Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 'Wrath of the Titans' aspect ratio

This is topic 'Wrath of the Titans' aspect ratio in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011196

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 03-30-2012, 02:01 AM:

Anyone else confused as to why 'Wrath of the Titans' is in 1.85 FLAT aspect ratio when the trailers for it were in scope (even the letterboxed flat versions)? The IMDB page even lists it as being 2.35.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-30-2012, 02:53 PM:

Not the first time that scope trailers for a movie shows it in full scope and letterbox for the flat trailers .. and the feature itself was released in flat.

Why I always use the final judgement - your eyes and visual inspection - to make sure of the proper lens format for 35mm releases.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-30-2012, 04:32 PM:

It's just another case that baffles me why it's so difficult for the studios to get us accurate run times and aspect ratios ahead of when we get the prints/drives. I know for some locations it matters because they only schedule scope or flat in specific auditoriums.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-30-2012, 05:28 PM:

Even, though agree: "Titans" would have looked better on the screen IN scope than flat being an epic action flik.

Flat looks so..'flat' - just doesn't have any life to it where the picture looks so soft and lifeless.

I have to focus the bulb down a smidge to get more light out through that 1.85:1 aperture.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-30-2012, 10:39 PM:

Although I didn't watch the whole movie, I will say the 3D looked pretty good in the 5 minutes or so I watched when I did my QC check. They obviously got the message about how bad Clash of the Titans looked.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-02-2012, 09:51 PM:

However they obviously missed the message that the script blew.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 04-02-2012, 10:35 PM:

Hi folks:

I much prefer flat over scope. I simply find the format more intimate and easy to view. I wish more films were flat.

Mike

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-02-2012, 11:06 PM:

in the IMAX Digital presentation I saw, there was one shot where the Chimera creature whips it's tail into the viewers face and the image reverts to 2.35 framing - its a jarring very odd moment.

I agree with you Mike - screens that have vertical masking and the IMAX/speciality deluxe 'large' screens where masking is not an option and is open to 1.78 - the more film image that uses the entire screen is much more immersive than 2.35 film that have the black borders above and below the image.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-03-2012, 12:35 AM:

The problem isn't a scope aspect ratio, it's auditoriums being poorly designed.