Spielberg 1.85:1 over 2.35:1 (1 Viewer)

[Robert Anthony]

As far as Spielberg goes, I don't think it matters WHAT aspect ratio he films Indy 4 in, it'll still be largely unneccessary--probably the most unnecessary continuation of story since "Alien: Resurrection"
...okay, I'm threadfarting--but I honestly see no reason for this movie to exist, and no real sign that it's going to approach the greatness of the earlier movies. I hope I'm wrong, but honestly--They RODE OFF INTO THE SUNSET at the end of Crusade. Ford is VERY old looking now, and that's not even the worst--the man hasnt' given a lively performance worth a crap in about 10 years. He's tired, and he's mastered phoning it in. I think it's too late for him and for the character of Indy. Plus, I'm not too sure Darabont still has it, either.
And for completely selfish reasons, I'm not so sure I want to see Spielberg go back to his old, pre Schindler style of filmmaking. Same with Lucas--I want to see Spielberg continue to venture into other genre's and tones, and I want to see Lucas try some more original ideas, like you know he's been hurting to do ever since Star Wars took off.
I just don't see it as a positive that ther'es going to be an Indy 4. Regardless of it's aspect ratio

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

...okay, I'm threadfarting

Then why are you doing it? Forgive me armchair moderating, but perhaps opinions about that value of a potential Indy sequel would be more appropriate in a thread relating to it. This is/was a thread about Spielberg and his choice in aspect ratios.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I honestly see no reason for this movie to exist

The folks involved apparently want to do it. They're friends, they enjoy working together, they have a fondness for the character and genre. If they can get Paramount to pay for it, even better!

(Note: I am well aware that this is the line of reasoning that led to Escape From L.A. Of course, I enjoyed that one)

I guess "billionaires' hobby" isn't the most aesthetically pleasing reason for a movie to exist, but I think there's a certain purity to it - Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford have all reached the point where they can choose their projects without much concern for others' priorities, and one thing they'd like to do is another Indiana Jones movie. That's enough for them, and I really can't complain.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

I don't understand why everyone is so negative about Indy 4. I for one am very very excited about it. If George Lucas was doing this on his own I would be wary, but Steven Spielberg has a much better track record (exceopt for maybe The Lost World, a complete butchering of the novel) and I am sure the movie will be great.

 

[RodneyT]

Personally, i prefer the 2.35:1 aspect on films because it adds a sense of grandeur to proceedings. A flat aspect film, such as 1.85:1, 1.77:1 or even 1.66:1 ( i do not consider the 1.33 aspect to be a proper ratio, to be honest) make no impact emotionally on a films viewing, but the curtains pulling back to reveal the wide, wall-to-wall stadium styled cinema screen still sends a chill down my back. its like the olden days of Ben hur and stuff like that. Grand, a sense of something magical, something to be treasured. Thank God PJ didnt print LOTR in a 1.85:1 aspect. The smaller the aspect, the more intimate the story. Films like Schindlers and SPR, from Spielbergs canon, are more personal, intimate stories, even though they both had action sequences in them. The wider aspects that get used for your more traditional "epics" create the aforementioned sense of wonder.

Anybody agree?

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

A flat aspect film, such as 1.85:1, 1.77:1 or even 1.66:1 ( i do not consider the 1.33 aspect to be a proper ratio, to be honest) make no impact emotionally on a films viewing, but the curtains pulling back to reveal the wide, wall-to-wall stadium styled cinema screen still sends a chill down my back.
.
.
.
Anybody agree?

Absolutely not. How can you not consider 1.33:1 to be a "proper" aspect ratio? Pretty much every movie made before 1956 was 1.33:1. This means that you consider The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Citizen Kane and many other films to not be in a "proper" aspect ratio? I believe that it is not the ratio, but how one uses it that counts.

 

[John_Berger]

Don't be so hard on him, Marc. Let's face it - we've all gotten used to 1.85:1 theatrically, so we have a kind of expectation when the screen goes even wider. Since all of the "modern" epics are done in 2.35:1 or higher, there's a bit of a psychology there that equates wider with epic or in some way "better". I don't necessarily agree with that as I support whatever the director says he wants for an AR, but I can see where Rodney's coming from.

