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

[Nick_Scott]

It's been my experience that most viewers who see films in theaters pay no attention whatsoever to the aspect ratio.

That might be true, but not in my case.

Even when I was a little kid, I would get excited when the curtains opened up for a 2.35:1 movie.

ALL the theaters in my area were 'constant-height', which meant that 2.35 was always much bigger.

Not that it really matters that much.
Do I prefer 2.35:1? Yes
Is it a deal breaker? No. I'm not going to look it up on IMDB, and use it as a basis to decide on what to see.
Its the directors choice, and I'm happy with that.

Nick

 

[Rob Tomlin]

As for Bad Boys II, are you sure? If this info is on imdb, I'd be wary of it. Bay used S35 on The Rock and hated it. I doubt he'd ever use it again.

Widescreen Review (more trustworthy than IMBD) also lists Bad Boys II as being shot in Super 35.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

I was watching two James Cameron movies back to back today that deal with water Titanic and The Abyss, both gorgeous DVD presentations, although non-anamorphic. I just marveled at the look of these movies and it had me thinking about the whole Super 35 debate. Why? If Super 35 has less resolution than traditional Scope does Jim Cameron’s movies always seem to look like pure gold theatrically and on home video formats?

 

[Ernest Rister]

Cameron has made four films that deal with water: The Abyss, Titanic, Ghosts of the Abyss...and one other.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Ernest,
You're not referring to Pirahna II: Electric Boogaloo, are you?
On the issue of 2:35=epic, Woody Allen and Gordon Willis made MANHATTAN with the intention of using the ratio associated with sweeping epics to instead make a small, intimate film about a few individuals and their love lives.

 

[clayton b]

2.35 can be exceptional for 'talking head' type pictures if used properly. Glengary Glen Ross, and the boardroom scene aboard the death star in A New Hope come to mind.