Jump to content

New “Justice League” 4:3???


Recommended Posts

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 audienceIt 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 by Tyler Purcell
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 audienceIt 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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


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
  • Like 1
Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...