12 replies to this topic

[scaramunga]

I am looking for information on the 1.85 aspect ratios for Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun.

Does any know why the ratio was changed from Diamonds Are Forever? Also, is there a source that discusses this change for the 2 films?

Thanks!!

[ChristopherZ22]

I am looking for information on the 1.85 aspect ratios for Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun.

Does any know why the ratio was changed from Diamonds Are Forever? Also, is there a source that discusses this change for the 2 films?

Thanks!!

I will try and find some information. My first guess is that there is less needed to film; they are smaller and cheaper productions with less extravagant sets.

The hollowed out volcano in You Only Live Twice was a huge, expensive, and extravagant set that required all of it to fit into the frames; thus YOLT was needed for a widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35:1. The underwater battle in Thunderball required many of the MI6 and SPECTRE agents to fit into each frame, which required it to be filmed in a wider aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

There isn't anything in Live and Let Die and Golden Gun that would require a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. There is less that we need to see; Kananga's underground lair on San Monique for instance is small and we don't need to see that much.

Edited by ChristopherZ22, 18 July 2010 - 02:23 AM.

[scaramunga]

I am looking for information on the 1.85 aspect ratios for Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun.

Does any know why the ratio was changed from Diamonds Are Forever? Also, is there a source that discusses this change for the 2 films?

Thanks!!

I will try and find some information. My first guess is that there is less needed to film; they are smaller and cheaper productions with less extravagant sets.

The hollowed out volcano in You Only Live Twice was a huge, expensive, and extravagant set that required all of it to fit into the frames; thus YOLT was needed for a widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35. The underwater battle in Thunderball required many of the MI6 and SPECTRE agents to fit into each frame, which required it to be filmed in a wider aspect ratio of 2.35.

There isn't anything in Live and Let Die and Golden Gun that would require a 2.35 aspect ratio. There is less that we need to see; Kananga's underground lair on San Monique for instance is small and we don't need to see that much.

I was just reading in James Bond The Legacy, that there was concern at the time of doing another Bond film without Sean Connery. The budget was smaller for Live and Let Die (as well as The Man With The Golden Gun I assume??) so that there would be a higher chance of return on the film receipts. Live and Let Die did deliver in terms of box office so things seemed to work out pretty well with this move.

It would be nice to read a source that directly comments on this decision though. I believe 35mm film was used for both films.

It does make sense that they returned to a wider aspect ratio with The Spy Who Loved Me due to sets and scope of that film.

[scaramunga]

I am looking for information on the 1.85 aspect ratios for Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun.

Does any know why the ratio was changed from Diamonds Are Forever? Also, is there a source that discusses this change for the 2 films?

Thanks!!

I will try and find some information. My first guess is that there is less needed to film; they are smaller and cheaper productions with less extravagant sets.

The hollowed out volcano in You Only Live Twice was a huge, expensive, and extravagant set that required all of it to fit into the frames; thus YOLT was needed for a widescreen aspect ratio of 2.35. The underwater battle in Thunderball required many of the MI6 and SPECTRE agents to fit into each frame, which required it to be filmed in a wider aspect ratio of 2.35.

There isn't anything in Live and Let Die and Golden Gun that would require a 2.35 aspect ratio. There is less that we need to see; Kananga's underground lair on San Monique for instance is small and we don't need to see that much.

I was just reading in James Bond The Legacy, that there was concern at the time of doing another Bond film without Sean Connery. The budget was smaller for Live and Let Die (as well as The Man With The Golden Gun I assume??) so that there would be a higher chance of return on the film receipts. Live and Let Die did deliver in terms of box office so things seemed to work out pretty well with this move.

It would be nice to read a source that directly comments on this decision though. I believe 35mm film was used for both films.

It does make sense that they returned to a wider aspect ratio with The Spy Who Loved Me due to sets and scope of that film.

I found this tidbit:
Aspect ratio: 1.85 : 1. Both this and the following film do not use the full Panavision format, apparently due to increased film stock costs at the time

From this site, but no source is given...
http://www.mjnewton....k/bond/lald.htm

Does anyone have more accurate info or a published source to confirm the aspect ratio of these 2 films? Thanks!

