Discuss Pirati dei Caraibi - La vendetta di Salazar
Discuss → Movies → Pirati dei Caraibi - La vendetta di Salazar → General
Presented in ScreenX Format: First Film In America To Do So
posted by garethmbSTAFFMOD on May 22, 2017 at 3:48 PM
What do you folks think about this new format?
Reply by tmdb65271336
on May 22, 2017 at 4:24 PM
I think it's a half-assed reincarnation of Cinerama and a gimmick. Unless the filmmakers blocked a picture wider--as they block taller for IMAX--it'll be just one more one way to upsell more expensive tickets. (Note that in that press release they said the film was "converted" to the format; the director did not frame for a wide picture. Wanna bet they're cropping it?)
Reply by thebarnman
on May 31, 2017 at 5:50 AM
First I'd like to say I think that would be a really cool way to watch certain movies, but what is the ratio of the ScreenX format? I've looked it up, and can't find it.
The new Pirates of the Caribbean movie was (I'm guessing) recorded and released with the aspect ratio of 2.39:1 in mind. On the other hand; "The Hateful Eight" with it's 2.76:1 ratio would probably be a better fit, and/or possibly "Sleeping Beauty" (1955) with it's original aspect ratio of 2.55:1.
For comparison; Cinerama's aspect ratio is (or about) 2.65:1.
Reply by Renovatio
on May 31, 2017 at 9:00 AM
Sounds gimmicky...
Reply by thebarnman
on May 31, 2017 at 2:05 PM
Over the years theatres have tried many things to compete with television...even if they were perceived to be gimmicky. When television first came out; theatres tried 3-D in what I think was 1953. It worked, but the technology then made it hard to present 3-D easily, and people started to grow tired of the bad movies that kept throwing things towards the audience; so the industry tried a new technology that was just being developed...wide screen movies (advertised at the time as 3-D without the glasses.) It was easier to project; provided a much greater impact (because our vision is more wide than it is tall,) and it was presented in brilliant Technicolor (a quality you could not get out or the small box B&W TV during those days.) That helped get people back into the theatres. During the late 60s and into the 70s; theatres lost their attendance to things like color TV and greater entertainment choices like home video (VHS, Satellite, Cable, Pay Per View, and video games.) Theatres had to do something to compete; some did their best by cleaning up their act (keeping the gum off the seats and floors,) and offering multiple movie choices via multiple movie screens. Then in 1977; a little movie came out in Dolby Stereo called Star Wars. Shortly after; many movies started to be presented in stereo surround sound. For a while, theatres had the edge...then of course home video started offering the same audio advances in the early 80s. In the 90s, digital audio was offered as a better way to present movie sound...then of course home video followed suite. Theatres had the edge in screen size (as that has always been the case,) but when High Definition Television technology became a standard in around 1999...bigger, and wider screens became possible in the home. So theatres once again had to come out swinging to compete with the home video market. Now we see things like digital projection, (and in some cases) even bigger screens, and much better offerings at the concession stand (including dinning.) Recently theatres started offering Dolby Atmos as the latest sound enhancement. Now of course that same technology is offered for the home.
Companies will always do what it takes to lure people back in into the theatres...it's called competition; even if it may seem gimmicky. If it holds, you can bet someone will find a way to present that same technology in the home. Sooner or later there will be a theatre going experience that will stick; that will be mostly impractical to recreate in the home environment. And for the lucky few (who will be able to recreate that experience;) you can bet the theatres will always find a way to do it better.
Reply by Renovatio
on May 31, 2017 at 2:23 PM
i'm with you on the commercial rationale.. but i wonder if there are any aesthetic advantages, or disadvantages... doesnt seem to be...
if you look at 3d, the disadvantages overshadowed any advantages, in terms of aesthetics... i cant think of a single 3d film, non cartoon, that comes close to even the average cinematography nominee... they also dont age well... even The Life of Pi and Gravity look dated and unimpressive now... however, a classic non-3D film like Blade Runner remains stunning...
I wonder if newer audiences, that dont have a history of cinema's visual language, will know whats missing... Markets like China and very young audiences globally have been raised on movies as spectacle and not as a visual art... they simply have not been exposed to it... maybe one of these new technologies will take hold as a result
Reply by thebarnman
on May 31, 2017 at 4:44 PM
Aesthetic wise; I think there can be an advantage, however a very limited one. In the same way Cinerama was able to provide a unique movie going experience; it was limited exclusively to movies envisioned, designed, and specially made for that format. As we all know, (for various reasons) there were only a handful of movies produced that way. Interestingly enough; movies filmed with a variation of wide screen formats could be exhibited in theatres that had big, wide, curved screens who presented themselves as a Cinerama theatre. It wasn't the same, but at the time (excluding a knowable few...) people didn't care, or were even aware of the differences.
