Can anyone tell me if this has ever been released to video in its correct widescreen aspect ratio? The new DVD is really a disappointment.
shareI saw a third generation bootleg of this about 20 years ago in widescreen - but I don't think it's ever been released in its original apsect ratio. I'd love to get it on HD in it's original widescreen version. I can't understand why they've never respected the director's vision on the DVD releases.
shareThey filmed in 35mm format, impossible to make widescreen!!
share35mm can be a variety of aspect ratios. It was released in widescreen 35mm. I know,I saw it.
shareIf you check the technical specs section, you'll see that it was shot in 2.35:1 anamorphic, which is both 35mm and widescreen.
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm
Cinematographic process
Panavision (anamorphic)
Printed film format
35 mm
Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1
Exactly! Why was this film NOT released in its original WS format?? One misses @ 1/2 the picture -- literally! (Or perhaps that is the reason?)
shareI found this on an HD Showtime channel the other night, unfortunately it was not HD, but it was widescreen so it's a start.
EDIT: Oh crap, it was just the intro, I jumped the gun.
The studio probably did not have any faith in the DVD release, so they issued it as cheaply as possible.
shareSorry to resurrect this older thread, but I'm assuming you're the same "davidcoppola36" that owns/owned a 16mm print of "Summer Lovers." Can you confirm that the aspect ratio is indeed 2.35:1 anamorphic? Due to conflicting evidence (such as the pressbook), no one can seem to nail down the correct aspect ratio. Any help you could offer would be greatly appeciated.
hkchris, Yes, I owned the 16mm print quite a few years ago.
Unfortunately it was a full frame print, meaning 1:1:33. But the trailer that I had spliced on the front of it was letterboxed widescreen, but 1:85, not 2:35.
This movie was released in the summer of 1982. I remember MTV had a large part in marketing it, with many trailer spots daily.
It sparked a lot of interest in me to see it. I live in Rochester, NY, which, especially then, is considered a medium sized town. We never got the movie till almost the fall, I think very late August.
It premiered here at the Towne Theater in Henrietta, a suburb of Rochester, near Rochester Institute of Technology. The theater is no longer there however.
I have always had an interest in projection and have befriended many projectionists in town. as such I had acquired a tremendous amout of first hand knowledge of film projection.
Summer Lovers was, indeed, 35mm 2:35 anamorphic, meaning that a special "scope" lens was needed to present it as such.
Summer Lovers was never a hit and was quickly forgotten...for some. I have always had a soft spot for it.
The 16mm print I had was an almost brand new print, which was a big reason for me to purchase it. I subsequently got out of 16mm in favor of DVD projection and now BluRay.
The DVD of Summer Lovers came out a few years ago, but is full frame, much like the 16mm print I had. I have serious doubts that we will ever see a widescreen version of it, let alone a BluRay. Another 80s movie that was supposed to be a big thing was "Perfect" with John Travolta and Jamie Lee Curtice. It was released in 2:35(I saw it in the theater, but the only video release is, again, only in full frame.
Thanks, davidcoppola36. That settles it then. I appreciate you taking the time to reply!
shareIf you look at the end credits it says "Lenses & Panaflex Camera Panavision" which was the standard credit for 1.85 films. If it was filmed in scope 2.35, the credit would read "Filmed in Panavision"
shareYou are correct, bhaig. Randal Kleiser himself confirmed this on twitter recently. The correct ratio is 1.85:1.
shareThanks for the confirmation. Its been a mystery as to what ratio he shot this film in for more than 10 years. Its strange that he would shoot Grease in 2.35 and then switch to 1.85 for The Blue Lagoon and Summer Lovers. Personally I think the latter 2 films would have benefited much more from the Scope photography.
shareThis also means that the DVD is open Matte, just exposing what was vertically cropped in the 1.85 theatrical showing.
I am looking forward to a nice looking looking Blu-ray of this film.
I actually prefer open matte, when possible. Even if it gets a Blu-ray release.
I can use the settings on my player to zoom in and get the framing the director intended to show, or zoom out to see what was filmed above or below the widescreen framing. If the film is on the disc only in widescreen this option goes away.
Its strange that he would shoot Grease in 2.35 and then switch to 1.85 for The Blue Lagoon and Summer Lovers. Personally I think the latter 2 films would have benefited much more from the Scope photography.
It can cost more money to shoot a film in Panavision, or 2.35:1. And probably at that time in the early '80s, the Panavision equipment was bulky and difficult to move around a location like Greece. It's a shame, because as John Carpenter says; "Scope makes a cheap film look real expensive."
[deleted]
[deleted]