criterionforum.org

swo17 wrote:

Oedipax wrote:It's made up of shots that worked best in the new aspect ratio

yes, I've read that.
But it doesn't clarify if the final image of those shots is cropped from the previous aspect ratio, or if it expands on the sides.

Who cares? This isn't the same thing as butchering a home video release.

If anyone's interested, here's a map of the theaters that are known to be showing the ultra-wide version of Voyage of Time.

I traveled up to New York only three weeks ago to see The Tree of Life with live choral/orchestral accompaniment at the Brooklyn Academy of Music...and now I've got my movie and bus tickets for a day trip on Monday to see this odd thing (my third viewing of Voyage of Time).

Costa wrote:

swo17 wrote:

Oedipax wrote:It's made up of shots that worked best in the new aspect ratio

yes, I've read that.
But it doesn't clarify if the final image of those shots is cropped from the previous aspect ratio, or if it expands on the sides.

I would guess the gains on the sides will be marginal, and the 'loss' of the top/bottom to be most of where the extra width comes from. But they do mention doing a fresh scan of the elements at 11K resolution for this release, so they could have made sure the scan picked up every last bit of side information off the negative if it wasn't there already.

They also mention that, in composing for IMAX (1.43:1 or whatever), one often places the 'area of interest' near the bottom of the frame, where the audience is looking straight ahead rather than craning their necks up. So between picking the best-suited shots and also going by the general approach to composition undertaken during principal photography, the result might be quite pleasing. I'm just glad I'll finally be able to see some version of this new Malick.

swo17 wrote:Who cares?

I'll be sure to use this the next time I run out of things to say in a conversation. What a novel way to respond to a perfectly valid question!

Please don't.

We're now up to four versions, with the shorter cut playing this Sunday at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum with Malick's preferred narration, different from the previously released narration in the shorter cut.

I caught this last night in King of Prussia's IMAX.

It's the first Malick film I've seen since A New World, so I don't know how to compare it to anything he's made since then...but last things first, the credits go by way too fast. I was curious about a lot of the music in the film, but couldn't make out which composers he used. I was also curious to see the locations, and what schools the professors were from... Eh, minor grievance.

The movie lost me when it tried to give some context - I didn't care about the little girl. Additionally, as soon as I saw dinosaurs, I checked out...at that point, I didn't know what was real or fake. The underwater stuff is was great though.

The best thing I can say, I found the perfect seat for IMAX screenings from now on.

I saw the 3.6 no-vo version, and... the only time it was playing was at 10:30pm, and I saw it on a Friday, after a tiring week and a long drive to get to the theater. It was hard to focus. The imagery is gorgeous, as one would expect, and I really liked how much Malick managed to make one question whether a given image- of, say, the birth of a planet, or of molten rock flowing perfectly into frame- was CGI or just a beautifully found recontextualized shot. It took me far too long to figure out the sort of chronological narrative that was set up- one would think it would be obvious, but Malick's sort of swoopy, transcendentalist style makes you forget where you are and what is happening pretty quickly- but once the structure became clear, I got more involved. There are a few beats with early man that seemed like Malickian take on the first real of 2001 in a way that I thought was sort of productive by comparison, but in general, it really did feel like if Terrence Malick made the kind of movie they usually show at IMAX theaters in museums, with the artsy factor cranked way up- lovely, overwhelming images, but ultimately relatively inconsequential.

Given that I responded most strongly to the tiny hints of human interaction in it, I'm wondering if- for me- Malick's take on nature is distinguished from that of most nature photography more by the way he contrasts it with human struggle than necessarily solely by his eye and sense of form.

pzadvance wrote:All told, Voyage of Time probably has a handful of the most astonishing nature images I've ever seen

Spoiler

(POV hatching from an egg, the school of fish vs. the flock of seagulls, the seal feeding...)

Spoiler

The seagulls/fish thing was astonishing, but it's also something that is really close to a sequence in either Attenborough's Life or Planet Earth, which was likewise photographed balletically, below the water, and highlighting the way the animals seemed to be working together and creating this living sculpture of predation. I don't know who would have filmed it first, though, given that Malick's been working on this for decades.

Boy, I completely missed this despite the fact I was actively anticipating it. How confident are we there will be a blu-ray release? And how many of the three versions do we suspect will be included? (I would totally watch a 3.6:1 AR on my 55" TV no matter how ridiculous it might look).

Apparently there's close to four or five versions of this film out there actually. I suspect only 1 or 2 of them will make it to Blu-ray.

For anyone keeping track, there is:

- Full length version with Cate Blanchett
- 45 Minute IMAX version with Brad Pitt narration
- IMAX version with amended narration
- IMAX version with no narration
- 3.6:1 ratio version

I imagine the 3.6 ratio will never make it to blu-Ray, and Malick will most likely cut a new version to release to that format.

At the Air & Space Q&A it was the 45 minute version in standard IMAX aspect ratio with no narration, and it was introduced as his preferred version (and he said in the Q&A that he preferred how it played without narration).

Of course, this wouldn't necessarily stop him from creating another version for blu-ray.

WITHOUT narration is definitely preferred. The Pitt narration added nothing. Haven't seen/heard the Blanchett version, but would like to see it without narration.

J Adams wrote:WITHOUT narration is definitely preferred. The Pitt narration added nothing. Haven't seen/heard the Blanchett version, but would like to see it without narration.

Apparently that is Malick's preferred presentation as well and how he originally intended.

It's a rare example of Malick correctly preferring to eschew narration. I feel like he needed to make a lot of compromises to get this film made and presented. The Pitt narration is of no (even negative) value, but I guess films without human voices don't play well to the general public in IMAX.

I went to the 2nd Q&A that night at the Air & Space Museum. He elaborated that the narration was an "educational component" that helped secure IMAX funding, as a chunk of their profit comes from school field trips.

Thanks. But the narration is of the "why do we exist" nature as opposed to the "this is a coral reef composed of living creatures, which feed on plankton" stuff. Glad he got away with Malickian narration.

J Adams wrote:Thanks. But the narration is of the "why do we exist" nature as opposed to the "this is a coral reef composed of living creatures, which feed on plankton" stuff. Glad he got away with Malickian narration.

Hardly discredits it as an "educational component" if that's what you're implying.

Not sure children care why we exist, or need to see....oh I can't be bothered with spoiler tags. Loved the film, both with and without narration. But, even for die-hard Malickians, it is skippable.

Well, you apparently know best.

It seems like this movie dropped off the face of the earth since the limited IMAX release last year. No updates regarding the feature length's release? Bluray? What the finalized narration (if any) will entail? etc...

AK wrote:Well, you apparently know best.

This kind of snottiness is why I generally avoid this FORUM like the plague. I live in Manhattan and have access to innumerable more theatrical presentations than anyone who lives elsewhere. I simply, and blandly, expressed a preference for a particular approach to VoT.

Regards.

J Adams wrote:This kind of snottiness

J Adams wrote:I live in Manhattan and have access to innumerable more theatrical presentations than anyone who lives elsewhere.

\:D/