Here We Go Again! (BUGONIA Aspect Ratio)

[Frank Cox]

Does anyone know of any reason for all of this aspect ratio silliness other than someone's ego trip? "My movie is extra special and to show you how special it is I'm filming it in a way that's going to make everyone notice and do extra work."

I don't remember all of this from the days when I was playing film. A movie was flat or scope, that's how I played it, and it filled the screen like it was supposed to. Did I just somehow miss out on the weird stuff then?

[Benjamin Ruder]

Does anyone know of any reason for all of this aspect ratio silliness other than someone's ego trip? "My movie is extra special and to show you how special it is I'm filming it in a way that's going to make everyone notice and do extra work."

I don't remember all of this from the days when I was playing film. A movie was flat or scope, that's how I played it, and it filled the screen like it was supposed to. Did I just somehow miss out on the weird stuff then?

Digital. They have no limits anymore or gatekeepers. It's all just gonna end up on a TV anyways so I appreciate the 1.78 features even thought that's not standard cinema ratio.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Death by too many choices basically.

Doing weird ratios well in the film era often would mandate an alternate set of lenses, not to mention plates and movable masking with more than a couple positions. It was most often too much to ask exhibitors to do, unless studios were pushing a new format.

But in digital everyone assumes all those exhibition barriers are gone, when in reality many of them still exist, and lead to crappy utilization of the screen area.

Not to mention films that might only get seen projected at a festival, and otherwise have direct to streaming distribution. But no complaining allowed if you never made it to be exhibited in a theatre ;-)

[Martin Brooks]

Digital. They have no limits anymore or gatekeepers. It's all just gonna end up on a TV anyways so I appreciate the 1.78 features even thought that's not standard cinema ratio.

Actually, counter intuitively, many shows made for streaming TV (like many on Apple TV) are 1.85 (not 1.78) or scope (2.4) whereas many Blu-ray titles are opened up from 1.85 to 1.78, just the opposite of what one would expect. This used to bug me, but film restorian Robert A. Harris commented that it didn't bother him and if doesn't bug him (since he's a perfectionist), then it shouldn't bother me.
But I do think all these AR games are ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with 1.85 and if it's not 1.85 then it should be (digital) 2.4. I suppose in a special case where you want it to look like a pre-50's film, they can have it be 1.37 inside a flat 1.85 container, but that's it. I've seen some movies where segments appear to be 1:1. Maestro was 1.33:1 for no good reason, IMO.

[Shibu Paul]

In india. F-150

[Ryan Gallagher]

I suppose in a special case where you want it to look like a pre-50's film, they can have it be 1.37 inside a flat 1.85 container, but that's it.

At least on film, have there been any contemporary 133 or 137 releases placed within 185 matte area? I kinda get the logic for 1.50 and other non standard things... but 1.37 WAS a standard, and used the whole frame. I feel like working in a booth with a perfectly good set of Academy lenses, encountering such a print would be evidence of "losing the plot" when it comes to doing print releases just to do print releases. A special form of contemporary film blasphemy, and prone to making projectionists cry.