The 1.85:1 aspect ratio is underused these days

[-JKR-]

That's the case with everything. I've seen bad and boring looking 2.35 films, as well, and seeing more and more of them, because of the misconception that the aspect ratio alone makes or breaks the look.

I've seen 2.35 movies where I thought that they would look better if they opened It up vertically, simply because the director clearly has no idea on how to use all that short, wide space.

Which is why I opened this topic. The question wasn't whether or not great looking 2.35 movies would look better in 1.85, but whether or not the use of 2.35 had become too much of an automatic choice, without much thought behind it.

 

[mclay18]

If I was shooting a big budget DC/MCU blockbuster, I would automatically go for 2.40 unless I had a compelling reason to go 1.85.

Avengers Infinity War and Endgame were natively captured on Arri Alexa 65mm IMAX cameras. Watching the latter in 1.85 IMAX 3D felt more immersive than the cropped 2D version in regular theaters.

If I was shooting on digital or 65mm film IMAX cameras, 1.85 would be the preferred way to see it (rather than a cropped 2.40 for regular theaters). I would want paying customers to see the movie the way it was meant to be.

 

[Gabriel Avalos]

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.

2:1 and 2.2:1 are not “bastard aspect ratios”. 2:1 is supposed to be a mix between 2:35 and 1.85; some great shows are shot in 2:1, like Stranger Things, House of Cards, You, and a few more. As well as 2.2:1, Doom Patrol in particular being amazing.

It’s alright if you have a preference, but 2.35 isn’t for everything.

 

[Marvolo]

2:1 and 2.2:1 are not “bastard aspect ratios”. 2:1 is supposed to be a mix between 2:35 and 1.85; some great shows are shot in 2:1, like Stranger Things, House of Cards, You, and a few more. As well as 2.2:1, Doom Patrol in particular being amazing.

It’s alright if you have a preference, but 2.35 isn’t for everything.

Since you dont know, "bastard" can mean a thing between. Not quite one thing or the other. For example, a bastard sword is a hand and a half sword. Inbetween an arming sword and a longsword.

So 2:1 and 2.2 are bastard ratios. The quality of a show doesn't make the aspect ratio any better. Those shows would have looked better framed and shot in 2.35.

 

[weezerspider]

To answer the OPs question, I do think a lot of blockbuster films assume 2.35 as the default, which isn’t necessary a good thing, but I think if you watch more than just the average blockbusters, you’ll see 1.85 is still very prevalent, so I don’t think it’s a huge issue.

It’s a creative decision just like any other decision in the making of a film. Typically, 1.85(or 1.33) is used more for intimate dramas where you expect a lot or close ups because the box frame is ideal for faces(Scorsese said the reason he waited until 1991 to shoot 2.35 was because he couldn’t figure out how to frame a good looking close up in it). 2.35 is typically more for WIDE landscapes and such. It captures those vistas better than a square frame. This is why most blockbusters are shot in 2.35 because they are BIG and “EPIC”, so they want that WIDE picture to show that. One of the few famous exceptions to that is the original Jurassic Park. Spielberg felt the taller 1.85 would better sell the size of the dinosaurs compared to humans. That’s why I don’t think it’s a huge issue. I think most stories being told at the blockbuster scale probably make the most sense to be told in 2.35.


Personally, I can’t recall watching anything and thinking “why didn’t they shoot this in a different aspect ratio?” If there is bad composition or bad blocking, chances are they would both be just as bad in a different aspect ratio from the same filmmaker and crew on that particular project.

That said, I don’t think it’s weird to have a preferred aspect ratio. It’s all taste(I personally prefer 1.33 the most actually. Blame it on growing up on TCM and at revival theaters). I do think it’s weird to not like a movie for it’s aspect ratio, though. That’s wack.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

Funnily enough, the Avengers looks great on an OLED. The problem with a lot of marvel movies and the reason they look bland is because they often don’t have true blacks. Which gives the color space of those movies a dull look.

An OLED’s “infinite contrast” sort of compensates for those slight blacks somehow. The Avengers looks really really good on my LG CX. It’s like it was made for it.

 

[Monochron]

Videos about aspect ratio:

 

[Gabriel Avalos]

Since you dont know, "bastard" can mean a thing between. Not quite one thing or the other. For example, a bastard sword is a hand and a half sword. Inbetween an arming sword and a longsword.

So 2:1 and 2.2 are bastard ratios. The quality of a show doesn't make the aspect ratio any better. Those shows would have looked better framed and shot in 2.35.

Look personally I don’t mind what aspect ratio a film or show uses as long as they use it well. The shows I just listed use them well. They aren’t just cropping for the sake of cropping like some shows and movies do with wider aspect ratios.

And not everything has to be 2.35 to one to look cinematic. Yes, it’s cool when used right, but some things just don’t need it. 2:1 is perfectly suitable for TV shows and sometimes 2.2:1. He’ll some films have used 2:1 to great effect. Some notable exceptions being Hereditary, Mid-Sommar, and Jurassic World. Film can look unique it doesn’t have to be 2 standard ratios all the time.