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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » What is going on with this trend of 'scope' sequels to 'flat' movies? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: What is going on with this trend of 'scope' sequels to 'flat' movies? Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-25-2010 10:12 AM                     What is going on with this trend(?) of "scope"-formatted sequels to movies that were originally "flat"? The new "Shrek" sequel, for example, is scope and, if I recall correctly, the previous "Shrek" movies were flat. And I recently saw some footage from Oliver Stone's new "Wall Street" sequel, with all indications being that it will be in scope (the original was flat). As well, some recent remakes and reboots have followed this pattern (e.g. "Fame," "A Nightmare On Elm Street," and the Christopher Nolan "Batman" movies). I support the idea that the filmmaker (artist) ought to be able to make whatever creative choices they wish, but I must admit I dislike it when they switch from flat to scope or vice versa when making a sequel. The first time I recall noticing this in a new, first-run movie was in 1986 when I saw "Aliens." The next year I noticed "Beverly Hills Cop II" did it. A couple years later: "Lethal Weapon 2." Changing the aspect ratio in a subsequent entry in a film series often snaps me out of the movie. (Similarly, I'm not particularly fond of watching dubbed movies nor am I receptive to returning characters in a sequel being portrayed by a different actor.) I should emphasize that by "scope," in this case, I'm referring strictly to the release format, not the origination. But...bringing origination into the mix, some recent sequels, prequels and reboots have been shot in High-Def or Super-35 whereas their predecessors may have been shot anamorphic. ("Casino Royale," "Star Wars"...). This bothers me, too, though less so than my other example because at least in these cases the aspect ratio remained the same, and it's the aspect ratio that, in a sense, establishes the "window" of the "world" the characters inhabit, and when that window is changed it is as if the characters are wandering around a different world than before. Am I just being weird here, or do some of you share my view?  |  IP: Logged Elise Brandt Expert Film Handler Posts: 160 From: Kuusankoski, FIN/ Kouvola, Finland Registered: Dec 2009 posted 05-25-2010 10:32 AM                     Wow. I have seriously never, ever even noticed that. Ever. But I tend to take one movie at a time, I can't remember which ones were flat and which were scope after they're done playing. Only in rare cases I might remember and even then it's usually when there's been a problem to correct with that movie so I've had to check multiple times. I for one think that each movie should be _a_movie_ in the first place and only secondly a sequel to something else. They should all, no matter if it's the umpteent sequel, in my opinion, be able to stand on their own and represent themselves, not the series. Different directors, different actors, different formats... the only thing I think I notice is the actors if I really like (or hate) a character, I do usually dislike to see it done by another actor, but... the latecomes may well do it better! You only know if you get over the initial "no..." and give it a go. Ashamed to admit this, I truly am, but I liked the Victoria character in the Twilight series, done by Rachelle Lefevre. Bitchy enough. And for the next movie I notice she's been swapped for Bryce Dallas Howard. Initial reaction; same as any teenage fan of the series. (like, eeeewwhhh!!) Then remembered my age and to act accordingly, to see how she does it. I'm sure she'll be just as bitchy.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-25-2010 11:11 AM                     Were the James Bond movies the first examples of going from flat to scope (with a brief reversion to flat in the early 1970s)?  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-25-2010 11:28 AM                        The ultimate is Soderberg's Che. Part 1 was flat, Part 2 was Scope. The roadshow version was both parts together, so they had to change lenses during intermission.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-25-2010 11:34 AM                     I'm sure the Shrek thing has something to do with Technicolor 3D only really doing well for Scope, being an over/under format. Steve  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 05-25-2010 11:59 AM                     Per one of your examples: Batman Begins isn't a sequel to the Tim Burton's Batman.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-25-2010 01:09 PM                     Aspect ratio changes for movies in the same series is not all that common, but it is nothing new either. I don't care for the lack of consistency unless there is a good reason for the deviation. If the original movie is shot flat, then I think all of its sequels should be shot in the same aspect ratio. The same thing goes for the shooting method. If the original movie is shot anamorphic, then all of its sequels should be filmed anamorphic as well. I don't like it when one movie is shot with anamorphic lenses and then a sequel is shot in Super35. Anamorphic has a very differnt look from spherical shooting, especially when depth of field gets narrow. Some odd examples: The Hustler was shot in CinemaScope, in black and white. Its sequel, The Color of Money, for which Paul Newman finally won as Oscar, was shot flat and in color. Even more funny, The Color of Money had 70mm blow-up prints. Chinatown was shot in anamorphic Panavision. The Two Jakes was composed flat, yet