Why would anyone want to shoot their movies in the 1.85:1 hackspect ratio?

[Lex M]

When I sit down in a theatre and notice the screen is in that sort-of-a-rectangle, more-like-a-square boring-ass 1.85:1 ratio, my heart always sinks a little bit. After all, a director has been given the chance to use a movie screen as the canvas for his vision, and his vision....looks pretty much like a television set. Monetary issues for beginning filmmakers aside, why would anyone go out of their way to consciously frame for and shoot in such a dull ratio? I sometimes hear the argument that "scope" is only really necessary for big spectacle films, but this is not necessarily true. In the '70s, directors of all stripes had Panavision fever, and knew how to use that frame, whether it was for large-scale action or personal dramas. Hell, UP IN SMOKE was in widescreen. Now even some action directors seem reluctant to shoot wide.

Frustratingly, though, most directors go back and forth depending on the piece, but often arbitrarily. Why, one must ask, is Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL in boring 1.85, while MATCHSTICK MEN is in glorious widescreen? Spielberg: AI in bore-vision, but MINORITY REPORT in 2.35:1? Soderberg recently, mercifully, has begun to open up his framing, but why would anyone conceive TRAFFIC as a flat ratio movie? That cried out for widescreen. So did the first SPIDER-MAN. Raimi corrected that oversight with the sequel, but now they have no uniformity of vision, since one film is framed like a TV show, and the other is framed like a real movie.

In short, 1.85:1 is BORING and lazy. If I wanted to watch TV, I'd stay home and watch YES, DEAR. Certainly, there are great artists, from Rafelson to Ashby to Peckinpah to Coppola who shot most of their great achievements on less-than-wide tableaux. But even their masterpieces, I'd argue, would be a little more awesome in 2.35:1. Everything's a little better wider.

[Morticia]

Sounds like a perfect discussion for Film Discussion. Try it.

[Riedenschneider]

Well, it's a well known fact that Scorsese, Kubrick, Konigsberg and others went back to flat after seeing their scope masterpieces for the first time via bar-less TV airings. 'Kinda understand that point. But with DVDs, widescreen or giantscreen sets of today, that point isn't one anymore of course.

The most common arguements for still shooting flat today are "scope composition is too time consuming for this production.", "the flat ratio emphasizes the claustrophobic nature of the story/main-character/bla bla bla."

[videoworx]

If the film is in "scope", is it being shot in 35mm, and cropped (producing more grain during the blow up), or REAL scope, requiring anamorphic lenses (and becoming a pain in the royal ass for the dude pulling focus)?

In all honestly, there are many directors that don't have the imagination to fill such a wide frame, and resort to cramming everything in the happy 4x3 area, so mom can enjoy it fool-screen.
Other than Royal Tenenbaums and many tv commercials, I can't think of a recent movie that really made use of the whole canvas...well, maybe the matrix trilogy, but they kept switching up the aspect ratios as they went along...

Your solution - go make a 2.4-1 matte box at home, and next time you go to a theatre, put it front of you, so it blocks the top and/or bottom of the movie that's playing in 1.85-1 - then you'll be happy no matter what plays.

[Lex M]

Originally Posted by videoworx

In all honestly, there are many directors that don't have the imagination to fill such a wide frame, and resort to cramming everything in the happy 4x3 area, so mom can enjoy it fool-screen.
Other than Royal Tenenbaums and many tv commercials, I can't think of a recent movie that really made use of the whole canvas...well, maybe the matrix trilogy...

I'd say there are more than a few directors working regularly today who do know exactly how to use the full scope frame, from world-class auteurs like Michael Mann and Paul Thomas Anderson, to B-movie vets like Peter Hyams and John Carpenter. While there are plenty of "big" movies that use 2.35:1 but, as you suggest, keep everything in the safe zone, there are still some sterling examples of glorious widescreen composition in recent years -- PTA's work on BOOGIE NIGHTS, MAGNOLIA, and PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE; Mann's work on ALI; Spielberg in MINORITY REPORT; Tarantino and Richardson's work in the KILL BILL films; the Scott Brothers' work in MATCHSTICK MEN and MAN ON FIRE; Peter Weir's compositions in MASTER AND COMMANDER; and on and on.

