Sustaining Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 16 Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said: Um, so what is the difference, then? "An art film is typically a serious, independent film, aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience. It is "intended to be a serious, artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal, made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit, and contains "unconventional or highly symbolic content". A normal film is something to make money with, for a mass audience. Edited February 16 by Tyler Purcell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Satsuki Murashige Posted February 16 Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said: "An art film is typically a serious, independent film, aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience. It is "intended to be a serious, artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal, made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit, and contains "unconventional or highly symbolic content". A normal film is something to make money with, for a mass audience. ‘Art’ or otherwise, still ‘a film’ though, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 16 Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 9 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said: Art’ or otherwise, still ‘a film’ though, surely? Eh, meh, maybe? I mean I don't consider "entertainment" to be "art". Tho, there are instances where "art" can be "entertaining". My point, if it wasn't clear enough, is that big blockbuster popcorn fodder "films", are made an entirely different way, for a different audience than artistic poetry visual media. So when I hear of big Hollywood films, having dramatically different cuts, I always say to myself; "what was the filmmaker thinking". They are so precise, storyboarded to death, prepared for months, sometimes years, they get to set and they literally shot what's on the page. Editing comes down to pacing, rather than complete re-tools of the original product. In the case of Justice League, it's well published what happened. But when you look at other films like "Rogue One", which was a finished film before they started reshooting what, 40% of it? I mean that sorta shit just sucks and it ruins what could have been. Everyone cuts down product for pacing and time. But not everyone has another full feature worth of content sitting around. Unless of course it's an ad-lib comedy like "Anchorman", which they shot enough material for, to make 2 released films, one direct to DVD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Satsuki Murashige Posted February 16 Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 26 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said: Eh, meh, maybe? I mean I don't consider "entertainment" to be "art". Tho, there are instances where "art" can be "entertaining". My point, if it wasn't clear enough, is that big blockbuster popcorn fodder "films", are made an entirely different way, for a different audience than artistic poetry visual media. I think this is a gross generalization, and an oddly polarized point of view. From my perspective, most films fall somewhere in the middle of your two ideals; very few filmmakers go into a project with a complete disregard for what the audience may think, and similarly very few go in without any intention of self-expression. At least for me, whether I’m shooting a toothpaste commercial or a self-financed passion project, I’m thinking of both things to some degree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Tyler Purcell Posted February 16 Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Satsuki Murashige said: From my perspective, most films fall somewhere in the middle of your two ideals; very few filmmakers go into a project with a complete disregard for what the audience may think, and similarly very few go in without any intention of self-expression. I don't think that's what I was inferring. I was simply referring to the different processes in making "art" vs making a common "film". I think you understand there is a pretty substantial difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 14 hours 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. 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. 🤓😁 It might get an IMAX limited run, Zack has posted images of it being shown in IMAX where it of course looks massive and it's been teased. It's his choice, that's it. I would have chosen 1.66 or 1.85 for home video but he knows what he's doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Satsuki Murashige Posted February 16 Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said: I don't think that's what I was inferring. I was simply referring to the different processes in making "art" vs making a common "film". I think you understand there is a pretty substantial difference. I think you are conflating budget and studio financing with directorial style. One thing does not necessarily correlate with the other. Some directors like to have a tight script and storyboard every shot before going into production. Are they always ‘entertainment’ directors? No. Others like to improvise as much as possible and don’t like to stick to the shooting script (if there even is one). Are they always ‘art’ directors? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Regarding 4 hour films "Lawrence of Arabia" is a near as makes no difference at 3hours 48 minutes. There are films which are longer than four hours: https://screenrant.com/best-movies-over-four-hours-ranked-imdb/ I gather the longest film ever made is a Swedish film "Logistics" which lasts 35 days and 17 hours, which sounds more like an art installation. The discussion seems to moving into movies v films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Stephen Perera Posted February 18 Sustaining Member Share Posted February 18 tech specs: Aspect Ratio 1.37 : 1 Camera Arricam LT, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Arricam ST, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Arriflex 235, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Arriflex 435, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219) Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (Master Format) Super 35 (source format) Printed Film Format 35 mm (Kodak) DCP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Justin Hayward Posted March 20 Author Sustaining Member Share Posted March 20 (edited) I’m watching this movie right now and I would be really impressed by anyone that could give me a good artistic purpose why this movie is pillar boxed to 4:3 for any other reason than being noticeably different. Edit: I feel like whole performances from actors were pillar boxed out of this movie.😊 Edited March 20 by Justin Hayward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Satsuki Murashige Posted March 20 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 20 14 hours ago, Justin Hayward said: I’m watching this movie right now But...why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Justin Hayward Posted March 20 Author Sustaining Member Share Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said: But...why? 😂😂😂. Yeah and I watched the original version before it. The filmmaker in me had to compare the directing choices. I couldn’t help myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Satsuki Murashige Posted March 20 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 20 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Justin Hayward said: 😂😂😂. Yeah and I watched the original version before it. The filmmaker in me had to compare the directing choices. I couldn’t help myself. I think this is the cinematic equivalent of eating a large bag of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos in one sitting. You know you’re gonna pay for it later...