scanning and OAR than the actual scale of the film.

So why do I see such an obvious difference between today's aesthetic and the visual style of yesteryear (before the advent of VHS and DVD), every time I visit my local cattleplex? It's not that the older films are 'old-fashioned' and the newer films are more realistic - the stylistic shift began with the success of VHS and has continued to the present day. There can be no other explanation.

I think if you're going to bemoan a DVD release window as the cause for a less epic scaled or widely composed film, you'll need to do a much better job of showing causation.

Do you have an alternative theory?

Ridley Scott started out by directing television commercials.

Beautiful, cinematic things they were, too. Unfortunately, there's a world of difference between Scott's early Panavision films and the Super 35 movies he directs today - GLADIATOR is another 'widescreen' film which sacrifices width for size, unlike ALIEN, for example, which is a great deal more cinematic in terms of size and width. And it's not as though Scott's sense of composition has deserted him - HANNIBAL is a thrilling example of 1.85:1 cinematography, for intance.

Heck, even David Lynch warped a failed television show into an Academy Award nominated film: Mulholland Drive. Are you going to tell me television hampered Lynch's creative vision???

Many directors have worked in TV and cinema over the years, and today's TV has adopted some of the visual style of 'cinema'. But it has reached a point where there's very little difference between the two mediums, unlike what you describe as the 'old days', when directors crafted intimate images for TV and huge, expansive images for theaters. Today, everything looks the same. Lynch appears to know the difference. Then again, I'm not arguing that all directors are guilty of this TV mentality - only most of them.

Yes, the first two Harry Potter films both look better 1.33:1 than 2.35:1, but that is Chris Columbus' fault, not DVD's.

DVD has everything to do with the way those movies were made, more than most!! Whereas most Super 35 movies generate visual FX sequences in widescreen AR's (everything from 1.78 to 2.35), to be integrated into the final release print - leading to pan-scanning during those sequences when transferred to 4:3 on TV/home video - Columbus had the FX generated at 4:3, specifically to accommodate the eventual DVD release. I haven't seen any of the HARRY POTTER movies, but given the way they were designed, I have no doubt they'll look like most other S35 movies - cropscreen.

Truth is, stylistically, the whole push of "reality programming," neo-realism, and independant filmmaking have made many a director find value in utilizing a more documentary style within their work.

I don't have a problem with this approach, but not when it's the only approach we see in theaters today. Why bother making 'films' if you're only concerned with how the movie is going to look on a television screen?

While I love Lawrence of Arabia... that style of cinematography, unfortunately, looks "dated" and "less real" than current appetites appear to dictate.

I know what you mean. But 'artifice' is part of the cinematic language. And if you take a look at something like THE UNTOUCHABLES, you'll see a relatively modern film which uses the wide frame in a wholly cinematic manner, without artifice. You seem to be saying that lateral composition = artifice, whereas today's cramped, ugly-looking stuff is more 'realistic', and I don't agree. You can still be realistic in the 'modern style' without sacrificing the cinematic dimension (check out the first two Indiana Jones movies for more examples).

Gary, are you going to hate DVD as you pop in an OAR copy of Lawrence of Arabia in your home theater?... Did you ever get excited about popping in a low-rez Pan-and-Scan VHS of Lawrence of Arabia?

I'd like to think that all my posts in this particular thread demonstrate a singular love of 'film' and the Big Screen experience. I love the quality of DVD, and the fact that - for the most part - it replicates movies as closely as possible to the original theatrical presentation (OAR, multichannel sound, etc.). But the whole thrust of my argument is that movies have become smaller over the years as a direct result of home theater, and that they have become diminished (in all senses of the word) as a consequence. Only someone raised on a constant diet of today's theatrical output could fail to see that my thesis is based on a love of cinema, and not simply an attack on home theater and DVD.

This whole idea that "widescreen composition = true cinema" is just false and ignorant.

If you're happy with today's TV-friendly imagery, then your own viewpoint is similarly unenlightened. Widescreen composition IS true cinema - but so is the smaller, intimate drama, the character-driven chamber piece, the experimental, and the avant garde. ALL cinema is worthy of attention and discussion, but not when the vast majority of what is produced at any given time swaps the 'cinematic' for the 'TV friendly'.

Are you going to tell me Greg Tolldand's 1.37: 1 work in Citizen Kane is not a visual masterpiece? How about any of Jack Cardiff's work for Powell and Pressburger? Have you seen Black Narcissus? Even Lean's 1.33 : 1 Oliver Twist is a better triumph of visual art over all but a very few shots in his widescreen Doctor Zhivago.

I said I 'prefer' scope over 4:3, I didn't say 4:3 wasn't a legitimate form of filmmaking.

Metropolis? Man! What a piece of visual crap that Fritz Lang academy ratio film is! He must have been thinking of the home theater market when he made that. Same for Cooper, who make a little film called King Kong. But that film isn't widescreen, so I guess it is an example subpar filmmaking, too.

Mark, if you want to discuss this kind of thing, then try not to go overboard. Rudeness isn't necessary to sustain my attention.

Also, Jackson says he shoots on Super35 because it is easier for his FX team to work with that over an anamorphic image.

Oldest excuse in the book. The extra work needed to accommodate anamorphic would be nothing for a mega-budget item like this. Yes, S35 makes it easier, but having to deal with anamorphic 'artifacts' is probably the least of an FX artist's concerns. Just ask the experts who worked on the original STAR WARS trilogy, or any of the anamorphic FX-driven blockbusters produced during the 1980's.

 

[TravisR]

Anyone remember when this thread was about the new King Kong on DVD? Not going on and on about how bad Super 35 is.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Don't get all nostalgic on me.

 

[Mark-W]

No, my viewpoint is that true cinema is not dependant on any particular aspect ratio or even composition of the mise en scene.

If today's films often don't look as "composed for widescreen" as their predescessors, I suggest that there are many reasons for that, with only one of those factors being the awareness of their presentation in home theaters, which, by your own comments, should be regarded as null and void since home theaters are increasingly larger and utilize a widescreen ratio.

I think this discussion, if continued, would be better suited to the "movies" section and not in one that is supposed to be about the release of Jackson's verison of King Kong.

 

[Gary Palmer]

Again, you assume lateral composition = artifice (which it doesn't - cf. my comments regarding THE UNTOUCHABLES and the Indiana Jones movies), and you make excuses for a stylistic shift which has clearly - and demonstrably - occurred during the rise of VHS, DVD and home theater. There may have been other reasons for it, but none as compelling as this one important cultural factor. Even George Lucas noted as much in a recent online interview:

"There is a difference between how you make things for big screen and small screen. When you're designing for DVD, you tend to end up with more close-ups, and your wide shots aren't so wide. I don't subscribe to that stylistic shift, but a lot of kids making movies now grew up on TV and DVDs - not films in theaters - so that's how they make movies. I prefer to make them for the big screen, and they tend to work out alright."

Anyway, I'm not going to repeat myself. All the points you raised in this latest posting have already been rebuffed in my own previous postings.