Search results

It's cool. :) When I first saw that Blade II was 1.85:1, for a moment or two I thought that the same thing had been done to this film that had been done with the original Austin Powers film, ie shot in Super 35 and composed for a 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, but then opened up to 1.85:1 for...

EDIT: Ah, Mr. Slick edited his post I see. ;) No sweat.

Nate, your right, Donner did say that in the commentary, I forgot about that! Duh! :) Jeff, thanks, that makes sense enough to me I guess. And I could not agree more, regardless of what ratio a film is in, it's how it's used that matters. But there's just nothin like a good anamorphic...

Theo, 2 films may not constitute a series, but you know that their's going to be a third film, the second one cleaned up. :) As for your statement of anamorphic having a more "epic" feel, I tend to agree, however 1.85:1 films can be just as glorious as any 2.35:1 can be. If it makes you...

Paul, I really don't know to tell you the truth, i'm just telling you what Donner stated on the commentary track for Lethal Weapon 4. I take his statement to mean that he would have done the original in his usual Panavision if he knew what a cash cow he had on his hands. In no way, shape, or...

I suppose that at the time, Donner thought he was making a small little action film that would be good, but not the smash it became. I don't think he knew he was going to make sequels to it. Who knows. As far as my problem with sequels being in different AR's, it's just my problem, it's a...

Personally I don't care for that phenominon, it throws off the balance of the series IMO. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutly no problem with 1.85:1 as an AR, those that know me here know that, but I usually prefer that every film in a series be the same ratio. With the Lethal Weapon series I...