And again, the real rub is when a talented director of a HUGE movie still opts for 1.85:1, especially when they've shot wide in the past. Ang Lee shooting THE HULK in a square frame, or Spielberg shooting the JURASSIC PARK films flat, are prime examples of such head-scratchers.

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Lex M

Spielberg shooting the JURASSIC PARK films flat, are prime examples of such head-scratchers.

He shot it like that because the dinosaurs are tall, not wide, plus it would have required a longer time because of all the cgi

[Monterey Jack]

Variety is always a good thing. If every single movie had the same aspect ratio, fims would get visually monotonous. Granted, I was thrilled when Spielberg returned to the 2:35:1 ratio in Minority Report (and slightly disappointed when he went back to 1:85:1 for Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal), yet not every movie needs to spread it's images across so wide a frame. In fact, one of my favorite moments in Kill Bill Vol. 2 was when The Bride is lying tied up and helpless in the back of Budd's truck, and Tarantino briefly collapses his Panavision frame to a 1:33:1 "Academy" ratio, which helps punch up the claustrophobia and tension of the scene (I only wish he kept it going throughout the entire burial sequence ). Would Casablanca have been any noticably better if it were shot in Cinemascope (which hadn't been invented yet, but it's just an example)? There are plenty of 2:35:1 movies that don't make particularly good use of the width of the image (especially in recent years). Personally, the last thing that affects my enjoyment of a film is what aspect ratio it was shot in (unless I'm seeing a scope film in full-frame ). The Nightmare Before Christmas was animated in 1:66:1, yet it's every bit as visually "packed" as, say, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, which is 2:35:1.

[Riedenschneider]

Though I agree with you Lex, and also think that every movie should be lensed in scope (well, at least the good ones!), it's interesting to see how wide the flat ratio really is when you rotate the canvas...

[LeChuck]

Originally Posted by Lex M

Spielberg: AI in bore-vision, but MINORITY REPORT in 2.35:1?

Fits the films perfectly.

[Lex M]

Ried, I'd like directors to start shooting in 3.60:1. That would be something.

Because I'm bored, here's a random sampling of directors and their preferred ratios...

Steven Soderbergh: usually 1.85:1
Martin Brest: 1.85:1
Steven Spielberg 2.35:1 until E.T.; Now almost always 1.85:1
John Landis: always 1.85:1
Bob Rafelson: usually 1.85:1
Ridley Scott: usually 2.35:1, excepting Hannibal, Duelists, Someone to Watch Over Me.
Tony Scott: always 2.35:1
Michael Bay 2.35:1 since The Rock
Woody Allen 1.85:1 except Manhattan
David Lynch usually 2.35:1 except Mulholland, Twin Peaks, Eraserhead
James Cameron 2.35:1 since The Abyss
Brian DePalma goes back and forth, but is best in 2.35:1
Robert Altman usually (and best in) 2.35:1
Wes Anderson 2.35:1 now
PT Anderson 2.35:1 always
John Carpenter always 2.35:1
Clint Eastwood goes back and forth, but is a master of wide composition
Sam Peckinpah went back and forth
Sergio Leone wide except OUATIA
Roger Donaldson usually 2.35:1
Philip Noyce usually 2.35:1
Wes Craven 1.85:1 until SCREAM
Sam Raimi back and forth
Bryan Singer 2.35:1
Cameron Crowe 1.85:1
David Cronenberg 1.85:1, but one of the few directors whose compositions benefit from that framing, because he's a genius.
Paul Verhoeven usually 1.85:1, but can do wide quite nicely too
Stanley Kubrick shot flat after 2001, but his geometrically precise, centered framing suits the narrow ratio
Walter Hill 1.85:1
Martin Campbell 2.35:1
Adrian Lyne 1.85:1
Michael Cimino 2.35:1
Wolfgang Petersen (The Master) goes back and forth, best in wide.

And on and on....

