Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lucas composes Star Wars Episode 3 for shitty theaters

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Lucas composes Star Wars Episode 3 for shitty theaters (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Lucas composes Star Wars Episode 3 for shitty theaters

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-03-2005 04:00 PM

From The Making of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith E-book:

*** possible spoilers ***

quote:

Lead animator Virginie d'Annoville takes control of the computer and calls up a short sequence featuring Yoda on Kashyyyk, the Wookiee homeworld. Coleman asks Lucas what the Jedi Master is thinking, now that his exile has begun.

Lucas pauses for a moment and then says, "Oh, God, a new Sith has been born -- and one of our best guys!" He then cautions that Yoda's movements, the way they're now framed, might lose some of their impact in certain theaters. Moviemakers often have to consider the fact that movie houses, for one reason or another, may not project a film at its maximum aspect ratio, which means the audience may not see action that takes place close to the edges of the screen.

Before moving on to the next sequence, Lucas suggests that Yoda take a "deep breath" just before they cut away.

"That'll be great," Coleman agrees.

| IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 04-03-2005 04:33 PM

As far as I know, all of my DVDs project the full frame width. Oh, wait... are you saying that Lucas is actually commenting on the short film release? [Roll Eyes]

"yoda at the edge of the frame" will be a feature of the special edition version. "As lucas originally wanted it, though his vision was ahead of its time"...

| IP: Logged

Dean Kollet
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 591
From: Florida State University
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 04-03-2005 04:35 PM

so I guess he will have to re-release a special edition for shitty theatres in 2006.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 04-03-2005 04:52 PM

I hate to say this, but I tend agree with George here (although I haven't seen this particular sequence.) Many theaters are not careful about showing the full image, and it's wise that a director understands this.

Here's where THX was good: They were a sort of UL, CE, ISO9000, TUV, etc, etc. approval for theaters.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 04-03-2005 05:27 PM

I'm all FOR directors that utilize every bit of the available picture real estate, particularly the width. When Friday Night Lights came out, one complex had 3 "compromise 2:1" screens and found immediately that they could never move it into those 3 screens (their smallest) because it would cut off titles, captions and such, so that burned them quite a bit.

But lookie what happened...new masking and such was installed due to it! At least something good came from that boring movie. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-03-2005 07:37 PM

I'm with Brad. When watching a SCOPE movie, I don't want to see a lot of "expendable" information --- or lack of information, on the sides of the screen. If a theater can't show it all because of some stupid pin head decision like the one AMC made in the early 90s (every theater should have the largest FLAT picture as possible, and then we'll shrink that down a little bit to show most of the SCOPE picture) then that's too bad for them.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-03-2005 09:53 PM

This is really a sore point for me. We have a 2:1 screen and I hate it, but it's wall to wall so it can't get any wider. This building (75 years old this year) was designed for the old 1.33:1 screen, and part of the proscenium had to be removed in the 1950s when the current screen was installed.

If we were to mask it to show the full scope width, we'd lose 2.55 feet of height on the picture. Thing is, we've never had a single complaint about it in all my 25+ years of being here, including the rare occasion of titles being off the edge of the screen....but I'll bet if the picture suddenly got over 2-1/2 feet shorter, we would get complaints or at least comments. So I've learned to live with it, although it still drives me out of my frickin' mind.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-03-2005 10:41 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
So I've learned to live with it, although it still drives me out of my frickin' mind.

....there ya go, Mike. Put in adjustable upper masking, and this could easily be the manual type where you go down to the one side of the screen and do the adjusting with a crankscrew, or drawstring of sorts to raise and lower the upper masking. Nobody would even notice the change, since you're doing it the night before (unless you're doing dbl features with dbl lens formats).

The other version of the horizontal maskings is to have a "scissor" type where both lower and uppers are adjustable, so that the bulb stays centered in the picture.

The upper only adjustable masking needs the machine pitched down a hair for the bulb to remain centered on the screen. Then the Scope aperture plate needs trimmed and a new flat aperture needs to be cut. Also, a slightly longer focal length backup lens is needed for the anamporphic element to "shrink" down the picture a bit to fit that new ratioed screen.

You should check into this somewhere. If you're going to keep the quality of presentations up quite high, then go all the way with full ratioed anamorphic presentations.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
....every theater should have the largest FLAT picture as possible....

MAN! I agree with this one. I know a small company that DID this in their theatre construction: LARGE FLAT screens,clear to the edge of the walls and to the very top of the ceiling (upper picture bleed reflects off of the matt black painted ceiling tiles), that turns out CRAPPY scope 1.85/1 to 2.00/1 scope movies, due to no adjustable maskings-just them damned "floating" screens!

thx-Monte

-Monte

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-04-2005 02:56 AM

Mike may have no room above the screen for horizontal masking. It's usually a fabric panel that just moves up & down, & it's got to go somewhere when it's out.

