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

[LukeB]

And Stakeout is 1.85:1, whereas Another Stakeout is 2.35:1.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Nate,
your right, Donner did say that in the commentary, I forgot about that! Duh!
Jeff,
thanks, that makes sense enough to me I guess.
And I could not agree more, regardless of what ratio a film is in, it's how it's used that matters.
But there's just nothin like a good anamorphic film from time to time!

 

[Jordan_E]

Also, I believe it's a tad harder to compose scenes for the 2.35 format, ending up with a lot of wasted space unless you have tons of space ships whizzing through the frame. But I could be wrong, I have been before!

 

[NickFoley]

IMO, the 2:35:1 ratio gives a better sense of perceptive and and in total a better look to a film. 1:85:1 is too close to foolscreen for my liking. I look at Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, and wonder why QT shot JB in 1:85:1?

[rant]I wouldnt say that I avoid 1:85:1 aspect movies, but 2:35:1 is my preferred ratio. You have to take whatever you get really and truly.[/rant]

And by the way, from what i've read, 1:85:1 is cheaper to shoot in.

 

[Esten]

I believe it would be cheapest to shoot on 3 perf Super 35.
If you shoot 3 perf at 2.40,aren't you only using 2 perfs?
That's a very small negative area.

 

[Josh Lowe]

think of 1.85 as a vertical epic scope.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

EDIT: Ah, Mr. Slick edited his post I see.
No sweat.

 

[Josh Lowe]

john - i edited it before i saw your reply. i decided it was harsh. and the original wasn't directed at you.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

It's cool.
When I first saw that Blade II was 1.85:1, for a moment or two I thought that the same thing had been done to this film that had been done with the original Austin Powers film, ie shot in Super 35 and composed for a 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, but then opened up to 1.85:1 for the dvd.
Thank goodness I was wrong about that, that's the only thing I hate about the original Austin Powers.
And if i'm not mistaken, Top Gun was given the same treatment. I dispise this practice!

 

[Iain Jackson]

According to John McTiernan (on the Die Hard 5-Star commentary), it is more expensive to shoot films in scope - that is why Predator was only 1.85:1 (due to cost-cutting), whereas McTiernan would have preferred scope. When he filmed Die Hard, he had a larger budget and was then able to shoot in scope.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

When I first saw that Blade II was 1.85:1, for a moment or two I thought that the same thing had been done to this film that had been done with the original Austin Powers film, ie shot in Super 35 and composed for a 2.35:1 theatrical presentation, but then opened up to 1.85:1 for the dvd.

Thank goodness I was wrong about that, that's the only thing I hate about the original Austin Powers.

And if i'm not mistaken, Top Gun was given the same treatment. I dispise this practice!

Actually, both AP and Top Gun are about 2:1 on DVD, which is really frustrating, as they just look kind of funky. This was also done to Star Trek VI, also shot in Super35. At least AP was in a director-approved ratio; not sure about the other two.

Anyway, it bugs me, too. Hopefully Star Trek will be fixed when they get to the SE.

 

[Andy Olivera]

I think about this all the time. To be honest, I prefer 2.35:1, but it really is all about how you utilize the space.

For example: Paul Anderson shot Resident Evil in 1.85:1, after using the 2.35 frame so well in Event Horizon and Soldier. Why the change? Perhaps because of the confined spaces in which he was shooting. Either way, when I heard about the change I was very disappointed. A couple days ago I finally saw the film and all that disappointment vanished. The compositions are just as good and the visual style is still there.

As for Blade II, aren't all of Del Toro's films 1.85:1?

 

[Tom-G]

As for Blade II, aren't all of Del Toro's films 1.85:1?

I know that Mimic is 1.85:1 and I'm pretty sure The Devil's Backbone is too, so it could be his preference to shoot films that way.

Steven Spielberg used to film in Panavision quite a bit, but it seems as if most his recent films have been 1.85:1. I'm pretty sure I came across his comments on this saying that he shoots that way now because of how it will look on television, i.e. movies that are 2.35:1 look like shit when chopped to hell by the evil process of "panning and scanning."

 

[Esten]

Steven Spielberg used to film in Panavision quite a bit, but it seems as if most his recent films have been 1.85:1. I'm pretty sure I came across his comments on this saying that he shoots that way now because of how it will look on television, i.e. movies that are 2.35:1 look like shit when chopped to hell by the evil process of "panning and scanning."

Minority Report was 2.40 on Super 35.

 

[Tom-G]

Minority Report was 2.40 on Super 35.

Key thing there is Super 35, which doesn't look as bad when chopped to hell. I'm not saying that pan and scan is more acceptable--it never is--I'm stating that a movie shot in Super 35 lends itself more to being butchered than a film in Panavision does.

 

[Nate Anderson]

I heard Speilberg say he shot in 1.85:1 because it was more suited to our general viewing perception in the theatres, or something like that.

I dunno...words are failing me this morning.