The 1.85:1 aspect ratio is underused these days

[-JKR-]

First of all, I LOVE the Cinemascope (2.35:1) aspect ratio, and am especially a HUGE fan of anamorphic (John Carpenter's definitely right when he says that anamorphic - if used right, I would add - helps make the movie feel bigger and more epic).

Yet...

I can't help but feel that nowadays shooting in or formatting a movie to the 2.35:1 format has become too much of an automatic choice, with little thought behind it - especially when we're talking about big budget and/or sci-fi, action, adventure movies. Just because "it looks more cinematic," a statement which I couldn't disagree with more, because a film shot in 1.85:1, if it's well done, looks just as cinematic.

And not everyone knows how to correctly stage and make us of the Cinemascope format, and lots of movies feel as if they've just randomly cropped the image to obtain the format and instead could have made use of more vertical space.

There's a reason behind the choice of format. Steven Spielberg switches back and forth between the format based on what he thinks serves the story best.

Again, this is not a strike against the Cinemascope format, but I think that there should be more thought behind the aspect ratio and that 1.85:1 should still be considered as a valid choice.

 

[jmc]

There is something about the 2.35:1 (or even 2.39:1) ratio which seems to fit for more epic movies. That said, 1.85:1 can also be used to great effect, as is the case with something like Jurassic Park. I'm currently working on a project and one of the decisions that's actually a lot harder to make than I would have imagined is deciding the aspect ratio to use. For me, the issue is less about the size and more about the lighting. Great lighting and cinematography will make any movie look great regardless of what aspect ratio is chosen. That said, just as it's the case when it comes to painting on a canvas, it's all going to be project dependent which direction directors ultimately go. I will say this, some movies use Cinemascope that really shouldn't. I've seen some dramas and even some comedies that use it and for whatever reason it always looks odd to me.

 

[-JKR-]

To be Fair, I don't think the distinction is as easy as comedies and dramas 1.85 and action and adventure 2.35.

But there are some movies which clearly feel wrong at 2.35, simply because the composition is so cramped and... off. And I think the reason is that way too many directors and DPs see it as an automatic choice, instead of looking at the scene in the script, the sets and the number of characters.

 

[Kane52630]

If you look at Waves, they use 1.85, 2.35, and 1.33 in great effect.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man was shot 1.85 then he changed it up to 2.35 for the sequels specifically in the second because he wanted to show the wide use of Doc Ock’s tentacles.

Not sure how many other series changed the aspect ratio for their sequels.

 

[The Chris]

Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man was shot 1.85 then he changed it up to 2.35 for the sequels specifically in the second because he wanted to show the wide use of Doc Ock’s tentacles.

Not sure how many other series changed the aspect ratio for their sequels.

Terminator did it starting with T2. Avengers was 1.85 but the other 3 aren't. Lethal Weapon as well. Alien is interesting because they're all 2.35 or 2.40 except for Aliens. Jurassic Park is nuts with the 1st 3 being 1.85 but 4 being 2.20 and 5 being 2.40.

Die Hard has the 1st 4 films as 2.35.1 with the 5th film being 1.85.1. That still confuses me to this day considering the director has shot 2.35 1 in the past.

 

[jmc]

It does throw me off when there's not consistency across franchises. Filming the first Avengers for instance in 1.85 was one of the strangest decisions IMO, because it made the film look like a TV show. Part of that was lighting also. You only have to look at these images by Deakins to see how much more important the correct framing and lighting is moreso than the aspect ratio:

The 35 Most Beautiful Roger Deakins Shots

Oh Brother Where Are Thou was shot in I think 2.39, a size that you wouldn't think would benefit that type of movie, and yet the the way the shot in that link is constructed it still works.

 

[-JKR-]

1.85 wasn't what made The Avengers look like a TV show (duh, that is exactly what I was talking about), Joss Whedon's iffy staging/directing and the overlit cinematography are what made it look like a TV show.

Just staying in the realm or Marvel Studios, Ant-Man looks great, in my opinion, and even Better than its 2.35 sequel (for different reasons).

 

[The Chris]

1.85 wasn't what made The Avengers look like a TV show (duh, that is exactly what I was talking about), Joss Whedon's iffy staging/directing and the overlit cinematography are what made it look like a TV show.

Just staying in the realm or Marvel Studios, Ant-Man looks great, in my opinion, and even Better than its 2.35 sequel (for different reasons).

I would agree about the 1.85 ratio not being the reason for that looking the way it looked. Scorsese, Spielberg and The Coens for example have used both main ratios to great affect. Heck 2 of the best cinematography nominees this year were 1.85. A 3rd one was 4:3.

 

[psylockolussus]

Eh. Stick with 2:35:1. I don't want films to look like it was shot for a tv show.

 

[-JKR-]

Paul Verhoeven, Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, William Friedkin, Jonathan Demme, Robert Zemeckis, Joe Dante, Guillermo Del Toro, Robert Rodriguez, Barry Sonnenfeld come to mind, as well.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Eh. Stick with 2:35:1. I don't want films to look like it was shot for a tv show.

Scorsese, Spielberg and The Coens for example have used both main ratios to great affect. Heck 2 of the best cinematography nominees this year were 1.85. A 3rd one was 4:3.

 

[psylockolussus]

I obviously haven't seen those. I stand by what I said.

 

[The Chris]

Paul Verhoeven, Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, William Friedkin, Jonathan Demme, Robert Zemeckis, Joe Dante, Guillermo Del Toro, Robert Rodriguez, Barry Sonnenfeld come to mind, as well.

