Will we ever be able to see Apocalypse Now in it's true OAR?? (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

so bringing up this older thread i looked at my laser from a few years ago and it says near the bottom "preserving the 2.35:1 aspect ratio of it's origional theatrical presentation." so is the laser wrong ? http://www.geocities.com/anthonydewa...alypsenow.html also i found that the laser came with a mail in for the hearts of darkness docu. so i wonder why non of the dvd versions could add this as a mail off or included in supplements.

 

[Michael Reuben]

so bringing up this older thread i looked at my laser from a few years ago and it says near the bottom "preserving the 2.35:1 aspect ratio of it's origional theatrical presentation." so is the laser wrong ?

Yes, the jacket copy is wrong. The LD AR is roughly the same as on the DVD. This is true of both LD releases.
M.

 

[DarrenA]

While I think it would be neat to see this on DVD in the 2.35:1 format, I don't really have a problem with this decision. Why? Because this decision was made by the director and cinematographer, and that sits just fine with me. Now had the studio or some other influence outside of the original filmmaking team had made this decision, that would have been another story.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

I don't really have a problem with this decision. Why? Because this decision was made by the director and cinematographer,

A bad decision non the less.

This film was orignally intended to be seen at 2.35:1. It was not shot in anamorphic only to be composed for 2:1...that is complete nonsense and has never been confirmed.

The reasons made to crop it for video were technical, not artistic.

 

[Scott H]

It was not shot in anamorphic only to be composed for 2:1...that is complete nonsense and has never been confirmed.

The reasons made to crop it for video were technical, not artistic.

Nor has this been confirmed. What technical reasons?

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I'm with Darren. I would prefer this film were released in 2.35:1 (and I'm still kicking myself for not catching Redux during its theatrical run last summer), at least this was a decision made by the filmmakers. I don't agree with it, but at least it's a somewhat valid explanation.

 

[Greg Z]

Time for Greg to stir the pot... click here

 

[cafink]

While I think it would be neat to see this on DVD in the 2.35:1 format, I don't really have a problem with this decision. Why? Because this decision was made by the director and cinematographer, and that sits just fine with me.

As Jerry stated, being a director does not exempt one from making bad decisions.

The "technical reason" for the cropped transfer is a simple matter of resolution. The bigger the picture is on your television, the more pixels it's allotted.

I don't agree with Messrs. Coppola and Storaro that it's an acceptable compromise to crop the picture just for the sake of making it bigger. That's why I watch movies in widescreen instead of pan-and-scan in the first place.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The reasons made to crop it for video were technical, not artistic.

isn't the "technical" reason of "it looks better at this AR when viewed in this format" also an artistic reason? isn't it always an artistic choice to use the format in the way that the artist feels is the best possible given the limitations of that format?
of course, you'll say no. because, as always, you know about the proper presentation of Apocalypse Now better than the filmmakers themselves. personally, i prefer Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, not Jerry Gracia's Apocalypse Now.
DJ

 

[cafink]

personally, i prefer Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now

Which version is that? The original theatrical version? The cropped home video version of that same edit? The "Redux" version released to theaters last year? Or maybe the cropped DVD version of "Redux"?

Interestingly enough, the cropped version of the original release is framed differently than the cropped version of "Redux." This above all should illustrate that "Apocalypse Now" was never intended to be framed at 2:1 until long after the fact.

I'll say it again: Being a director does not exempt one from making bad decisions.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I'm just going to drop in one more time and say that the 70mm print does NOT appear cropped or tightly framed in any way.

Also, Walter Murch has spoken and written extensively about designing the six channel sound mix from the beginning of production. DOES ANYONE HERE REALLY THINK THAT THE 70MM PRINT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE IMPROPERLY FRAMED AND YET ALSO BE THE ONLY WAY TO HEAR THE FILM AS IT WAS ENVISIONED?

Apocalypse Now was shot with 70mm presentation in mind. There was no six-track option for 35mm presentation in the late 1970s. The 2.2:1 ratio of 70mm is the correct one for the film.

The home video versions are cropped, however they are not cropped from 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 as some people keep repeating.

 

[Scott H]

Unless I missed something it does not make sense that it would be released on DVD at 2.20:1 for any technical reason. It appears that it was released this way as an artistic decision.