As far as losing 2.5 feet off the picture, I agree that when most masking comes in, it's usually just a big chunk of black, & the audience is annoyed & disappointed because they just see the screen getting smaller. This business of just a black panel was a cheapo one-size-fits-all component availability for horizontal masking, & it could (& has) been done much better. Only the leading 6" to 8" of masking must be black. The rest of the panel should be a decorative panel that will not only be unobjectionable, but must be enjoyed by the people looking at it. It's also got to conform to the decoration of the rest of the theater. 6" of black on the bottom, then a border that appears to be the bottom edge of the decorative panel (in a French bordello auditorium, it would be a real or believably painted fringe, in a deco house it could be a straight painted border or apparent pipe, etc.), then the decorative panel above.

In a Thomas Lamb/Rapp & Rapp/etc. drapes & tassels to hellandgone house, the decorative panel would resemble any other lambrequin: pleated or painted fabric applied flat to the panel. In a deco house, you could have some deco-y background & then some deco-y ornamentation applied or painted on top like a frieze of Forsyth Illuminating The World or your logo freaked out all over it. It's a stage designer's & painter's job. But whatever it is, it's got to be a treat when it comes in.

Everything is being called Art Deco these days, but the real stuff is geometric. Look at the Pantages (but pull WAY back to the appropriate level of ornamentation), & the art & statuary around Rockefeller Center for the style.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-04-2005 07:38 AM

I more-or-less agree with Brad, although I do think that there is something to be said for accommodating the realities of exhibition. Filmmakers need to be aware of the "safe title area" concept so that titles and other critical elements do not fall into areas that might not appear on screen if, for example, the film is shown in a theatre with a steep projection angle and the plates must be cut such that some image area is cut off, even when the screen is in the correct aspect ratio.

The same goes for having dialogue and music run right up to (or even span) reel changes. In an ideal world, every frame would be shown and this would be a nonissue, but not every theatre employs Brad Miller or Steve Guttag and it is wise to make accommodation for the handful of frames that will be chopped off or lost in a changeover in a "typical" theatre.

Is this making accommodation for shitty theatres? Yes, but it is also what any smart filmmaker would do to avoid having his work butchered in all but the very best theatres.

As for composing a scope film to play properly on 2:1 screens, that's just stupid. Any theatre with a 2:1 screen should be blown up immediately.

| IP: Logged

Steven J Hart
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: WALES, ND, USA
Registered: Mar 2004

posted 04-04-2005 08:45 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
This is really a sore point for me. We have a 2:1 screen and I hate it, but it's wall to wall so it can't get any wider. This building (75 years old this year) was designed for the old 1.33:1 screen, and part of the proscenium had to be removed in the 1950s when the current screen was installed.

Mike, this is exactly the situation in my theater. The screen is wall to wall so I installed top masking to make the screen shorter for scope shows. With my lens setup, I'm able to run the full scope aspect ratio. The picture is nearly two feet shorter than when I'm presenting flat features, but I've never had a complaint about the picture being "smaller" when I play scope features. With this setup the picture fills the full width of the screen whether I'm running flat or scope. Thus - side masking is stationary.

Steve Hart

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-04-2005 08:52 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
We have a 2:1 screen

quote: Scott Norwood
that's just stupid. Any theatre with a 2:1 screen should be blown up immediately.

Watch out, Mike. [Wink]

[Disclaimer]I'm not suggesting that Scott, or Mike, or I condone violence in any way shape or form.[/Disclaimer]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 04-04-2005 09:51 AM

Caring About Composition

quote:
Let's be frank: the main reason for this "one size fits all" mentality is to save money by not installing adjustable masking. Another poor reason may be to save a bit on the cost the screen and its frame. In my humble opinion, only
historic "landmark" theatres with fixed narrow prosceniums built before the advent of CinemaScope have any legitimate excuse for not installing a screen able to provide a large scope image with the full 2.39:1 aspect ratio intended by filmmakers.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 04-04-2005 03:24 PM

My Cinemascope-screen is using all possible height and width,
with an aspect ratio of 2,25:1. The reason from the beginning
was to be able to show both CS and 70mm (both slightly
compromised) on the same screen without moving vertical
masking. The screen can be masked sideways for all other
formats.

CS aperture plate is cut to max allowed height, and cropped
about 5% sideways. Would you consider this within the "safe
area"?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-05-2005 01:54 AM

..and then what gets me is when theatre doesn't get the backup lens size matched up (too short) for the proper throw, thus having to massively undercut the scope apertures (almost a 1.45/1 cut) where the characters on the screen looks massively crowded due to the undercut of the aperture, even though the theatre has the proper 2.39/1 screen size. When one frames one on one of these, there is a lot of turn, both directions, of the FRAME knob before the framelines begin to show.

Just tacky....

-Monte

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.