 

[RodneyT]

and with that, i am put back in my place.

Okay, so it was a bad choice of words. Of course these films are in their "proper" aspect ratio, and before that guy from the Widescreen advocacy site clicks on and berates me as well, i am not, never will, nor ever have done, considered the 1.33:1 aspect to be anything but a proper ratio for films that were made prior to the introduction of the widescreen format.

Stanley Kubrik, perhaps the last holdout of the small ratio format in a major way, made some terrific films like this (The Shining, perhaps his most visually chilling film, is possibly my favourite shot-composition film of all time) and i have utmost repect for directors that utilise the small ratio.

Would it be fair to say it takes more visual ingenuity to frame a widescreen film, say 2.35;1, than it does to frame a smaller aspect of, say 1.66:1?

 

[Ray Chuang]

I think I know why Spielberg likes 1.85:1 aspect ratio: most 35 mm movie cameras used in movie production are hard-matted in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio to start with.

 

[Michael Reuben]

we've all gotten used to 1.85:1 theatrically, so we have a kind of expectation when the screen goes even wider

Not me. I get my expectations from what's shown on the screen, not the shape.

M.

 

[WillG]

Indy 4 should be in 2.35:1, otherwise it would be a travesty!

I'm sure it will be, but it will probably be Super35. I would like to see it done anamorphically to be consistent with the first 3 films, but it probably won't be. I once read something to the effect that Spielberg gave up on anamorphic because it drove him crazy trying to get acceptable looking 1.33:1 home video versions. You would think with DVD and now heavy OAR penetration, this would not be much of a concern anymore. But mabye Lucas will have a say on how it is shot and I think he proabably prefers an anamorphic process. I hope that Indy 4 will not rely so much on CGI and more on action and old fashioned "Movie Magic" If that is the case maybe they could use Anamorphic. I don't truely have anything against Super 35. 2.35:1 is 2.35:1. The only criticisms are that it is leading to the extinction of scope processes. In 10 years, there will probably won't be much of anything being shot anamorphically anymore. My other criticism is that it increases the likelyhood that there will be framing errors on WS DVD versions of the films. It does happen from time to time.

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

Agreed, but since a lot of epics are wider than 1.85:1, I'm just saying I understand if someone correlated 2.35:1 as something more than a "run of the mill" movie, as it were.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Agreed, but since a lot of epics are wider than 1.85:1, I'm just saying I understand if someone correlated 2.35:1 as something more of a "run of the mill" movie, as it were.

I understand it too, but I think it stems from a different cause.
It's been my experience that most viewers who see films in theaters pay no attention whatsoever to the aspect ratio. The fixation on ARs comes with the home theater experience, as people start to learn about letterboxing and come to sites like this to debate the accuracy of transfers, etc. Only then do you start to see generalizations like this tossed about, and they're frequently based on a highly inadequate sample of films -- with a heavy concentration on recent theatrical releases and a handful of "epic" classics like Lawrence of Arabia. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who express a "preference" for 2.35:1 wouldn't have known what it is before acquiring their first DVD player.
A lot of films -- a whole lot of films -- are 2.35:1 without being in any way "epic" in their subject matter. Many examples have been given in this parallel thread, and many more could be given.
Personally, I consider Gone With the Wind to be one of the most "epic" films ever made. That aerial pullback from Scarlett on the field of wounded Confederate soldiers -- well, it doesn't get more epic than that. The AR? The then-prevailing 1.33:1 (or 1.37:1 for you purists).
Once again, and this bears repeating many times until it sinks in, "epic" is a function of subject matter (and, to some extent, directorial attitude), not aspect ratio.
M.

