54 For All Mankind

[MichaelB]

Quite right. A project has to be deemed commercially viable before it can proceed. And if that means preparing an aspect ratio that a restoration team would have definite issues with for a physical media product or a broadcast ready product then so be it. At least you've said that commercial pressures exist which bring forth outcomes detrimental to a film.

I haven't actually said that, because I was talking about TV productions in response to you bringing one up. With those, there's no doubt whatsoever that all pre-1990s TV (any exceptions being statistically negligible) should be presented at 4:3, so if they're cropped to 16:9 you can be absolutely certain that this is incorrect.

But this is a different situation from aspect ratios of mid-1950s films during the changeover to widescreen.

Going back to framing during the changeover from Academy to non-anamorphic widescreen. Weren't commercial pressures having a bearing on outcomes there too, which were detrimental to a film?

No. Or rather, it's only an issue if the film is destructively cropped, but you have yet to cite an example of this happening to a 1950s feature other than Shane, and you certainly haven't backed up your claim that this is in any way common practice.

[EddieLarkin]

The only recent example I can think of where the studio made the wrong call and presented a genuine composed for 1.37:1 film in widescreen is Kino's Thunder Bay. It did play widesceen on original run (like Shane) but was produced before the studios switched to actually composing widescreen (like Shane).

StudioCanal made an even more egregious mistake with Seven Days To Noon, presenting that 1950 film in 1.66:1! That was over a decade ago though and Kino have since put it right.

As for Riot in Cell Block 11, tenia is misremembering. That film was composed for 1.66:1, but Criterion opted for 1.37:1.

[trobrianders]

Quite right. A project has to be deemed commercially viable before it can proceed. And if that means preparing an aspect ratio that a restoration team would have definite issues with for a physical media product or a broadcast ready product then so be it. At least you've said that commercial pressures exist which bring forth outcomes detrimental to a film.

I haven't actually said that, because I was talking about TV productions in response to you bringing one up. With those, there's no doubt whatsoever that all pre-1990s TV (any exceptions being statistically negligible) should be presented at 4:3, so if they're cropped to 16:9 you can be absolutely certain that this is incorrect.

But this is a different situation from aspect ratios of mid-1950s films during the changeover to widescreen.

Going back to framing during the changeover from Academy to non-anamorphic widescreen. Weren't commercial pressures having a bearing on outcomes there too, which were detrimental to a film?

No. Or rather, it's only an issue if the film is destructively cropped, but you have yet to cite an example of this happening to a 1950s feature other than Shane, and you certainly haven't backed up your claim that this is in any way common practice.

No commercial pressures have ever existed that brought forth outcomes that were detrimental to a film? That's a bold statement.

On citing an example. Let me turn the question around. DVDs up to say sometime between 2010-15 of 1950s/60s movies were routinely framed fuller. I've cited Marjorie Morningstar or The Go-between or The Man With The Golden Arm before. They were doing that when most people were watching at home on 4x3 screens. Now that home screens are much wider home video framing on DVD and lately Blu-ray is wider. There's a direct correlation there. Most find it reasonable that 50s films went through that change in framing on home video. I regret that it did. But what you seem to be saying is your profession, whatever framing decisions it was making then or now in respect to home video, regardless of the changes happening to home screen dimensions, were the right ones artistically.

[Orlac]

Not every 4:3 transfer of an open matte / widescreen title is created equal. Some are genuine open matte, and the theatrical dimensions could be restored with a zoom option on a TV. Others (the old Universal DVD of THE DEADLY MANTIS, for instance) might as well be pan'scan, so heavily zoomed in they were.

[tenia]

Along with HD and its change of standard AR to 1.78 also came the correlation that faithful artistic reproduction was better than producing an AR fit for TV above the OAR of the movie. Larger ratios might happen more often now on new video releases more because we're finally getting past the "need" to fit the TV ratio than fitting the new one. If anything, we're ALSO getting tons of movies released at 1.33/1.37, so as a whole, the ratios provided probably diversified, fitting the diversity in which the movies were composed with.

As for Riot in Cell Block 11, tenia is misremembering. That film was composed for 1.66:1, but Criterion opted for 1.37:1.

I knew the format was wrong but had it the other way around, thanks for the correction.

[trobrianders]

Along with HD and its change of standard AR to 1.78 also came the correlation that faithful artistic reproduction was better than producing an AR fit for TV above the OAR of the movie. Larger ratios might happen more often now on new video releases more because we're finally getting past the "need" to fit the TV ratio than fitting the new one. If anything, we're ALSO getting tons of movies released at 1.33/1.37, so as a whole, the ratios provided probably diversified, fitting the diversity in which the movies were composed with.

Good news indeed!

