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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 02-09-2006 02:52 AM                     "Sequels & Remakes Shot In A Different Format Than Their Predecessors, OR: Did The Filmmakers Make A Wise Decision?" I just checked the new postings for "Final Destination 3" and "The Pink Panther," and was a bit surprised to see the projection format notations: Scope for "Final Destination 3" and Flat for "The Pink Panther." If I recall correctly, the previous "Final Destination" flicks were flat, and the numerous "Pink Panther" movies were scope. I cannot imagine a "Pink Panther" movie not being in scope!!! But then, without the likes of Blake Edwards, Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, et al., I suppose the point is moot. Nonetheless, I thought it might be interesting for us to explore the topic of movie series' (sequels, prequels, remakes, even movies based upon TV shows) that have mixed formats from one film to the next and the impact this has on how an audience may respond to the material (if such a thing actually happens). For example, when I first saw "Aliens" (1986), I was disappointed to observe it was not in scope like the original "Alien" (1979). But...once the movie got going, the narrower frame did not bother me as I was completely absorbed into the movie and enjoyed it very much. (And I don't think it mattered that the next two movies in the "Alien" series went back to scope because, frankly, I thought those ones sucked ass.) An example where I disliked the decision to go with scope was with "Beverly Hills Cop II" (the first and third movies were flat). Here, I thought the movie seemed "bigger" than it needed to be, this time feeling like a big, noisy summer action movie (which, I guess *is* what it actually was) with too much emphasis on action and not enough humor. The tone differed from the original movie in a way that did not appeal to me. "Cop II" seemed like it belonged to another movie series. In fact, it seemed more like "Top Gun In Beverly Hills." So, what do the rest of you think? Does an audience even notice this stuff? Should filmmakers be criticized/commended for their selection of film format? Care to share some observations regarding the topic? [BTW, origination format isn't really the point here; I'm referring to the final release format. In other words, I don't want this thread to become a "Super-35 vs. Anamorphic" discussion. For instance, the ten "Star Trek" movies have all been released in scope. Nine of them were anamorpic, one of them ("VI") was Super-35. Or, six "Star Wars" movies in scope, four of which were anamorphic and two that were high-def. These examples, I think, suggest a topic that differs from the one I've initiated. But if anyone thinks it is related, then feel free to post away.]  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 02-09-2006 03:05 AM                    I think a lot depends on the director. Blake Edwards I believe filmed everything scope. Tony Scott is another scope lover along with his brother Ridley. That's why Cop 2 was scope and looked like Top Gun photography wise. Poltergeist 1 and 2 were scope but 3 was flat. I think in some cases you are going to see more and more movies with the scope aspect because wide screen HDTV's will start to become more popular as time goes on.  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 02-09-2006 11:46 AM                     James Cameron filmed Predator flat, the same era as Aliens. I agree with Michael's reasoning about the "big movie" look of scope. And I have to believe that at some point while filming some of these repetitive monsters, the director or cinematographer has to ask themselves why they're forcing themselves and their perspecitive audience to observe so much crap. Not speaking about Aliens though.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-09-2006 12:20 PM                     I can understand a remake of an older movie going with a different format -but I will not agree with the move 100% of the time. For instance, I agree it is a bad move to make a new Pink Panther movie flat 1.85:1 format when all the previous films were 'scope. The series was in a way a send up of the James Bond rage of the 1960's. But then one could argue not all the James Bond movies were in 'scope either (Dr. No, Goldfinger, Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun). Still the different cast, crew and framing make the new Pink Panther quite a bit different. quote: Steve Scott James Cameron filmed Predator flat, the same era as Aliens. Acutally John McTiernan directed Predator, and then he went on to shoot his next film, Die Hard in 'scope. In fact, I think he shot ALL of his following movies after Predator in 'scope. The Lethal Weapon series is another inconsistent framing saga. The first one was shot flat 1.85:1, even though it sported 70mm Dolby mag prints in its inventory. The next three were shot in true anamorphic. I don't really mind the look of the first LW installment, but the 