Movies to be Thumbnails ala Lawrence of Arabia

adamr316

Well-known member
I forget where I read this but it was in one of the video/film magazines I subscribe to. Maybe Creative Cow?

Anyway a cinematographer claimed that because HDTVs are in full swing now more and more movies are going to be shot EVEN WIDER. The same thing that happened when TVs came out and movies went wide screen to differentiate themselves.

STOP THE MADNESS PEOPLE! Please...pretty please?

I bought myself a big screen TV so that things are big. Now you're telling me we are going to go back to the Lawrence of Arabia aspect ratios? God no...please no.

Straying from 16x9 is cool but don't give your comedy an epic look just to be cool. This way of thinking makes me sick and I will refuse to buy a thumbnail movie if this guy's prediction becomes true.
 
aahhhh, them were the days. I remember seeing that bad boy in a theatre and almost crapping my pants.

I wish Ice Castles had Sensurround. Every time Robby Benson talked.

Oh wait. They did that in Beauty and the Beast.
 
http://www.consumer.philips.com/c/televisions/33092/cat/gb/

Lawrence of Arabia Theatrical Edition is guaranteed to fit this baby. the "Thumbnail TV" is real.

Post 1970 Anamorphic films and the 1950's era Cinearama will still be letter-boxed on that TV, as it is 2.33 and those films are 2.39 and 2.55 respectively.


For watching 4:3 media... perhaps they will sell some nice little curtains to hang on the sides of the unit. :P
 
Anyway a cinematographer claimed that because HDTVs are in full swing now more and more movies are going to be shot EVEN WIDER. The same thing that happened when TVs came out and movies went wide screen to differentiate themselves.

That's not going to happen in my opinion... perhaps larger formats and larger screens (resolution and surface area), but not drastically wider aspect ratios then 2.40 (2.39). Framing would become intrinsically more difficult for aesthetically pleasing pictures. It can be done, but in this instance I doubt it. Films are not fearing nor competing with television at the same level as the early-mid 21st century. Today, it's almost all the same to the studios. They want a strong release, but then look forward to all the backend money coming from DVD sales and Network playtime. That is where much of the profit and all the residuals come from.

So all in all, I don't see film trying a desperate measure to keep different from television, although they will take measures to do so... If anything, a resolution race to IMAX standard, or more serious 3D experiments would make more sense... but again TV is not far behind 3D and continues to grow. Eventually home televisions will catch up with the theater... especially if theaters continue to short change themselves by giving up glorious 35mm prints in exchange for 2k projectors. Nor does it help that so many theaters, to save money on bulbs, play films at 1/2 or 3/4 brightness... causing the image to be shown as unintended. This is not so much true with big LA theaters but more rural mid America towns where people wouldn't necessarily notice on the conscious level.

This was a long response I know, but the theater is not going to be able to reinvent itself from Television in any major way I can foresee. A resolution, screensize and 3D progress could help. I doubt the screens will go wider... just larger.
 
Last edited:
Good observations. The dynamic between TV and cinema is pretty much the exact opposite as it was back then. If anything, there is collusion between the film and TV worlds to ensure that the projects transfer from one venue to the other. I remember reading an article (before WS TVs really took off) with one hollywood director who was told early on to shoot his film in a way that would allow an easier transfer to pan and scan for network and cable viewing.

That being said, I think some people will try anything to get their picture noticed, even if that means shooting in a 4:1 aspect ratio. It just won't be an industry-wide movement.
 
Back
Top