This problem doesn't happen too often, but it is distracting when it does happen. I would have much preferred "Aliens" to be shot in Panavision like the first "Alien" movie was filmed. But James Cameron doesn't like anamorphic and Super35 was not quite up to snuff then so the 35mm release went out 1.85:1. The reverse sometimes happens as well. "Lethal Weapon" was a 1.85:1 film, yet all three of its sequels were in 'scope. But the result in the long term is that "Lethal Weapon" doesn't quite fit visually with the other films in that series.

Another cinematography discrepancy I find distracting is how "2001: A Space Odyssey" was filmed in 65mm/70mm, whereas its somewhat forgettable sequel "2010" was shot in 35mm 'scope. Why wasn't that filmed in 70mm as well? I recall the "2010" ads really blasting that 70mm logo out there far more than the original "2001" did. To make matters worse, the director of "2010" (Peter Hyams) listed himself as the Director of Photography as well. I don't know. Judging from the visual quality of his films, I think he needs to hire a real DP. I would be against him getting those "ASC" letters put after his name from all the hazy, color-drained images nearly all of his films contain. The opening scenes of "The Musketeer" were embarrasingly bad --and it had one of the cheeziest opening title sequences in recent times. Enough of my Peter Hyams needs a real DP rant.

 |  IP: Logged

The reason that Leathal Weapon is flat is because Richard Donner took over Directing the film after the original director, (not sure who it was) was caned during production and some scenes had already been shot. So rather than reshoot them he decided to continue on.

As far as super 35 goes. It was in full use for all arial shots in Top Gun do to the fact that anamorphic lenses were being damaged due to all the stress from the jets. Cameron likes to use Super 35 because the camera is not as heavy and is less bulky than with anamorphic lenses.

 |  IP: Logged

I think it's many decisions all relating down to budget, experience and the producer and/or studio requests.

Director preference can change though, and not always for the better. Spielberg used to shoot exclusively in scope, but now he does everything flat. He had already made that general change in style by the time he shot the third Indiana Jones movie, but he apparently adhered to Bobby's rule about sequels, and shot it scope. I believe that was the last scope movie he did.

Sam Raimi uses flat lenses like many other directors. Sometimes it is budget, as you can use cheaper film that normally doesnt come out well on anamorphics. This film is normally manufactured by fuji, as apposed to kodak. As with Raimi, he preferes the flat so that he never has to worry about if the image came out right or not. It is a purely paranoia thing, like superstition.

As to why Blade 2 in flat, that was because a new director was attached to the projects. Guillermo Del Toro uses flat capture as apposed to Steven Norrington who likes the scope.

As to Indiana 3 in scope when spielberg has begun a religeon based on flatness, that was actually George Lucas's call. George films in scope, and as producer of the film, he gets final say.

In fact, the producer always gets the final say, but usually leaves it up to the director, unless you are God of Skywalker Ranchero.

The reason that cameron chooses super 35 is because he can shoot it for a scope presentation while shooting flat, getting much more color saturation with flat lenses. He also gets to present the home video version 4:3 without pan and scan. If you get the home video 4:3 versions of most of his films, they do not pan or scan, but actually show the BOTTOM half of the frame, as they did not exist in the theaters. What a wacko.

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

WONDERFUL SPAM

My favorite director is Alex Proyas, who also changed his choice from flat to scope when he shot Dark City.

As to why some of the dumbest films get the scope treatment? A lot of times with these films you get new directors who love scope and insist on it, and get a DP qualified to shoot it that way.

Spielberg says that the flat presentation is how most poeple see, WHAT A DORK!! I have 215 degree peripheral vision, and flat presentation makes me feel cheated. I MUST LIVE IN SCOPE.

 |  IP: Logged

In general, using a larger image area (i.e. 35mm Anamorphic) helps reduce grain and improve sharpness in the final image. Anamorphic camera lenses generally are at a disadvantage to spherical lenses for speed, size/weight, and aberrations, but using Super-35 for "scope" releases requires optical printing to "squeeze" and recenter the image.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Here is an interesting ASC article on Cameron's Super 35 usage and why it works so well for him.

I certainly agree that scope generally looks better than 1:85 blown up to current "ultrascreen" proportions. Personally, I would love to see John Pytlak's 1.5 anamorphic process replace the wasted image area of the current 1.85 standard. Here is a link to the article John P. wrote on the proposed new system. (I hope you don't mind, John. I know linking, especially to Kodak sites, is your specialty. )

Spielberg's last 'Scope movie was Hook. His next movies were Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. Personally, I'm not sure if his switch to flat wasn't due, in part, to his desire to be taken more seriously by the Academy. He made a lot of interesting choices with Schindler's List which could be analyzed as consessions to the snob artistic community. So, the guy whom everyone considered to be the king of "Hollywood slick movie" directing makes his movie in 1.85 and in Black and White. He hires a Polish D.P. He makes his first R-rated movie and, as if that wasn't enough to convince the Academy that he was serious, he takes on the subject of the Holocaust. Just try not to give an Oscar to this director already!

There's still the perception in Hollywood that 'Scope movies are popcorn movies and serious movies must be flat.

Of course, Spielberg had reasonable explanations for all those artistic choices and I'm not saying those explanations weren't sincere. I'm only saying that it was interesting that so many things he used to do were abandoned in 1993 and that Spielberg desperately wanted an Oscar. After Hook was pretty-much considered a disaster, he defiantly showed Hollywood what he was made of in 1993 by making two movies, one of which was the biggest money-maker of the year and the other which was the Best Picture. There was even an ad in one of the trade papers announcing that Jurassic Park was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Take that!

As for Cameron, his preference for Super 35 isn't just about the eventual video versions of his movies. Joe beat me to the punch but that ASC article is great. If you are interested in Super 35 it's a must-read. Also, check out more of what Cameron has to say about Super 35 in this interview...
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/chs/pg2.htm

...and the Super 35 discussion starts at the bottom of the page. He calls it a "God-given format" and explains how he doesn't like the shallow depth of field and other limitations of anamorphic.

It's interesting that when a movie series switches formats from one movie to the next it pretty-much always has something to do with a switch of directors and/or producers. It's an instant method of telling the audience "this is not the movie you saw last time." And, since sequels can usually never live up to the original, it's a courteous message we should listen to.

 |  IP: Logged