'scope look boosted the feel of LW2. Batman Begins is a movie I was glad to see framed in 'scope (true anamorphic no less). Some of that goes back to my huge disappointment on the framing of Tim Burton's Batman. The NY Times had its big 70mm emblazoned ads. But then I check the show out at Cinema One on 3rd Avenue and its flat. Total Recall and Mountains of the Moon were other flat 70mm disappointments. They had 'scope trailers, even on some 70mm prints during that time. So I felt a bit mislead. However... Not all movies should be shot in 'scope. There's a lot of regular dramas and comedies being shot in Super35 so they can be framed in 'scope at the theater and then shown "fool screen" on DVD with little problem. However, I don't think the 'scope look really helps comedies like Wedding Crashers. I think the knee jerk habit of Super35 on so many shows is one reason why the flat framing of The Pink Panther is even more of an odd surprise.  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-09-2006 12:24 PM                     Look at how the "Blade" series went. The first one was scope then "Blade 2" went flat and finally "Blade: Trinity" went back to scope.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-09-2006 12:44 PM                     ...and another one that we can easily forget about was 1995's Kevin Costner's water disaster "Waterworld." All that summer before this toilet flusher came out, the trailers that were in scope made this movie looked great. When I got the print and had everything ready for scope, opened up the cans and had a sudden shock: the friggen thing was in flat. Who was the dumbass that filmed this thing in flat? With all the action and scenery that took place, some idiot filmed this thing in flat. What a massive letdown, until we employees saw the movie, then I didn't care - it was so bad. It was like seeing "Mad Max on the Ocean" Yes, kinda struck me odd why the new "Pink Panther" was in flat and it had two film companies go together on this one. I remember when "Live and Let Die" was released in flat for a new James Bond in 1973. That one sorta made me wonder who really goofed up in the camera department. I had just finished playing "Diamonds are Forever" in scope the year before at a second run house (and with a glorious dye transfer print - then on to Eastman for the rest of the series) Granted, the first two Bond films were in flat as well, but we can forgive them on this one, but in 1973 when Bond was really getting popular and had to introduce Roger Moore...get real.....! -Monte  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-09-2006 12:58 PM                        I was hoping the "flat vs. scope" issue would be discussed for "Pink Panther". It's unfathomable to me why they didn't film this new version in scope. Who's the friggin' director? (goes to imdb to check...) Shawn/Shaun/Sean Levy. Look at his filmography: He's done a lot of TV stuff. He's probably not man enough to handle a scope production. I bet he drives a Geo Metro. What a loser!  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-09-2006 01:07 PM                     ..I was going to say that he drives a Yugo just from how the trailers looked for the movie...  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 02-09-2006 01:29 PM                     I seem to remember reading somewhere that Donner wanted to shoot LETHAL WEAPON in scope, but he was hired after another director had been fired, and work had already begun in 1.85:1 Also, Cameron wanted to shoot ALIENS in Super 35, but the studio wouldn't let him because it was new and relatively untested. An example where I think it worked really well is ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO which was in scope. It was a much more epic story, so the visuals were bigger too. Actually DESPERADO was in 1.85:1 and EL MARIACHI was in 1.66:1, so that series got wider with each movie. A case where it doesn't work is Gus van Sant's death trilogy. GERRY was in beautiful anamorphic, but then ELEPHANT and LAST DAYS were both 1.33:1. Stylistically, everything is the same about these three movies except for the aspect ratio. That's annoying. In general, I think everything looks better in scope, but that's just me.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-09-2006 03:13 PM                     Considering how the release date of The Pink Panther remake was pushed back again and again, I have a pretty strong feeling this movie is going to suck ass. Some of the posters for this thing are a year old. quote: Mike Schindler An example where I think it worked really well is ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO which was in scope. Yeah, but Once Upon A Time in Mexico was shot on videotape. The 'Scope aspect ratio isn't exactly native for HDTV.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 02-09-2006 03:56 PM                     So what? The Super 35 ratio isn't native for 35mm, either. What difference does that make? I thought we were talking about release formats. EDIT: By the way, the new PINK PANTHER movie does indeed suck ass.