As folks are suggesting that there is confirmation for things, what's the confirmation that it has an OAR of 2.35:1? It's 35mm theatrical release? No way. I don't personally know the OAR of this film. That is not to say it wasn't 2.35:1, but because it was released on 35mm at that AR doesn't mean that was the intended OAR. It was released on 70mm at 2.20:1, correct? For all I know that was the OAR. You can certainly shoot a 2.20:1 OAR film anamorphically on 35mm. Again, I don't know the facts here, but it seems obvious to me that it was an artistic decision by the filmmakers to release it this way now, and what is of interest to me is whether or not it was truly a late modification to the film or something they had in mind when they shot it.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

this is, of course, very true, as evidenced by the fact that bad movies are made by the hundreds (thousands?) every year. but i'd prefer a world in which directors have the freedom to make bad choices instead of being compelled to go against their wishes and do what Carl Fink and Jerry Gracia prefer. thankfully, there is no compulsory Fink & Gracia Film Board that reviews and modifies the decisions of filmmakers.
a movie can be "bad" and also "right." a movie is "right" when it is being presented in the way that the filmmakers want it to be presented. whether that choice of presentation is "good" or "bad," it has no impact on whether it is "right" or wrong."
DJ

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Did any of you even READ the link that Greg provided!?
Look:

Because of Storaro's personal problem with NTSC resolution we can never see this films FULL original aspect ratio on our home theaters.
That's a technical reason, not artistic. If you think its artistic...more power to ya.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Damin,

I'd appreciate it if you toned down the use of my name in your post the way you have been using it.

Thank you.

 

[Robert George]

Wow, some threads never die...

To Aaron:

Apocalypse Now was shot anamorphic 35mm (Technovision). That negative would be 2.35:1. The 35mm scope theatrical prints, assuming proper projection, would have been framed at 2.40:1. Yes, AN did get a limited 70mm release, but these prints were blowups from the scope 35mm negative. The 2.21:1 framing of 70mm prints was correct for that film format but was still cropped from the original negative.

Scott:

Your message sounds like you are assuming the transferred ratio on the DVD is 2.20:1. If only that were the case. The video transfer has been reframed at 2:1, and that is all the way out to horizontal blanking. Unless one is viewing on a monitor with either "0" overscan or is underscanned, one is not even seeing it at 2:1. With the average overscan of consumer monitors, most people are seeing this film at something around 1.85:1.

That's just wrong, I don't care who made the decision.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I recently got the AN-R DVD and it says that Zoetrope produced the DVD and Paramount simply released it. (paraphrased.)

Since Coppola owns Zoetrope Studios and he oversees the DVD's of his films, this DVD has to be the way he wants it to be seen on television. He surely could show it at 2.35:1 if he wanted to.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think the director's participation in the DVD is enough to show that we're not getting cheated out of proper presentation.

Even if AN-R was cropped to 1.28:1 because that's what Coppola and Sttoro (sic) wanted, I'd have no problem, since that's what they want the film to be seen as. (Despite the picture looking very strange.)

 

[Ali B]

If you use the Ultra Panavision squuezed 70mm prints you can upto 2.7:1 on a 70mm print.

ali

 

[Damin J Toell]

Damin,

I'd appreciate it if you toned down the use of my name in your post the way you have been using it.

in what offensive way have i been using it?

DJ

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Apocalypse Now was shot anamorphic 35mm (Technovision). That negative would be 2.35:1. The 35mm scope theatrical prints, assuming proper projection, would have been framed at 2.40:1. Yes, AN did get a limited 70mm release, but these prints were blowups from the scope 35mm negative. The 2.21:1 framing of 70mm prints was correct for that film format but was still cropped from the original negative.

Yes, just as Super 35 is cropped from a 1:33 neg, right? Just because there's some image on the neg there, it does not mean that it was meant to be seen.

Like I said, AN was envisioned from the outset with a 6-channel split surround soundtrack. Unless the filmmakers were REALLY dense, they would have realized that the 70mm prints -- the showcase prints, the way the film was intended to be seen -- would have to be cropped from 2.4:1 to 2.2:1. Would they not have composed appropriately?

Once again, the 2.2:1 print that I viewed after having had a debate like this does not appear cropped in any way. The 2:1 LD transfer, however, DOES, to my eyes.