Spiderman Origins Bluray Set (Sam Raimi)

[Jetrell Fo]

I thought I'd start a new thread for this so folks could discuss it more.

1. Has anyone else purchased either of the new Bluray sets?
2. Which one or did you get the Legacy Steelbook set?
3. What did or didn't you enjoy about Spiderman 3, the Editor's Cut?
4. Any fan edit ideas for this trilogy?

And go ..........................

[deblock]

No one should purchase, these films are open-matte but not released that way.

There is a TV cut of 1, not sure about 2/3.

[ilovewaterslides]

The intended aspect ratio is scope for the second and third movie.
So, yes. They do exist in various open matte ratios but the way they were released on Blu-ray is how Sam Raimi wanted them.

[deblock]

the way they were released on Blu-ray is how Sam Raimi wanted them.

Baseless unless sources/proof is provided.

[dvdboy]

American Cinematographer did an article with the DoP Bill Pope:

https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/May2007/S...page3.html

Last page states the tech specs for the film as 2.40:1 Super 35mm. Yes it's the DoP not Raimi himself.

With regards to Spiderman 2, I saw this bit of trivia online, perhaps it came from a DVD Trivia Track:

"Sam Raimi originally intended the film to maintain an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 like its predecessor. However, when he realized that in order to have Dr. Octopus and Spider-Man in the same shot, the frame would need to be wider in order to accommodate Dr. Octopus' metal tentacles. So Raimi upgraded the ratio to 2.35:1. "

There is no sources / proof that these films are NOT presented in the correct Aspect Ratio. Just because an Open Matte exists, either from shooting the full image frame or a studio requirement to provide 'alternative home entertainment' aspect ratios, it does not mean what was show in the cinema is not the intended frame size.

[ilovewaterslides]

Well, maybe he had a huge fight with Sony or the producers about the aspect ratio but AFAIK, 2 & 3 were shot on Super 35mm with an intended AR of 2.39:1.

That's generally an artistic choice left to the director. I know that Raimi is well known for shooting his movies soft matte and you can choose in which format you want to watch Evil Dead for example but I'm still pretty sure that he wanted the two Spider-Man sequels in scope.

I recall on the DVD special features he said something about the scope ratio being easier when it came to frame Doc Ock's tentacles.

Edit: dvdboy, I didn't see your post, sorry.

For example on SM2, even if most of the movie looks quite decent in 1.78:1, some shots look wrong IMO. See by yourself:
   

[Jetrell Fo]

No one should purchase, these films are open-matte but not released that way.

There is a TV cut of 1, not sure about 2/3.

I don't think you discouraging people will keep them from buying it. AFAIC the Editor's Cut of Spiderman 3 was worth the $18.00+free shipping that I spent on this set, new and unpackaged.

The 4K versions might be nicer when it comes to open-matte but I know I don't use that as a prerequisite for whether I purchase something I'd like to own or not.

[nafroe]

Interesting that the open matte version (for that shot anyway) has more vertical information, but has part of Doc's head chopped off.

[deblock]

https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/May2007/S...page3.html
...
With regards to Spiderman 2, I saw this bit of trivia online, perhaps it came from a DVD Trivia Track:

"Sam Raimi originally intended the film to maintain an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 like its predecessor. However, when he realized that in order to have Dr. Octopus and Spider-Man in the same shot, the frame would need to be wider in order to accommodate Dr. Octopus' metal tentacles. So Raimi upgraded the ratio to 2.35:1. "

Thanks for the references.

The link states Spider-Man 3 specs and is not conveying what Rami *wanted*, which is what I originally keyed on because how does anyone know what *he* wanted? Really? Do you know him? Have you talked with him about this specifically?

Also, the quote makes no sense because the framing easily could be changed during shooting for the tentacles and the tentacles aren't even being shot most of the time because they were CGI in many shots.

For example on SM2, even if most of the movie looks quite decent in 1.78:1, some shots look wrong IMO. See by yourself

Interesting that the open matte version (for that shot anyway) has more vertical information, but has part of Doc's head chopped off.

Thanks for the screenshot, many people think the bottom image looks weird because we see more of the actors legs, which we don't usually get to see. Also, I *think* but am not sure that the bottom sceenshot could have been adjusted so it wasn't cropped so close to the actors heads.

Everyone can disagree, however, like many films, all 3 of these movies look better opened up.

[zoidberg]

When you find open matte blu rays for Spider-Man 2 and 3 let us know