What's new

Freddy VS Jason has more picture info in fullscreen than Widescreen! (1 Viewer)

Rolando

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
1,336
First of all yes I do feel dirty at having watched the Fool Screen to know this.

My guess is it was shot in Super 35 because the OAR is 2.35:1 on 1.85 where the Fool Screen would be open matte.

I just saw this for the first time this week. I know, shame on me especially being such a fan of both franchises and owning the DVDs of each. Well when I put in the DVD I obviously chose the OAR and was pleased to see the example when chose showed the widescreen with more info on the sides and the same info on the top and bottom.

However since it was a borrowed copy I decided to view it again before I gave it back. While checking out scenes I thought I would do a small comparison between them since the OAR was 2.35:1 it obviously had to be PAN and SCAN. Well imagine my shock to learn otherwise.

Yup, just checked IMDB and looks like Super 35. Damn it why do they do this? Just confuses the crap out of consumers when even with a 2:35 OAR the Fool Screen version has more info. especially when some of the "extra" visuals are gore and more nudity. It's like the director WANTS us to watch the Fool Screen version :angry:

anyway, just ranting...
 

Shawn_KE

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
1,295
Isn't this the same thing with Terminator 3?

The widescreen version is what the director wanted us to see.
 

Adam Tyner

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 29, 2000
Messages
1,410

It's the same thing with a lot of movies, which is why the "WTF?" in the subject line baffles me. OAR isn't about getting "more" information...it's about getting the right information.
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,124
Super 35 has been around for a long time. This is not anything new. Also, Full screen transfers of Super 35 films are often cropped in many places. Sometimes it is not very major, sometimes quite substantially.

Better get used to it as it is replacing anamorphic photography.
 

Rolando

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
1,336
I know what you Adam. The WTF? was not so much a "since when" but more of a Why? I know James Cameron loves this process. From Abyss to T2 I he has used it. I know the 3 Harry Potters and the 3 Lord of the Rings movies are like this and it irks me that it confuses people who don't understand OAR Vs P&S.

I understand that it's about seeing what is intended. NOT MORE and surely NOT LESS. We were not meant to see John Cleese was wearing boxers. We were not meant to see Booms/Microphones. We were not meant to see above X actor's hair line or see their shoes.

But when what is revealed is extra blood/gore FX and more frontal nudity tell me who will want to watch OAR? don't get me wrong. I will watch OAR because I am so darn anal about it. But let's face it how many people see these kinds of movies for dialogue or admiring scenery? We will watch it for suspense, chills, scares and thrills. we want to see cool FX and T&A. let's not be coy. 80% of target audience is hoping for it, waiting on it.

It should not be the MAR version that has the extra intestines on the floor or the better/longer view of frontal nudity.
 

Jeff B.

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
78


So where does that put us with dvd's such as Full Metal Jacket? It certainly isn't OAR -- but it is how Kubrick preferred the film, open matte 1.33:1 ratio.

Anyways Rolando, all I can say is that sometimes the director chooses to shoot in an aspect that would not be optimum for the theater (Kubrick). This film was shot in Super 35, so I don't know about their decision to open matte the fullscreen. I guess if there has to be fullscreen, more is better then less right?
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,124


It seems that you are contradicting yourself here. You seem to suggest that most people don't really care about framing, and watch a movie for content. Fair enough. But then you point out that we want to see T&A and more gore. So then, it is about framing.

I guess what I am asking is, does it really matter that in FvJ you see a half a second of more breast in the MAR version? Most Open Matte Super35 transfers look awful to me, just way to much headroom in many shots or even full blown pan and scan.

I'm sure you know that there are, in many cases, very practical reasons for shooting in Super 35. In the case of FvJ where most of the action took place at night, I'm sure it was much easier using Super 35 where lighting challenges are made much easier as opposed to shooting anamorphic.

I do sometimes lament that it seems like nowadays 4 out of 5 2.35:1 films are derived from Super 35 photography as opposed to true scope. I do agree that it does blur the agruement for the layman to embrace widescreen presentations. But, as I said, were going to have to get used to it.
 

Travis W.

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
305
Some friends and I film short movies for the fun of it and we always go for the "matted" look...which technically in our case is cutting off the picture...but it makes it look cool...not sure if this helped at all :D .

What I'm trying to say, as has been repeated earlier, is that the director obviously didn't want that information shown so that's the way we should watch it.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Premium
Ambassador
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
21,885
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
off topic..

what are those quote boxes? is that new?

on topic...
what is the point of this thread?
i guess i dont understand the question in the title "wtf?"

arent there numerous threads that explain the difference between open matte and what was intended to be seen by the viewer.

this doesnt seem to be the same as the t-3 situation were that may be an error in framing.
 

Rolando

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
1,336
uh oh... I think I just turned into one those people who get on my nerves. Ask questions that have no point or have been dealt with a million times. DOH! Maybe I should change my name to... never mind.

Actually part of what I wanted to ask (slipped my mind) was whether or not the DVD is definitely the same framing as the theater release. Does anyone here have a great memory for these things? Anyone saw a dozen times in theatres and is certain it is or isn't the same framing. Or is this another T3 Once upon A Time in Mexico thing...
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,124
I would doubt there are any framing errors a la the alleged T3 incident. Somebody surely would have picked up on this long ago. It's not uncommon for open matte transfers to feature extra nudity or other visual elements than their widescreen counterparts. There is a thread somewhere that documents many of these instances.
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582

According to Warner, who also said that the transfers on the first Kubrick set were the only ones they could use until they were set to release the improved box.
 

Robert Ringwald

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
2,641
There's an unfinished CGI shot in the full-frame version. Freddy's glove is incomplete when he slices off Kia's nose in the nurse's office dream sequence. I remember seeing a picture online.

So if you're watching for the effects, I would think you'd want the good looking ones, not the incomplete ones...
 

[email protected]

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Messages
1,718
...preparing to be burned at the stake...

In recent memory, this issue has come up with Phonebooth, T3, and now FvJ.

For my part, I wish that all Super35 productions were transferred on DVD at the 1.85 ratio.

I think this would be the best of both worlds, since the true aspect ratio (1.66) will never be seen anyway.

IMHO, when a director decides to use Super35, they are essentially opting to 'float' various creative decisions so as to create multiple versions of the film later.

I don't think you can serve more than one creative master in this way. IMHO, this means there is no true OAR due to the inherent compromises of envisioning 1.33 and 2.35 versions simultaneously.

2.35 may seem more sweeping on the big screen, but at home this ratio (when artificially imposed) can create a mailbox effect (I'm watching a movie thru a mailbox flap, everyone's foreheads and chins are cut off...).

I applaud directors who are brave enough to release the best version of their film in each market, like Roger Donaldson's The Recruit (2003).
 

Jeff Gatie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
6,531


In the opinion of many directors and others in the industry (some of which have posted on the HTF about this very subject), this is patently false. A director/cinematographer may "protect" for 4:3, but almost never compromise the OAR version to improve the MAR version. This has been discussed adinfinitum on this and other forums with input from those that are much more experienced than me. I've never heard anyone experienced with the world of cinematography cite any director other than Kubrick who "floated" creative decisions to create a 4:3 version of a film.
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,124


Certainly Super35 has the advantage (or cheat, depending on who you ask) of being able to open matte somewhat for 4:3 reducing the amount of cropping you would normally be required to do. But the use of Super35 has many more technical facets than just that and they have been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
348,726
Messages
4,854,867
Members
142,366
Latest member
mattpm
Recent bookmarks
0
Top