A.I. Aspect Ratio

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jo_C, Jan 18, 2002.

  1. Jo_C

    Jo_C Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2001
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    898
    Real Name:
    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.
     
  3. Travis D

    Travis D Second Unit

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Dan Brecher

    Dan Brecher Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 1999
    Messages:
    3,450
    Likes Received:
    0
    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)
     
  5. Rich Malloy

    Rich Malloy Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    3,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right on, Dan!

     
  6. Nate Anderson

    Nate Anderson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page