Why is 'BLADE II' 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1 like the original? Very odd IMO.

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Inspector Hammer!, Sep 5, 2002.

  1. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    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 can understand because Dick Donner had no idea the original would be so successful, thus filmed it in 1.85:1. But what happened with Blade II? Why 1.85:1 for this one when it's original film is 2.35:1?
    It doesn't help either that the case lists it as being 2.35:1 when it isn't.
    I can easily overlook this as the film IS in it's OAR, always a good thing, but i'm just so curious.
     
  2. Paul_D

    Paul_D Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  3. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    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 psychological thing for me is all. [​IMG]
     
  4. Paul_D

    Paul_D Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  5. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    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 form do I consider a film to be small simply because it's 1.85:1. Got the wrong guy for that. [​IMG]
    But about Blade II, it's so strange that the director would choose 1.85:1, but ah well. [​IMG]
     
  6. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand John totally, Paul.

    2.35:1 says "Epic" and "scope". I much prefer that ratio (v. glad Spielberg used it for Minority Report).

    I think it is nice to see all movies in a series (though 2 isn't yet a series in my booK!!) in the same AR.

    I guess the point is that when they made Leathal Weapon 2 & 3, they used proper Panavision anamorphic 2.35:1 so (I would guess) you're getting greater resolution and detail out of your negative, so to film at that ratio would suggest the film was worth it (Costly, I would think??).

    These days everything seems to be on Super35 so it's probably not a fair analogy.
     
  7. Inspector Hammer!

    Inspector Hammer! Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 1999
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Real Name:
    John Williamson
    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. [​IMG]
    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 feel better, John Carpenter, God bless him, chooses to shoot only in anamorphic Panavision for the very reason you listed, it gives his films, even his small low budget one's, an epic feel. Plus, the man can play the 2.35:1 anamorphic frame like Jerry Lee Lewis plays a piano!
     
  8. Brian Kidd

    Brian Kidd Screenwriter
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    236
    But then we have Kubrick, who shot some of the most epic films of the 20th Century... in Academy Ratio! [​IMG]
    It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean!
     
  9. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I remember correctly, Aliens was shot in 1.85:1 simply to save money.
     
  10. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  11. Nate Anderson

    Nate Anderson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seem to also recall Donner saying that he chose 1.85 for Lethal Weapon because that one was more character focused (true) and went with the scope for the sequels because they were more action based. I could've sworn I heard that somewhere...
     
  12. Michael St. Clair

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Messages:
    6,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Empire Records' is a very non-epic 2.35:1 film.
     
  13. Jonathan Perregaux

    Jonathan Perregaux Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    661
    Real Name:
    Jonathan Perregaux
    Cameron and Aliens: Or perhaps special effects back then were less difficult and less expensive to pull off using flat lenses? Plus cheaper cameras? Greater mobility for hand-held shots? Tighter compositions for a more intimate and claustrophobic feel?
    Just my guesses. I'm no expert.
     
  14. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blade 2 was shot 1.85:1 because he wanted the more cramped feel, and he liked the extra frame height for scenes like the House of pain, and how he could show more Reapers running on walls and such, or so I'm told.
    I prefer to believe that he refused to shoot Super35 like his predecessor [​IMG]
    Oh and according to the box it IS 2.35:1 [​IMG]
    Amazed no one has brought that up yet
     
  15. Jay Rodriguez

    Jay Rodriguez Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2000
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spider-Man was 1.85:1. That was a great movie.
     
  16. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  17. Paul_D

    Paul_D Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2001
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  18. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Gui A

    Gui A Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2000
    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was in 2.35, but Bogus Journey was in 1.85...
    I think the reason for that was that it made it easier to P&S for (what I assume to be) a larger home video audience...
     
  20. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     

Share This Page