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

[GerardoHP]

Does anyone know if Steven Spielberg ever officially spoke out about preferring 1.85:1 to scope? Being a wide-widescreen lover, I personally wish some of his big action films like JURASSIC PARK and MINORITY REPORT were shot in scope. I can understand the aesthetics of choosing one format over the other, still...

 

[Jason Whyte]

Spielberg never really actively disliked anamorphic or Super 35, he just didn't think it was necessary for any of the films he has made since 1993.

And that all changes this friday. "Minority Report" is a scope film.

Jason

 

[GerardoHP]

Are you sure? I thought it was 1.85:1, probably from reading it on the IMDb.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Does anyone know if Steven Spielberg ever officially spoke out about preferring 1.85:1 to scope?

He specifically said he did not want Jurassic Park to be 2.35:1, because he wanted the dinosaurs to fill the frame. Roland Emmerich should have applied the same lesson to Godzilla; it wouldn't have improved the script, but the visuals would have been superior.
M.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think the main reason why he has opted to use more 1.85:1 lately is simply because of the easiness of using CGI.

Scope films will slightly distort the image a little, which can make added CGI look wrong or be a pain to fit right.

IMO, some movies work better with flat (1.85:1) than a scope (2.35:1) film. For example, Jurassic Park is just right for 1.85:1. 2.35:1 just isn't needed for a film like this. However, 1.85:1 would have been awful for Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

 

[GerardoHP]

Patrick, do they work better this way or is it that it's hard to imagine them in a format different than the one they were shot in? I think the dinosaurs of JP could have filled the frame and would have worked great in scope.

 

[Jason Whyte]

A projectionist over at film-tech.com who has ran an exhibitors print has confirmed this is Super 35; the information at IMDB.com has been updated recently because of this.

Jason

 

[GerardoHP]

Great!

 

[Timon Russo]

ONE of my DVDs SOMEWHERE has an extra or commentary or SOMETHING in which the person apparently asked Spielberg why 1.85 for JP and he said "because dinosaurs are tall". Wish I could remember who was saying that.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Besides, Indy 4 will most likely be scope.

 

[Richard Kim]

Are you sure? I thought it was 1.85:1, probably from reading it on the IMDb.

The IMDb gets its info from suscribers, which is why some of it is incorrect.

The Minority Report trailer is in scope.

 

[Dan Brecher]

In my opinion the thought he suddenly gave up on scope was completely unjustified. If you look back over his catalogue, especially at all his flat features since Hook, it's clear (to me at least) they all benefit from their chosen ratios.

Scope to me is overused, like stedicam I guess. A lot of filmmakers dive head long into using it without really making good use of the ratio, and Spielberg makes good use of his ratios.

Dan

 

[GerardoHP]

Richard, the trailer format bears more relation to the format of the feature it's playing with than to the feature it's advertising. Scope trailers are often extracted from 1.85:1 features and placed at the lead of a scope feature reel to avoid having to switch projection lenses in the middle of a show. Likewise, flat trailers (which you can often see as extras on DVD's) are extracted from scope films to play with non-scope presentations.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Great!

Yes, great. Magnified grain and a noticeable decrease in resolution from the blow-up. Sounds like a real winner to me

Spielburg should have known better than to shoot Super35

 

[Richard Kim]

Yes, great. Magnified grain and a noticeable decrease in resolution from the blow-up. Sounds like a real winner to me

Spielburg should have known better than to shoot Super35

Well Janusz Kaminski is the DP, so excessive grain is going to be a given.(See Saving Private Ryan and A.I.)

It will be interesting to see if Indy 4 will also feature Kaminski's trademark style.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Jeff, sometimes a grittier look is exactly what the material calls for. I mean, if you don't like Super-35, what do you think of the 16mm segments in "Saving Private Ryan"? Another case of "Spielberg should've known better"?

 

[GerardoHP]

I don't necessarily think grain is a bad thing and I think it can be used to great dramatic effect to enhance the grittiness of the story, like in Se7en or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

 

[Richard Kim]

From an interview with Speilberg in the Houston Chronicle:

For Minority Report, Spielberg wanted a "grainy look" that only film could lend.

"I love gritty old film noir, with dark, long shadows. I wanted the screen to have that dark feeling."

 

[Michael Reuben]

Yes, great. Magnified grain and a noticeable decrease in resolution from the blow-up. Sounds like a real winner to me

And you haven't even seen the film yet.

Everyone knows you don't like Super35. Most of us don't share your complaints and, in any case, the format is here to stay. Why not give it a rest for a while?

M.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Patrick, do they work better this way or is it that it's hard to imagine them in a format different than the one they were shot in? I think the dinosaurs of JP could have filled the frame and would have worked great in scope.

Subject matter. Like other have already said, dinosaurs have height. Filming it in scope really wouldn't do much because of their size. 2.35:1 is better when you want vastness. The spaceship in Close Encounters is wide, hence, a wide frame would be perfect.

It's the same idea with other films... would Ben-Hur be the same epic if it was filmed at 1.66:1? Would The Shining be as claustraphobic if it was shot at 2.35:1 instead of 1.33:1?



What is with all the super-35 bashing? It's just a format!