[davdev]

A question just popped into my head. Do you think the ever increasing amount of 16x9 TV's in people's homes will have an effect on how movies are shot?


Meaning, do you think that more movies will be shot in 1.85 format so they can be easily adapted for 16x9 tv's when the DVD comes out? This will satisfy the OAR people and the "Why does my 16x9 TV still have black bars?" people.

Or do you think it could lead movie studios to produce more 2.35 movies so that they offer something different than widescreen/HDTV can offer? Somewhat like when movies first went widescreen to offer something different over 4x3 TV's that were just becoming popular and affordable.

On this line, do you think we will see more movies filmed in IMAX to compete against the home market.


Or do you think things will stay pretty much status quo with movies being released in multiple aspect ratio's?

 

[hitchfan]

Because of the advent or home video, I'm not sure that there will ever be a war between The Movies and Television like there was back in the early Cinemascope days. In fact, I don't see many movies today that aren't designed to look more like Television than The Movies.


Over-emphasis on close-ups regardless of the dramatic point being made, rapid cutting/zooming/swirling camerawork as though we were only watching a 27" diagonal spot in the corner of the room, a loud explosion every 7 minutes to capture the channel-surfers' attention. These are all 'small format' Television conventions and it doesn't matter how much they dress it up with gargantuan CGI images, the audience involvement is still going to be at the level of someone thinking about getting up to make a cheese sandwich any moment.


Anyway, I guess that means I'd say movies will be made to fit HDTV screens as soon as they can figure out how to generate as much hype to sell as many or more 'direct to video' units as the ones they can sell after the movie has had it's usual one month $9 'trailer' in real theaters.

 

[Bobby_M]

I don't think so. If they bent that easily, the industry would have converted to open matte 4:3 since all TVs WERE 4:3.


Bobby

 

[Salmoneous]

For every directors who chooses 1.85 over 2.35 so the converstion to home will be easier, there will be another guy who chooses 2.35 over 1.85 to maintain a unique cinematic theater experience.

 

[mossym]

Quote:

Originally posted by Salmoneous For every directors who chooses 1.85 over 2.35 so the converstion to home will be easier, there will be another guy who chooses 2.35 over 1.85 to maintain a unique cinematic theater experience.

agreed, i can't imagine directors considering how good a shot will look on widescreen tv's when they are framing a shot...they'll go 2.35:1 for the effect

 

[b2bonez]

Quote:

Originally posted by hitchfan Because of the advent or home video, I'm not sure that there will ever be a war between The Movies and Television like there was back in the early Cinemascope days. In fact, I don't see many movies today that aren't designed to look more like Television than The Movies. Over-emphasis on close-ups regardless of the dramatic point being made, rapid cutting/zooming/swirling camerawork as though we were only watching a 27" diagonal spot in the corner of the room, a loud explosion every 7 minutes to capture the channel-surfers' attention. These are all 'small format' Television conventions and it doesn't matter how much they dress it up with gargantuan CGI images, the audience involvement is still going to be at the level of someone thinking about getting up to make a cheese sandwich any moment. Anyway, I guess that means I'd say movies will be made to fit HDTV screens as soon as they can figure out how to generate as much hype to sell as many or more 'direct to video' units as the ones they can sell after the movie has had it's usual one month $9 'trailer' in real theaters.

Hats off to you Hitch for this most insightful description of the current state

of moviedom. (and this is really meant as a complement)


b2b

 

[JATWolf]

The types of TVs in people's homes will have zero effect on how movies are shot. Directors choose the aspect ratio based on their own artistic ideas and do not for a second consider TVs. Basically there will always be "black bars", just like there are at the actual movie theater. If you notice, some movies cover up the sides somewhat before a movie and some expand it to the full width. This is basically because of differences in aspect ratio. Basically the thing is that all the aspect ratios are easily adaptable to a 16:9 TV. There are just black bars on top or sides depending on what is needed to build the correct image.

 

[b2bonez]

Quote:

Originally posted by JATWolf The types of TVs in people's homes will have zero effect on how movies are shot. Directors choose the aspect ratio based on their own artistic ideas and do not for a second consider TVs. Basically there will always be "black bars", just like there are at the actual movie theater. If you notice, some movies cover up the sides somewhat before a movie and some expand it to the full width. This is basically because of differences in aspect ratio. Basically the thing is that all the aspect ratios are easily adaptable to a 16:9 TV. There are just black bars on top or sides depending on what is needed to build the correct image.

Downstream venues other than theaters most definitely do have

some effect. I have seen it mentioned too many times in discussions

of film production to totally dismiss its influence.


b2b

 

[hitchfan]

The increasing level of Television in The Movies has been so subtle and steady since the 1970's that many film-buffs can scarcely notice it...unless they make a habit of seeing as many pre-1970s moves in real theaters with real audiences today as possible.


