|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo 13
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 09-22-2002 11:46 AM
I saw that IMAX thing. I have very mixed feelings about it. The image quality is stunning. It's far better than I imagined it would be. It's also really big. That's kinda cool, but the effect wears off after a little while. The awe is gone, and you're left just watching a movie on a giant screen. Which is fine, I suppose. But the images are such that there's never any reason to look up or down, because nothing is there is but empty space (no pun intended). This becomes rather obvious during close-ups, where the characters' massive heads are framed by a whole bunch of nothing on all sides. It looks pretty silly. Since all sense of composition is lost, I think that they would have been better off just letterboxing the image down to the proper aspect ratio. But that would kinda destroy the whole point.In terms of the film's new cut, I have mixed feelings about it as well. Except for one scene, there is really no point where any essential footage is missing. It's been probably four years since I've seen this movie, and I only noticed about four or five things which were gone. Some of them I missed, some of them I most definitely did not miss. What's interesting, though, is the noticeable change in the film's pace. Some sections seem to go by too quickly. It's as if they cut out all of the character development in order to make it much more fact-driven. What's weird is that when they get to a particulary cheesy scene which has not been lost, its cheesiness is now amplified about a hundred times. Looking at the sequences which seem to go faster than they should, they tend to be the sequences which I already hated the most. I'm glad that they're shorter so that I don't have to sit through them as long. But I think that the effect that the missing scenes have on the pace really fucks the movie up more than it helps it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-02-2002 11:38 PM
I'm surprised some of the close up shots seem as big as they do given this was a movie shot in Super35 format. If they scanned in the original negative or some kind of full frame interpostive or whatever, there should have been at least a little more headroom.But it all comes down to framing for where it will be shown. Most Super35 films are framed to work better on home video. So the tradition is to protect the 2.35:1 area across the upper center of the frame. You get a lot of extra play below for accomodating 4:3 ratio home video. IMAX framing is the reverse of that. You compose more of your shots across the lower third of the frame and leave lots of headroom above. IMAX Dome (Omnimax) framing requires an even greater, more exggerated amount of headroom. I'll gladly forgive the framing problems of "Apollo 13" since it was really never meant to be blown up to IMAX. But future film productions eyeing this exhibition method should take it into account in terms of both composition and editorial pace. This new outlet for feature film exhibition is also another argument for shooting the production photography in 5/65mm, 8/35mm before using the scanning process. An even better method, which would allow more sensible framing options would be filming in IMAX 15/70 and then extracting a 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 area out of that frame for traditional 35mm theatrical showings. It kind of pushes the Super35 concept to an extreme.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 10-03-2002 09:01 AM
quote:
...s ays a lot about why these movies are made, what the IMAX audience is looking for, and what some of the problems are with historically-based pictures in general, and APOLLO 13 in particular.
It doesn't say THAT much to me so maybe you should expand this to make it more clear as to just what it is you are trying to say. I can't take anything for granted in any of the three troublesome areas to which you refer... What (in your opinion) is the IMAX audience looking for?
What are the problems with historically-based pictures?
What do you mean by "APOLLO 13 in particular"? Something else...You really can't expect to have it both ways... quote:
It's as if they cut out all of the character development in order to make it much more fact-driven.
and then... quote:
Obviously, they cut stuff out to make it fit on an IMAX platter.
Mike -- I'm dying to see this version of the movie. It doesn't spoil things for me that you have mixed feelings. I'm just asking you to be more specific, if you have the time (and the inclination) to oblige.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 10-03-2002 09:32 AM
I think that IMAX audiences tend to look for movies which rely on information more than emotion. I don't really know why, but I'm guessing that it has something to do with the fact that many IMAX theaters are attached to museums and such. Another reason is that there are a lot of school groups who go to see IMAX films (hell, there was even one when I went to see APOLLO 13). In order to justify a class trip, the content being viewed almost has to have some sort of educational value (not that character-driven stories don't, but no one's getting out of school for one of those). I just found it strange how, up until this point, I had never seen a fictional film in the IMAX format. Then I finally see one, and not only is it based on fact, but much af the apparent fiction had been removed.The problem with most historically based films is that they often try to build a story around the history. I don't have a problem with this in general. If it works, great. If it doesn't, it's very distracting. A lot of time could be spent on some sort of sub-plot which draws focus away from the main purpose of the picture, usually in an attempt to, more than anything else, get the running time up to feature length. This, to me, is a waste of time. If you can tell your story in an hour, then good! That leaves me with an extra forty-five minutes to eat my cheeseburger after the show. Of course, we live in the real world, and hour-long movies do not exist. But I still think it's interesting that once one of these films is put in a position where it has to lose footage, the first thing to go is character development. It makes you wonder whether or not it was really necessary in the first place. In the case of APOLLO 13, I don't think that the film's emotional "padding" is as harmful as it is in other films. It's still a good movie, I suppose. But it's biggest problems lie in that padding. With the padding gone, except for the issues of pace, I feel that the film plays much better. As far as those two statements that I made, I'm confused. Do they seem contradictory? If so, what I meant was that, yes, the primary reason for cutting the film was to have it fit on IMAX platters. But within that overall goal, it's seems that they decided to cut it so that the content would fit in IMAX theaters as well. It's also worth noting that this version lacks certain non-family-friendly things, like vomit and men and women taking showers together.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic