Oar, Oar, Oar

Ken_McAlinden

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,206
Location
Livonia, MI USA
Real Name
Kenneth McAlinden
I think Mike Knapp's definition would pretty much exclude bonehead mistakes by local projectionists...
Well, first of all, the 2.0:1 think is usually done willfully rather than accidentally, so while indeed "boneheaded", I'm not sure it is technically a mistake.

The question then becomes why would it not also extend to boneheaded mistakes ...errrr... decisions by studio executives such as with "Shane" at 1.66:1 (which would be the OAR by the above definition)? Or lack of infrastructure to support a director's preferred ratio on a large scale commercial release such as with Kubrick? Ignoring a filmmakers intent/preference seems pretty silly.

I'll be happy with whatever aspect ratio the filmmakers would choose to show the film theatrically under controlled circumstances and consider that OAR even if it was not shown that way upon initial release.

Regards,
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
What about the Premiere presentation of the movie? I would hardly think that the premiere of ANY movie would be misframed


All other subsequent presentations are no longer the original presentation and shouldn't be worked into the equation.
 

Joseph DeMartino

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
8,311
Location
Florida
Real Name
Joseph DeMartino
The Shane situation is such an abberation that I think it should be dropped from the discussion. "Hard cases make bad law."


Regards,

Joe
 

TedD

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
698
In the last three years, I've seen these films theatrically, in several different theaters:

Dr. Strangelove
North by Northwest

All of these films were projected at 1.85:1, even though that aspect ratio is incorrect for all of them.
Sorry, Charlie, there is nothing wrong with showing these two titles at 1.85, because that's the way they were presented in the vast majority of U.S. theatres.

NxNW was a VistaVision title, and D. S. was made well after 1954, which is when 1.85 became the standard flat A.R. specified by the SMPTE.

As an interesting aside, if you ever see a VistaVision print from Paramount in a movie theater, you will see a symbol that occurs twice at the beginning of each reel. It looks a lot like a "T" and an "F" superimposed and has three horizontal bars.

Those three horizontal bars happen to be alignment marks for the following A.R.'s, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 and 2.0:1, and should be aligned with the top masking to properly frame the image for each of the A.R.'s.

Ted
 

Allan Mack

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 26, 2001
Messages
614
I'll be happy with whatever aspect ratio the filmmakers would choose to show the film theatrically under controlled circumstances and consider that OAR even if it was not shown that way upon initial release.
 

Peter Kline

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 1999
Messages
2,393
OAR also is the abbreviation for "official accountants report". As we know, Hollywood films rarely make any money as these bottom line reports often show large loses for most films.
 

Peter Kline

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 9, 1999
Messages
2,393
You can bet that most filmakers wanted their effort to be seen on a large screen in a movie theatre and not on a low rez home video setup!
 

Joseph DeMartino

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
8,311
Location
Florida
Real Name
Joseph DeMartino
Hey, two different guys independently invented calculus at about the same time. One is more famous than the other, though
Same thing happened with the telephone and the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection. The trick is to get your story out to the general public first. In this case I think Mike K. wins.


Regards,

Joe
 

Ken_McAlinden

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,206
Location
Livonia, MI USA
Real Name
Kenneth McAlinden
My point is that you don't have to treat the Shane situation as an aberration if you take into account the filmmaker's intent. I don't understand why some in this thread are so dead set against that.

The premiere aspect ratio suggestion wouldn't really be flexible enough either. What if a film was shot 2.35:1 35mm, but for the premiere, they made a 70mm blow-up that was cropped to 2.2:1? Stick with how it was composed by the filmmakers at the time of production and you are all set. Using filmmakers' original intent as your criterion prevents you having to cover your eyes and ears and dismiss every exception as "de minimus".

Example: I am convinced that if Kubrick were alive to supervise a special screening of any of his flat 35mm films, he would want them presented with the full exposed frame theatrically. I therefore have no problem with the DVDs representing that. I am equally convinced that Coppola would show Apocalypse Now theatrically at 2.35:1 or possibly 2.2:1 for a 70mm blow up. Neither of these match the 2.0:1 AR of the DVDs, so the DVDs are not OAR.

Regards,
 

Tony Whalen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
3,150
Real Name
Tony Whalen
I like FAR.

How about another one?

F.A.R.T. Filmmakers Authorized Ratio (for) Television?



Personally, I think OAR should represent how the movie was originally envisioned by the director/cinematographer. However, the argument for how a film was presented theatrically is a compelling one. Tough call...

Frankly, just so long as crappy artificial camera moves aren't introduced into a film for home-use, I'll be happy.
 

Paul McElligott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2002
Messages
2,598
Real Name
Paul McElligott
My turn:

Original Aspect Ratio: The aspect ratio that was assumed when composing shots for theatrical distribution.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
345,521
Messages
4,744,188
Members
141,470
Latest member
chsblr