That reminds me that James Cameron has used it at least 3 times (The Terminator, Aliens and Avatar). Probably that Piranha movie too but i don't really count that as his. Also Ang Lee usually goes with 1.85 (with a few exceptions of course). Oh and The Godfather Trilogy, the 1st two being two of the most beautifully lit and shot movies ever, are 1.85.1. Yes i personally adore 2.40 and use it myself, but just like anything i feel like it's just a tool for whoever is using it and it's up to them to use it well.

 

[-JKR-]

@psylockolussus

So you're standing by a pretty uneducated opinion, according to which films such as

The Godfather
The Exorcist
E.T.
Gremlins
Back to the Future
Aliens
The Fly
To Live and Die in L.A.
Predator
RoboCop
Lethal Weapon
Batman
Total Recall
Edward Scissorhands
Gremlins 2
Goodfellas
Silence of the Lambs
Batman Returns
Jurassic Park
Ed Wood
Fargo
Men in Black
Spider-Man
A History of Violence
Sin City
The Shape of Water
Joker

and so many, many more look like TV? Okay, dude.

The reason I opened this topic was not to put down the scope format (which I adore, as well), but to try and take such BS stigma off the flat format.

The Avengers looked bad because it looked bad. It's as simple as that.

 

[psylockolussus]

Who cares? I didn't ask for your opinion and I didn't ask you to give me a list of movies. Do you feel more educated that you have seen those films? So pretentious.

I don't like 1:85:1, deal with it. I didn't tell you to stop watching movies with that 1:85:1 either.

 

[DarkKnight88]

You’re basically yelling “I hate this!” without actually having a real informed opinion about it. It’s pointless.

it’s the equivalent of saying you hate all comic book movies because you didn’t like one you saw.

 

[Galactus123]

It does throw me off when there's not consistency across franchises. Filming the first Avengers for instance in 1.85 was one of the strangest decisions IMO, because it made the film look like a TV show. Part of that was lighting also. You only have to look at these images by Deakins to see how much more important the correct framing and lighting is moreso than the aspect ratio:

The 35 Most Beautiful Roger Deakins Shots

Oh Brother Where Are Thou was shot in I think 2.39, a size that you wouldn't think would benefit that type of movie, and yet the the way the shot in that link is constructed it still works.

I think The Avengers looked great. It looks good on Blu-Ray because it fills the entire screen. The first Ant-Man is also 1.85.

 

[-JKR-]

I think The Avengers looked great. It looks good Blu-Ray because it fills the entire screen. The first Ant-Man is also 1.85.

I think it looks subpar and TV-ish.
I LOVE Ant-Man's look, though.

 

[TheGuy]

The trash cinematography of TA drops the overall quality of the film significantly. Wally Pfister himself made criticisms about it. There's no doubting it looks TV-ish.

 

[mclay18]

Paul Verhoeven, Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, William Friedkin, Jonathan Demme, Robert Zemeckis, Joe Dante, Guillermo Del Toro, Robert Rodriguez, Barry Sonnenfeld come to mind, as well.

Sam Raimi went Scope with Spider-Man 2 and never looked back. Every film he's directed since has been in scope (Spider-Man 3, Drag Me to Hell, Oz: The Great & Powerful).

There's something to be said about framing and composition for a scope format, but 1.85 can look good with the right framing and cinematographer. Tim Burton's Batman and Justice League, whether you liked them or not, felt very cinematic in 1.85 thanks to Roger Pratt and Fabian Wagner.

Greta Gerwig's Little Women is another recent example that looks terrific in 1.85. No one will confuse that movie for a TV show.

It's all what the director and the DP are trying to achieve.

 

[DarkKnight88]

No one would say Tree of Life looks like TV.

 

[psylockolussus]

You’re basically yelling “I hate this!” without actually having a real informed opinion about it. It’s pointless.

it’s the equivalent of saying you hate all comic book movies because you didn’t like one you saw.

No. I have a preference

While I do think 1:85:1 could look great, though thats probably had to something to do with the cinematographer and not because they picked a certain film ratio, it still does have a film ratio that is normally being used in tv shows. So even with films that looked great or decent in it. I wonder if it would look better with cinemascope and imo,they probably would!!! So just stick to 1:85:1. i find it inconsistent and jarring when films part of a franchisehave different film ratios.

 

[Marvolo]

You’re basically yelling “I hate this!” without actually having a real informed opinion about it. It’s pointless.

it’s the equivalent of saying you hate all comic book movies because you didn’t like one you saw.

Its an aspect ratio. A person either likes the way it looks or they dont. They dont need to know the history and pros and cons of 1.85 to decide whether they like it.

Me, personally, I despise 2.00, 2.20. They're bastard ratios lacking the height of 1.85 and the scope 2.35. And they smack of digital filmmaking. I hate Netflix's use with those ratios.

And I generally dislike 1.85. Especially in cinema, but it's serviceable at home on a 16:9 tv.

2.35+ is my preference.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Its an aspect ratio. A person either likes the way it looks or they dont. They dont need to know the history and pros and cons of 1.85 to decide whether they like it.

Me, personally, I despise 2.00, 2.20. They're bastard ratios lacking the height of 1.85 and the scope 2.35. And they smack of digital filmmaking. I hate Netflix's use with those ratios.

And I generally dislike 1.85. Especially in cinema, but it's serviceable at home on a 16:9 tv.

2.35+ is my preference.

No, it’s a case by case scenario. You may have a preference, but you don’t say I hate this because of the specific aspect ratio.

You hate or love all the things stated over and over in this thread; who shot it, how did they shoot it, how did they light it, does it work with the right material. Now that all goes by in a second for your eye to process it and it either works or not. Aspect ratio is only a means to telling that story.

I don’t want a 2.35 Jurassic Park or a 1.85
Star Wars. Any different it changes the experience for those particular movies.

Again, it’s case by case.