Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can’t tell if this is parody or not. 

I don't care at all about these ratios of aspect, I'm just happy the trailer finally answered one of my most lingering questions...     We do in fact live in a society. 

Yeah Snyder's visual style is awful no matter what ratio he uses

@rough cut What I meant was in terms of facts, because a lot of your argument hinges on 16:9 to 4:3 resulting in a loss of information in this very particular instance of The Snyder Cut. However, TSMefford is I believe claiming the opposite, and he gave his reasoning why. I would like to hear you respond to that reasoning. Preferably without reference to the image you already posted because I’m not sure of its validity in light of the other evidence.

 

I’ll be perfectly blunt and say that I don’t care for a discussion of what ought to be done - I would rather know what’s technically correct in this instance. Since you refuted TSMefford’s post as being valid, I figured you had some technical knowledge that you could bring to light here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of rebutting any techincal aspect why this movie should be in any format over the other. From my point of view, that is not where the battle is won.

 

My argument is based on the facts that

1) If you are hired to create a movie,

2) and said movie will, after a theatrical run, be viewed at home,

3) then why would you not try to fit that movie into the paradigm of which most people consume movies, which is widescreen.

 

I am basing my arguments on these objective arguments:

1) how our TVs are shaped

2) how our field of vision works

 

and this subjective argument:

1) aesthetically, judging by the 4:3 trailer for JL Snyder Cut, the visual composition seems to be more suited for 16:9, rather than 4:3.

 

I get that it's "more" image in 4:3 - if that was the way JL was originally filmed.

 

But more doesn't equal better.

 

I feel that even though there might be "more" information in the image, with Snyders intention being that it will give a sense of scope. He can show tall buildings, and show how tall they are.... but that's poppycock. Of course you can have great sense of scope scope in both 4:3 as well as in 16:9. It all depends on what you choose to display within the aspect ratio.

 

In this case, I think that the 4:3 format makes things looks worse, more "trapped" inside the narrow frame. Why not open it up instead?

 

So, in the end, for anybody who is hung up on the technincal side of the the film stock, or "completeness" if you wish to call it that (the discussion of OSTs vs C&C comes to mind), then these arguements will fall on deaf ears.

 

That's fine.

 

I just don't agree.

 

32 minutes ago, The Big Man said:

Rough cut thinks Snyder chopped off the sides of Whedon's pretty pictures!

 

Well, kind of, yeah, but I'd say that I'd rather chop of the top/bottom of Snyders pictures to make the visual progam more aesthetically pleasing. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rough cut said:

In this case, I think that the 4:3 format makes things looks worse, more "trapped" inside the narrow frame. Why not open it up instead?

 

So your solution is to chop off the top and bottom? You're as bad as those weirdos at Fox who cropped old 4:3 eps of The Simpsons to fit people's 16:9 tellies, resulting in cramped looking images and missing visual gags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it has more image or not, the aspect ratio here results in a “smaller” experience, as less physical space in front of the viewer is covered by image (except if projected in IMAX).  It’s actually a really interesting  decision for a big budget superhero smash-em-up, although I suspect that most or all of us will not learn whether that decision was effective because this is Zack Snyder’s 4+ hour Justice League, likely an easy pass for everyone on movie night.

 

I would have haaaaaaaaaaaated to deal with the complaints about it in the movie theater when I worked there.  For sure we would have needed to put handwritten disclaimers on the box office window and both the theatre doors that yes, this is right, we aren’t screwing it up.  And by history of such things, those disclaimers would still only cut the complaints in half, not get rid of them entirely

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Justice League was an aesthetically pleasing movie to begin with so I'm curious if this new version can bring some improvement in that department. It might be a small difference technically but I think Kubrick's Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut lose something when seen in 1.85:1. I much prefer the DVD versions with black pillars.

 

That's right! I just put Snyder and Kubrick in the same post!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit I have caused a ruckus. I'll try to keep this shorter, but no promises. Sorry it took so long to respond, I had to do other things. Let's dig in.

 

Justice League is interesting to me specifically because we have many different versions of the shots and will ultimately have two different films to compare in the end. I think that's pretty cool and interesting, regardless of how good or bad the movie ends up being.

 

9 hours ago, rough cut said:

Thank god, because that was one lengthy post full of a lot BS.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I was trying to not to be rude, but apparently I struck a nerve, so I apologize. The specific phrase you called out about me saying it should be on us to watch things in 16:9 I still stand by. I'm sorry, but that's just my thoughts on the matter. 16:9 is an arbitrary ratio chosen specific to mimic the "widescreen" of cinema (which was actually 1.85:1, but we'll just ignore that) and didn't come around until the late 80s or early 90s if I recall. In fact, 16:9 is a compromise. It was chosen to minimize the differences between "ultra wide" (2.35:1) and the 4:3 content of the world. So it's nice in a way that we have something that wastes as little screen space as possible when it comes to different ratios. It wasn't intended to replace those ratios, just to be the best shape to accommodate both worlds. 