 

[Robert Anthony]

"Forgive me armchair moderating, but perhaps opinions about that value of a potential Indy sequel would be more appropriate in a thread relating to it."
Adam: Point me the way, armchair mod. I can't find nothin.
and to echo what John, "that widescreen review" guy said I think it's very understandable that some people think 2.35 = Epic/Action movie. I know that when I first started working at a movie theater, fresh out of high school, that was the impression *I* had. Only because it seemed the ONLY movies that came to us in scope were action movies or big sweeping epics. After a couple months up in the booth, it was just how it was, and it was how I'd end up explaining it to people "Well--Flat isn't as wide, and it's like most comedies and love stories and dramas use flat, and then when a bunch of stuff gets blowed up good on screen, they use the scope!"
Of course, I learned better a couple months later, but it's not that far fetched for people to equate 2.35 with epic/action--whether it's actually ill-informed or not.

 

[RodneyT]

John Berger wrote:



I apologise. Not meant as a dig, but i was waiting to hear your views.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it be fair to say it takes more visual ingenuity to frame a widescreen film, say 2.35;1, than it does to frame a smaller aspect of, say 1.66:1?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, it wouldn't be fair. It takes a high degree of "visual ingenuity" to frame a good shot in any aspect ratio. Just ask (among many examples) Welles (or Toland), Bergman, Kurosawa or Hitchcock.

point taken.

 

[John_Berger]

Not meant as a dig, but i was waiting to hear your views.

Um ... the subtext of my site is "Defending the intentions and visions of film makers." As such, my view is and has always been that the only correct AR for any movie is the AR that the director and film makers believe is the appropriate AR for their movies. I even say on my site that there should never be any "widescreen" version of classic movies like Casablanca and Wizard of Oz since a widescreen version will be MAR. The film makers' preferences get priority every time.

Give me some credit, please. :p)

 

[RodneyT]

and so it is proven that i have no idea what i am talking about.

John, i have been to your site and i utterly agree with what you are on about. Please forgive my ill-advised comments.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Adam: Point me the way, armchair mod. I can't find nothin.

Certainly. Clicky-click here.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Thanks, player

 

[Kevin_H]

There are advantages and disadvantages to shooting either 1.85:1, Super 35 2.35:1, and Anamorphic 2.35:1. The biggest problem with 1.85:1 and Super 35 2.35:1 is that you are not using all the resolution available in the 35mm frame. I think I read somewhere that you lose 40% of the available 35mm frame with 1.85:1. The number is probably similar in Super 35.

You also have the problem of an enlarged grain structure, because you are magnifying a smaller portion of the frame to fill a big theater screen. This is becoming less of a problem these days because Kodak keeps improving its film stock.

The other problem involved with Super 35 is that you have to use an optical printer to make an anamorphic release print (as opposed to contact printing 1.85:1 and Anamorphic 2.35:1). This is the equivalent of blowing up a film shot in 16mm to 35mm. To get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio on a 35mm frame, you use approximately 2 perforations of hight, out of an available 4 perforations on 35mm film stock. This is approximately the same hight as a 16mm film frame.

So not only do you have problems with grain structure, you also have problems with your blacks and with color definition. Now, cinematographers, film laboratories, and Kodak have gotten very good at addressing these problems, and I think we've reached the point where most people could not tell the difference. But I imagine if you shot the same scene with two cameras, one with Super 35 and one with Anamorphic lens, and you were able to project both images at the same time, the Anamorphic one would look better on the definition front at least.

As to the problems with Anamorphic being heaver, slower lens with an average less amount of depth of field than there flat counterparts, thats all true. But I think companies that develop these lens (Panavision being the biggest star) have improved things considerably, and I think cinematographers have had 50 years to perfect shooting in the format that most people cannot tell the difference.

In reference to comment about CITIZEN KANE's deep focus shots not being possible with Anamorphic lens, I don't think that's true. Movies that come to mind that are Anamorphic that have high depths of field include APOCALYPSE NOW, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, or even ALIEN 3 and SOLARIS if you want a recent example. What alot of people don't realize is that a large portion of the deep focus shots in CITIZEN KANE were done by the RKO optical department.

Anyway, I think either format is tricky to shot, and they all have there advantages and disadvantages.