[Royal Dalton]

The film stock was the same either way. It was only the lenses that were different.

The reason for the aspect ratio difference on those two (which was 1.77:1), was probably just down to the fact that shooting them with anamorphic lenses would require more lighting than shooting them flat (with spherical, non-anamorphic, lenses). So, essentially, a cost and time issue.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

There is a thread on this - i think its called 'why weren't LALD and MWTGG filmed in Panavision'.

[Professor Dent]

Here you go:

http://debrief.comma...gg-film-format/

[Aces High]

I asked someone about this a long time ago & the answer I got was that it was due to United Artists,distributor at the time,had done a multi million dollar deal with CBS TV for the TV rights for the first 5 007 films & the thinking was that the 'newer' 007 films would be made available to TV a lot sooner than the previous films.So one of the complaints was that the 'scope' format was annoying for TV viewers with the dizzy pan & scanning.If you look at the films of the time you will find many a United Artists release did not use 'Cinemascope'.

[scaramunga]

I asked someone about this a long time ago & the answer I got was that it was due to United Artists,distributor at the time,had done a multi million dollar deal with CBS TV for the TV rights for the first 5 007 films & the thinking was that the 'newer' 007 films would be made available to TV a lot sooner than the previous films.So one of the complaints was that the 'scope' format was annoying for TV viewers with the dizzy pan & scanning.If you look at the films of the time you will find many a United Artists release did not use 'Cinemascope'.

Interesting. Is there a source for this information?

It would make sense as I guess the Bond tv rights were sold to ABC and the first film Goldfinger aired in 1972. The book James Bond: The Legacy by John Cork and Bruce Scivally comments on this occurring. Pages 144 and 145. The book goes on to mention that this move was done "To hedge their bets on Live and Let Die...".

The book does not mention the formating of Live and Let Die for tv, but it's an interesting theory for sure. Interesting note about UA's other films around that time not using Cinemascope as well. What titles did this include aside from the 2 Bond films?

I responded in the other thread (mentioned and linked in this thread) too.

Edited by scaramunga, 19 July 2010 - 12:14 AM.

[ConnerysToupee1983]

I would also like to think, even though im sure it isnt the case, that the decision was yet another "artistic" choice, to separate Roger Moore visually and stylistically from Sean Connery (and to a lesser extent Lazenby.) To go from the grandiosty of the other films, for a more up-close and "intimate" style. Like introducing Moore as Bond at home. I'm sure this isnt the case, but its nice to think they put THAT much thought into it.

In reality, the selling of the tv rights makes more sense., 1:85 translates perfectly to 1:33. And you didn't have to worry about pan and scanning the film. So, you'd get to tv quicker. Kubrick shot most of his films in 1:85 so people would get to cut anything "off the sides" so to speak.

Edited by ConnerysToupee1983, 19 July 2010 - 03:19 PM.

[scaramunga]

At this point, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the change in aspect ratios was made due to budget reasons and the greater ease of shooting in 1.85.

1:2.35 is a bit more difficult to set up and most movies in the US were using 1.85 at the time.

Interesting that Guy Hamilton used it 3 times out of his 4 films. Even more interesting is that Ken Adam only worked with Hamilton on Diamonds.

[scaramunga]

At this point, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the change in aspect ratios was made due to budget reasons and the greater ease of shooting in 1.85.

1:2.35 is a bit more difficult to set up and most movies in the US were using 1.85 at the time.

Interesting that Guy Hamilton used it 3 times out of his 4 films. Even more interesting is that Ken Adam only worked with Hamilton on Diamonds.

I am watching the Open University's The Spy Who Loved Me documentary and Ken Adam mentions using 2.35 for The Spy Who Loved Me due to the size and scope of the sets...

Hmm. : )

[Mr. Blofeld]

Even more interesting is that Ken Adam only worked with Hamilton on Diamonds.

What? He also worked with Hamilton on Goldfinger, which was shot in 1.85; your math's all wrong, scara.