Why no CinemaScope for Live and Let Die?
Doctor Who
Posts: 62MI6 Agent
After having shot Thunderball through OHMSS in CinemaScope, why were Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun shot in standard Widescren?
Comments
They fill the TV screen and for me, it looks more realistic. I never got the 2:35:1 format really. Why on earth was that invented and kept to this day with most films...
Especially now that we sit closer to the screens again due to OLED and LED screens the very wide aspect ratios are a nuissance.
I wish, more Bond films would have been made like that, especially QOS for instance, but also Skyfall would have profted heavily.
Some Bond film's cinematographies would fit 16:9 perfectly, other not so much of course.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well at the cinemas I was in Bournemouth in the 80s and in Switzerland in the 90s cinema screens usually had 16:9 formats (more or less) and it was on top and below that the screen was black, but mostly the films got blown up so they fill it from top to bottom and left and right picture got lost which was always seen clearly when it got projected on the curtains on the side or even part of the wall.
But of course if in the US screens were 2:35:1 ratios then I can understand why people would complain even if it's illogical.
Maybe it's because I'm so used to seeing films in 2:35:1.
I like the wide angles that Glen used in the 80s and make his films so much more watchable.
Even if I like...love Golden Gun, the colours and the aspect ratio turn me off from watching it.
Ratio for TV showings.
With sales to TV bringing in big bucks.
Tim Burton Batman in 2:35:1 would be unwatchable.
It didn't for me in Golden Gun and that's that.
Oddly, I like LALD in 16:9. It adds to the uniqueness of the film.
You may have a point with TMWTGG, all the island scenes could work well in the wider aspect ratio.
Still, I'm a fan of 16:9 as well. Perhaps after, DAF Hamilton was more comfortable with the "flat" ratio instead? It certainly was an advantage as far as video releases pre- widescreen format.
I 'd be open to seeing future Bonds in this ratio, though it seems unlikely considering all have been 2:35 since TSWLM.
Then again, a new director might prefer the other ratio.
Panavision was also a provider of other camera equipment, however, and at some point insisted that even non-widescreen movies made using their equipment carried a credit along the lines of 'Shot Using Panavision Cameras and Lenses'. A lot of confusion was caused by this.
To get back to the original question, I can only imagine the reason behind LALD and TMWTGG being shot 'flat' (non-widescreen) was budgetary. Live and Let Die - according to a quick Google search I just did - cost slightly less than Diamonds. Despite LALD being a roaring box office success, United Artists only gave Eon the same budget to make Golden Gun. Thanks to seventies raging inflation this amounted, over the course of three films in fours years, to a quite substantial budget cut.
Panavision returned for The Spy who Loved Me, for which UA stumped up double the budget.
That's one reason why films in the era rely so much on close ups and less focused backgrounds compared to many of their predecessors, even when shot widescreen. They could easily be "panned and scanned" down to fit a TV screen without losing someone's big old face centered in the screen. It's a lot trickier with older films, whose directors were more likely to use the full range of the widescreen effect. To me, this led to a lot of unimaginative blocking of actors and staging of scenes, but with quick cut editing, the total effect worked on a lot of viewers, who found the action faster and more immediate. (Of course, the irony is that before widescreen, films were essentially shot with the same dimensions as the old TV screens.)
A lot of what you describe is the Super and Ultra Panavision processes that started in the 50s using larger film stocks than 35 mm. It gets confusing, too, because it's possible to do all sorts of tricks with both lenses and film to create widescreen effects. Robert Wise relied on some of this for the first Star Trek movie, as filming within the confined sets presented challenges. (For instance, he uses a split diopter in some scenes for deep focus -- you can see the distortion if you watch bridge scenes.) He visited my university when i was an undergrad and spoke a lot about cameras and lensing, even though his training prior to becoming a director was mostly as an editor.
The real gamechanger was the Panaflex. Smaller and lighter, it was ideal for location filming, which the next wave of directors -- Spielberg, Scorcese, DePalma, Bogdonovich, and others -- took to pretty quickly, as they were influenced heavily by their European counterparts making "New Wave" films in the 60s. Film stocks were also developed that required far less light than those the previous decades. Actors and sets need not be bathed in a torrent of bright light. Again, to me, something was lost in the exchange. Films got more natural lighting, but they lost a lot of the "pop" that made them seem bigger and magical.
What we outside of the business often forget is that film is a commercial product first and foremost. This has effected the Bond franchise over the years - from the 1970s onwards Bond was tied to the declining fortunes of United Artists and then MGM. Thus TMWTGG was rushed into production before the script was ready because UA needed a guaranteed hit, and TMD's production was rushed to be released in time for an MGM share issue. In both cases this meant important decisions were made for non-artistic reasons (though I actually like TND).
SF was squarer in Imax of course, but it's never been released on DVD or Blu Ray in that format.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Panavision on set.
Take your time to appreciate the beautiful colours and set design.
Nice try, Scotsman!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think you're absolutely right about the non-artistic issues. For instance, budget has a profound effect on everything, including which lenses and cameras (which are often rented) and film stock the production uses. It's tricky because so much of the budget now goes to the actors (unlike during the days of the studio system). Of course, the artistry affects such, too. The Indiana Jones films are a good example. Spielberg made them about as close to a Technicolor film of the 1950s and 1960s as we might expect in this day and age. This was largely the result of Douglas Slocombe, who worked during the older period and understood the techniques, even if he didn't always use them. By the time of Crystal Skull, Spielberg was working with Janusz Kaminski, who claimed he was mimicking Slocombe's work but instead washed the film in much colder, grayer colors. The tone of the film is completely different in this respect, with the result looking more like Minority Report.