The irony is that The Movies that were made when they truly ignored the end market of Television by 95% or more are often not as 'involving' when we watch them at home on a 27" set with all the lights on and the microwave oven chiming in as movies that WERE made with that kind of casual atmosphere in mind.


And a single viewing of, say, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI in a real theater with a full audience would convince most viewers (IMO) what a different animal that movie is compared with, say, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, in terms of the dramatic 'pure cinema' impact of a well-placed and well-timed close-up, the sheer length of the dialog scenes with two, three maybe even (wonder of wonders!) FOUR main characters in the same medium shot at the same time, the amount of time and dialog the director was willing to allow to pass before he introduced the next 'explosive crisis' and so on.


And, of course, what also comes into play is the framing of his shots in those group scenes or establishing shots with or without another soul as far as the eye can see.


It's understandable to me when I read that someone just saw WEST SIDE STORY (on television at home) and thought it was laughable. It wasn't meant to be seen on television and the size of the faces and bodies as photographed, the sounds, the blocking and the framing of the shots in that movie were not shot to be 'involving' in a casual home setting.


On the other hand, watch CHICAGO on television and there's a good chance it will be more tolerable than it was at the theater.


Watch them both, back-to-back in a real theater with a real audience, and I doubt WSS would cause you to laugh at it and CHICAGO would probably do no more for you than it would at home with the lights on, an open magazine on your lap and the phone ringing....HEY WAIT A MINUTE! It's already no big deal when phones ring in the theater during today's movies!!


See what I mean?




P.S. b2b, thank you for the kind words.

 

[Kram Sacul]

You nailed it, Hitchman. Only a few directors nowadays know how to frame for cinema instead of just framing for the small video-assist monitor.

 

[b2bonez]

Quote:

Originally posted by hitchfan And a single viewing of, say, THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI in a real theater with a full audience would convince most viewers (IMO) what a different animal that movie is compared with, say, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, in terms of the dramatic 'pure cinema' impact of a well-placed and well-timed close-up, the sheer length of the dialog scenes with two, three maybe even (wonder of wonders!) FOUR main characters in the same medium shot at the same time, the amount of time and dialog the director was willing to allow to pass before he introduced the next 'explosive crisis' and so on. And, of course, what also comes into play is the framing of his shots in those group scenes or establishing shots with or without another soul as far as the eye can see.

You are the first person that has mentioned something that just bugs the

hell out of me. All of the films that are done in 2.35 AR and then the framing

is all screwed up. What's the point? Classic example is the Matrix films.

80% of all the closeups chop everyones heads off mid-forehead. They

should have matted it 1.85 and been done with it.


b2b

 

[hitchfan]

b2b -


Yeah, you'd think that an extreme close-up like that would be reserved for some very special and memorable moment in a film considering it invades all kinds of safety zones and so on (the kiss in Mark's office after the storm knocks the tree through the window in MARNIE).


After all, the camera can show us so much of a person's face, upper body, whole body, in the context of it's environment, etc. that can inform and develop more complex themes and sub-themes. So, to go for that extreme close-up too often for no more important reason than that you 'can' or, more on topic here, because it will not carry much dramatic impact (or feel so invasive) for it's ultimate audience once this movie hits the small screen, then it tends to lose it's value on the big screen.


I maintain that theater audiences are totally aware when shot after shot of a film passes before their eyes without a more important reason for how it's framed than mere opportunity or to accommodate a future format and that is a main reason modern movies seem to 'matter' less to many of us. And this, despite the fact that we may be paying attention to the screen because of all the rapid-fire eye-candy, spectacle and noise.


There's been about a 30 year transition period for this "neither fish nor fowl" nature of movies where the directors/producers can't commit to making their movie SPECIFICALLY for one medium instead of two at the same time. We may finally be on the verge of a new era where the film will be fashioned entirely for Television for a couple of reasons; the time gap between theatrical release and home video is getting down to what, 3-6 months, and only a couple of years ago the home video market dollars surpassed the theatrical market dollars for the first time.


BTW, this "neither fish nor fowl" nature of filmmaking over the last 30 years or so was the basis for my first thread on this site where I pondered why filmmakers who were making great or near-great movies 25-30 years ago hadn't been able to produce work as compelling or effective ever since in contrast to the previous generation of notable directors, so this thread really sparked my interest.


I compared Coppola (THE GODFATHER. THE CONVERSATION), Spielberg (JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS...) Nichols (THE GRADUATE, CARNAL KNOWLEDGE), Bogdanovich (THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, PAPER MOON) and a few others to directors who had given us great or near great movies in their early years like Ford (STAGECOACH, THE GRAPES OF WRATH), Hitchcock (THE 39 STEPS, REBECCA) etc. and still managed to crank out perhaps even better films 25-30 years later with THE SEARCHERS, THE WINGS OF EAGLES, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, VERTIGO etc.