😁 *Yeah, I have no personal experience with that. No experience. None. Don’t quote me on that. {munch, munch, munch, crinkle} Edited March 20 by Satsuki Murashige * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Justin Hayward Posted March 21 Author Sustaining Member Share Posted March 21 (edited) I want to see a movie shot in 2.40:1 aspect ratio with anamorphic lenses that’s cropped to 4:3 in post and the only camera moves in the whole movie are pan and scan. edit: for artistic purposes Edited March 21 by Justin Hayward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) The film's amazing. Very pleasantly surprised to see many casual fans and non fans actually loving it too. Obviously, this is a completely different film, it's also broken down into chapters, so you can easily pause at one point and come back to it later but most people who don't plan to watch it in one full sitting end up watching it entirely. The 4 hours fly by. WB look like fools right now for butchering it in 2016. The 1.37 ratio works beautifully. I wasn't sure about it but yeah, it just works. Fabian Wagner's work is superb, Zack's eye remains one of the best out there. By the way, a little fun fact: the final two scenes were shot by Zack himself during additional photography. The first one he shot using his Red Monstro (which he used for Army of The Dead) and supposedly the Canon Dream Lens that has insane flares and shallow DOF (used on AOTD once again). He did a great job matching it to the 35mm film for the film itself. Edited March 21 by Manu Delpech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 21 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Manu Delpech said: He did a great job matching it to the 35mm film for the film itself. On my TV it looked like it was mostly computer generated outside of the dozen dialog scenes. Hard to judge which "camera" it was shot with. Of course, I didn't like it at all. I don't see what all the fuss is about honestly, same old tropes we've seen over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Satsuki Murashige Posted March 21 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 21 On 3/19/2021 at 7:45 PM, Justin Hayward said: I would be really impressed by anyone that could give me a good artistic purpose why this movie is pillar boxed to 4:3 Two thoughts come to mind, both technical. 1. If the film was shot in 4-perf 35mm, and they protected the whole 1.33:1 negative, then maybe Mr. Snyder just wanted to show the full frame for some scenes? So not really pillarboxing but rather removing the letterbox, so to speak. 2. There may have been a lot of VFX shots in the original aspect ratio that they didn’t re-render from the first release, so to fit with the new aspect ratio they needed to pillarbox those shots to match the new aspect ratio? No idea about the artistic justifications, as that would require actually watching both versions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 21 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Satsuki Murashige said: 1. If the film was shot in 4-perf 35mm, and they protected the whole 1.33:1 negative, then maybe Mr. Snyder just wanted to show the full frame for some scenes? So not really pillarboxing but rather removing the letterbox, so to speak. Hey did you notice something odd about the framing? I noticed that sometimes, the framing was clearly protecting the top and bottom, but sometimes it was clearly cropped in too much to cover a 1.85:1 matte. It makes me wonder, do you know if they shot it on 4 perf? I wonder if they shot 3 perf and simply protected the 1.33:1 "TV" frame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Satsuki Murashige Posted March 22 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 22 5 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Hey did you notice something odd about the framing? As stated before, that would actually require me to watch the film! As there is no chance of that ever happening, I will leave that to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 36 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said: As stated before, that would actually require me to watch the film! As there is no chance of that ever happening, I will leave that to others. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but all in all, he has a hit. It is worth it to watch even for research sake. I cared about the heroes stories, not so much the about villains. Everyone's concern about aspect ratio and length didn't really matter. You forget about those thingst pretty quick. I was engaged throughout. Of course the chapters help. Streaming is a great venue for it. Too bad there won't be a sequel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 I did watch it in two sessions only because I was interrupted. I easily could have finished in one go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristan Noelle Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 https://www.vulture.com/2021/03/zack-snyder-explains-justice-leagues-first-cow-connection.html I think the likely answer to why 4:3 is because Zack Snyder had just watched “First Cow” by Kelly Reichardt (an “Art Film”, incidentally) and thought “dude, my film is art too”. BTW, check out “First Cow”, it’s a delightful anti-western. Highly recommend. Has Fabian Wagner commented on the change? Tristan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 22 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 22 4 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said: As stated before, that would actually require me to watch the film! As there is no chance of that ever happening, I will leave that to others. Oh I'm sorry, I thought you had watched it, my bad! Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravi Kiran Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 21 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: It makes me wonder, do you know if they shot it on 4 perf? I wonder if they shot 3 perf and simply protected the 1.33:1 "TV" frame? https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/fabian-wagner-bsc-asc-justice-league/ Quote The production was shot 4-perf, framed in 1.85:1 aspect ratio, as Snyder wanted to get away from the Anamorphic look of the previous films – a choice that Wagner embraced, as he explains, “I was a little concerned as to how we would get half a dozen superheroes on screen in the same frame, but having scrutinised the storyboarded scenes with Zack, 1.85:1 was a perfect fit with the way the characters are visualised.” I'm assuming that the IMAX version would have been opened up to 1.43:1. Maybe they did some reframing here and there for home viewing. Edited March 22 by Ravi Kiran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sustaining Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 22 Sustaining Member Share Posted March 22 9 minutes ago, Ravi Kiran said: I'm assuming that the IMAX version would have been opened up to 1.43:1. Maybe they did some reframing here and there for home viewing. Yea but digital IMAX screens aren't inherently 1.43:1 (the native aspect ratio of 15 perf), but now a days they're mostly 1.9:1 making them more matted than 1.85:1. So the theory that it was for an IMAX release, kinda makes no sense. Also... why not shoot 3 perf if that were the case. You save a bunch of money and get more time on each roll. It kinda seems like such a waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.