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

[Inspector Hammer!]

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.

 

[Paul_D]

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.

Why would the level of success of a film dictate the aspect ratio? If he'd expected a smash would he have chosen 2.35?
If Blade 2 had the same director as the original, I'd agree it was an odd choice, but it's a different director with a totally different set of aesthetic sensibilities. The film looks totally different from the original. The difference in aspect ratio only highlights this. To me, it doesn't harm the series at all. So long as the film's framed correctly, what's the problem with swicthing AR?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

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.

 

[Paul_D]

I suppose that at the time, Donner thought he was making a small little action film that would be good

How does 1.85:1 make a film 'small'? It may make a film appear narrower, but it also makes it taller! There are plenty of 'small' films framed in 2.35:1. e.g. Glengarry Glen Ross. Should it have been filmed differently?
I'm just trying to get a different perspective clear in my head. Sorry for the nitpicking.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

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.
But about Blade II, it's so strange that the director would choose 1.85:1, but ah well.

 

[TheoGB]

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.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

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.
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!

 

[Brian Kidd]

But then we have Kubrick, who shot some of the most epic films of the 20th Century... in Academy Ratio!
It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If I remember correctly, Aliens was shot in 1.85:1 simply to save money.

 

[Michael Reuben]

If I remember correctly, Aliens was shot in 1.85:1 simply to save money.

That may have been a factor. The main reason was that Cameron hates certain visual distortions caused by anamorphic lenses and, at the time he made Aliens, he wasn't yet satisfied with the Super35 process.

M.

 

[Nate Anderson]

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...

 

[Michael St. Clair]

'Empire Records' is a very non-epic 2.35:1 film.

The main reason was that Cameron hates certain visual distortions caused by anamorphic lenses and, at the time he made Aliens, he wasn't yet satisfied with the Super35 process.

I could have sworn an old article, maybe in Video Watchdog, had somebody high-up in the production ladder attributing it mostly to cost. But memory can be funny.
It may be that the studio decided that true 'scope was too expensive, then Cameron went 1.85:1 because he or the lab didn't think S35 was ready yet.

 

[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.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

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
Oh and according to the box it IS 2.35:1
Amazed no one has brought that up yet

 

[Jay Rodriguez]

Spider-Man was 1.85:1. That was a great movie.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Amazed no one has brought that up yet

John brought it up in the first post of the thread.

M.

 

[Paul_D]

John brought it up in the first post of the thread.

He edited it in.

 

[TheoGB]

People here say that all the time, but it simply isn't true.

I wasn't saying things in 2.35:1 had to be epics...nor that epics had to be in 2.35:1.

Simply that it can easily give a film that sort of feel - a certain majesty. It's a psychological thing.

 

[Gui A]

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...

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's a psychological thing.

I agree. It's in the eye of the beholder. To me, 2.35:1 is a shape, nothing more.

M.