• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Channels Showing Full Widescreen Films
<<
<
118 of 136
>>
>
mike65
27-12-2013
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“How The West Was Won - currently OAR on BBC2. At 2.89:1, that must be the widest film they've ever shown. ”

I nearly fell off my seat! It looked odd - 3D without being in 3D if you know what I mean.

Fair play to the BBC for showing it as such but my telly needed to be about twice its size.
Libretio
28-12-2013
Originally Posted by mike65:
“I nearly fell off my seat! It looked odd - 3D without being in 3D if you know what I mean.

Fair play to the BBC for showing it as such but my telly needed to be about twice its size.”

I think the BBC bought the print 'as is' and for possible legal reasons were unable to adjust the ratio for broadcast - it was either pan-scan or the full OAR, and they went for the latter (about time, too!). Anyone unfamiliar with the concept of Cinerama might have been nonplussed not only by the shape of the image but also the staging within the frame, with people and objects either squashed into a small portion of the image, or spread out in a very specific configuration, to take advantage of the three panels. The SmileBox version works much better in this regard, and certainly appears much bigger than the 'straight' letterbox edition.

Elsewhere, ASTRO BOY (which I don't appear to have listed in the entry for 27 December) premiered on E4 in a cropped/reframed version. Unusual for this channel, but there you go.
mike65
28-12-2013
Its was a strange and pointless format, so many compromises required in shooting and screening.
DVDfever
29-12-2013
Originally Posted by late8:
“Yeah that was the full aspect print.

looks really odd however.

Can see why the format didn't really make it standard. Distorted and almost too wide.
Great for this kind of movie however.”

That explains why it didn't last.

Originally Posted by Libretio:
“The ratio certainly looked wide, but it really ought to have been 2.59:1 (the 'official' AR for Cinerama), so I don't know why it was THIS wide (as I recall, the Blu-ray is the same, though it also includes a 'SmileBox' version which corrects the strange anomalies in the image mentioned by late8 and presents the film as it would have been seen by contemporary audiences). As with BEN-HUR on the C4 platform, you need a B-I-I-I-G TV to appreciate it at all.”

Is the Smilebox version where it curves up at the sides? I looked up the Blu-ray on Amazon and couldn't find that on the UK one.

Quote:
“It would seem so. But then, they also ran GUYS AND DOLLS at 2.55:1 the other day.”

I know I'm being pedantic, but that was BBC2

Originally Posted by mike65:
“I nearly fell off my seat! It looked odd - 3D without being in 3D if you know what I mean.

Fair play to the BBC for showing it as such but my telly needed to be about twice its size.”

How big is yours? Even on a 50" TV it looked a bit small, but it was interesting to watch.

Originally Posted by Libretio:
“I think the BBC bought the print 'as is' and for possible legal reasons were unable to adjust the ratio for broadcast - it was either pan-scan or the full OAR, and they went for the latter (about time, too!).”

There's no way of compromising this film successfully so it was good to show it as it was and see what feedback they get. I certainly gave praise and included @BBCTwo in there.

Originally Posted by mike65:
“Its was a strange and pointless format, so many compromises required in shooting and screening.”

Hence, why it didn't last. It was an interesting experiment, though.
Libretio
29-12-2013
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Is the Smilebox version where it curves up at the sides? I looked up the Blu-ray on Amazon and couldn't find that on the UK one.”

It's definitely there - I made sure before buying it. The disc also includes a feature-length documentary about the history of Cinerama, with SmileBox clips of the various travelogues produced in that format (not the Brothers Grimm movie, though).

Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“I know I'm being pedantic, but that was BBC2 ”

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you were asking about the BBC in general, but your original quote was specifically about BBC 1. I must get this foot surgically removed from my mouth one of these days...

Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“How big is yours?”

Mind your own business.

Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Hence, why it didn't last. It was an interesting experiment, though.”

It was simply too impractical for general usage, though I've seen images of the Cinerama presentation at the Bradford cinema, and I'll bet the experience of seeing any Cinerama film is absolutely fantastic.
pad_ehh
30-12-2013
Ice Station Zebra in OAR on BBC TWO and Space Chimps OAR on E4. There was an animated film on Channel 4 around lunchtime that was also in OAR, although its name escapes me.
Libretio
30-12-2013
Originally Posted by Paddy C:
“Ice Station Zebra in OAR on BBC TWO and Space Chimps OAR on E4. There was an animated film on Channel 4 around lunchtime that was also in OAR, although its name escapes me.”