 

Like I said before, if TV's were 4:3, no one would care about Justice League being in 4:3. In fact, people with your views would prefer it. People would (and did when it was the standard) complain about Hollywood movies being "letterboxed" on their TVs and the annoying black bars on the top and bottom. That's why Pan and Scan and Open Matte, became a thing. They were specifically adapting those movies to fit the 4:3 ratio after the fact, and now everyone is trying to adapt to fit a 16:9 ratio. 

 

In my opinion, the best solution would be:

7 hours ago, Luke Skywalker said:

All we need is size-adaptative  TV screens so they morph in the desired aspect ratio to eradicate the black bars :P

 

I would personally love that. Lol. It would probably be expensive as hell. In the meantime, there's projectors and the crazy wall panel things that @Nick1066was talking about. Lol.

 

When it comes to aspect ratios, I find we're all actually snobs about it, but there's a few types that care about specific things:

  • Original Intent crowd: This is my group. I want to see it the way the Director wanted me to see it. Most commonly this means in 2.35:1 or 1.85:1, but can also mean 4:3 among other ratios in cases like The Simpsons.
  • The Fill-My-Screen crowd: I won't speak for roughcut, but this is probably where the view belongs. This group doesn't care about the artistic merits of any given ratio or format (but sometimes they do, if it's 16:9). Only that the picture fill the screen...whatever size it is. This group hated widescreen movies when sets were 4:3, and now hate both letterbox and 4:3 on the 16:9 sets.
  • Maximum Picture crowd: This is an unusual one. I don't identify with this crowd at all, though it my seem like it with how I'm talking about Justice League. This group wants to see the entire opened matte. Whatever was shot on the film negative, which will commonly result in a 4:3 image.

There's also the crowd that doesn't give a damn about any of it and will watch whatever you put on regardless, but I'd hardly call them snobs. Lol.

 

I'll get back to Justice League with some visual comparisons shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

 

  • Maximum Picture crowd: This is an unusual one. I don't identify with this crowd at all, though it my seem like it with how I'm talking about Justice League. This group wants to see the entire opened matte. Whatever was shot on the film negative, which will commonly result in a 4:3 image.

 

 

Boom mic visible!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

I was trying to not to be rude, but apparently I struck a nerve, so I apologize.

 

Not at all! I think someone else just had a bad day.

 

13 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Original Intent crowd: This is my group. I want to see it the way the Director wanted me to see it. Most commonly this means in 2.35:1 or 1.85:1, but can also mean 4:3 among other ratios in cases like The Simpsons.

 

My group as well. If one thinks films are anything close to art, the original intent should matter. Of course, Justice League is as far from art as movies come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rough cut said:

More importantly, the “creative freedom” card is so tiresome. Of course any director - or anybody who creates anything - can do what they want and don’t have to cater to anybody’s preferences.

 

Thats not what this is about.

 

What I mean is this: It would make sense to use the entire canvas.

 

So, if neither 4:3 or 16:9 is objectively better, an artist can make the most with the tools that are given. Choose to make the most out of the entire canvas.

 

Nobody saw Whedon’s JL and thought “Man , this would look great in 4:3”.

 

I'm sorry, but this is literally  you saying that Director and Cinematographers should cater to people's preferences and ignore their own preferences when it comes to ratios. You're not giving them a choice. They won't be choosing to shoot in 16:9 based on artistic means, they'll be choosing it because some crowd wants the movies to fill the screen at home. My argument about surround sound, I feel, still holds. If most people don't have surround sound at home, then why bother going through the trouble of making a surround sound mix? Because they're not making movies for your home screen, they're making them for cinemas. 

 

Now, that being said. Like I tried to emphasize in my second long-as-hell post. I'm all about choices. You can watch movies however you want. You can do it yourself with the press of a button on most TVs. That being said, to take the burden off of consumers, what honestly is probably the best solution for everyone, especially these days with streaming and what not is for studios to after the fact format the movie for 16:9 TVs and present that as an option. I still disagree with that practice, but it is already done all the time these days. Most Television broadcasts of films that are anything but 16:9 are open matte. For letterbox they open up the top and bottom and for shows like Friends they open the sides.

 

I would have no qualms if they started releasing "16:9 Edition" DVDs and Blu-Rays either. You're clearly quite passionate about it. So, I'll say that there should definitely be a better option to cater to that preference. Plenty people agree with you @rough cutand wish the screen would be made full use of. I just think that it should be done after the fact and not literally box Directors into a "standardized" aspect ratio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. So. Let's talk about Justice League, specifically. There will be criticisms here. Finally.

