1.85 to 2.35 and back again

Comments

• Napoleon Plural LondonPosts: 10,467MI6 Agent

  October 2007

  Might it be that Guy Hamilton was happier with that ratio? Watching DAF, it seems the widescreen is largely wasted on him and I prefer watching it in pan and scan on the telly in fact. His classic GF is of course in 1.75.

  "This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
  
  Roger Moore 1927-2017
• The Cat Where Blofeld is!Posts: 711MI6 Agent

  October 2007

  The reasons for changing are purely financial.
• Alan_more UKPosts: 73MI6 Agent

  October 2007

  Thunderball was shot in 2.35 because it was a requirement from producer Kevin McClory for underwater scenes.
  
  The return to 1.66 wasn't the only cost cutting done for Live and Let Die since the wonderful Technicolor Laboratories were dropped for the cheap Rank Film Labs, resulting in the weirdest colour ever.
  
  1.75 and 1.85 were only cropped versions used for US theatres and the original DVD releases.
• BarryFan U.S.Posts: 13MI6 Agent

  October 2007

  That's true about McClory- read that several places.
  Didn't know about the move away from Technicolor, though. It's interesting- wasn't Saltzman buying Tech right about then?
  I guess the cost cutting explanation makes the most sense. The big budget increase for TSWLM, or perhaps Lewis Gilbert (or the solo Broccoli), justified using it again then. And they've stuck with it since.
• taity Posts: 702MI6 Agent

  November 2007

  As the Cat pointed out, purely financial.
  
  Film is actually pretty expensive stuff - and the type of film used to shoot the first 3 movies reflect the cheap nature of the production. After GF was so huge, it was decided to move to the bigger screen as they no longer were playing around with itty bitty budgets.
  
  When Sir Roger took over - there was still a nasty feeling that he'd do another Lazenby. As a result the movie took on a cheaper feel than that of the previous outings. Hence why theyve gone to downtown New York or British governed Jamaica. No where near as exotic as the Swiss Alps or Japan. And no amazing locales like a hollowed out Volcano or isolated Ski resort.
  
  The use of the different film aspect was merely another cost cutting measure in hopes of minimising a potential loss with a new Bond. With the scope of TSWLM increasing, once again we went back to the bigger ratio - which I believe is where they stayed.
• youknowmyname Gainesville, FL, USAPosts: 703MI6 Agent

  November 2007

  Fascinating stuff guys. This is why I love this site, plenty of knowledgable blokes with plenty of time to share their tidbits of genius. Cheers. {[]

  "We have all the time in the world..."
• BarryFan U.S.Posts: 13MI6 Agent

  November 2007

  taity wrote:

  As the Cat pointed out, purely financial.
  
  Film is actually pretty expensive stuff - and the type of film used to shoot the first 3 movies reflect the cheap nature of the production.
  
  Actually it's the same film stock; rather it's the cameras and lenses that are different and more expensive, but I take your point.
  
  After GF was so huge, it was decided to move to the bigger screen as they no longer were playing around with itty bitty budgets.
  
  I think the move to anamoprhic widescreen lies more with McClory's involvement with Thunderball than GF's success. He was pushing for it when T'ball was being developed as the first Bond film, apart from Eon, in the late 50's.
  
  When Sir Roger took over - there was still a nasty feeling that he'd do another Lazenby.
  
  As a result the movie took on a cheaper feel than that of the previous outings. Hence why theyve gone to downtown New York
  
  Not downtown but rather Harlem, which comes from the novel. And I know some viewers complain about how bad NYC looked in the LALD but everyone should remember that at that time the city was on the edge of bankrupcy and by and large DID look that bad!
  
  or British governed Jamaica. No where near as exotic as the Swiss Alps or Japan. And no amazing locales like a hollowed out Volcano or isolated Ski resort.
  
  The use of the different film aspect was merely another cost cutting measure in hopes of minimising a potential loss with a new Bond. With the scope of TSWLM increasing, once again we went back to the bigger ratio - which I believe is where they stayed.
  
  Agreed. Many thanks.