I'm assuming the animated film you mentioned was ANASTASIA?

Of the others, I'm sure SPACE CHIMPS is 1.85:1, while ICZ was, indeed, screened in a fair approximation of the original 2.21:1 ratio, a first for this title on any free-to-air service. And the same could be said for THE ALAMO on C5, also screened at the original Todd-AO dimensions.

By the way, I was going to come on here and moan about I AM NUMBER FOUR being cropped/reframed to buggery on BBC 2 the other night, but it turns out to have been filmed and exhibited at 1.85:1. That's what I get for not double-checking every single title...
DVDfever
30-12-2013
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“It's definitely there - I made sure before buying it. The disc also includes a feature-length documentary about the history of Cinerama, with SmileBox clips of the various travelogues produced in that format (not the Brothers Grimm movie, though).”

That's good to know that it's on the UK release. I'll get that one soon.

Quote:
“Mind your own business. ”

But I've always wanted to know how many inches yours extends to. F'nar, f'nar

Quote:
“It was simply too impractical for general usage, though I've seen images of the Cinerama presentation at the Bradford cinema, and I'll bet the experience of seeing any Cinerama film is absolutely fantastic.”

It'd be a definite experience, rather like a great IMAX film today. I was goggle-eyed at Smaug. The detail in the dragon was astounding. I'll never witness that again. Well, apart from when the finale comes round in June.
pad_ehh
30-12-2013
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“I'm assuming the animated film you mentioned was ANASTASIA?

Of the others, I'm sure SPACE CHIMPS is 1.85:1, while ICZ was, indeed, screened in a fair approximation of the original 2.21:1 ratio, a first for this title on any free-to-air service. And the same could be said for THE ALAMO on C5, also screened at the original Todd-AO dimensions”

Space Chimps on Channel 4 was broadcast in 2.35:1, IMDb confirms the ratio. For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the other film,but I was pretty sure was on another Channel 4 channel around the same time, it was also a CGI film and was also in 2.35:1. I've had a look at the listings and nothing seems to fit that description, so maybe it wasn't on a C4 channel but it was I believe in HD also.
alcockell
31-12-2013
Fiddler's airing in a pan/scan format on C5 freeview - possible that it's airing in OAR on Sky..
Libretio
31-12-2013
Originally Posted by Paddy C:
“Space Chimps on Channel 4 was broadcast in 2.35:1, IMDb confirms the ratio.”

For once, the IMDb happens to be right. And, for the umpteenth time, I happen to be wrong - SC was indeed filmed and exhibited at 2.39:1 (I may have gotten confused with the 3-D sequel, which is definitely 1.85:1, but that's a feeble excuse - all I had to do was check my own scope filmography and I woulda seen the first film listed there). Where's the 'sackcloth and ashes' emoticon when you really need it?...
DVDfever
31-12-2013
Disgrace, with John Malkovich was OAR last night on BBC1. I just caught a few mins before going to bed.
Braindead2011
31-12-2013
Imagine That on Channel 4 was OAR, and what a waste of time.

How The West Was Won on freeview looked 2:20.1 on my TV set.Normally most 2:35.1 presentations either look full screen or 1:85.1 due to the 16:9 format.
Libretio
01-01-2014
Originally Posted by Braindead2011:
“How The West Was Won on freeview looked 2:20.1 on my TV set.Normally most 2:35.1 presentations either look full screen or 1:85.1 due to the 16:9 format.”

I can only imagine your TV set hasn't been formatted correctly! If you haven't already done so, go into the menu and look for 'screen shape' or 'aspect ratio' in the TV settings and set it to 'Full' or '16:9' (the options differ from set to set, but they all achieve the same end). Believe me, HTWWW does NOT look like 2.21:1 on a properly-formatted TV set, and scope films are definitely NOT full-screen or 1.85:1 on a 16:9 screen!!...

