Maybe it was shot open matte?Jeff wrote:It's pan-and-scan! WTF, TCM?
TCM is known for mistakes every once in a while...remember them airing The Conformist with the English dub?
bad news - I'm sorry to say that it won't be in letterbox; we tried and we thought we'd be able to get a letterboxed version, and based on the initial cost estimates we were willing to pay to create a letterbox transfer, but the cost ended up being several times that amount and we couldn't do it
from what I understand, the picture quality itself is good but it won't be letterboxed
It was shot anamorphic 2.35. This, of course, means about 44% of the image was cropped, rendering it virtually unwatchable.Dylan wrote:Maybe it was shot open matte?
This has happened numerous times, and always with harder-to-see films.Jeff wrote:It was shot anamorphic 2.35. This, of course, means about 44% of the image was cropped, rendering it virtually unwatchable.Dylan wrote:Maybe it was shot open matte?
And right now, they're showing Thomas Carr's The Tall Stranger (another 2.35 film) horribly cropped as well. I always thought that if TCM couldn't get an appropriately mastered transfer, they just didn't bother with the film. I hope they're not turning in to AMC.
I'm also an dedicated proponent of letterboxing, but isn't that just a bit over-dramatized? SKIDOO is hardly BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING, and it certainly ain't REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. I watched TCM's P & S broadcast and thought the film's wonderful wackiness came off quite well despite the cropping. Also, the color and detail looked fine.Jeff wrote:It was shot anamorphic 2.35. This, of course, means about 44% of the image was cropped, rendering it virtually unwatchable.
Well, nearly half of the frame was missing, and that's enough to make it unwatchable to me, but I understand that it may not bother others. I don't really understand the relevance of Bunny Lake or Rebel.jsteffe wrote:I'm also an dedicated proponent of letterboxing, but isn't that just a bit over-dramatized? SKIDOO is hardly BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING, and it certainly ain't REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. I watched TCM's P & S broadcast and thought the film's wonderful wackiness came off quite well despite the cropping. Also, the color and detail looked fine.
Skidoo is also very very 2.35. Rebel is 2.55, but I don't really find the fact that Skidoo was shot 8% narrower makes a pan-and-scan version of it any more palatable. I have the same policy as Domino regarding open-matte transfers, but I find much more frustration than pleasure in films that have been this severely cropped.domino harvey wrote:Bunny Lake is very very 2.35
Personally I refuse to watch any film that isn't in it's original aspect ratio. At best I'll watch VHS copies that are open matte but any pan/scanning is immediately out of question.
The reason why I mentioned those two films is that not even the staunchest defender could argue that SKIDOO operates on the same level of artistic depth as other "very very widescreen" films like Preminger's BUNNY LAKE and Ray's REBEL, or for that matter, Jack Clayton's THE INNOCENTS. The script and acting are simply not as nuanced and rewarding as those films, though SKIDOO is actually pretty good in its own way.Jeff wrote:Well, nearly half of the frame was missing, and that's enough to make it unwatchable to me, but I understand that it may not bother others. I don't really understand the relevance of Bunny Lake or Rebel.jsteffe wrote:I'm also an dedicated proponent of letterboxing, but isn't that just a bit over-dramatized? SKIDOO is hardly BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING, and it certainly ain't REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. I watched TCM's P & S broadcast and thought the film's wonderful wackiness came off quite well despite the cropping. Also, the color and detail looked fine.
Absolutely agree, and as someone who thinks this is a very great film and who has seen a 35mm print, it is in my opinion absolutely essential to see it in the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Like all Premingers, it makes full use of the frame.davidhare wrote:But Preminger is one of the masters of widscreen mise en scene, regardles of how many drugs people were taking on and off the set of Skidoo.
Some would argue that the "script and acting" are not equal to "artistic depth."jsteffe wrote:The reason why I mentioned those two films is that not even the staunchest defender could argue that SKIDOO operates on the same level of artistic depth as other "very very widescreen" films like Preminger's BUNNY LAKE and Ray's REBEL, or for that matter, Jack Clayton's THE INNOCENTS. The script and acting are simply not as nuanced and rewarding as those films, though SKIDOO is actually pretty good in its own way.
You have an interesting point here--I just saw that very same marvelous letterboxed DVD of QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE and was utterly delighted by it. I wonder if its camp perfection would hold up under a pan & scan transfer? Obviously you think it wouldn't. I think it would certainly lose quite a bit, but there are lots of fans out there who somehow managed to cherish the film's camp value on old pan & scan videocassettes.davidhare wrote:I really don't agree with this. For one thing Skidoo has it's defenders, including DavidE, although Im ambivalent about the picture to put it mildly. But Preminger is one of the masters of widscreen mise en scene, regardles of how many drugs people were taking on and off the set of Skidoo.
And here's another example - can anyone imagine the Scope Queen of Outer Space cropped (directed by the far less illustrious Edward Bernds for AIP.) Half the joy of this rechannelling Ed Woodian madness would be lost if the movie were cropped - you could never get the feel for the director's total inability to block and stage and light.
Integrity! Always integrity!
Im completely serious!
That's helpful to know. As you know, many later widescreen films are deliberately framed so they can also hold up under "full screen" television viewing, so I don't think you can take such a question for granted.mattkc wrote:Absolutely agree, and as someone who thinks this is a very great film and who has seen a 35mm print, it is in my opinion absolutely essential to see it in the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Like all Premingers, it makes full use of the frame.
Certainly script and acting don't equal "artistic depth"--otherwise that would exclude a great film like Stan Brakhage's "Mothlight" from consideration. But they're often part of what makes up artistic depth, and they're both extremely important parts of most narrative feature films produced in Hollywood.mattkc wrote:Some would argue that the "script and acting" are not equal to "artistic depth."
Oh the humanity! Preminger threw that in there, for anyone unaware of his legal battle, because he had sued Columbia in a 1966 New York state case for licensing an edited version of Anatomy of a Murder for television broadcast.tryavna wrote:As much as I hate pan/scanning too, am I the only one who enjoyed the irony of Skidoo being presented cropped and virtually the first words out of Carol Channing's mouth (and virtually the first words of the film) being "I don't like watching movies on TV. They always cut them to pieces"?
I love Carmen Jones and Linklater has it in his 10 greatest films of all time list, if that means anything to you. Is Fallen Angel playing in the retro? That's my favorite Preminger.jojo wrote:Anyone here have any comments on Carmen Jones? It's on a short list of films I *might* check out this summer at the Preminger retrospective in Toronto, but I'm somewhat undecided if I should go for it.
MARGIN FOR ERROR (1943) with Milton Berle as a Jewish cop in NYC protecting Nazi consul Otto Preminger would be the deal maker for me. I don't care if it's good or not, it's the "wtf" factor of it that intrigues me.domino harvey wrote:Lineup here-- Why anyone wouldn't be circling the rarer films on their calendar before readily available ones is a mystery to me