[EddieLarkin]

On citing an example. Let me turn the question around. DVDs up to say sometime between 2010-15 of 1950s/60s movies were routinely framed fuller. I've cited Marjorie Morningstar or The Go-between or The Man With The Golden Arm before. They were doing that when most people were watching at home on 4x3 screens. Now that home screens are much wider home video framing on DVD and lately Blu-ray is wider. There's a direct correlation there. Most find it reasonable that 50s films went through that change in framing on home video. I regret that it did. But what you seem to be saying is your profession, whatever framing decisions it was making then or now in respect to home video, regardless of the changes happening to home screen dimensions, were the right ones artistically.

How do you not see the fallacy in your own argument? When TV screens were 4x3, these films were offered in 4x3. Now that TV screens are 16x9, the films are being offered in 16x9. But to you the former is proof of the originally composed ratio, and the latter is proof of a commercially influenced butchering?

The reality is you have it backwards. These films were presented incorrectly in 4x3 for so long on home video because that was the shape of the screen. The historical documentation, in combination with the visual evidence of the films themselves, proves they were composed for widescreen.

[trobrianders]

On citing an example. Let me turn the question around. DVDs up to say sometime between 2010-15 of 1950s/60s movies were routinely framed fuller. I've cited Marjorie Morningstar or The Go-between or The Man With The Golden Arm before. They were doing that when most people were watching at home on 4x3 screens. Now that home screens are much wider home video framing on DVD and lately Blu-ray is wider. There's a direct correlation there. Most find it reasonable that 50s films went through that change in framing on home video. I regret that it did. But what you seem to be saying is your profession, whatever framing decisions it was making then or now in respect to home video, regardless of the changes happening to home screen dimensions, were the right ones artistically.

How do you not see the fallacy in your own argument? When TV screens were 4x3, these films were offered in 4x3. Now that TV screens are 16x9, the films are being offered in 16x9. But to you the former is proof of the originally composed ratio, and the latter is proof of a commercially influenced butchering?

The reality is you have it backwards. These films were presented incorrectly in 4x3 for so long on home video because that was the shape of the screen. The historical documentation, in combination with the visual evidence of the films themselves, proves they were composed for widescreen.

I've become convinced through what I've heard that that is true, probably mostly, and have already said as much so you're a bit late with your criticism. It's not a definitive answer though because, you see, I have a pair of eyes of my own and I have seen that butchering occur in some instances.

[MichaelB]

No commercial pressures have ever existed that brought forth outcomes that were detrimental to a film? That's a bold statement.

In which case you should have no difficulty countering it, with supporting evidence relating to the mid-50s period that we're specifically discussing.

On citing an example. Let me turn the question around.

Oh dear.

DVDs up to say sometime between 2010-15 of 1950s/60s movies were routinely framed fuller. I've cited Marjorie Morningstar or The Go-between or The Man With The Golden Arm before. They were doing that when most people were watching at home on 4x3 screens. Now that home screens are much wider home video framing on DVD and lately Blu-ray is wider. There's a direct correlation there. Most find it reasonable that 50s films went through that change in framing on home video. I regret that it did. But what you seem to be saying is your profession, whatever framing decisions it was making then or now in respect to home video, regardless of the changes happening to home screen dimensions, were the right ones artistically.

They're the right ones historically - and I'm afraid unless you can provide convincing, independently checkable historical evidence that the wrong decisions are being taken on the scale that you're implying that they are, no amount of hyperbole ("savage cropping", "butchery") is going to make the tiniest bit of difference. For me, the last dozen years or so have been blissful because as someone who cut his professional teeth in 35mm rep presentations I'm thrilled that home video releases are finally syncing up properly with theatrical presentations, after decades of suffering through assorted compromises that were often dictated by technological limitations (4:3-shaped screens, low picture resolution, etc.).

[swo17]

For me, the last dozen years or so have been blissful because as someone who cut his professional teeth in 35mm rep presentations I'm thrilled that home video releases are finally syncing up properly with theatrical presentations, after decades of suffering through assorted compromises that were often dictated by technological limitations (4:3-shaped screens, low picture resolution, etc.).

How can we ruin this?

[trobrianders]

No commercial pressures have ever existed that brought forth outcomes that were detrimental to a film? That's a bold statement.

For me, the last dozen years or so have been blissful because as someone who cut his professional teeth in 35mm rep presentations I'm thrilled that home video releases are finally syncing up properly with theatrical presentations, after decades of suffering through assorted compromises that were often dictated by technological limitations (4:3-shaped screens, low picture resolution, etc.).

That's what I'm learning after defering to your professional opinion. I guess you don't like it when people concede to you. You like the fight too much.

[Orlac]

My suspicions are confirmed. To be fair, they were weeks ago...

[trobrianders]

My suspicions are confirmed. To be fair, they were weeks ago...

Elaborate. You know you want to.

[Orlac]

My suspicions are confirmed. To be fair, they were weeks ago...

Elaborate. You know you want to.

Warners never re-released Season 1 of Kung Fu uncropped.

[omegadirective]

After watching both ratios for the film on the new 4K disc, I definitely prefer the 4x3 version.

Having seen this movie so many times, I can tell that stuff is missing from the frame.

When the astronaut bend down to pick up the big rock, you can only see the edge of that rock in the 16x9 framing.