Heat - Page 4

As I say that shot, had it appeared in the film, would have become lost when cropped to 4:3; this would have been a big consideration on both the director's and cinematographer's mind at the time..

You could cut between RDN for a second and then AP for a second, but it'd have just looked strange, particularly as much of the frame (the centre) would have been in both new 'shots' at once, only alternating between the left and the right of the image.

BTW, I'd have loved to have seen it, too.

Steve W

Yeah, good point. We'd have had an awesome shot of the ketchup bottle and napkins, though.

Have you ever seen Profondo Rosso cut to 4:3. The conversation across the market square is halarious - made more so by the subs appearing in the middle with apparently no actors speaking.

Steve W

Ha! Haven't seen that one. I do know there have been movies I've talked with friends about that I watched in 2.35:1 and they only saw the cropped version. I'd say something about an actor, and they'd wonder what the hell I was talking about - "that dude wasn't on the screen".

I couldn't agree more.
What the hell was MM thinking?

Perfect!
I just noticed....isn't RD holding a gun under the table?

There are thousands of "scope" movies framed with important action at the edges that will be lost during pan&scan. That's really not something that most directors give much thought to on set. The pan&scan transfer is considered an abomination, not something they actively plan for.

Michael Mann actually had it written into his contract that Last of the Mohicans could only be released in letterbox format, even on VHS, because he couldn't stand pan&scan. I doubt how the scene would look in pan&scan was at the top of his mind when filming Heat.

Directors who worry about how their movies will look in pan&scan rarely shoot in anamorphic lens formats. They'll shoot with spherical lenses for 1.85:1 composition or Super 35.

Although this clip doesn't have the entrance or exit, it does have the conversation at the diner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYSzx_zy-98

d'ohh I coulda swore there were sideshots, but it is only reverse-angle shots as mentioned. It does look like they were both filmed at the same time, no stand-ins.

Looks like it, but can't really tell. A little homage to Han and Greedo in that scene, perhaps?

* Then we'd have Mann's ultimate addition BD which shows Pacino shooting first instead.

Its not a comp. Diigital or optical.

The night-time ones outside De Niro's house are pretty poor though. I hope they take the opportunity to redo them.

I'll take your word for it. Nonetheless, you've got to admit that it's awfully fishy that the only shot in the movie to show both actors' faces is framed that way, with a significant gap and a clean division with blank background between the two. And one of the faces is out of focus.

I just don't understand what Mann was going for with either of these scenes.

yeah - i remember the scenes outdoors at judge amy's pad to be screwy like that, too.

I do love this movie just the way it is. I for one does not want or need a longer cut.
Well not that I think we will ever get one, juss sayin

Sadly, I disagree.

Having read what I have in books like John Belton's Widescreen Cinema, the Steve Neale & Murray Smith edited Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (especially Neale’s own contribution Widescreen Composition in the Age of Television), Geoff King’s New Hollywood Cinema and Peter Ward's Picture Composition for Film and Television, I understand that it goes on a lot.



Steve W

The original in 'scope:


Cropped to 4:3:




Steve W

Sorry that I didn't have time to post in more detail a few days ago about the coffee shop scene.

As I think most people know:



The framing of the shots in the coffee shop scene is intended to underline this perception - the shots are quite close to being pov, so each actor looks at the other (with us, the viewer) and it's like they're looking into a mirror. The perception is that they're seeing themselves.

This is why the viewer is not given a two shot.

Steve W

That may sound good on an intellectual level, but unfortunately it just doesn't work on a cinematic level in actual practice, IMO.

That is insane !

^ Yeah, that's awful. Any dialogue going on at times like this would be ridiculous.

From the 2 disc JP OOP dvd

Disc One Dolby 5.1 @ 2.35:1

Disc Two DTS 5.1 @ 1.85:1







Worth it for the 1.5mbs DTS only, I am hoping this disc lives up to it so I can retire it and watch it in OAR with the best sound.
The transfer on both discs is very grain heavy, I hope Warner do not filter the hell out of it.

The matt was opened, so the scene would not suffer on a 16:9 transfer

^Thanx for the caps.

You know...the more I see non-OARs the more strongly I feel about it.

I WANT EVERY DAMN PIXEL!!!
STOP with this nonsense!

Is it clear what AR the BR release will be?
I am really hoping for scope, not 16:9.
____
Axel

Its Mann supervised, it will (thank god) be 'Scope

EDIT
Yep confirmed
Do we know what the content changes are yet ?

i think that was a studio process (blue screen) shot scene

Excellent!! Time to place my pre-order now
____
Axel

What the hell does 'new content changes' mean?

The editing of the additional scenes into the movie? Don't know.

Were all those extras on the DVD? If not, maybe that's what they're talking about.

It does say "11 additional scenes".

Anyone own the DVD ? I missed it as I had the DTS disc

The case art above states "170 min". My DVD states "172 min".