Originally Posted by
DVDfever:
“I'd love for there to be a 16:9 IMAX 3D BR [of PROMETHEUS], but from the thread I started on IMDB, apparently the US 3D version is only 2.35:1, hence not IMAX
”
I believe you may have mentioned it earlier in this thread, but was the IMAX version of PROMETHEUS reframed at 1.44:1 or 1.78:1? If that's the case, then I can understand where you're coming from, but the 2.39:1 version is 'definitive' (if you see what I mean). Besides, seeing a reframed version on TV, no matter how big the set, is no substitute for the IMAX experience.
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Which Paul WS Anderson films are the good ones - the Resident Evil ones? I saw the last one, but only in 2D, and it just looked like things were being chucked at the screen for the sake of it, but I guess it would've looked good in 3D. I got a 3D disc for review anyway as it had the regular Blu-ray version on it, so when I get a 3D TV and Blu-ray player, I can see it properly.”
I've only seen the first 3-D
Resident Evil film. Anderson doesn't have a very good reputation as a director (not entirely deserved, I think, but that's another story!), and when this film came out at the cattleplex, I debated whether to see this 'cuz it was in 3-D, or DEVIL, which seemed like it had a more interesting storyline. Because I love 3-D so much, I opted to see the 'lesser' film, not expecting very much at all - and was
absolutely astonished by what I saw!! People can argue the merits (or not) of the film all they like, but the compositions fully exploited the 3-D illusion without getting in the way of the storyline.
Virtually every single shot was framed with depth in mind, and there was a handful of off-screen gags to keep the action ticking over.
Vast panoramic shots don't really work in 3-D, because even in reality, distant vistas flatten out when we look at them. Anderson understands this completely. In one shot, we're looking down over snow-capped Alaskan mountains, flat as a pancake - then a plane, rendered tiny by the distance between camera and object, roars into view in the foreground and the
entire landscape is instantly given a depth and magnitude that is quite breathtaking to behold. Filmmakers
must place something in the foreground to create that sense of scale, and Anderson truly 'gets it'. A shot like that - and many others like it throughout the film - proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Many will argue that AVATAR is a 'better' film, but in terms of 3-D, Anderson's movie trumps it in every single respect.
Originally Posted by Braindead2011:
“Wes Anderson is TV savvy and although he works in scope he does frame his films so a pan and scan technician can easily jump back and forth between characters and objects. Whoever framed the last television screening of Dressed to Kill did a good job, I did not realise it was scope until I caught it again on TCM”
The BBC's 1.78:1 version of THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU is ridiculously pan-scanned from start to finish. It's so bad, it's actually laughable - why they didn't buy an OAR version is beyond me!! And DRESSED TO KILL is miraculous when viewed in scope. Pan-scan versions which 'hide' a film's true dimensions are especially insidious.
Originally Posted by D.Page:
“It is not fair to quote somebody and, deliberately or not, leave out a crucial word which significantly modifies the meaning of a sentence. I won't bring it up again, but you were wrong to do that, and you cannot justify quoting somebody and leaving out a word which is used to modify what someone is trying to say.”
It seems we've been at cross-purposes. Until now, I couldn't understand what I'd said that had caused such upset, and I took another look at my original post. Then I had a 'Eureka!' moment:
Originally Posted by Libretio:
“I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to say directors use the entire width of the frame for important action.”
It's the highlighted bit which is the source of the trouble, isn't it?

You're right to pick me up on this point - the word 'invariably' is, indeed, missing and it does, indeed, distort your meaning. But, I hope, only slightly. And I didn't actually realise what I'd done until you kept pointing it out and the penny finally dropped - I promise you, it wasn't deliberate. I still think we're not so far apart on this issue - except that there is a clear demarcation between older and newer films, and that it's right to clarify that difference in any discussion of this kind.
Originally Posted by D.Page:
“I'm not going to give you endless examples to prove my point, but have a look at this example from the start of the 2008 James Bond film 'Quantum of Solace':”
I didn't look at the example you provided, because I understand where you're coming from. If someone was to use their TV functions to zoom into
any production (old or new) framed at 2.39:1, they're going to lose bits of the action on either side at regular intervals. No argument there.
But my original posting was really about the practice of framing films for various ratios during principal photography, making it easier to reframe them across different media. QUANTUM OF SOLACE, for example, was filmed in Super 35, which means the shot you provided can be 'opened up' for other ratios, allowing 1.33:1 or 1.78:1 versions to be created for TV or the Internet or wherever. I think you've been arguing against the practice of using the zoom function on TV's for scope movies, whereas I've been arguing about the ways in which films are reframed for different media.
Yep, definitely cross-purposes...