I'm All Right Jack (1959) - January 19, 2015

[David M]

There are subtitles, yep!

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by phelings

Even the widescreen nazis on HTF agree that films of the era of this one were shot 1.66:1 with theatrical screenings intended to be anything between 1.66 and 1.85 depending on when they were shown.

No I'm afraid we don't. As an intended ratio, 1.66:1 was quite rare in Britain by 1959.

[EddieLarkin]

Such as?

[phelings]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Such as?

Every Carry on film for starters, well up to the end of the AA era at least which was 1967 IIRC
All shot at 1.66 and all released at that ratio.

The difference between the 3 ratios is negligible and not worth arguing about . Those with overscan on will already be watching at 1.75 anyway.

As I said - I can see the logic in looking to get 1.66 films released in widescreen not 4:3 but arguing the toss over the 3 ratios is why some of the press and some of the studios look at Bob Furmanek as some kind of obsessed fool.
He does himself no favours and should stick with the initial cause of ensuring widescreen releases for these movies instead of 4:3 and not wasting time questioning whether they should be 1.66 or 1.75 specially when nobody has the definitive answer . Most of the comments from the supporters all seem to be subjective comments that their 1.66 disc looks ok when zoomed to 1.85.

I support Bobs cause for improved releases of British films but his arguing over the 3 ratios does nothing to make some studios take him seriously

[EddieLarkin]

No one is pretending that actually watching a film in 1.66:1 instead of 1.75:1 makes any real impact on its enjoyability. We just like to see the actual documented ratio be used, since of course it should be. It's the people who master some of these films that rely on guess work.

For instance, if you watch the short interview with camera operator Brian Harris on MoC's If... release, you'll see him say something to the effect that If... was shot at 1.75:1, as that was the standard ratio at the time (which it was, though 1.85:1 was very soon to take over). But of course, the film is actually presented 1.66:1 on the disc.

As for the Carry On films, what is your evidence that they're correct at 1.66:1? Other than that is how they've been released on home video I mean (which is evidence of nothing). In 1958, the first Carry On film, Carry On Sergeant, projectionists were instructed to run the film at its intended ratio, 1.75:1 (thanks DouglasR!).

[phelings]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

No one is pretending that actually watching a film in 1.66:1 instead of 1.75:1 makes any real impact on its enjoyability. We just like to see the actual documented ratio be used, since of course it should be. It's the people who master some of these films that rely on guess work.

For instance, if you watch the short interview with camera operator Brian Harris on MoC's If... release, you'll see him say something to the effect that If... was shot at 1.75:1, as that was the standard ratio at the time (which it was, though 1.85:1 was very soon to take over). But of course, the film is actually presented 1.66:1 on the disc.

As for the Carry On films, what is your evidence that they're correct at 1.66:1? Other than that is how they've been released on home video I mean (which is evidence of nothing). In 1958, the first Carry On film, Carry On Sergeant, projectionists were instructed to run the film at its intended ratio, 1.75:1 (thanks DouglasR!).

Yes there have been some comments from those who made specific films about ratios but nothing definitive.
I think the fact the films were released at 1.66 shows the films were shot at 1.66 . Whether that was the intended ratio for screening is what is open to debate but I'd prefer to see the whole frame . not one cropped just because some magazine states what the ratio might have been.
As you say it makes little difference so can be zoomed if necessary.

The difference between 1.66 and 1.75 is nothing .
The logic is that the films were shot at 1.66 and were screened in the many theatres at whatever ratio the cinema wanted with some at 1.66 and others using either of the other 2 , hence the contradictions that have developed over the years as to what the real ratio was.

Anyway , I don't really want to continue this argument because its arguing over something unimportant and perpetuates that the widescreen nazis are nothing more than a bunch of loons so actually hurts the project to ensure no 4:3 releases.

If it was shot at 1.66 then release it that way.
That makes sense which is why Network and Studio Canal don't crop their titles , leaving that option to the obsessed.

[Dubliner1]

I haven't seen a slipcover on this anywhere- please tell me StudioCanal has not stopped making the slips for this wonderful Vintage Classics Collection of blurays!!

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by phelings

Anyway , I don't really want to continue this argument because its arguing over something unimportant and perpetuates that the widescreen nazis are nothing more than a bunch of loons so actually hurts the project to ensure no 4:3 releases.

I don't think there's any need for "widescreen Nazis".

In fact nearly all these films were shot in 4x3 (& that goes for almost every 1:85/1:77/16:9 ever made). The question is: what was intended aspect ratio for cinema release? What was the cameraman's ground glass marked up for? If they can't find documentation, then it's a guess. All those great b/w British films from 1956-1966 that have had a DVD release in the incorrect ratio of 4x3. As it happens, I quite like the 1:66 compromise, but some films it's obvious that they should be 1:85...& this release is too damn expensive right now!

[ste71]

Originally Posted by Dubliner1

I haven't seen a slipcover on this anywhere- please tell me StudioCanal has not stopped making the slips for this wonderful Vintage Classics Collection of blurays!!

My copy arrived yesterday with a slip cover

[phelings]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

I don't think there's any need for "widescreen Nazis".

In fact nearly all these films were shot in 4x3 (& that goes for almost every 1:85/1:77/16:9 ever made). The question is: what was intended aspect ratio for cinema release? What was the cameraman's ground glass marked up for? If they can't find documentation, then it's a guess. All those great b/w British films from 1956-1966 that have had a DVD release in the incorrect ratio of 4x3. As it happens, I quite like the 1:66 compromise, but some films it's obvious that they should be 1:85...& this release is too damn expensive right now!

Have you read HTF ?Nazis is a very apt term considering the hand wringing and complete tosh that gets spouted over there about incorrect ratios for films for which there is no de facto knowledge.
The fact the films were shot in 4:3 indicates that any of the 3 ratios should do depending on the capabilities of any cinema.

I tried a Flubit for this movie but they only knocked it down to £14.83.
£13 or less and I'll get it so I guess a wait of several months is in order.

Can anyone confirm there is a new Liz Fraser interview on this disc ? If so , is it HD and how long is it ?
Thanks