Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“Hollywood didn't introduce IMAX, which has been around since the early 70s.”
No, but it's certainly driving the current trend toward the 'dumbing down' of the original IMAX format.
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“Techniscope lasted about a decade (60s-70s) and it was often thought of as something of a poor man's Scope.”
Techniscope lasted well into the 1980's - Lucio Fulci's scope movies of the 1980's were all shot that way (even CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, which - for some reason - was framed 1.85:1 within the 2-perf frame) and, as you say, has recently made something of a comeback, though it isn't as widespread as I would have hoped. Digital still rules the roost.
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“65mm shooting wasn't replaced by blowups from 35mm - they overlapped by a decade or so.”
They may have overlapped, but from the get-go, the ratio of blow-ups to native 65mm origination was way out of kilter. The vast majority of '70mm' presentations in the 60's, 70's and 80's were blow-ups, so I stand by my assertion that 65mm was essentially replaced by the lesser format.
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“There have been sporadic attempts to revive it, most recently THE MASTER last year. I wish they would do more - if the number of cinemas that can show 70mm is limited, 65mm negative would look really good printed in IMAX!”
Couldn't agree more. And I'll bet there are tons of filmmakers who would love to get their hands on 65mm film stock for the very purposes you outlined. But if your surname isn't Cameron or Nolan (or some other mega-director), I'll bet studios won't allow it for reasons of cost. The movie has to have a reasonable expectation of commercial success before they'll allow it.
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“I also don't agree that Super 35 has killed the art of composition - that's down to individual directors and DPs.”
Gawd, I could wittle on relentlessly about why I disagree with you here!!

You're right to say it's down to individual directors and DP's, but when you have a format which is essentially 4:3, and when most DP's use it to frame for a variety of ratios, and when most of the work-in-progress is viewed primarily on a TV monitor and isn't seen on a big screen until the latter stages of post-production, it's inevitable you're going to end up with a product that is compositionally compromised all the way down the line. S35 isn't solely responsible for this state of affairs, but it certainly hasn't helped! The difference between virtually any scope movie of the 50's, 60's and 70's when compared to the majority of those produced these days is vast and inarguable.
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“I do agree that a lot of S35 films are shoddily composed. But then a lot of anamorphic-shot films aren't any better.”
I agree with you there. But that's because they're produced in exactly the same way as I described for S35 movies, the only difference being that the image on the frame is fixed from the outset. However, the DP's viewfinder is usually marked in such a way as to 'protect' for 1.78:1 or 1.33:1, so all the essential info is herded into the centre of the frame. Which begs the question of why they bother shooting in scope in the first place, since the markings on the viewfinder render it worthless anyway. They're basically shooting 1.78:1 or 1.33:1, with a bit of extra leg-room at either side, nothing more.