|
|
Posted by moviePig on 10/20/05 21:01
Lincoln Spector wrote:
>>Whoa... didn't he make the studio sign an oath in bile that EYES WIDE SHUT
>>would *never* hit video in other than 4:3? (If not, what am I thinking
>>of...) Odd, of course, since his magnum opus (imo) 2001:ASO was one of
>>the first movies in Super-Panavision's 2.85:1 ... vs. today's norm of
>>2.35:1 ... (all facts unchecked, btw...)
>
> And wrong.
(Yes, I wasn't bragging. E.g., 'Super'Panavision didn't sound right...)
> I think you're confusing SuperPanavision with UltraPanavision,
> which had a negative ratio of 2.76:1--and it's possible that no films were
> actually commercially projected that wide. Like all SuperPanavision films,
> 2001 was shot (and originally shown) in 2:21, with an awareness that the
> 35mm reduction prints for the later wide release would be vertically cropped
> to 2.35.
All right, this *is* at odds with my recall... which is that 2001 was
shown in Cinerama theaters (where I saw it) with Ultra's aspect ratio,
i.e., only slightly less elongated than Cinerama's original 3-strip
amalgam. In fact, I thought was 2001 the *first* such
production/presentation...
> But it is ironic that Kubrick disliked the wide screen, but his most
> widely-regarded film was one of only two truly wide films he made (and with
> the other, Spartacus, he had no say in the format it was shot in).
And in 2001, the cigar-screen certainly didn't deter his trademarked use
of horizontal symmetry in frame-composition...
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|