Jump to content

New “Justice League” 4:3???


 Share

Recommended Posts

Given that he has full control he's probably trying to take it back to the old school justice league cartoons. 4:3 lasted as an animation aspect ratio long after most live action films left it.

Also unrelated but who is going to sit through a 4 hour movie?? Scorsese and Hitchcock combined couldn't make an engaging 4 hour feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I think because it's on "TV" they wanted to differentiate the look of it from the feature maybe? 

Why does anyone get excited about a product with such crappy over the top visual effects that don't mean anything? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original was shot in 1.85 which Snyder at the time mentioned was because he had fallen in love with the squarer IMAX native aspect ratio during his previous film, so he went for something less widescreen (probably against the wishes of some studio head). Now that he has total control over it all I guess he’s going one step closer to what he really wanted.  
 

2 hours ago, Max Field said:

.. who is going to sit through a 4 hour movie?? Scorsese and Hitchcock combined couldn't make an engaging 4 hour feature.

Have you never streamed half a season of a show in one sitting? It’s not like you’re stuck in a cinema for 4 hours, you can pause it whenever you want. Get with the times dude! 😉

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's what Zack wanted, it takes some getting used to. He posted some images of it being projected on a 1.43 IMAX screen and I imagine it's insane seen like that. I wish he had gone for 1.66 (back in March 2020, he said it would be 1.66, so he must have changed his mind) for the home video version, some folks won't understand why it's not filling their screens ^^ 

Millions of people are waiting for this and will gladly sit through a 4 hour film, the film will also have chapters like on a DVD or a Blu Ray, I guess to be able to watch a chunk of it and going back to it later if you need to. Looks incredible, cannot wait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

It's crazy they shot so much and omitted nearly half of it. Shows you they didn't really know what they were making. A real film will have a tight script that is nearly identical to the finished product, save maybe a few deleted lines. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

A real film will have a tight script that is nearly identical to the finished product, save maybe a few deleted lines.

Do you consider Chungking Express a real film then?  I agree efficiency is a virtue but all power to anyone who's willing to chop up and re-imagine their work if it makes it better.

From the trailer though...  1000% wont be watching this haha

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
2 hours ago, Dan Finlayson said:

Do you consider Chungking Express a real film then?  I agree efficiency is a virtue but all power to anyone who's willing to chop up and re-imagine their work if it makes it better.

Not just that movie, by that measure, almost no Wong Kar-Wai movies would count as "real films", not to mention many Coppola, Altman or Warren Beatty movies that went through continuous re-writes through production and in post-production. "Apocalypse Now" and "Reds" aren't real films???

And of course any Cassavetes movies wouldn't be real either.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so we're clear, the theatrical cut of Justice League in 2017 contains practically none of Zack's original footage. It's that simple. This, as if the trailer released yesterday wasn't clear enough, is a COMPLETELY different film.  

And Tyler, Zack lost his daughter just when he was working on his cut back in the day. Warner Bros was of course meddling in the process as they often do these days, and he couldn't stay on, he had no energy left for the fight as he put it, and then WB brought in hack/predator Joss Whedon for "minimal reshoots" is what they called it back then and ended up reshooting most of it and throwing away all that delicious footage. 

So this is Zack's original vision fully restored, no compromises, and it's unprecedented. AT&T & Warner Media wanted the film to happen, so they made it happen. 

Edited by Manu Delpech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
9 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

because he had fallen in love with the squarer IMAX native aspect ratio 

Ever notice the aspect ratios that were meant to provide a "bigger" experience are now providing a smaller one?  2:39 was meant to be a "wider" viewing experience in theaters.  You swapped to the scope lens, the curtains would open, and the screen would get physically wider.  Now they just letterbox it... even in a lot of chain theaters, but always on home viewing which is all we get now, so the 2:39 image is actually smaller than if you had just shot 16x9.

Lately IMAX movies shoot 1:33 for a much taller/bigger image in the theater than 1:85 or 16x9, but this movie isn't going to IMAX, it's going to HBO Max where it will be pillar-boxed to literally be the smallest aspect ratio we could possibly watch it in.   If I ever get to make a movie I think I'll shoot 4:3, then letterbox it to 2:39 so there'll be a small rectangle in the middle of your TV.  Then I'll recommend you watch it with binoculars for the full viewing experience.  🤓😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
1 hour ago, Justin Hayward said:

Ever notice the aspect ratios that were meant to provide a "bigger" experience are now providing a smaller one?  2:39 was meant to be a "wider" viewing experience in theaters.  You swapped to the scope lens, the curtains would open, and the screen would get physically wider.  Now they just letterbox it... even in a lot of chain theaters, but always on home viewing which is all we get now, so the 2:39 image is actually smaller than if you had just shot 16x9.

I think it's because a lot of newer theaters put in 1.9 : 1 screens to follow DCI specs for digital projection, and don't use curtains or borders to adjust the size of the screen. It's a shame -- 2.39 should be bigger than 1.85 horizontally, not shorter vertically.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
1 hour ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I think it's because a lot of newer theaters put in 1.9 : 1 screens to follow DCI specs for digital projection, and don't use curtains or borders to adjust the size of the screen. It's a shame -- 2.39 should be bigger than 1.85 horizontally, not shorter vertically.

I mean, that horse left the barn during the switchover to digital projection, no? That horse is probably a grandpa now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Freelance camera folk without small children like me (and probably lots of other people here). 😉

I'm sure if I made an effort I could pull that 4 hours off but it just gets to a point where you feel guilty.

Edited by Max Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
2 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I think it's because a lot of newer theaters put in 1.9 : 1 screens to follow DCI specs for digital projection, and don't use curtains or borders to adjust the size of the screen. It's a shame -- 2.39 should be bigger than 1.85 horizontally, not shorter vertically.

It wouldn't be so bad if they at least masked the letter-boxed area with something.  They don't even bother doing that anymore.  Just looks like a giant TV.  For my projector room I cut strips of foam core, painted them dark brown to match the walls and stick them to the letter-boxed area with clear velcro for 2.39 movies.  Much more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion.😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Max Field said:

I'm sure if I made an effort I could pull that 4 hours off but it just gets to a point where you feel guilty.

You’re in the film industry or affiliated, right? Watching content is research! You get a guilt rebate. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
27 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

You’re in the film industry or affiliated, right? Watching content is research! You get a guilt rebate. 

Blu-Rays, movie tickets, and streaming subscriptions are tax write-offs 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
7 hours ago, Malcolm Ian Vu said:

Terrence Malick has just dispatched Ninja Assassins to your location.

HAHAHAHAHAH, making totally unwatchable crap for decades. He's made TWO ok movies, neither one I would ever see again. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
10 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Not just that movie, by that measure, almost no Wong Kar-Wai movies would count as "real films", not to mention many Coppola, Altman or Warren Beatty movies that went through continuous re-writes through production and in post-production. "Apocalypse Now" and "Reds" aren't real films???

And of course any Cassavetes movies wouldn't be real either.

Apparently, ‘Gladiator’ started production without a finished script, and went thru the daily re-write process as well. It’s one thing to do that on a small contemporary drama with a few main actors and a few locations. But when you consider the logistics required on a huge studio period film shot on location with epic battles, stunts, costumes, extras, animals, and CG integration, it’s kind of amazing what they came out with. I can’t imagine the stress Ridley Scott must have all been under on that film.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...