For the record, THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN and SHORT CIRCUIT both premiered OAR on their respective channels over the last couple of days, while LORD OF WAR was screened OAR on 5 USA. Not sure if that last one was an OAR 'premiere' (I don't think it was), but I thought I'd mention it anyways.

Oh, and Happy New Year to everyone who reads this thread!
eyeblink
01-01-2014
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“THE INNOCENTS is one of those films I wish I liked more, since it has a lot going for it - the aforementioned bw scope photography, fantastic production values, and Deborah Kerr (she was always great value for money). But it's clearly been made by people who are ashamed of the genre in which they're labouring, resulting in a film that wants desperately to be viewed as something other than what it is (ie. a horror movie). Critics have been lauding its subtlety for years, but I find it SO subtle that all the horror has been leeched out of it - no doubt exactly what the filmmakers had in mind. But I'll bet it looks fantastic on the big screen (like its contemporary, THE HAUNTING, another film which I don't really care for).”

I don't think you can accuse Freddie Francis of being ashamed of the genre, given that he went on to direct several examples of it! I have to wonder if he was the driving force behind shooting it in CienmaScope, as it's the only film directed by Jack Clayton in Scope. And Francis had won an Oscar the year before for his b/w Scope work on SONS AND LOVERS. THE INNOCENTS really does use every inch of the wide screen, and I'd imagine that parts of it would be incomprehensible panned and scanned.

I'll agree with you that tasteful craftsmanship is the hallmark of Jack Clayton's fairly sparse filmography (seven cinema features, one short film, one TV movie), even in a film like his debut ROOM AT THE TOP (also photographed in b/w by Freddie Francis, though in 1.66:1), which was at the time a film that pushed boundaries regarding sex. His next film after THE INNOCENTS, OUR MOTHER'S HOUSE is rather undervalued and worth a look.

Originally Posted by Libretio:
“It's definitely there - I made sure before buying it. The disc also includes a feature-length documentary about the history of Cinerama, with SmileBox clips of the various travelogues produced in that format (not the Brothers Grimm movie, though).

It was simply too impractical for general usage, though I've seen images of the Cinerama presentation at the Bradford cinema, and I'll bet the experience of seeing any Cinerama film is absolutely fantastic.”

It is indeed.

The Pictureville Cinema in Bradford (attached to the National Media Museum) is one of only three public cinemas in the world which can show three-strip Cinerama, the other two being in the US. (There are also at least two private Cinerama set-ups, one of which is in some guy's front room - now that's what I call a home cinema!) The Pictureville can also show 70mm, even apparently Ultra Panavision, a format I've yet to see a film in. (Seen normal 70mm though.)

The Pictureville hosts an annual Widescreen weekend as part of the Bradford Film Festival, and they have permanent Cinerama prints of THIS IS CINERAMA and HOW THE WEST WAS WON. When I went there in 2012 (the sixtieth anniversary of Cinerama) they showed the only known Cinerama print of THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM, which had been flown in from a collector in Australia and which has been gifted to the Pictureville.

While we're on multi-screen movies, watching NAPOLEON at the Royal Festival Hall with a live orchestra was quite the experience. The 20-minute Polyvision finale was shown on three screens with three projectors (all running at the correct speed of 20fps) to an aspect ratio of approximately 4:1. (There is a version of the film available, which I saw twenty years ago, which prints the triptych on one reel of film, which is then projected in Scope with massive letterboxing. That copy was also shown at 24fps which knocked about an hour from the running time!)
DVDfever
01-01-2014
Originally Posted by Braindead2011:
“Imagine That on Channel 4 was OAR, and what a waste of time.

How The West Was Won on freeview looked 2:20.1 on my TV set.”

Fix your TV settings.

Quote:
“Normally most 2:35.1 presentations either look full screen or 1:85.1 due to the 16:9 format.”

How the hell does a 2.35:1 film look fullscreen or 1.85:1?!

Originally Posted by Libretio:
“For the record, THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN and SHORT CIRCUIT both premiered OAR on their respective channels over the last couple of days, while LORD OF WAR was screened OAR on 5 USA. Not sure if that last one was an OAR 'premiere' (I don't think it was), but I thought I'd mention it anyways.”

Lord of War was on C5 in OAR last time (the first time it's been on the 5 network) but it's always been 16:9 open-matte on BBC before, except for the opening credits.

