A.I. Aspect Ratio (1 Viewer)

[Jo_C]

Knowing how much Steven Spielberg now detests doing scope 2.35:1 films, what aspect ratio was A.I. originally in? I know Stanely Kubrick wanted his films to be shown full screen, and DreamWorks has, in part, honored his mantra by providing full screen (as well as widescreen) versions of A.I. on DVD.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It was shown theatrically in the USA at ~1.85:1. Not having run a print through my own hands, I can't tell you if it was hard- or soft-matted.

 

[Travis D]

Definatley 1.85:1 just like Jurassic Park, Lost World, Saving Private Ryan, and I believe Schindler's List. If I can say one thing about Steven it is that he DOESN'T shoot enough scope films like Jaws anymore.

Also, if A.I. was or wasn't hard-matted is inconsequential (sp). There were SO MANY CGI effects in almost each shot that the whole thing is bound to just be PnS all the way through on the Fullscreen version and not actually Fullframe.

 

[Dan Brecher]

I still don't see it as a question of him detesting scope. Really, look at his 1.85:1 pictures, they're all movies that fit that ratio, movies that had no call for cinemascope. Were Indy 4 to ever happen (fat chance I know) I'm sure he'd do it 2.35:1 like the others because the ratio lends itself to that kind of movie.

A lot of filmmakers don't understand aspect ratios in the sense of what one really lends itself to the telling of their film. I've always found Spielberg's descisions concerning AR for his movies to be spot on.

Dan (UK)

 

[Rich Malloy]

Right on, Dan!

what aspect ratio was A.I. originally in? I know Stanely Kubrick wanted his films to be shown full screen, and DreamWorks has, in part, honored his mantra

I think maybe you're misunderstanding "the mantra" a little bit. Kubrick wanted his films shown in full-screen for home presentation because he shot to protect ("shot for the box") - especially his last two films which didn't really work very well soft-matted in the theater. But he certainly wouldn't have wanted a full-screen presentation of 2001 or SPARTACUS.

But Spielberg doesn't appear to shoot for the box at all, and his films really do suffer in P&S and fullscreen (cropped) presentations. And I bet the same will be true of a.i.

But, you know, I do kinda wonder. The mise-en-scene did seem way more Kubrick than Spielberg.

 

[Nate Anderson]

A.I always kinda struck me as Speilberg's salute, homage, tribute, whatever to Stanley Kubrick, and the fact that both the story and the way it was shot constantly reminded me of Stanley. Not that I'm complaining, it was rather a bittersweet experience.

I also remember reading somewhere that Speilberg prefered the 1.85:1 aspect ratio anymore because he felt that it better encompassed the human perephial vision on the screen. I can't exactly argue with that, really. Although, I still love the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I also agree that his latest films seemed better suited to the 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

In other words, I'm just pretending I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Scott H]

A lot of filmmakers don't understand aspect ratios in the sense of what one really lends itself to the telling of their film.

True, some don't. A lot of HT enthusiasts don't either, ignorantly proclaiming the wider the better.