Originally Posted by blinkuldhc
Yeah, you'll get "closer to the action," but you capture as much/wide of a landscape.
I couldn't imagine The Lord of the Rings shot in a smaller aspect ratio. There's no way you'd get the same breadth, scope of the picture, even if you do get more height.
Here's a dumb but simple example. Imagine if you had to shoot a movie, and you could only use the printer-setting "landscape" or "portrait" ratios as your camera aspect ratio -- which would feel more "cinematic"? It's the same idea, trading width/breadth for height.
You missed part of my point by just commenting on half my sentence. I said that this movie had a lot of scenes where the vertical space is important. Since vertical space was important they would have to get further away from the action to shoot the same thing in 2.35:1. The LotR trilogy didn't have that but instead had lots of focus on the width, which of course makes the AR perfect there.
Your question takes it too much to the extreme to be valid since both the AR we are discussing are defined as "widescreen".
Your example pictures don't work as an argument because you're just cropping the same image, which is not at all how you'd do it in a film. You are basically arguing against Pan & Scan, which has been abandoned for a decade. My point is that you use different AR for different kinds of shots.
But again, it's not even the AR in itself that makes LotR really epic. It's what they shoot and how they do it and there AR is just one of the parts. If you shoot a quiet drama in 2.35:1 it doesn't become epic. What makes it epic is size, and you can make it big in several different ways.