|
|
Post by Olly H 82 on Feb 2, 2010 6:44:31 GMT -5
I was thinking that if Superman IV was shot in FLAT instead of Scope they could have hid a lot of the background scenery like the Milton Keynes location and the ropey sets.Harrison Ellenshaw wanted to shoot in Scope because it was easier to do the optical work in that format which is funny nowadays because most films are shot in Super 35mm because its easier for the digital effects team.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul (ral) on Feb 2, 2010 9:57:19 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't understand some of the terms.
Does shooting in flat mean they trim off the top and bottom to make it letterbox afterwards?
What is the difference in 35mm and super 35mm?
|
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Feb 2, 2010 10:05:59 GMT -5
Before Super35, there were two popular shooting methods back in 80s....spherical (flat) and anamorphic (scope). Shooting in flat basically means shooting with a natural, spherical lens that exposes a natural composition on film without use of a lens to correct its distortion. Perfect example would be your basic 35mm picture you take. And yes, you crop the top and bottom to make 1.85.
Scope is a different beast where the lens stretches the images onto the film and for theatrical projections, you need an anamorphic lens to view the movie the way it's suppose to look...which is roughly 2.40:1.
Super35 is like regular 35mm only that the frame is slightly bigger, therefore, you can crop it to 2.35 to simulate scope. But visually, scope has a very distinctive look.
|
|
|
|
Post by reevevsrouth on Feb 2, 2010 10:09:19 GMT -5
why does this matter?
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Feb 2, 2010 12:28:32 GMT -5
I think the producers should have been shot.
|
|
matt
New Member
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by matt on Feb 2, 2010 12:38:29 GMT -5
The movie should have been shot in black and white to hide the bad special effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olly H 82 on Feb 2, 2010 14:01:02 GMT -5
When the producer and director knew of the budget cuts then it would have been sensible for them to switch lens think small scale and concentrate more on close up's, being the obvious to hide the Milton Keynes location. Its like their trying to film a large scale film on a tiny budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 2, 2010 14:16:03 GMT -5
Should have SIV been shot in 1.85:1? SIV should have been shot in the head. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby M on Feb 2, 2010 14:22:32 GMT -5
For ages, I always thought it was shot in 1.85:1. Dunno why I thought that. I suppose I made it up in my head that it went along with the general cheapness of the film that they'd ruin a bit of continuity by changing aspect ratios.
|
|
|
|
Post by eccentricbeing on Feb 2, 2010 14:50:04 GMT -5
Because how many topics about the Superman movies can you discuss that haven't been discussed before? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 2, 2010 15:10:10 GMT -5
Why the heck wasn't Superman III released in 3D? I thought it was commonplace for threequels back then to be in 3D.
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Feb 2, 2010 15:14:56 GMT -5
JAWS 3D was released the same year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby M on Feb 2, 2010 16:39:26 GMT -5
Amityville 3D, Friday the 13th Part IIID. Yeah, what the heck? No Superman IIID? That's a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul (ral) on Feb 2, 2010 18:30:08 GMT -5
JAWS 3D was released the same year. I've never seen it. Is it Jaws in 3D or Jaws 3 in 3D? |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 2, 2010 19:50:43 GMT -5
Jaws 3 in 3D.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 3, 2010 6:25:49 GMT -5
Olli, not to mention the lack of background extras in the Daily Planet ;D
I tell people it should have been shot in 1:85, but lets be honest, if it was then we'd all be bitchin about how even more cheap it looks next to the others
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Feb 3, 2010 12:42:00 GMT -5
The movie was doomed from its conception.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Feb 3, 2010 13:31:15 GMT -5
Superman IV makes me thankful for the way Star Trek VI turned out. Each one wanted to return the series to its roots and make a good movie. Superman IV failed, ultimately making a worse movie than III, while Star Trek VI succeeded.
Think about it, Superman III and Star Trek V each came off successful entries, and performed well below expectations, both critically and financially.
Next, the studio decides to make one more, again not giving much regard to the budget. They also hire hack writers Rosenthal and Konner to write the script. Both movies have "cheap cash-in" written all over it. You'd think Paramount would have black-balled them after the way Superman IV turned out. I guess they work for cheap.
However, something great happens. They hire on Nick Meyer. He's great at effective budgeting. He also totally threw out the Konner/Rosenthal script (which I'm sure sucked ass, given their track record) and redid the script, adding in all those lovely literary references and the Cold War allegory.
|
|
EvilSupes
New Member
LOOK! Superman's drunk!
Posts: 3,037
|
Post by EvilSupes on Feb 3, 2010 18:16:38 GMT -5
Sometimes here in the UK they broadcast Superman IV in 1.81:1 but I think it has been zoomed in slightly. It actually works quite well as it gives the movie a different perspective and reminds you that you aren't watching a 2:35:1 cinematic masterpiece.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Feb 4, 2010 5:23:33 GMT -5
I keep reading how Trek films having had their budgets slashed but I don't know Paramount would do that to a successful film series
|
|
