People have been debating the merits (or not) of Super 35 since its inception. As originally conceived, it was never intended to accommodate several AR's across a variety of media (film, TV, DVD, etc.). Everything Simon has said about the way movies are photographed today is true, as any comparison between a 2.35 movie produced between 1953-1985 and today will attest (compare, for instance, THE HAUNTING, '63 and '99 versions - the former is brilliantly composed to take full advantage of the 2.35 frame, while the latter... looks rather nice on TV). As a consequence, most S35 movies look like what they are - cropped 1.78, intended to take advantage of a new generation of 16:9 TV's. Not all, mind - some of them are clearly composed with 2.35 in mind and are seriously compromised when screened at any other ratio.
I think the debate between Simon and John comes down to a simple misunderstanding of the forces which govern modern filmmaking in Hollywood. I deplore the rise of S35, and I detest the way it has been abused over the last 15 years by lazy filmmakers who have ruined the art of scope composition. Similarly, I agree with John in his devout adherence to OAR. But Simon is quite right when he describes modern cinematography as a mess of closeups and medium shots, designed to play better on smaller and smaller screens. Essentially, filmmakers are composing for 2.35 but protecting for 1.33/1.78, an appalling practice which creates a visual compromise all the way down the line. And, as I've argued before on other forums, it's simply unnecessary, not when 16:9 is the TV shape of the 21st century (with 21:9 on the distant horizon for dedicated home theater applications) and can accommodate the 2.35 image with relative ease (it isn't perfect, but it will have to do until wider monitors become a reality).
But the question at the heart of this debate is as follows: As far as S35 is concerned, what is the original OAR? The answer is simple, regardless of how the filmmaker framed his/her movie, or how much he/she took TV and video into account. THE OAR IS THE ONE THAT WAS PROJECTED IN MOVIE THEATERS. That strip of celluloid - the theatrical print - represents the ACTUAL FILM. So, if the movie was projected theatrically at 2.35, THAT'S what should appear on DVD, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.
PS. Roger Donaldson and THE RECRUIT. I thought what he did with that movie was appalling. If he'd wanted to make something for TV, he should have framed at 1.85 from the outset. ANY FILMMAKER WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THEIR MOVIE IS GOING TO LOOK ON TV SHOULDN'T FRAME ANY WIDER THAN 1.85. Otherwise, what's the point in using the scope frame if you're just going to compromise it for another medium, thereby rendering 'cinema' a slave to the limitations of television? It's that way of thinking which has led to 95% of today's 'scope' movies (those produced in Hollywood, anyway) looking like cropped 1.78...
)
