 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think ANY cover artwork shoud say "Richard Matheson's DUEL"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 8, 2015 - 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jkirkfsm
(Member)
|
How wonderful! And about time! One of my favorite scores of all time, my second favorite Goldenberg after Fear No Evil and Ritual of Evil (which I consider one complete work).
Somehow I don't find the music quite as evocative as the bootleg that's been floating around for years but the sound is certainly a lot better. I just know the bootleg so well, I guess - I'll get used to this quickly.
Good pairing with Rosenman, another of my favorite composers, most of the time (Lord of the Rings notwithstanding).
Maybe if this is successful it will prompt Universal to allow the release of Fear/Ritual, soundtracks or films. The clowns have orphaned the poor things, which is a real shame. They are both excellent 60's made for TV films with Louis Jourdan as the ghost hunter. I transferred my VHS taped-from-tv copies to dvd years ago. There are occasionally some poorer quality copies or fragments on youtube. Worth checking out not only as they're great little films but for my favorite Goldenberg soundtrack(s) of all. Or favorite soundtracks of all, period?
Come on, Universal! Come on, Intrada!
And thanks, Intrada! Never thought I'd see this happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 8, 2015 - 8:18 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
The liner notes state that the 'wide screen' theatrical version of the film inadvertently revealed Spielberg in the back seat in some of the shots.
How is this possible?
DUEL was shot and framed (one assumes) in the 1:33 aspect ratio of US television.
A conversion to theatrical ratio of 1;85 would merely require the masking of the top and bottom of the frame (the tightly framed full-screen version I have seen does not seem to lend itself to such a conversion)
My educated guess (assuming the film was shot "square" -- that is, 4x3):
Until digital HD television came along, analogue broadcast television had very imperfect framing. When you shot something for television, the viewfinder/monitor had a smaller 4x3 box inside the full 4x3 frame that was considered "TV safe." Analogue televisions blew up the image and the sides of the frames weren't seen. This was worse on the west coast of the US, where the east coast feed was rebroadcast three hours later, and the retransmitted picture blew up even more.
So the left and right sides of the frames had considerably more information than was seen on television. You wouldn't have quite enough information to create a widescreen image for film (or now for HD 16x9 broadcasts), but you'd get a good part of the way there. This meant you had to crop out less of the top and bottom to get your 4x3 image to create a reasonable widescreen image.
Am I making sense? It's easier to draw than describe!
Anyway, my guess is that Spielberg was off to the left or right of frame for the broadcast version, inside the film frame but outside the TV safe frame. When those sides of the frames were seen in a widescreen presentation, there he was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The liner notes state that the 'wide screen' theatrical version of the film inadvertently revealed Spielberg in the back seat in some of the shots.
How is this possible?
DUEL was shot and framed (one assumes) in the 1:33 aspect ratio of US television.
A conversion to theatrical ratio of 1;85 would merely require the masking of the top and bottom of the frame (the tightly framed full-screen version I have seen does not seem to lend itself to such a conversion)
My educated guess ......
Am I making sense? It's easier to draw than describe!
.
Yes Schiffy, you are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 9, 2015 - 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
jkirkfsm
(Member)
|
Re: the aspect ratio question As you know old TV shows were shown in the old 4:3 aspect ratio. However when it was shot the film recorded a wide screen image. When filming for TV they would draw lines on the side of the viewfinder to indicate the "safe area". This was to leave room for the optical soundtrack that would be added later, safe because TV sets of the day would not show the outer edges of the picture. When they scanned the film the technicians grabbed the whole frame, even in the safe zone, yielding an almost windscreen format of old TV series and made-for-TV films we have never seen.
The technicians working on the sets in the 60's all knew about the safe area, and when working at the speeds they were if a light stand or set clamp or the director was in the shot but not in the safe area they would go ahead and shoot knowing that part of the film would never be seen. Of course, with remastering into widescreen for today’s TVs, that come back to bite us as they composed the shots as they would be seen on the small screen. Going to full screen means whatever they didn’t intend to be seen at the edges sometimes shows up. Gives us widescreen, with an occasional blooper, with the trade-off of a small bit of the edge at top and/or bottom being lost.
Or so I’ve been told.
Hope they paid Speilberg's secretary at Universal a big bonus for this, as it was she who gave him the story to read. This and LA 2012 are the only Speilbergs I've ever seen that I would/will willingly re-watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me too, saw it on first run, same age as Jeff.
My memory of watching it the first time around is not as clear as another thriller scored by Goldenberg (but not directed by Spielberg) that aired just four days before: Columbo's third episode, "Suitable for Framing" with Ross Martin. I may never get over watching Artemus Gordon smash in the head of his all-unsuspecting girlfriend with a rock. (You didn't really see him hit her, but that's what I remember....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: the aspect ratio question As you know old TV shows were shown in the old 4:3 aspect ratio. However when it was shot the film recorded a wide screen image. When filming for TV they would draw lines on the side of the viewfinder to indicate the "safe area". This was to leave room for the optical soundtrack that would be added later, safe because TV sets of the day would not show the outer edges of the picture.
.
Its called "overscan"
Thanks!
bruce
ps I would recommend the FULL-FRAME dvd over the wide screen Blu-Ray anyday
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, they did use the amusingly bad vhs art for the disc tray image.
I love the poster art for Duel and The Car. It's impressionistic and bizarre, also non-literal but still summing up the mood of the movie. I would have preferred this to what they used which is more modern looking.
-Rick O
The visual concept for DUEL is fine.
But it would look SO much better if the artwork were airbrushed INSTEAD OF COMPUTER GEBNERATED
|
|
|
|
|
|
DUEL proves that Goldenberg could have written a great score for JAWS.
And, I would have loved to heard what he could have come up with for CE3K.
IMo it would have surpassed Williams.
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
¶ The CD cover of Duel by Intrada is actually the cheap-looking cartoonish DVD cover.
¶ I watched Duel in a movie theatre in the 1980's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
