All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
- Jul 30, 2003
- North of the 49th
- Real Name
- Stephen J. Hill
I don't think we can discount the impact of formats like Super35 either. There are directors who shot in Super35 so that they could have the biggest screen in the multiplex [since the majority of cinemas are constant image width rather than constant image height] and flexibility when creating the home video release in the days of 4:3 TVs. I'm sure there are directors now who shoot digitally in 16:9 and then crop to 2.35:1 for the same reason, since certain cable channels will modify films to fit the 16:9 frame.My argument was that directors shoot in 2:35 when they don't need to. They are not utilizing the wider picture in contrast to 1:85.
They don't need to justify anything. Obviously they can do what they want.
I personally always end up disappointed with many films that use the ratio and scratch my head as to why they filmed it in 2:35.
Perhaps I have high expectations when watching any new film. Maybe it's because we are many decades since the ratio was first used and most ideas and conventions have been set.
Probably best we put it down to just personal taste with these things as viewers thoughts on the matter are subjective.
One of my favourite theatrical experiences was seeing Pulp Fiction and especially how Tarantino used the scope frame. There's a shot towards the end that is almost 75% black with Samuel L. Jackson only visible on the extreme left side of the frame. I love it when directors use the extremes like that. I also enjoy it when directors push things to the extreme edges and use the negative space to great effect. OTOH, I've seen flat aspect films where you could see exactly where the 4:3 video version would be extracted. That's just lazy.