Godfather, OAR and Television Presentation (1 Viewer)

[Doug_L]

Before anybody jumps on me, I have done a search, and my question still remains unanswered:
When they show "The Godfather" & "The Godfather II" on television and it fills the 4:3 frame, is it Pan & Scan or Full Frame, or what?
I'm going to try not to misuse terms here. Was the Godfather shot open-matte, ie: a 4:3 frame that they matted to get the 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio? Or is there something else involved?
This question popped into my head as I was watching "The Godfather Saga" on A&E the other weekend. I thought to myself "how different will this look in OAR?" It occurred to me that there didn't seem to be too many instances with a character talking to somebody out of frame, or too many conversations where the frame cut from one person to another, so I thought that rather than a Pan & Scan job, this may have been filmed open-matte.
Can anybody verify the filming process, and if I'm using these terms right? Thanks.
By the way, IMO, all the extra added scenes for the Saga were unnecessary and detrimental to the film(s). Give me the theatrical cut, or give me nothing at all.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Unless I'm much mistaken, the three films were shot spherical and composed for 1.85:1 projection. It's likely that any 4:3 (TV) versions have been transferred from the full frame, which means you're seeing image top and bottom which wasn't really mean to be there.

 

[GerardoHP]

I believe Rob is right. In fact, Coppola may have framed the three films with an eye on their television presentation, where as far as I know they've always been shown open-matte.
When the three films first showed up on laserdisc in full-frame, open-matte editions, I heard through the grapevine that Coppola said this was how he intended the three Godfather films to be seen on television, the implication being that the viewer would not really benefit from getting widescreen editions of the films.
However, I also understand that GODFATHER III was shot in Super 35 for a 1.85:1 theatrical presentation, which means that when comparing the full-frame and the widescreen versions you may see that the difference is not just at the top and bottom of the frame.
------------------
Gerardo

 

[Greg_Y]

I'm almost positive that I and II (at least) are full-frame when shown in a non-widescreen format. I remember doing comparisons between the widescreen VHS tapes and the Godfather Trilogy VHS tapes and seeing more on the top and bottom.
Since Coppola had a hand in the DVDs and their anamorphic widescreen at 1.85:1, I'll consider that the proper display.
The IMDB also lists this as 1.85:1.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Setting the wayback machine for when the theatrical re-release of GF1 and corresponding widescreen laserdisc of GF1, GF2, & GF3 were released, I have a vague recollection that at least the first two films were shot in whole or in part with nominal 1.66:1 hard mattes. This allows some matte opening for TV presentations, but still requires some cropping of the image.
Aha, I have just located the alt.video.laserdisc thread here . Not that usenet is ever the final word on anything...
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Tim Gerdes]

I'm almost positive that I and II (at least) are full-frame when shown in a non-widescreen format. I remember doing comparisons between the widescreen VHS tapes and the Godfather Trilogy VHS tapes and seeing more on the top and bottom.

Not only do you see more information at the top and the bottom of the frame, in at least one scene you even see a boom mike. Check out the scene where Clemenza and Sonny are talking in Sonny's kitchen Spoiler:after the Don is shot. The mike weaves in and out of the frame.
When I was younger and before I understood OAR, Pan & Scan Full Frame, etc. I thought this was just sloppy cinematography. Now that I am older and know better, this is just further evidence as to why unmatted full frame transfers can be just as horrible as Pan and Scan.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The mike weaves in and out of the frame

Perhaps it was just a very unsophisticated FBI wiretap.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

Somewhat related to this topic but not entirely, when AMC showed Godfather II a week or so ago, they showed it in 4:3 in the early evening and showed it in widescreen for the latenight showing! Yet another case of Warner-Brothers-thinks-joe-bloe-hates-widescreen-itis?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Yet another case of Warner-Brothers-thinks-joe-bloe-hates-widescreen-itis?

AMC is not part of the AOL/Time-Warner family. TCM is, and they show more letterboxed OAR presentations than any other movie network I can think of.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Michael Reuben]

Somewhat related to this topic but not entirely, when AMC showed Godfather II a week or so ago, they showed it in 4:3 in the early evening and showed it in widescreen for the latenight showing!

That's standard practice for AMC: show the 4:3 version during primetime and the widescreen version late at night.
I can't fault AMC on this score. In many instances, it's the only source for widescreen versions of certain films (e.g., Norma Rae until the recent DVD, Young Sherlock Holmes).
M.

 

[David Tallen]

Setting the wayback machine ...

OK, any of you whippersnappers know what Ken is alluding to?
------------------
"If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really very good." Paul O'Neill, Treasury Secretary.

 

[george kaplan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting the wayback machine ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, any of you whippersnappers know what Ken is alluding to?

Sorry Mr. Peabody, I have no idea.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

David caught it right away, because he lives near Frostbite Falls, MN and probably attended Whatsamatta U..

Personally, in my youth, I bore an uncanny resemblance to Sherman.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA
[Edited last by Ken_McAlinden on August 29, 2001 at 09:51 AM]