bad_karma24

User Group: Members
Join date: 28-Mar-2004
Last activity: 12-Apr-2024
Posts: 685

Post History

Post: #41875
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/41875/action/topic#41875
Time: 5-Apr-2004 3:09 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Quote
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
What I'm saying is that Kubrick did shoot with hard mattes for some sequences, but the film is largely 1.37:1; in fact, if I remember correctly from the last time I saw it (~8 years ago), the shot with Slim Pickens riding the bomb looks to be 1.66:1, but once Pickens enters the frame, his image actually overlaps the mattes, showing that Kubrick is, once again, trying to confuse us. The most correct presentation for this film would still be 1.37:1, as it would preserve this moment as well as allowing the other scenes to be shown correctly.

That's true for Slim Pickens, he was shot at a 1.37:1 ratio as opposed to the background, but showing it 1.37:1 would cut off the scenes that were hard matted, so showing it in varying aspect ratios is the correct way of viewing it.

But the only way to show it in varying aspect ratios is to present it 1.37:1, since this is the size of the overall frame. Hard matting is like letterboxing; you'll only see what you were meant to see. The image will change sizes within the frame, but the frame size remains constant.
As for other movies that switch aspect ratios, here's 4: Brainstorm (the movie itself was shot flat, but sequences involving the brainwave device were shot 70mm 6-track), Fantasia 2000 (Sorcerer's Apprentice is shown in its correct 1.37:1 AR), Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course (scenes with Steve & Terri rescuing animals are 1.85:1; the surrounding story is 2.35:1), and Brother Bear (first 24 minutes are 1.85:1; the screen widens to 2.35:1 after Kenai's transformation into a bear).

Ah... now I see what you mean.

Post: #41641
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/41641/action/topic#41641
Time: 5-Apr-2004 5:01 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
What I'm saying is that Kubrick did shoot with hard mattes for some sequences, but the film is largely 1.37:1; in fact, if I remember correctly from the last time I saw it (~8 years ago), the shot with Slim Pickens riding the bomb looks to be 1.66:1, but once Pickens enters the frame, his image actually overlaps the mattes, showing that Kubrick is, once again, trying to confuse us. The most correct presentation for this film would still be 1.37:1, as it would preserve this moment as well as allowing the other scenes to be shown correctly.

That's true for Slim Pickens, he was shot at a 1.37:1 ratio as opposed to the background, but showing it 1.37:1 would cut off the scenes that were hard matted, so showing it in varying aspect ratios is the correct way of viewing it.

Post: #41530
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/41530/action/topic#41530
Time: 2-Apr-2004 8:50 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
How is Doctor Strangelove multi-aspect-ratio?

It isn't, really. Kubrick did apply a variety of mattes during shooting, but it's still 1.37:1 (Academy ratio).

No, it's not. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it changes aspect ratios for sure. It may not be as noticeable on TVs due to overscanning, but it was done to impose a sense of confusion and paranioa in the audience, much like the wine glass in A Clockwork Orange.

Post: #41330
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/41330/action/topic#41330
Time: 31-Mar-2004 9:30 PM

In response to Kubrick, he's an artist and I don't think he would choose what ratio to film in based on what people would buy. Although his last three were full frame, pretty much everything he did before that besides Paths of Glory was widescreen. Dr. Strangelove is actually multi-aspect-ratio.

Post: #40868
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40868/action/topic#40868
Time: 29-Mar-2004 4:30 AM

Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Quote

Yes but correct me if I'm wrong althought you're seeing everything the director shot, not everthing that the director shot is somthing that he/she wants you to see. Which is why even in this case the Widescreen print is stlll the correct version. I think anyway.

I disagree. Many widescreen fans say this but I think that whichever version shows more of the shot picture. For example in Terminator 3 only the fullscreen version has any nudity. Kristanna Loken breast are not shown in widescreen. Why on earth would the directer not want you to see this. Hell even some effects shots look better in fullscreen. In the making of it showed how they animated the water below the Hunter Killer and talked for 5 minutes on how they did this. When it shows the final shot in 2.35 widescreen the water below the hunter killer is not visible. Yes there are definutly movies where the fullscreen version is superior but not alot of them. Still this is about Star Wars that movie is clearly much better in widescreen.

The point when T3 was in the theater it was shown widescreen. If the director perfers the fullscreen version, why is the widescreen version the one being shown in the theaters?

Because modern theaters aren't equipped to show 4:3 films.

Post: #40730
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40730/action/topic#40730
Time: 28-Mar-2004 4:16 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
Get this on Terminator 3 not only does fullscreen show more on the top and bottoms get this. A couple shots fullscreen shows more on the sides. Warning there is some nudity for the scemise and the gay. Heres proof. During the effects shots they were framed in 1.85 so the widescreen shows more on the sides but the fullscreen version shows a bit more on the top. So effects shots were done in Super 35 and the rest was soft matte.

I really don't get what you're saying. T3 was shown theatrically at 2.35:1. It's filming process was Super 35, for everything, not just the effects shots. If it was soft matted, it would have been 1.85:1.

And stop going on about the nudity. You really are 16... (I'm 17, but whatever

)

Post: #40686
Topic: Okay, what did we LIKE about the Special Editions?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40686/action/topic#40686
Time: 28-Mar-2004 1:05 PM

Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Gladiator for one.

Ugh... I hated Gladiator. Not only was it not that great of a film, it was terribly inaccurate for the type of movie it was.

Post: #40685
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40685/action/topic#40685
Time: 28-Mar-2004 1:03 PM

I was under the impression that T3 was indeed shot in Super 35, due to mainly the IMDB and it's theatrical ratio of 2.35:1. I've never heard of a soft matte movie being matted to 2.35, it's usually 1.85.

Post: #40642
Topic: George Lucas' explanation why the OT is obsolete to him
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40642/action/topic#40642
Time: 28-Mar-2004 10:11 AM

Exactly. It totally ruins Han's character.

Post: #40641
Topic: Star Wars Pan Scan
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40641/action/topic#40641
Time: 28-Mar-2004 9:51 AM

The Terminator films (just 2 and 3, not the first) were shot in what is called Super 35, and agreed, it is a rather odd process. The director shoots in a large frame, and cuts things off for both pan and scan, and widescreen. Other movies shot this way include the LOTR trilogy and The Rock.

In any case, widescreen is not always the perferable version. It's whatever the director prefers. For example, Kubrick did not shoot many of his later films in widescreen, he shot them in full frame (TV aspect ratio). In the theaters, the tops and bottom were matted off. Widescreening began in the 1950's, so don't look for widescreen versions of Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, etc. And just because it was shot open matte (TV aspect ratio) doesn't mean the full screen version is better than widescreen. Back to the Future is one example. Another one is the famous nude scene in A Fish Called Wanda. In the widescreen version, Cleese is naked, in the fullscreen version, he has shorts on.