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 02-09-2006 09:45 PM                        The heading of this thread clearly reads "SHOT in a different format", not necessarily "released" ... but then, videotape is indeed a different format. Oh, nevermind. Besides, I didn't care much at all for the look of Once Upon A Time in Mexico. And I didn't recall the aspect ratio, either. In this day and age, aren't most sequels basically commissioned by the studios and produced/directed by different teams of people anyway? I don't think there's a sense of continuity between what turn out to be "chapters" of a movie franchise, not in the way some series do: for instance like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Matrix, etc. where there's a distinct cohesive unit in all the sequels included with each other. The Harry Potter movies, though directed by different people, are still meant, eventually, to be one big story. I seriously doubt that the original writer of Final Destination envisioned a large story, to be told in distinct units. (I may be wrong there, but substitute the title with any other movie that got sequels as mere moneymaking afterthoughts, you get my point.) So, I don't see any particular need for staying true to the "original" format, or whathaveyou. I guess it just depends on the project. It would have really struck me as odd, for instance, if Matrix Revolutions was flat.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-09-2006 10:04 PM                     quote: Mike Schindler So what? The Super 35 ratio isn't native for 35mm, either. What difference does that make? What difference does that make? Answer: a whole lot of image detail. Even if you videotaped the movie in full 1920 X 1080 native HD resolution, to crop it to 'scope you're reducing the image height to a little over 800 pixels. IMHO, movies shot on HD video should be kept as close to 1.77:1 ratio to preserve as much of that native pixel grid as possible. Anyway... How about Spiderman and Spiderman II? I suppose it was okay to film the first movie in flat aspect ratio, maybe to get more "height" out of the frame (the same reason Spielberg used to shoot Jurassic Park flat). But overall, the movie kind of felt like Spidey was in a Tim Burton version of the movie. Spiderman II seemed to have a much more epic feel to it and I think the 'scope format helped add that. Better bad guy, better storyline, overall much better movie. Those wild cable driven flying camera shots (not CG, but real 2 mile long flying camera moves) added even more realism. Add to that some of the visual effects background shots, along an elevated train line in Chicago, were shot in 65mm using an Arri 765 camera. I'm just wondering if the third installment will be 'scope or flat.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Dieter Expert Film Handler Posts: 234 From: Yakima, WA Registered: Jun 2004 posted 02-09-2006 11:11 PM                     quote: Darryl Spicer I think in some cases you are going to see more and more movies with the scope aspect because wide screen HDTV's will start to become more popular as time goes on. Although I agree on the reasoning, I don't think that will truely happen. Just the other week, I was in Wal-Mart and over heard a man complaining about the fact that they didn't have the movie he was looking for in "Full Screen." After he was done with the associate, and he continued to look at the movies available, I kindly informed him why sometimes you can't find movies in Full Screen and some in Wide Screen. Basicly, I gave him a little Screen Size 101. When I told him about films that are shot in scope (I said widescreen while I spoke with him so not to confuse him) and then edited for full screen DVD/VHS, he was shocked that you loose about 1/3 or more of the picture. I gave him the classic example that I knew of, Remember the Titan. He owned it on DVD in full screen. I told him to either rent or purchase the widescreen version of Remember the Titans, and watch the movie in widescreen, and then watch it in full screen, and notice the difference. I will say that when I was done, and I went about my business, I watched him walk off with the last Remember the Titans DVD. Enough of my babbling. Thing is, I don't think until everyone understands this will directors and producers start making most non-animated films in scope. Infact, I have a feeling it might actually go the other way. Why? Cause people don't like the "Black Bars" at the top and bottem of the screens. Until they realize what that is, and why will they truely come to appriciate widescreen DVD/VHS movies. So not to get off topic, Does Widescreen matter when purchasing a DVD/VHS?  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 02-09-2006 11:35 PM                       One that struck me as odd was the third "Smokey and the Bandit" film... it was 'scope. The first two were flat (which worked fine for the subject).  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.