Originally Posted by Mjölnir
You're the one that started the discussion with me by arguing against one of my points by taking half a sentence out of context. I had just written a general comment and I just made my points clear after you argued against it. I admit that I didn't read your first post again after you posted to me (and I read a lot of things while browsing) and just continued on the impressions you gave then.
And I maintain that cropping the same picture doesn't show the aspect ratios off properly and therefor doesn't really show the feel of it, regardless of what your overall point is.
This is hopeless.
One of your points is that you can shoot an epic in something other (and narrower) than 2.35. AGAIN, at the end of my FIRST POST, I state that even if the cinematography doesn't necessarily conform to the viewer's accustomed feel of what is considered "epic" or "cinematic" (i.e., 2.35) -- the movie definitely still can be epic or cinematic. SO WE AGREE.
The whole over-arching point is, WHO CARES ABOUT AR
? So long as the setting/conflict/story/characters etc. make for an epic, cinematic
experience, then it's all good. My worry was that the film would feel like a 2-hour TV episode, i.e. "not cinematic enough" (which has nothing to do with AR/cinematography).
This thread is merely my opinion pointing out that this is likely NOT the case, as earlier complaints about it "not being cinematic enough" have to do with aspect ratio.
When most of us think "cinematic," we think wide shots, like 2.35. But if The Avengers were to be filmed in 2.35, it would get that "wide" feel, but you'd also make the non-Hulk characters a lot smaller and shorter. So by shooting in 1.85, you don't get the same wide, "cinematic" feel that we're used to in all other Marvel movies, but it's an almost-necessary AR.