It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
LALD and TMWTGG were shot in 1.85:1 for budget concerns, the necessary film stock for 2.35:1 was expensive in the early 1970s.
Is that verified? I find it hard to believe, given that the Planet of the Apes sequels from the early 70s were dirt cheap but still shot in anamorphic scope.
I always assumed it was just a preference of Guy Hamilton’s, as he did a lot films in that AR. He did scope for DAF, but went back to flat for the next two, and only after his departure that Bond went back to scope with Gilbert.
I assumed this too. I adore DAF, it's my favorite Connery, but I do find it odd that Guy's only film in 2.35:1 is probably the least epic of his four films. Wide shots of Ken Adam's GF sets, or the bayous of LALD, or Thailand in TMWTGG would potentially be of greater benefit to those films than anything it adds in DAF.
Yeah it's a shame. I watched WW84 the other day and the opening and closing scenes (oddly not the big action set pieces) where the image actually filled my screen felt really big and impactful.
Someone said it's something to do with phones which makes even less sense to me.
So it's odd that some series will switch to the traditional cinema AR to get that epic feel, but when movies when to take it up a notch, they sometimes revert to an AR more standard for television....
Plus I hate the insinuation that anything from 1.85 to 1.33 is now inherently “less” epic. I kinda admire that Hitchcock never went with scope. NORTH BY NORTHWEST is “only” 1.85 but it feels more grand and adventurous than a good chunk of Bond films.
Couldn't agree more. One of my most favorite epic films, TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, was 1:37 and it never feels anything less than epic to me.
It's all story, performances, direction and atmosphere that make an epic. Not the width of the screen.
Regarding the "2.39" vs "2.35" debate, there was simply a switch by companies at the end of the sixties. The pioneer of anamorphic film, CinemaScope, which used 2.35 was in decline, while Panavision, its rival, favored 2.39:1, and it ultimately became the standard.
Early CinemaScope films (1953-1957) were actually in 2.55:1, with a magnetic tape glued on the side of the film copies to provide 4-channel surround sound. This was expensive and required specific movie projectors. Bigger Than Life, The Robe, Journey through the Center of Earth, The Sleeping Beauty, How to Marry a Millionnaire, etc. were produced that way.
Due to these compatibility and cost concerns, CinemaScope switched to optical sound, which took more room on the side of the stock and the common aspect ratio became 2.35:1 (more exactly 2.3468).
But CinemaScope wasn't the sole supplier of anamorphic lenses in the industry, and a lot of things weren't really standardized. There were a lot of cheaper offerings in Europe or Japan (which often provided a lot of optical aberrations), while cinematographers became more and more interested in the offerings of Panavision, whose lenses performed actually better, for projection as well as for filming. Panavision took over CinemaScope's business and became the sole provider for all major studios (including Fox, which was the last holdout) at the end of the sixties. I'm not 100% sure, but filming in Panavision was "2.39:1" but copies would still be printed in 2.35:1, which was the standard, because of CinemaScope.
Eventually, in 1971, Panavision was able to dictate the terms of the revised norm for projection. It was about a 2.397:1 aspect ratio. If we're being pedants, it should have been shortened as 2.40 or 2.4:1, but technicians stuck with 2.39:1, because it looked more precise. General audiences and critics on the other hand didn't notice any particular difference and kept on using "2.35:1" or even "Scope" as the generic term to describe any anamorphic film.
As James Bond entries from Thunderball to Diamonds Are Forever were shot primarily with Panavision equipment, the 2.39:1 aspect ratio for the Blu-ray may be the right choice, even if we're dealing with mid-60s films.
Then, if we want to be totally complete about these very wide aspect ratios, we should keep in mind that they're achieved in three different ways, mostly.
1) The common way is to use anamorphic lenses on the cameras. They produce some optical aberrations, usually on the side of the picture or on close-ups. Spectre and, apparently, No Time to Die are mostly anamorphic Panavision (with a lot of scenes shot in Imax or 70mm for NTTD).
2) Then, if you don't mind a grittier and grainier look, you can use "regular" (spherical) lenses and cameras, with a 2.39:1 aspect ratio in mind. Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were mostly shot that way, in "Super 35". This was James Cameron's favorite process for "Scope". And the film copies are still anamorphic, to provide better definition in theaters. Most of Sergio Leone's films were also shot with a variant of this process, as it allowed Leone to make a lot of close-ups and to save some money on film stock (they needed three perforations per picture, instead of four, because they had mattes on the camera). Somebody may be able to put together a 1.85 or even a 1.37 version of the first two Craig entries by using the original unmated negative, but these films were composed for 2.39 only and you could see pieces of equipment, wires, etc. on the top and the bottom of the picture. And everything that required SFX was done on 2.39:1.
3) With digital cameras, of course, you don't need anamorphic lenses, and you just need to decide which framing you favor. On Skyfall, Mendes and Deakins agreed on 2.39, but still "protected" the framing for 1.90 screenings.
So, that's why they could use for Being James Bond the 1.90 version of Skyfall, just cutting on the sides, as this was shown in some theaters and is approved by the director and the DoP, while they have to pan and scan for the four other Craig entries.
Now, much more succinctly about spherical (aka non-anamorphic) aspect ratios in the film stock era.
For silent movies, it was 1.33:1.
For early talkies (after a few years of wilderness), the standard became the "Academy ratio", 1.37:1.
When television appeared, and CinemaScope was promoted by some studios as a way to make a difference, other studios picked a different process, VistaVision (which is used for instance on North by Northwest) or just decided to have films shot with regular cameras screened in a wider aspect ratio, to provide widescreen pictures, in 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 usually.
The second half of the fifties was an era where ratios were a mess, actually. Exhibitors didn't have standardized equipments (some favored 1.66, some 1.85 and some hadn't made the switch), and some cinematographers had to shoot in a way that would work with 1.37, 1.66 and 1.85. That's why the Criterion for On the Waterfront offers the film in these three ratios. Orson Welles shot Touch of Evil knowing it would be screened in 1.85:1, but the guy still favored the old Academy ratio, and the films flows better that way.
In the sixties, theaters were able to properly screen the different ratios, 1.66, 1.85 and the more recent 1.75. 1.66, however, became less common with years, as American films favored 1.85 for spherical. 1.75 was more or less associated with Disney, either for animation or live action.
By 1973-74, 1.66 had been more or less discontinued in American theaters (something Stanley Kubrick, a long 1.66 adept, discovered the hard way with the release of Barry Lyndon). But it looks like Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun were still shot with this aspect ratio in mind, and were screened that way in Europe. In the US, it was 1.85, and I presume that Hamilton and his cinematographers were aware of that, so I have no issues with the Blu-ray Discs being in 1.85.
DN, FRWL and GF were all screened in the US at 1.85:1
Yes that is verified.
Seems like there is no perfect version of each of the old films out....no offense but for me there will never be one of DAD haha. But back to the subject, each of the Bond movies from the past including namely QoS which has plenty of cutting room floor footage (even without the original ending)....these films need to be given proper touch ups and official re-edits by the original crew members with input from any living directors to replenish the lucrative franchise factor. Commentary by former Bond actors like RM did for each of his films is another welcome component....a good 4k quality without the cut offs. This kind of stuff can help fans deal with the loss of their favorite Bonds of actors past.