I believe the pressure of the last 25-30 years on filmmakers to make movies for BOTH the small and the big screen at the same time is the culprit.

 

[b2bonez]

Robert Rodriguez - "Ten Minute Flick School: Fast, Cheap and in Control"


From the epics of David Lean to the video movies of Rodriquez, I think that

pretty much sums up the transition from the Old School to the new.

And considering that movie making has always been more about making money

than making art, I guess we should feel lucky that we even have films like

"Lawrence of Arabia" and "Bridge on the River Kwai" to enjoy.


b2b

 

[deronmoped]

It may depend on the presure form the studios that controll the money. If they feel they can make more money off DVD sales by filming the movie in 16X9 and marketing it that way on DVD, then I'm sure quite a few of the studios will demand that from the producers of these movies.


I can see it now, "See this movie the way the director intended you to see it, also with no black bars and full screen"


Look what they do with DVD now, you can get a full screen (4X3) or the original aspect ratio. There was enough money involved to offer the DVD in two formats. So just think what the money men are thinking, "We can just market one format and make even more money".


And the guy that is making this movie may decide to go with 16X9 in the first place thinking, "I'm not going let these guys butcher my movie when it goes to DVD".


Who knows what will happen, there could be a million different reasons for going one way or another.


Deron.

 

[FredProgGH]

Quote:

Originally posted by b2bonez Robert Rodriguez - "Ten Minute Flick School: Fast, Cheap and in Control" From the epics of David Lean to the video movies of Rodriquez, I think that pretty much sums up the transition from the Old School to the new. And considering that movie making has always been more about making money than making art, I guess we should feel lucky that we even have films like "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Bridge on the River Kwai" to enjoy. b2b

Well, say what you will about RR but it's the "in control" part that matters to him, as it would to you if you were a filmmaker. The "fast and cheap" part is the reality that leads to the "in control" part. His films aren't meant to fill the shoes of the Kubricks and the Leans of yesteryear and that's fine. The question is, who will be the new Lean or Kubrick? No one I can think of off hand. Not even Peter Jackson, as much as I like his work.

 

[b2bonez]

Quote:

Originally posted by FredProgGH Well, say what you will about RR but it's the "in control" part that matters to him, as it would to you if you were a filmmaker. The "fast and cheap" part is the reality that leads to the "in control" part. His films aren't meant to fill the shoes of the Kubricks and the Leans of yesteryear and that's fine. The question is, who will be the new Lean or Kubrick? No one I can think of off hand. Not even Peter Jackson, as much as I like his work.

How true. It really comes down to us, the ticketbuyers. We will only get

what we are willing to pay for. To make movies on the grand scale

of the older epics would cost close to 500 million dollars for something

like LOA. I don't think there are many people willing to put up a half

billion dollars to make a film nor viewers willing to pay $25 dollars

for a ticket to see it.


b2b

 

[FredProgGH]

Hmmm, now consider this: HD tape may save the day! In the early 90's a company called Alesis introduced the ADAT multitrack digital recorder. It meant that you could buy a 24 track digital recording studio for around $10,000 (at the time) that could do what had required about 10 to 100 times that amount of money to accomplish previously. As a result bands with no hope of commercial success (like us ) suddenly had the ability to produce art and sell it without a record label. This is basically what Robert Rodriguez is all about, only in the film world. BUT BUT BUT the equivalent technology may also allow some young budding Kubrick to spend 3 years making some kind of masterpiece on the weekends. Maybe it's happening right now. Who knows?? Did anyone here ever see the "Dreams" DVD that Sony gives away as promo for it's HD video system? There's some good work on there. And eventually it will look as good as film, and better.

 

[Sergei Esenin]

When you think about it though a semi-standardization on 1.78:1 could be the best thing to happen to the film industry for ages. Let's face it, many people lament Super35 and other filming techniques designed to accomodate multiple framings for theatrical and home releases--composing from the start for multiple aspect ratios is a recipe for never acheiving maximum effect with your framing, not to mention a recipe for the framing to be ruined later down the process by careless or foolish choices.


The old masters clearly had what they wanted in mind when they shot. Kubrick and others used to often use hard mattes or at least compose with the mental mattes in place. In the end the aspect ratio is irrelevent--a film can be shot just as masterfully for 1.33:1 Academy Ratio, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 2.35:1 or anything else. The important thing isn't the aspect ratio that was chosen, it's the composition done by the director and cinematographer for that aspect ratio. Having one that's "more standard" for both film and home video and thus more often composed for could definitely help get minds back on good composition for one AR from the outset instead of the current approach--which more often than not seems to be "film it kinda towards the center and we'll figure out exactly how to frame it later". Bad.


That still leaves a lot of room for other mistakes, mind you, but at least it could help with one issue.