 

I alluded to this in my first post, but Zack Snyder has approved of (at least partially) two aspect ratios. It appears that, on the overall picture, it was meant to be seen in 4:3. Clearly that is the case since it was going to IMAX, shot on IMAX film, and we don't have continuity or visible equipment problems we commonly have with things that are open matte after the fact. 4:3 was part of his intention from the beginning.

 

That being said, when composing the shots, the easy way out was taken. They composed the shots as a compromise from what I can tell. Basically, they made shots that would function in the full uncropped frame of 4:3 and  16:9, simultaneously. This is why, in the example that @rough cutprovided, the shot is not composed as well in the 4:3 frame. Because on the director's monitor they had crop lines turned on in the middle of the screen. So you wind up with shots like these:

 

Batman Perched 169.jpgBatman Perched 43.jpg

 

Left is from the Comic-Con trailer for Joss Whedon's version. Right, is from the HBO Max trailers for Zack Snyder's version. I assume the cropping would've been similar in Snyder's version.

 

Flash 169.jpgFlash 43.jpg

 

Left is from the Trailer #2 for Joss Whedon's version. Right, is from the HBO Max trailers for Zack Snyder's version. I assume the cropping would've been similar in Snyder's version.

 

Trio 169.jpgTrio 43.jpg

 

This is actually from Snyder's original first trailer and the HBO Max trailers. So, both of these ratios are okayed by him.

 

Now. You can look at these shots and say, clearly those shots were meant for 16:9 and it's silly to open up the top and bottom. But there are other shots that make it clear Snyder was composing for both ratios at the same time. As there are also shots that are actually composed better in the 4:3 ratio.

 

Superman Returns 169.jpgSuperman Returns 43.jpg

 

Left is from the deleted scene present on the Blu-Ray and right is from HBO Max. Clearly this shot works better and looks lovely in 4:3. It looks fine in 16:9, but is more effective in the new 4:3

 

Laser Vision 169.jpgLaser Vision 43.jpg

 

Left is from Joss Whedon's version and right is from the HBO Max trailers. Another case where again, the shot looks better in 4:3, where the 16:9 looks cramped and poorly composed.

 

Glass 16-9.jpgGlass 43.jpg

 

Even this close-up looks a bit better in 4:3. It works in 16:9, but with the way the tools are set, it really looks more pleasing in 4:3.

 

All this to say that Justice League is not a model film for shooting in 4:3 as it was consistently shot with both ratios in mind. Not one or the other exclusively necessarily. So you get...kind of a mess. It's a mixed bag. Some shots do look better in 16:9, while others now look better 4:3. That being said, 4:3 is one of Snyder's original intentions and encompasses the entire picture...for better or for worse.

 

This is the version that would've been released in IMAX. Considering Snyder didn't actually finish the 16:9 version, this is what he wants us to see. Again, for better or for worse. And I support whatever the director wants to release as their initial version.

 

@rough cut seemed to imply repeatedly that I thought the 4:3 looked better and that is why I was defending it. This is not the case. Some shots look better, while others are still framed with 16:9 more in mind and look more dynamic in their cropped form. It's not how I would've shot it. Like I said, it's the easy way out. In case it wasn't clear, because I was trying to focus less on my opinion about the cinematography and more about facts and technical knowledge, I'll say it again: Justice League is not a model way to present a 4:3 film. 

 

Personally, here's how I would've solved this problem if I were asked to compose for both aspect ratios. It would've taken a bit more work, but it would've worked better overall. Many of the shots that look more suited to 16:9 would've looked better in the ultimate 4:3 version had they framed the 16:9 portion more towards the top of the frame for certain shots. That first Batman shot for example. In 16:9 it's cropped so he's in the top half of the frame. In the current 4:3 it's not quite as imposing, but if you framed him the same way for 4:3 he'd arguably look more imposing and towering. It's hard to explain since I can't give a proper visual comparison at the moment because that information is out of frame, even on the full opened 4:3, but I hope it's coming across.

 

My defense isn't necessarily for this specific instance of Justice League or Snyder. It's an overall issue. Let Directors release the version of the movie they want to first. The studio can clearly go back to the negatives at any point and chop whatever version they want out of it for Pan and Scan, Open Matte broadcast, black and white, whatever, but let the Directors have their film, however flawed it may be. 

 

We can argue all day long about opinions on which shot compositions look better, if 4:3 was the right choice, or thousands of other artistic choices on any movie. But we didn't make the movie. This group of people did and this is what they wanted you to see. That is what I get behind and I try my best not to be a hypocrite. So, if I support Wes Anderson releasing Grand Budapest Hotel switching through three different aspect ratios in a creative way, then I have to support Justice League being in 4:3. It would be hypocritical of me and my principals not to. 

