Quote:
Originally Posted by master gandhi
I don't care for the car analogy (a lot of people like choosing the color of their car, and people don't question a person for disliking a shade of blue), but I agree that the aspect ratio is not up to the viewer. I hated the separate widescreen/fullscreen DVDs back in the day. It was enabling viewers to alter the director's intended framing. After all, a good portion of movies out there are 1.85:1 as opposed to 2.35:1. I can certainly see someone preferring one aspect ratio over another, but to borderline boycott a movie for being in an aspect ratio that you dislike is unusual for a film lover. IMO, of course.
|
Yes, people like choosing the colour of their car and obviously people have a preference. And I am most certainly not questioning anyone for disliking a colour. However, in the grand scheme of things, the colour of the car doesn't really matter. It's how the car handles, how powerful it is, and the quality of the parts that make up that car that ultimately makes up the enjoyment factor of driving it. In my analogy, those factors are equated to the quality of the writing, directing, acting, staging, design, etc. Picking the aspect ratio of a film as a means of affecting a viewing experience negatively is like saying that all cars that are painted blue are terrible cars to drive.
But, regardless of that analogy, I know that we are on the same page here.
I just want
spencer777 to realize too that I'm not trying to feud or fight. I'm just trying to rationally determine how an aspect ratio can be the limiting factor for their journey through entertainment. Do you honestly believe that if
Ant-Man were filmed in 2.35:1 with the exact same framing and editing that it would be any better a film?
