Justice League 4K UHD (2017)

[SpoonySpoonerson]

One thing I've noticed is that the *ahem* leaked version of the movie appears to be in 1:85:1 aspect ratio instead of widescreen.

This far, no DCEU release has used this format. That said, none of the MCU releases had used that aspect ratio until The Avengers, with Joss Whedon preferring it over 21:9 widescreen.

Is it no coincidence that this DC movie finished by Joss Whedon could be also released in fullscreen format? I hope so, I want more Hollywood studios to release movies that take advantage of our huge TVs.

[Daz_85]

Justice League was shot by Zack Snyder in the 1.85:1 ratio from the start. He said he fell in love with the format when he shot the IMAX scenes for BvS.

[SpoonySpoonerson]

Oh really? That makes sense I guess, it's just an aspect ratio he's never used before.

Either way I'm happy, and am avoiding watching the leaked version as I wait for the 4K BluRay.

[Deric2014]

Originally Posted by Daz_85

Justice League was shot by Zack Snyder in the 1.85:1 ratio from the start. He said he fell in love with the format when he shot the IMAX scenes for BvS.

I actually wished he stuck with Widescreen so it can fit with MOS and BVS.

[Predatorix38417]

Originally Posted by Deric2014

I actually wished he stuck with Widescreen so it can fit with MOS and BVS.

Not only that but 1.85 gives it a cheap-ish TV look, like it's not theatrical. Looks great on a huge IMAX screen, but not anywhere else. BvS and MoS had some beautiful shots that I felt could only be achieved in 2.40. When I saw JL, they showed it on a screen masked for scope but because the film was flat there were two huge black bars on both sides like I was watching a pan and scan movie. They should've just expanded the ratio for IMAX but kept 2.40 for theatrical like Marvel often does.

Part of the reason why I think the CGI in Avengers 1 has not aged that well overtime is because that was also 1.85. Ant-Man's an exception though, but the aspect ratio makes sense there to fit the size and scale of the character, and because it's more grounded than other MCU movies.

[pjvader]

I was lucky enough to be on set for a scene in justice league and the monitors were all safe framed for 2:35:1 too, so in theory (but it would go against the directors vision!) you could crop it/blank it and still be ok (potentially)

[testmon112]

I've never understood that criticism of 1.85 or AR 16:9 not looking theatrical. A good DP and Directors vision can make any aspect ratio aesthetically pleasing.



Most of Netflix tentpole series are in 2:1 even GOT (which has some very good cinematography) is shot in 1.78 closer to 16:9.



I noted this in the BR 2049 thread, is one of the reason that JL looks fake is because a lot of the sets are covered in green/grey screen without any significant imagination attached to the production design. There are literal shots with characters looking like they've been swallowed into the background without any separation between the subject and the background and it gives off a weird effect.

It's weird because some of the on location sets I liked but the world-building was absent here. I understand the demands of the type of material but they could have at least been a bit more more creative with the sets in JL. Even with Whedon on board late in the game it felt rushed.

[Deric2014]

Originally Posted by Predatorix38417

Not only that but 1.85 gives it a cheap-ish TV look, like it's not theatrical. Looks great on a huge IMAX screen, but not anywhere else. BvS and MoS had some beautiful shots that I felt could only be achieved in 2.40. When I saw JL, they showed it on a screen masked for scope but because the film was flat there were two huge black bars on both sides like I was watching a pan and scan movie. They should've just expanded the ratio for IMAX but kept 2.40 for theatrical like Marvel often does.

Part of the reason why I think the CGI in Avengers 1 has not aged that well overtime is because that was also 1.85. Ant-Man's an exception though, but the aspect ratio makes sense there to fit the size and scale of the character, and because it's more grounded than other MCU movies.

Exactly Spider-Man 2002 looks very dated as well and that film was 1.85:1 but the sequels still hold up very well and those were 2.40:1 but I'm just saying Justice League isn't going to hold up in a couple of years.