was another odd 1.85:1 movie with 70mm blow up prints. The original installment of Blade was shot in anamorphic 'scope, but Guillermo del Toro shot Blade II flat. Blade: Trinity was shot in Super35. Guillermo del Toro filmed the first Hellboy movie flat. He also directed the sequel, but shot that one in Super35 instead. Alien and Aliens is one of the more glaringly obvious examples due to the enduring popularity of those films. At least both had 70mm blow up prints. The first Spiderman movie was shot flat. Then Sam Raimi filmed the two sequels in Super35. He even made some use of 65mm cameras for the L-train sequence in Spiderman 2. I could go on and on. Back in the late 1980s the flat format had a tyrannical dominance over aspect ratio choices thanks in part to the influence of the booming VHS home video industry. Even a lot of movies shot in 'scope during the 1980s were careful to confine much of the important action into a safe pan and scan zone. Scope movies that made good use of the wide frame (I think Ghostbusters is a good example) were rare in the 1980s. Today, the 'scope format has a tyranny of its own on major movie releases. Super35 has allowed many productions to fill the screen at the movie theater and fill the screen on home video. Unfortunately with trying to be all things to all movie distribution mediums Super35 is prone to bland compositions. With anamorphic you're locked into a specific frame shape. I also believe the 'scope format is being overused due to pop cultural fashions. Lots of music videos and TV commercials are shot with anamorphic lenses and letter-boxed. The novelty of doing this wore off years ago. I also wonder if the 2.39:1 ratio is being chosen to save a few pennies on rendering time and conserve disc space. A flat movie in 2K is 1998 X 1080 pixels, a total of 2157840 pixels. A 'scope movie in 2K is 2048 X 852, a total of 1744896 pixels -412944 fewer pixels. Bump things up to 4K levels and that difference gets even bigger.  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 05-25-2010 02:43 PM                     Michael you make a really interesting point about the characters almost inhabiting a different world because of the ratio change. It's something I've never really noticed but will look out for. The aspect ratio change worked well in 'Che', saw the film over consecutive days so noticed the change in ratio here. The first part is full of battles, and the plot is more epic and congratulatory in its tone, great for scope. The second part is more intimate and has less action and for me this suits a flat frame.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-25-2010 07:40 PM                     Smokey and the Bandit 3 was scope while 1 and 2 were flat. I thought 'Che' was the other war around...Part one in Scope and part two in flat.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 05-25-2010 10:39 PM                     I am always taken aback when the format changes in a sequel!It makes me instantly start analysing the reason for such a switch. What happens when a flat movie goes to Tech 3d?  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-26-2010 04:07 PM                     quote: Chris Slycord Per one of your examples: Batman Begins isn't a sequel to the Tim Burton's Batman. I didn't claim it was. What I claimed was that it falls into the "reboot" category. quote: Michael Coate As well, some recent remakes and reboots have followed this pattern (e.g. "Fame," "A Nightmare On Elm Street," and the Christopher Nolan "Batman" movies).  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-26-2010 04:14 PM                        So the reboot should be flat as well? Batman Begins being scope actually bothers you? WTF, man?  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-26-2010 05:02 PM                     No, it doesn't really bother me, Joe. It does bother me, though, that Tim Burton made his 1989 Batman in flat; I really think it ought to have been scope. I recall a WTF moment when I found out it was flat. Switching up the format for a reboot doesn't really bother me, and, in some respects, it makes sense if they're going for a fresh approach. When I mentioned the reboot thing in my initial post it was simply to point out that some recent reboots and remakes were following a similar pattern/trend as sequels. (Was I unclear in my original posting, or are some of you guys missing my point because you're multitasking while reading?)  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-26-2010 05:14 PM                     In a lot of cases, a new film means a new DP and Director, and they want to express their creative vision as they see fit. That may mean a change of format. Especially for something like the Bond franchise, where everybody gets to put their own stamp on it, rather than trying to look like every previous film... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 05-26-2010 05:54 PM                     quote: Michael Coate No, it doesn't really bother me, Joe. It does bother me, though, that Tim Burton made his 1989 Batman in flat; I really think it ought to have been scope. I recall a WTF moment when I found out it was flat. Tim Burtin is a 'Flat' director. His two scope movies are a deviation from the norm. I recall in the 'making of' book about Mars Attacks he originally was going to shoot flat but was urged by the DP to shoot scope. As for Planet of The Apes, his other scope movie, who knows? DP on that movie Philippe Rousselot shoots flat and scope, (and went on to shoot two flat movies with Burton (Big Fish and Charlie & The Chocolate Factory)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

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.