MovieChat Forums > Missile to the Moon (1960) Discussion > Designed To Be Shown Wide Screen

Designed To Be Shown Wide Screen

posted 13 years ago by oldblackandwhite
12 replies | jump to latest

In the mid to late 1950's many movies were released in the 1.37:1 format (Accademy Standard), but shot with a deep enough focus and with all the important action and set elements horizonally centered, so that the tops and bottoms could be masked off by a projector aperture to either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. This to accomodate both small exhibitors who had not widened their screens and others who had.

I believe Missle To The Moon is one of these. The tipoff is how the credits stay in a band across the middle of the screen with unnecessary space at top and bottom, and how there are few real close-ups in the picture. Lots of medium shots with the bottom edge of the screen touching the players knees and redundant space over their heads.

If your wide screen TV has a setting called something like "screen expand" which expands the picture proportionately both vertically and horizonally with no distortion, it will just lop off redundant space at top and bottom and shows it wide screen as it was probably intended. This movie looks much better that way.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

I don't believe this film was ever "intended" as a widescreen movie. It either was or wasn't. If it had been, it would have to have actually been shot in a 1.66:1 (or 1.85:1) apsect ratio. Otherwise, using the methods you cite, it's creating the artificial appearance of being widescreen, not actually being widescreen. (The process called "SuperScope" was such an artificial widescreen "process".) I may be wrong, but this film was probably shot in 1.37:1, although it wouldn't surprise me if it had been 1.66. But it clearly wasn't 1.85, where portions of the original image would be plainly cut off.

However, even if the film was shot in widescreen, you cannot see the film in the way it was intended by using screen expand or some similar TV setting. You cannot change the content of a film's DVD image simply by expanding or contracting the picture, which I've found many people seem to believe. (They don't purchase a widescreen copy of a film in the ridiculous belief that by seeing the film on a widescreen televison they're somehow getting the entire picture, even though their pan & scan DVD has lopped off significant portions of the film to begin with.) All you get by expanding the screen image is an expanded view of what's on the DVD. You do not see missing portions of the film that weren't on the DVD picture to begin with. Also, screen expand will not really replicate the film as it was "meant" to be shown, especially if it wasn't widescreen. Besides, movies formatted to fit a 16x9 picture always shave off bits of the picture at top and bottom anyway, so you're still missing something.

[–] oldblackandwhite 13 years ago

hobob53, I think you have not understood what I was talking about. No movies were actually "shot in a 1.66:1 (or 1.85:1) aspect ratio" as you stated. These formats were created by shooting at the standard format but with the camera farther away from the action than would be normal. This created redundant space at the top and the bottom of the frame, which was then masked at the top and the bottom of the printed frame (hard-matted). In some cases for reasons I state in paragraph 1 of my post these films were released without the masks to be masked with a projector aperture (soft-matted), or could be shown in the standard format by movie houses that did not have wide screens. Screen expand setting (not "widescreen" or "16 x 9" settings) brings the edges of the picture out to the edge of the widescreen TV and cuts off the top and bottom, thus having the effect of the projector soft mask. Though it will be 1.78:1 rather than which ever of 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. There was no "ridiculous belief" that a pan and scan version could be restored to widescreen. Missle To The Moon is obviously not pan and scan, but as I stated in my op but you apparent failed to grasp, the extra space above and below the credits, the horizonal centering of the action and absence of true close ups show it as an open matted standard format designed to be projector masked if desired.

SuperScope (though having nothing to do with Missle To The Moon) was created by masking to a 2:1 ratio on the negative, the squeezing the picture into a standard frame with an anamorphic lens during printing. It was then projected with an expanding anamorphic lens designed for SuperScope. I'm not sure what the benefit of this was, though it was supposed to give superior resolution to just blowing up a matted frame. All widescreen processes are "artificial", except,I suppose, the ones using 70 mm film such as Todd-AO or the early Grandeur.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Well, perhaps I misunderstood you. However, the "ridiculous belief" portion was not directed at you, since it was obviously not what you were talking about, but at people who think that they can get the full picture of a widescreen film by watching a p&s DVD on a widescreen TV. I've encountered several people who thought that.

