Meet Me in St. Louis - Review

[Geode]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Is that even possible? I'm not being rhetorical, I'd like to know.

Why not? Basically CinemaScope was just the addition of an anamorphic lens in front of the prime lens. I guess some resulting loss of light might have necessitated cranking up the lighting wattage somewhat in interior shots. I think we would have seen many CinemaScope features shot 3-strip if Eastman color negative stock had not been introduced just before its debut.

[obscurelabel]

Originally Posted by Geode

Why not? Basically CinemaScope was just the addition of an anamorphic lens in front of the prime lens. I guess some resulting loss of light might have necessitated cranking up the lighting wattage somewhat in interior shots. I think we would have seen many CinemaScope features shot 3-strip if Eastman color negative stock had not been introduced just before its debut.

I'm no expert, but the three-strip Technicolor cameras were already extremely tricky to work with (check out Jack Cardiff's demonstrations on extras on the African Queen and Black Narcissus if interested) and throwing a completely new layer of technology, that wasn't completely perfected to boot (Cinemascope "mumps" and other issues) on top of that, may have been an insurmountable problem. As Geode notes, Technicolor films already had to be lit like the surface of the sun to make up for the light lost through the color filters for each film strip, and I think that scope films had their own issues with lighting, so more problems there.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Geode

Why not? Basically CinemaScope was just the addition of an anamorphic lens in front of the prime lens. I guess some resulting loss of light might have necessitated cranking up the lighting wattage somewhat in interior shots. I think we would have seen many CinemaScope features shot 3-strip if Eastman color negative stock had not been introduced just before its debut.

Aside from how slow they are (though I'm not sure first-generation Eastman neg was any faster, ASA16 if memory serves?), due to the beam-splitter optics, the Technicolor cameras had a much longer flange focal distance and required custom lenses designed specifically for that system.

I'm sure they could've made the lenses, but your last point is probably the most important part. The studios were all too happy to get Technicolor off their backs, and back then, why not? Faded negatives a few decades down the line was probably the last thing on their mind.

[jaaguir]

Some time ago I remember reading about a movie that started shooting in 3-strip Technicolor with anamorphic lenses. I remember there was a picture with a monstruous camera and the actors sitting around on the set illustrating the article but I'm not sure if it was a legit photo of that shoot. The movie was never finished that way, or even at all, I can't remember now. I'm guessing the piece must be around on the internet somewhere.

[Jowiko96]

I would get this if they had a single-disc, but no. Warner wants more money.

[yimitz]

Amazon has this on sale today for $17.99.

[joie]

Originally Posted by yimitz

Amazon has this on sale today for $17.99.

Yeah, I was surprised when it tripped my $25 price watcher, even more surprised at the low price, so ordered it. It hit something below $25 ($24.99?) recently, but there was nothing else to combine it with at the time to get super-saver shipping, so I passed on it.

[Boob-Ray]

Originally Posted by yimitz

Amazon has this on sale today for $17.99.

Finally! Been waiting for a price drop on this beauty!!

[Boob-Ray]

Originally Posted by bigshot

The graphics on that cover look nothing like the film. It looks like the logo for a Will Ferrell movie.

Originally Posted by The Mad Kiwi

Agreed. The photoshopped art in the background is nice enough (though a little empty), but I really don't like that font. They couldn't have come up with something more turn-of-the-century-looking? Oh, well. It's the disc that matters.

You guys are so right. While I like the bright, happy colors of the cover... the artwork is so generic and uninspired.

With the wealth of style and ornate imagery found in turn-of-the-century design... there was such an embarrassment of design riches that could have been exploited. Minus Garland's iconic face beaming out at us -- you can barely tell this is a bygone picture, about an even more bygone era.

It does look like the latest Jim Carrey or Will Farrell bargain bin'er. This is really grating to me.

[RiFiFi1955]

Good job on the above covers. Just like three peas in a pod

[Boob-Ray]

I can't let this go! Any competent artist/graphic dept should have had a field day with the cover art.

Here's a nice poster for a play or something. Good font/imagery. Pretty basic stuff.



That's it. I'm taking the Art Director job at WB. Where's my resume...

[DetroitSquirreL]

finally coming down in price....now on amazon at $17.99 USD

[benbess]

Wonderful film and great blu-ray!++++