For argument sakes; let's say ScreenX becomes a real competing standard...like currently; when a movie having a wide release is also exhibited in IMAX theatres (with it's own unique screen ratio.) Right now there seems to be enough business in the marketplace to support these two competing formats...for which there seems to be advantages and disadvantages for both. The question now stands; is there room for a third competing format? ScreenX seems to be growing; so the feedback from those who experience it (and return to experience again) must be positive. Will ScreenX have staying power? I don't think any of us will truly know. Only time will tell.
Personally; I think sometimes ScreenX can be a truly exciting experience regardless whether or not a movie was produced exclusively for that format. And like my Cinerama example; if there was a movie produced exclusively for ScreenX...going to a ScreenX theatre would be the only way I would want to watch it.
Now I'm stepping into territory I don't know. All this talk about ScreenX makes me wonder if the format was designed to be compatible in some way I don't understand so that any movie would look great in that format. If so, that would be a huge advantage when compared to Cinerama. With "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" being shown in ScreenX; it's possible that might be the case. If there is someway a movie having a ratio of 2.39:1 can be presented in ScreenX (without too much loss of information,) it might work. At the same time, you won't find me spending money at a ScreenX theatre to watch a comedy...a movie would have to be an action packed with enough action to keep the peripheral vision areas interesting. If anything; we did learn people can get tired of travelogues even if the peripheral was being entertained.
Generally yes. Not arguing about 3-D (a format I do like) though I thought "Prometheus" (2012,) and some would argue "Avatar" (2009) to be that exception. It's possible not enough time has passed for these movie to judge, but it will be interesting to revisit them say 15 years from now.
That's a very interesting point of view. Like when "Twister" (1996) came out; it was blasted for not having any character buildup; yet it was successful with audiences. It's safe to say it's what people get used to. At the same time when those same people watch "Alien" (1979;) (where nothing happens for the first 45 minutes...) people are blown away with what a great action flick it is.
Enough time will pass when great action flicks will be something other than Marvel movies. When the market gets saturated with something; another genre will be the big draw. One day; more of that "visual language" will come back, however like with anything old brought back as being new (as in fashion for example...) there will always be something updated about it.
Reply by tmdb65271336
on May 31, 2017 at 5:15 PM
Having seen Cinerama, if a movie is framed for it it's not a gimmick. It really fills the eye, much as a true IMAX presentation does. The problem with this technique, and why I call it a "gimmick" is that the filmmakers aren't designing and blocking their scenes with the wider aspect in mind. The spectacle of old Westerns with that super-wide Cinerama process definitely added to the feeling of expansiveness in an outdoor scene. I can't imagine what it would do for newer movies. Unfortunately, you also introduce enormous costs by having to fill that additional space with more special effects and you have to take more precautions for blocking while filming.
Ironically, not unlike this ScreenX process, Cinerama was conceived as a reaction to the encroachment of TV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinerama
Reply by thebarnman
on May 31, 2017 at 8:13 PM
Hi Renovatio,
I don't know what happened to my post earlier, however I was following up on your follow up. I talked about aesthetics, 3-D, Cinerama VS ScreenX, and how people may get used to the new technologies...including if there is any additional room in the market place for ScreenX to coincide with regular theatres and IMAX. I don't believe I went off topic...so I hope you at least had a chance to read my reply before it disappeared. In any case, I also agree with AlienFanatic about the advantages associated with the wide screen process, and I too wonder what we might be missing when a regular movie framed at 2.39:1 is shown on the ScreenX process. Unless of course there is something they are doing with the image of (regular) wide screen movies (that we don't know about) when it's being converting for the ScreenX format.
In saying that, I think if the ScreenX project was designed from the beginning to work well with regular movies; I'm all for it (as long as there's a lot of action on the screen as in the case of the new "Guardians of the Galaxy.") In addition; I'd like to know if it is possible to produce a movie specifically designed for the ScreenX format.
Does anyone know the format ratio of ScreenX? I looked it up and couldn't find that information on any articles I read.
Reply by tmdb65271336
on May 31, 2017 at 8:41 PM
With all this talk, I looked up the ScreenX website (as I should have before) and they have a YT video simulation of Pirates of the Caribbean as if seen in a ScreenX theater. Hoo boy, it's not Cinerama. However, for certain types of action involving lots of forward movement, I can see it adding a visual rush, not unlike riding a roller coaster.
Reply by thebarnman
on May 31, 2017 at 8:46 PM
Thanks for sharing! That looks like something I might only check out once. Personally, I think it's too distracting, and takes away from the content. Again; if it was recorded with that format in mind...it might be worth really looking into.
Reply by PK9
on June 1, 2017 at 6:07 PM
I just went looking for a ScreenX showing in LA (which is probably the biggest movie market in the US) and all I could find were showings with Korean subtitles. I'm not sure I'd want to shell out extra to try out a new format if words in a language I can't read pop up on the screen as well. I think it would detract from the viewing experience.