I still do not think MTTM was ever "meant" to be seen in a widescreen format, however, and certainly not 1.85. There is no confirming fact that would indicate this that I have seen. I could be mistaken, of course. Still, the manner in which by your description this movie was photographed does not necessarily mean it was ever intended to be exhibited in some w/s dimension.

[–] oldblackandwhite 13 years ago

Have it your way, hober.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

It's not a case of my having it "my way". This is just my opinion, which as I said might be mistaken. But it's one which is as valid as your view, which after all is only your opinion, possibly but not necessarily correct.

[–] scotbpens 13 years ago

I still do not think MTTM was ever "meant" to be seen in a widescreen format, however, and certainly not 1.85. There is no confirming fact that would indicate this that I have seen. I could be mistaken, of course. Still, the manner in which by your description this movie was photographed does not necessarily mean it was ever intended to be exhibited in some w/s dimension.

In fact, virtually all American movies made after 1954 were in some format other than full Academy (1.37:1) aspect ratio. Films shot in standard 35mm were always matted at the top and bottom of the frame to create a wider image, 1.85:1 being the most common aspect ratio. Missile to the Moon would have been no exception. As the OP pointed out, the framing of the title sequences is usually a dead giveaway.

All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Fine, whatever, I concede. Still, I wonder why no DVD of this film shows it in a 1.85:1 a.r. Or could it have been 1.66? Even IMDb does not list its aspect ratio. The framing of the opening credits normally is a giveaway, but I don't see anything in these credits -- or anywhere else -- that "gives away" that this film was intended for exhibiton at 1.85. Either way, not a big deal.

On the other hand, in the recent release of War of the Satellites in the Corman trilogy, it's very obvious from the picture that in its original form the film was almost certainly formatted in a 1.85:1 a.r., though the DVD shows it full screen. Missile to the Moon simply does not appear to me to be similarly cropped. But let it go.

[–] bok602 13 years ago

I agree!

I've watched this on my widescreen TV in the stretched mode and it fits perfectly. I've also noticed the same thing with a lot of mid-to late 1950's films. They play perfectly when formatted to widescreen.

The same holds true with a lot of the old ADAM-12 and the later DRAGNET TV episodes. They seem like they're filmed in anticipation of a widescreen presentation.

"If you don't know the answer -change the question."

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Yeah, but all you're doing then is watching the same picture stretched out. You're not adding anything that isn't on the DVD (or broadcast).

If you were watching a pan & scan version of a CinemaScope film, putting it on "stretch" mode on your television won't give you the full, original widescreen picture. You'd just have a stretched version of a 1.37:1 p&s print, still missing half the picture.

So of course Missile to the Moon would "fit" your screen when stretched. That doesn't mean the film itself was shot in widescreen, and if it was, you wouldn't be seeing it as it was actually filmed -- you'd just be seeing a stretched version of the 1.37:1 print you were watching.

The old Dragnet and Adam-12 shows were not filmed in widescreen. They're in standard 1.37:1, just as all TV shows were then.

[–] twanurit 8 years ago

Check it:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

A pretty interesting article. Maybe the OP was correct. The fact that MTTM's antecedent opus, Cat-Women of the Moon, was shot by Astor Pictures in 1.66:1 in 1953 may aid in making the case that so was MTTM.

I actually watched this film again very recently (at an a.r. of 1.37:1) and took care to try to see if it might have been widescreen, albeit at a very modest aspect ratio like 1.66. All I can say is perhaps it might have been. This article implies it was, though it doesn't get as far as 1958 films. On the other hand, other sources still list it as 1.37:1. If it was shot at 1.66:1 it would be nice to see it properly projected on a DVD, although the truth is 1.66 is so modest an a.r. that the practical difference between it and 1.37 is almost unnoticeable.

That article stated that the RKO movie Son of Sinbad was one of the studio's last films shot in 1.37, in 1953. It was also filmed in 3-D. What it doesn't note is that the film was held up by censors for two years due to the extremely scanty outfits worn by many of the women in the film. When it was finally released in 1955 3-D was out and it was released flat, but the studio also converted it to their "SuperScope" dimension by cropping the top and bottom and fashioning it into an artificial widescreen film. This was not uncommon in the mid-50s.

Thanks for the link.

[–] bananabry 7 years ago

You are right! The movie looks much better in 1:85. Thanks for the observation and the tip. ☺