my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » "Up" is flat...bummer (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "Up" is flat...bummer Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-13-2009 08:49 PM                        Too bad, after the last 3 Pixar films have been in scope, that they've gone back to flat for "Up." Director's choice maybe? I'm sad about it but still looking forward to the film. Yes, even after "Wall-E" was not to my taste, I'm giving Pixar another chance. "Monsters Inc." was cool and this has the same director.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-13-2009 08:55 PM                     Wow, that totally sucks. Booooo Pixar!  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 05-13-2009 09:13 PM                     Is it anything to do with the film being in 3-D?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-13-2009 10:36 PM                        There have been scope 3D films. "UP" doesn't look very interesting to me, but it's just gotta be better than "Cars".  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-14-2009 02:20 AM                     "Monsters and Aliens" was Scope/3D. Yea, noticed that on the trailers of "UP" being in Flat. Would look kinda tacky on a 'floating screen' with no adj. maskings...esp in a digital house.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 05-14-2009 03:21 AM                        Geez... you guys are jaded. Wall-E was great. Cars was Awesome. Both films kicked A$$ out here. More, please!  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-14-2009 09:24 AM                        Maybe they thought that a "taller" image would be better for a movie about vertical movement. Spielberg's excuse for doing Jurassic Park flat was that the dinosaurs were so tall.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-14-2009 09:42 AM                        My guess is, it's a cost cutting move. I can just hear the suits at Disney saying 'it won't make any difference to the grosses.' It's too bad...the nice big scope picture was one of the things that set Pixar animation apart from the rest...now they are "retreating." I would think THIS movie would really benefit from nice wide vistas!  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-14-2009 10:02 AM                     I doubt it was cost cutting. There are more pixels to render in flat since I doubt that the older scope pixars were rendered in anamorphic to take full advantage of the 35mm negative. I'm sure they were rendered in cropped 2.39:1 and then that was processed anamorphically for the print production. For this movie, I would tend to think it was an artistic decision probably since you have a house hanging from a bunch of balloons as the main visual which would benefit from a taller frame. PS - Discounting the quality of the animation, Wall-E was probably one of the worst animated movies I've ever seen. If that were made by Fox animation or Dreamworks (or anybody but Pixar) everybody would have hated it. Cars was good but about 20 minutes too long especially for Kids. Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo were definitely the best two Pixar movies. I just hope that wasn't the top of the pixar mountain like Little Mermaid - Aladdin - Beauty and the Beast - Lion King were for modern Disney animation. It was all down hill for them after Lion King and so far it's been down hill for Pixar since Finding Nemo (hopefully bottoming out with the craptacular Wall-E.........Wall-E, EVA, Wall-E, EVA, Wall-E, EVA......download freaking speak synthesizer software you dumb robots).  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-14-2009 10:06 AM                        Isn't there a chance that, as an artistic choice, the 1.85 aspect ratio might be better for some movies? Why is it assumed that 2.4 is always right? And why would 1.85 on a Pixar movie cost less? It's not like they saved money on lens rentals.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-14-2009 10:53 AM                     1.85 is close to 16:9. (It comes out to 1.78.) That makes it easier to transfer to video. That's probably why they chose flat. :roll:  |  IP: Logged Michael Hossen Expert Film Handler Posts: 136 From: Perth, Australia Registered: Apr 2007 posted 05-14-2009 10:56 AM                        Ohh, come on. That's pretty lame. Greg, I can't see how it would cost more either to do it in Scope rather than Flat. Maybe the choice has been made for aesthetic purposes. Who knows?  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-14-2009 11:47 AM                     From what I was told from one of the local optical houses that processing time of the cgi effects cost more because of the larger frame area of the release print when converted to anamorphic  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 05-14-2009 12:03 PM                        BV almost never used scope or 70mm. Flat being cheaper, historically. When they released Fantasia in 1.37 there was an outcry because no one had those lenses. It was proposed to release the next old film in scope, because we HAD those lenses and scope would work well. Imagine my shock when Pinochio was released in 1.37, inside the 1.85 box. The image was very good, but it was .445 high and about .609 wide, not too far off of 16mm. Way to go, BV. Louis  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 05-14-2009 12:23 PM                        See the review thread for "Monsters vs Aliens" where I inadvertently opened the "3-D scope letterboxed" can of worms. Maybe they went flat because they saw wide potential of this happening with "Up", and thought they'd be better off this way.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.