Glad that Short Circuit finally got shown properly. It took until last year to get a Blu-ray release - http://dvd-fever.co.uk/?p=18917

Quote:
“Oh, and Happy New Year to everyone who reads this thread! ”

And to you, too
alcockell
02-01-2014
Flash Gordon in full OAR glory on C4 now..
mattyb
02-01-2014
Love that film and its about time it was shown in its OAR. BBC1 are the only terrestrial channel to show Flash Gordon uncut in the daytime. Although C4 haven't edited it as heavy as ITV used to. I am surprised they cut the 'bitch' word considering they love using the word in Hollyoaks.
pad_ehh
02-01-2014
Surprised to see the BBC dumped Short Circuit at 7:50am on New Years Eve. It was OAR but strangely edited, with some phrases you'd expect to be cut left in, and others removed that were completely innocent. Also, one character could say a word, but another one saying was blanked out. Inconsistency!
theonlyweeman
02-01-2014
Originally Posted by Paddy C:
“Surprised to see the BBC dumped Short Circuit at 7:50am on New Years Eve. It was OAR but strangely edited, with some phrases you'd expect to be cut left in, and others removed that were completely innocent. Also, one character could say a word, but another one saying was blanked out. Inconsistency!”

Depends what you mean, according to the BBFC, calling somebody a "son of a bitch" is PG-level, but aggressively calling someone a "bitch" is 12-level.
Libretio
02-01-2014
Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“I don't think you can accuse Freddie Francis of being ashamed of the genre, given that he went on to direct several examples of it!”

Francis was notoriously ambivalent about his association with low budget genre films, though THE SKULL is especially prized by fans for its originality and crafsmanship. For the most part, however, I think Francis' work as a director in this area was indifferent and professional, rather than inspired, which reflects his attitudes.

Originally Posted by eyeblink:
“I have to wonder if he was the driving force behind shooting it in CienmaScope, as it's the only film directed by Jack Clayton in Scope.”

There was an article about the making of THE INNOCENTS in an edition of Cinefantastique magazine published - I believe - in the 1980's, in which Clayton revealed they had actually planned to shoot the film either 1.66:1 or 1.37:1 (I can't recall which), but it was pointed out to them just before commencement of principal photography that their contracts required them to shoot the film with CinemaScope lenses (this was at a time when Fox placed a huge commercial premium on the scope format). Both of them - especially Clayton - were horrified by the prospect, but they couldn't alter the contract and had to change their plans accordingly. Most of the intimate, claustrophobic shots were out, and expansive compositions were in. And, as you say, this is widely regarded as one of the finest examples of scope cinematography in English-language cinema, which says a lot about both Francis' and Clayton's skills as craftsmen.
DVDfever
02-01-2014
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Depends what you mean, according to the BBFC, calling somebody a "son of a bitch" is PG-level, but aggressively calling someone a "bitch" is 12-level.”

I never understood TOTP making Pink blank out the word 'bitch' when she occasionally said it, whereas, some time earlier, Meredith Brooks said nothing else in the song called "Bitch"(!)
theonlyweeman
02-01-2014
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“I never understood TOTP making Pink blank out the word 'bitch' when she occasionally said it, whereas, some time earlier, Meredith Brooks said nothing else in the song called "Bitch"(!)”

Pink generally calls other people a bitch, and the Meredith Brooks song was self-referential, that's the only logic I can think of...
Bandspread199
02-01-2014
TCM HD show OAR films!
eyeblink
02-01-2014
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“For the most part, however, I think Francis' work as a director in this area was indifferent and professional, rather than inspired, which reflects his attitudes.”

Or his abilities? I think most people would say his place in history is more as a cinematographer than as a director.


Originally Posted by Libretio:
“There was an article about the making of THE INNOCENTS in an edition of Cinefantastique magazine published - I believe - in the 1980's, in which Clayton revealed they had actually planned to shoot the film either 1.66:1 or 1.37:1 (I can't recall which)”

It wouldn't have been 1.37:1 in 1961. 1.66:1 is quite feasible.

Incidentally, there's a new BFI Classics book on THE INNOCENTS by Christopher Frayling, which might well be worth a look.
<<
<
118 of 136
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map