Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Minority Report" in 2.39? What gives?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » "Minority Report" in 2.39? What gives? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: "Minority Report" in 2.39? What gives?

Nic Margherio
Film Handler

Posts: 91
From: St. Louis MO, USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-20-2002 07:15 PM

I just checked on a print of "Minority Report" and confirmed that it is in fact a 2.39 aspect ratio release. Correct me if I am wrong, but to this point Steven Speilberg has shot every last one of his movies in 1.85, hasn't he?

I found it quite curious that he would all of the sudden choose to shoot this movie in 2.39 and I was just wondering if anyone had any information on this.

| IP: Logged

Glenn Conatser
Film Handler

Posts: 73
From: Northern California
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 06-20-2002 10:03 PM

Good point Nic. I was asking the same question today. Anyone have more info on this.

Glenn

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-20-2002 10:12 PM

No, Spielberg has not always shot in 1.85. Lessee, there was some movie called "Jaws" and some others like the "Indiana Jones" Trilogy and "Empire of da Sun". Oh yeah and there was that one movie called "Close Encounters of da Turd Kind" or something like that. Sure, his latest stuff like Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan and other stuff (does AI even count as a movie?) has been 1.85.

Be thankful that Spielberg has chosen 2.39. There is no law saying that a director must pick an aspect ratio and shoot it forever. His next film will probably be 1.37.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-20-2002 10:35 PM

Empire of the Sun was flat. The only non-Lucas related scope movies Steven has made are Close Encounters, Jaws, Hook and maybe that first one (the title escapes me). By the time he finished those he started to see how bad the films transferred to video a-la pan and scan and has shot flat ever since.

Steve has always been paranoid about how his movies look on video, but he has always wanted the highest quality possible in the theaters. My guess is he finally realized that shooting in Super 35 gives him the best of both worlds (at a slight compromise of each). It gives him the security of knowing he can reframe each shot on the video transfer by showing more picture area at the top and bottom of each shot AND it gives him the larger aperture that scope provides (sharper and brighter picture) in the theater.

While I would rather see good old fashioned anamorphic photography, I will always take Super 35 over conventional flat ANY DAY! With today's filmstocks and cameras, Super 35 can look damned good. (The 70mm print of Titanic I ran looked sharper than any previous 35mm anamorphic blowup I have ever seen.) The real problem seems to be the guys at the labs screwing it all up printing too fast.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 06-20-2002 11:57 PM

"That first one" would have been SUGARLAND EXPRESS with Goldie Hawn.

Don't know if it was scope or flat.

Some have suggested that this choice may have been influenced by Tom Cruise.

I was told that Disney did not endorse the scope format because of the wildly varying quality of anamorphic theatre lenses.

I must say, I've got wildly varying scope lenses. Some of them make the picture look smeared. I am trying to replace them now because more and more movies are being released in the scope format. Nearly every movie we are running right now is scope.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-21-2002 02:07 AM

SUGRALAND EXPRESS was scope.

| IP: Logged

Robb Johnston
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 147
From: St. Louis Suburbs
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-21-2002 03:30 AM

But wasn't his first "film" Duel, which was made for TV?

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-21-2002 03:50 AM

No, Duel was relesed to theaters in europe and later re-released to theaters in the U.S. around 1983. It was originaly a 73 minute made for T.V. movie released in 1971. THe theatrical version ran 91 mins. His first out right theatrical only film was Sugarland Express released in 1974.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-21-2002 08:01 AM

Brad said: "While I would rather see good old fashioned anamorphic photography, I will always take Super 35 over conventional flat ANY DAY! With today's filmstocks and cameras, Super 35 can look damned good. (The 70mm print of Titanic I ran looked sharper than any previous 35mm anamorphic blowup I have ever seen.) "

Super 35 can be "Film Done Right":
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm
http://www.cameraguild.com/interviews/chat_carpenter/carpenter_titanic.htm

When using Super 35, the image can be composed for 2.39:1 "scope" theatrical release, but additional height of the frame "protected" so the video release can have a less severe "letterbox".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-21-2002 08:25 AM

All the techies talk about the nuances of this or that format, this or that film stock, this or that lens type -- everyone trying to hone the storage and playback system so that the audience gets the very best looking image. Then the film is given to my local Loews Alpin, here in Brooklyn, and the only way you know if a picture is scope or flat is by looking at the halos around lights and the shape of the cues because this theatre runs EVERYTHING 2:1, and just so you don't think you were slighted only in the image department, some of their screens still play MONO sound. The pigs.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-21-2002 10:46 AM

Slightly OT, but I recently watched "Duel" on Encore. This was the full-length theatrical version. What a great little movie, and probably very low-budget. You can see many of those little patented Spielberg tricks he uses. Very memorable performance by Dennis Weaver too. I wonder what it was like for him to be working in the first film made by that punk newbie director Spielberg.

"Duel" was probably shot in 1.33 since it was made for TV. Correct? The opening credits in Encore's transfer were surrounded by a black border on all 4 sides so nothing would be cut off by TV overscan, but it was still a 1.33 (or so) frame.

"Minority Report" got 4 stars from Ebert. I can hardly wait to see it...

| IP: Logged

Brian Tristam Williams
Film Handler

Posts: 93
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 06-21-2002 01:48 PM

But Indiana Jones III was a scope film. Does this mean that it was 'Lucas related'?

------------------
"One man can make a difference."

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-21-2002 02:57 PM

Mr. Lucas was one of the writers and an executive producer:
http://us.imdb.com/Details?0097576

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-21-2002 03:18 PM

I'm thinking maybe it has to do with the fact that Cruse's production company is involved with the movie.

| IP: Logged

Sean Weitzel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall)
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-21-2002 04:26 PM

Spielberg originally intended Empire of the Sun to be projected at 1.66. I don't know how many US theaters actually did though.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.