[reapersaurus]

Lex, you're actually saying that regardless of what movie it is, every movie is better wider?

If so, I don't know if I can say this (mods delete if inappropriate), but I think that's one of the sillier statements I've heard touted on these boards.

[Lex M]

I'm saying that I tend to look more favorably on films that take advantage of a 2.35:1 frame, and on directors who know how to compose their films to take full advantage of said ratio. There are exceptions -- Verhoeven, Allen, Cronenberg, and Kubrick are among my favorite directors, and shot most of their best films in a narrow ratio. But when I enter a theatre to see a new movie, like say THE TERMINAL or VAN HELSING or ANCHORMAN or what have you, I'm always a little disappointed when I see that the director has chosen to shoot in 1.85:1.

[videoworx]

actually, Lex, James Cameron prefered 4x3 for a while (remember, he wanted everyone to buy the pan and scan THX laserdisc box set of The Abyss when it came out).
Ghosts Of The Abyss is 4x3 (1.78 on dvd), and Battle Angel Alita will be the same (well, i'm assuming it will be - he said it he was shooting it with the same 3d camera setup).

[reapersaurus]

OK, Lex -
what's your take on PIXAR and their framing?
http://forums.dvdfile.com/interactiv...tid=7507&stc=1

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by Lex M

Why, one must ask, is Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL in boring 1.85, while MATCHSTICK MEN is in glorious widescreen?

I believe Scott said somewhere that Hannibal was shot in 1.85 to match Silence of the Lambs.

I tend to preffer scope as well for almost any movie... I have never watched a 2.35 and said "damn I wish this was 1.85", but I have done the opposite many times. Spider-Man was a good example, as it cried out for scope.

Then you have crazy bastards like Kubrick who framed for 1.33!! In the end, Directors are artists, and I think they just act with what they like. For some reason a lot of them like 1.85, and their reasons are probably varied. I wonder if growing up on TV has something to do with it?

[Chunkblower]

I think more commercial directors (or at least directors direction comercial projects) tend to use 1:85 because the switch to 4:3 for home video is much less noticable. I agree that more films should be shot wide, and with DVD becoming popular, people have become (at least a bit) more used to watching films in a wider ratio. A great director can do wonders with any ratio he chooses to work with, but a merely good/competent one can benefit from the scope that a wider ratio can give him.

[SilentBob]

I too will say that the Scope aspect ratio is a lot more favourable with me too. I don't mind the occasional great director's going to Flat 1.85:1 ratio but i wish more would stay/continue to use the Scope ratio instead. Raimi on believe had only done 1 or 2 other movies in in Scope before Spiderman 2. But he trully is a master when he uses the technique and wish he stuck to it and not his usual flat ratio. (I remember seeing the teaser trailer being shown on one of our flat print movies and seeing black bars on the bottom of the screen. Man was i happy to see him use Scope) Now Spielberg is another great director of our time that i wish would go back to his roots of directing once again. A.I. would of been amazing to see a wider image of the futuristic technological world. Yes it still looked stunning but then Spielberg did another futuristic movie called Minority Report and WOW! did it ever look awesome. Now with the new Batman movie i am glad to see Nolan sticking with his SCOPE ratio and breaking away from the past 4 movies where they were all in the Flat ratio. Can't wait to see it in action

Too bad more movies couldn't be scope because to me it just seems to be add something to the movie. I don't know what it is but i like it a lot

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Riedenschneider

Though I agree with you Lex, and also think that every movie should be lensed in scope (well, at least the good ones!), it's interesting to see how wide the flat ratio really is when you rotate the canvas...

it think it is the "lens" in ours eyes react, for instance watching a 2.35:1 movie on my 4:3 flat screen seems like 2.3"ish":1 but when I lye down with my head horazontial it looks about 3:1

[Riedenschneider]

Originally Posted by Sycho

it think it is the "lens" in ours eyes react, for instance watching a 2.35:1 movie on my 4:3 flat screen seems like 2.3"ish":1 but when I lye down with my head horazontial it looks about 3:1

So then lying down, the 1.85 ratio would more or less look like 2.35, right?
Heh, looks like Sycho has found an answer to your hackspect misery, Lex.