 

I can also look at Justice League and think it was lazy to compromise and constantly frame for two aspect ratios at once, which degrades compositions in both aspect ratios, just so they could easily hit the crop button on the finished product and the viewer wouldn't lose essential information. It could've looked great at either aspect ratio, but instead they chose both. It's not mutually exclusive. I can support Snyder releasing whatever he wants for his definitive version and also complain about the shot composition, but I'm not going to tell him or every director that they have to frame and release everything they do in 16:9 from the beginning just to "fill up" my home television screen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever about aspect ratios is use of colour is absolutely horrible. Looks like he just applied some team to the whole film and washed his hands with it. I’m not a fan of Whedon’s visuals but those Snyder ones are just stinky. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Whatever about aspect ratios is use of colour is absolutely horrible. Looks like he just applied some team to the whole film and washed his hands with it. I’m not a fan of Whedon’s visuals but those Snyder ones are just stinky. 

 

Agreed. It's funny too because Snyder's is so desaturated, murky, and dark, that at times I feel like Whedon went too far in the other direction in his cut, over saturating people to being nearly orange and shots not having enough drama. Somewhere in the middle is my preference, but oh well. I didn't make the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, superultramegaa said:

I don't care at all about these ratios of aspect, I'm just happy the trailer finally answered one of my most lingering questions...

 

 

We do in fact live in a society. 

 

LOL. You're not alone, I assure you. Sorry that you had to scroll past all my long posts. Maybe I should go nest them all under spoiler tags or something. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Do it! The TSMefford cut...

 

God no. I can barely stand watching these movies once most of the time. I don't know how I could get through my own personal edit of one of these cuts.

 

I even get tired of my own projects that I filmed myself by the time I'm done with them, because I've seen it hundreds of times one after the other. Lol. I could only do an edit of a film that I at least liked but most of those already have some well-done fan edits.

 

I'll stick to watching and complaining!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I'll wait for the theatrical version of @TSMefford's posts. The extended editions are way too long for me.

 

Lol. True. I'm actually known in my professional circles for my overly long emails. It's a problem that I'm working on. Clearly more needs to be done. ;) To be fair though, aspect ratios and filming mediums can be a pretty complex and technical topic.

 

I did already make a theatrical cut though. Enjoy the new overly saturated color grade as well that I just added retroactively:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nick1066 said:

Have you seen the open matte Titanic?

 

I might have. I originally watched Titanic on that 2-part VHS before I became such a cultured individual, so I'm sure some shots were open-matted on it to make it 4:3 while others are pan and scanned. If you're referring to an HDTV version, then no, I have not seen that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TSMefford said:

 

I might have. I originally watched Titanic on that 2-part VHS so I'm sure some shots were open-matted on it to make it 4:3 while others are pan and scanned. If you're referring to an HDTV version, then no, I have not seen that one.

 

The 3D  release was open matte, as was the accompanying 2D Blu-Ray disc in the set.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

The 3D  release was open matte, as was the accompanying 2D Blu-Ray disc in the set.  

 

Ah. I can't see 3-D and only own the standard Blu-Ray copy that doesn't include the 3-D version. So mine isn't open matte. It's in the original 2.39:1 ratio.

 

vlcsnap-00094.jpg

Just grabbed that straight from my Blu-Ray copy. Guess they released both. Thank goodness.

 

Wouldn't be opposed to seeing the open matte version for fun so thanks for the heads up, but this is the copy of the film I'd rather watch most of the time anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TSMefford said:

 

Ah. I can't see 3-D and only own the standard Blu-Ray copy that doesn't include the 3-D version. So mine isn't open matte. It's in the original 2.39:1 ratio.

 

vlcsnap-00094.jpg

Just grabbed that straight from my Blu-Ray copy. Guess they released both. Thank goodness.

 

Wouldn't be opposed to seeing the open matte version for fun so thanks for the heads up, but this is the copy of the film I'd rather watch most of the time anyways.


Has anyone got comparisons between the versions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else think its weird that Cameron cuts back to modern day in the middle of the movie instead of having that stuff only be at the beginning and the end?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Nah it functions sorta like an intermission between the two halves of the movie!

 

Doesn't it happen more than once?  I remember a bit where it shows the boat crew gawking at old lady Rose when she's talking about her younger self being naked

 

I haven't seen the film since 1998 so don't remember specifics

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

I prefer the open matte

 

This will surprise no one, but I prefer the 2.39:1. The open matte feels off, looks kind of like a "made for TV" movie. Not all the shots feel like that though. Some have nice framing with the open matte.

 

I'm also more used to the 2.39:1 version so I'm sure that factors in. What do you like about the open matte version?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...