libretio.bsky.social
Anti-Brexit, proud Remoaner, anti-Tory, pro-PR, hates film/video censorship, loves 3-D movies. Dog person (though cats are OK, too).
451 posts
70 followers
49 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
🤣🤣🤣
comment in response to
post
I've loved the 'scope' format for many years and lament the way filmmakers have lost the ability to compose for widescreen.
And if one is going to show off one's IMMENSE, ENCYCLOPEDIC knowledge of the subject, one had better get one's facts right before one puts one's foot in it. Hadn't one?... 😉🤣
comment in response to
post
How useless am I?
In fact, there were *16* full or partial widescreen features shot prior to THIS IS CINERAMA, including THE AMERICAN (1927) which was shot wide but never released in that format. And they were all produced between 1922 and 1931, not 1930 as I originally asserted. So there.
comment in response to
post
Quick! Someone call them 'antisemitic'... 🙄
comment in response to
post
No. 4 landed like a turd in a fruit bowl for me. Which was a hell of a disappointment given how much I'd liked the others (esp. no 1) and how much 4 had been hyped beforehand. Very well done, and Keanu is always worth a watch, but it just didn't work for me.
comment in response to
post
Very likely. Or maybe existing equipment coulda been retrofitted - your guess is as good as mine! But it was obviously too much faff for a film only *partially* shot in this format, since no other feature in history ever used it again!!...
comment in response to
post
The crash of '29 and the following worldwide depression helped kill the format in its infancy, so well never know if it would have taken hold. But by the time CinemaScope rolled around in '53, the industry - and the public at large - were ready for big change, and embraced it wholeheartedly.
comment in response to
post
Similar(ish). Panavision used an anamorphic squeeze on 4-perf 35mm film, whereas Panoramico was 70mm 5-perf and therefore naturally wider (2.52:1 AR) - no squeeze necessary! All very technical, I know, but essential stuff for us nerds!! 😉🤣
comment in response to
post
As far as feature length items are concerned, there were 15 full or partial widescreen movies prior to THIS IS CINERAMA in 1952, all produced between 1922 and 1930. The earliest was IL SACCO DI ROMA (1922), partially shot in 70mm Panoramico Alberini.
Howzat for a bit of useless information?!... 🤣
comment in response to
post
Couldn't agree more about the releases on physical media. Enjoy the film on YT if you must, but the DVD or (especially) the BR version will be much better.
comment in response to
post
You can see both versions - Academy ratio 1.37:1 and widescreen Magnifilm (2.05:1) - at YouTube. They're essentially different films, having been shot simultaneously, but framed and edited to maximise their respective screen shape. A real curio for those who love these ancient barnstormers...
comment in response to
post
Agreed. My 1st political awakening was the 'video nasties' debacle of the 1980s, my 1st time realising 'important' people (MPs, police, etc) could lie with abandon, or be really stupid. It was always about controlling what the 'plebs' could see, masquerading as concern for social welfare.
comment in response to
post
🤣🤣🤣
Best laugh I've had all day, bar none!! 👍
comment in response to
post
You keep rabbiting on, my friend.
These gags are the dog's bollocks.
😉🤣
comment in response to
post
Or even:
"Watch the films that make you happy even if they're not classics or 'worthy titles' that won awards."
comment in response to
post
Tel me about it!! 😉🤣😆
comment in response to
post
"... rarely seen (at least here in the UK)"
No wonder! 'Twas banned by the BBFC in Sep 1934 when submitted by Columbia. So us poor plebs have been 'protected' from its baleful influence (ahem!) until 2024 when the film was given a 12 cert (other titles in the BR box-set had their own ratings).
comment in response to
post
Even if he gets the revised PIP eligibility rules through Parliament, it will inevitably end up in court as a potential violation of human rights. It is *explicitly* designed to end eligibility for the vast majority of current claimants, and nothing else...
comment in response to
post
One of these days, someone is going to unearth a gleaming print with the original British title, DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES. Haven't seen it called that since a long-distant UK TV screening, back in the days of 4:3 screens...
comment in response to
post
Just as incredible as the shrinking man himself is the fact that this doesn't appear to have been screened on broadcast TV since I was a kid back in 1479. It might have turned up on local ITV stations over the years, but BBC / C4 / C5 - forget it...
comment in response to
post
The drama queen's had his say and flounced off. Couldn't stand being challenged so immediately went for the aggressive, faux 'astonished' response. Knows how to kill a debate stone dead, I'll give him that. Daft sod. 😉