[FamilyGuyfanBOY]

I prefer scope because it's more epic. It gives a more vast and open feel to the film and its scenery. Like Lex M, when I see the screen too be flat at the 1.85:1 ratio it always bothers me a little bit. One prime example that I was just thinking about yesterday is "Hellboy" It would have been great in SCOPE but it wasn't, and it feels like it had been chopped and is missing the sides of the picture. Just my short little two cents...

[papibear]

Originally Posted by Lex M

I'm saying that I tend to look more favorably on films that take advantage of a 2.35:1 frame, and on directors who know how to compose their films to take full advantage of said ratio. There are exceptions -- Verhoeven, Allen, Cronenberg, and Kubrick are among my favorite directors, and shot most of their best films in a narrow ratio. But when I enter a theatre to see a new movie, like say THE TERMINAL or VAN HELSING or ANCHORMAN or what have you, I'm always a little disappointed when I see that the director has chosen to shoot in 1.85:1.

While I can't say I agree that a Scope aspect ratio necessarily fits every type of film, I understand completely how you feel; I have often felt the same way about many films. I, too, believe films seem more "epic", more "film-like" at a wide aspect ratio, using the logic that more can be shown with a wider canvas. Yet, at the same time, I inevitably wind up respecting the director's chosen aspect ratio, whether it be 2.76:1 or 1.37:1 or somewhere in between, because there may be artistic reasons for it. I figure they've framed for a particular aspect ratio for a reason, even if I don't find that reason fitting the story in question or being the aspect ratio I would have chosen. My only real quibbles in regards to aspect ratio have to do with how the aspect ratio fits in with the print type and the negative type. For example, I'm not a fan of the Super 35 format - I believe that if you're going to shoot in Scope, then use anamorphic lenses or just shoot Academy Flat (I frankly would prefer to see the original Cinemascope aspect ratio of 2.55:1 and the MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision 70 2.76:1 aspect ratio make a comeback). Also, while it doesn't happen much anymore, I prefer 70mm prints to be made from a 65mm source negative rather than a 35mm blowup, although a 35mm reduction print from a 65mm negative is generally acceptable (but not as visually impressive as a 70mm print, of course); aspect ratios will often play a little fast and furious when such negative/print interplay is made, but as long as it turns out properly, I got no problems.

Then there's VistaVision, one of my favorite widescreen processes (and one which had 35mm negatives) - its recommended aspect ratio was 1.85:1, although Paramount's theater projection framing guide made provisions for 1:66:1 and 2:1. The major difference, however, was that it provided a HUGE picture, as wide as a 2.55:1 Cinemascope print but about 3 times as tall! (Jurassic Park's 1.85:1 AR & subject matter would have been PERFECT for the VistaVision process!)

So, really, what is "widescreen"? Considering that 16:9 TVs with 1.78:1 aspect ratios are quickly becoming the norm, I think theatrical motion pictures are going to have to go even wider in order to distinguish themselves from television fare, although there will always be a contingent in the film industry that will advocate maintenance of "crossoverability" between theaters and TV/video. So it seems likely that in the future, we'll see the 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio fade into the 1.78:1 aspect ratio (keeping the theater/TV transition seamless), while big ticket theatrical fare will often be presented in 2.40:1 and even wider aspect ratios. So in the end, it'll depend on the film in question - action adventures, sci-fi, war, and dramas conducive to a panoramic framing will stay wide, while "standard" comedies and dramas will likely remain in the "New Academy Flat" of 1.78:1.

Just an educated guess. In some ways, I hope I'm wrong.

[Hardcore Legend]

If I were a director, and had the balls to do it I would film in 1.85.1 or 1.33.1 Academy everytime. I'd do it in protest to the gimmicky reasons for creating the Scope ratios.

Of course as a viewer, I enjoy the presentation that Scope gives you. As an exhibitor, I don't care which they choose, I just wish they would all decide on one.

[cyeoh]

Don't forget that the cinematographer or director of photography has a big say in how he wants to shoot the film.