[EbonDragon]

I’ve never heard aspect ratio being capable of “dating” CGI. Is this an actual potential problem?

[Deric2014]

Originally Posted by EbonDragon

I’ve never heard aspect ratio being capable of “dating” CGI. Is this an actual potential problem?

It depends Spider-Man 2002 and Avengers 2012 are good examples I think Justice League will join the list a few years from now.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by Deric2014

Exactly Spider-Man 2002 looks very dated as well and that film was 1.85:1 but the sequels still hold up very well and those were 2.40:1 but I'm just saying Justice League isn't going to hold up in a couple of years.

Maybe they look more dated cause they are older, and were made more cheaply than their successors.

Jurrassic Park is 1:85... still looks pretty good to me.

I personally like it when a picture fills up my screen. That's why I bought a big screen. I'll take an IMAX scene any day of the week. Looks magnificent. Wish we had more.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

Maybe they look more dated cause they are older, and were made more cheaply than their successors.

Jurrassic Park is 1:85... still looks pretty good to me.

I personally like it when a picture fills up my screen. That's why I bought a big screen. I'll take an IMAX scene any day of the week. Looks magnificent. Wish we had more.

Jurassic Park was shot with that aspect ratio in mind because Spielberg wanted to emphasize height which 2.35 or wider would negate

[Predatorix38417]

Originally Posted by EbonDragon

I’ve never heard aspect ratio being capable of “dating” CGI. Is this an actual potential problem?

I believe so, because shots in a 1.85 movie will always have a TV-quality look to it. Shows like Game of Thrones, also in the same aspect ratio, look better than a lot of these now dated movies. I mean when a TV shows CGI looks better than a movies there is a problem. You watch Avengers 1 and Hulk's CGI doesn't look as impressive as it does now, or the battle of New York has so much obvious green screen it's distracting watching it on a TV screen. JL is gonna have that same problem too, maybe even worse since that movie didn't have good CGI to begin with. Spider-Man 1 just looks flimsy and looks like a TNT show now. But you watch Spider-Man 3 and there's some very impressive CGI scenes that have held up over the last decade, the Sandman scene in particular still looks great. Age of Ultron has much more scope and depth than Avengers 1 in terms of the framing. There are exceptions like Ant-Man, Jurassic Park, and Pacific Rim cause in those films you have to deal with characters and creatures of various sizes, so the framing makes more sense there. Jurassic World's decision to go 2.00 was great, perfect balance between 2.35 and 1.85, and if Snyder was so obsessed with IMAX he should've went for that ratio, which would've been a win-win. Or Dunkirk in 2.20, also great. But 1.85 is not the way to go for CGI-heavy movies just cause you want to go for an IMAX effect.

[Geoff D]

[EbonDragon]

It sounds like it’s a CGI problem then, cause Blade Runner 2049 in IMAX has the same framing and the CG looked fantastic. Now if we’re talking composition, I agree on Avengers, it looks like a TV movie but that has more to do with whoever lensed it and the way they composed their shots.

[Anty1080p]

Originally Posted by Predatorix38417

Because shots in a 1.85 movie will always have a TV-quality look to it.

1.78 / 1.85 don't not look cinematic it's just that scope/2.40 has been nailed into our heads and so NOT 2.40 content doesn't feel like a movie. It's purely subconscious.

[zodwriter]

http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/01/09/j...t-double-says/ Just sayin!

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by zodwriter

http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/01/09/j...t-double-says/ Just sayin!

The article points out that this person “apparently” said that and it’s just another development in the “he said, she said” drama and this should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s not proof or evidence at all. It’s just another development in the drama. If you take this as proof the Snyder cut exists then you just have a confirmation bias.

[meatball_84]

Here is an interesting question. If WB offered to finish Zack Snyders version, but would do so through crown funding, would you contribute. And if so, how much would you really pay?

[Indy64]

Originally Posted by meatball_84

Here is an interesting question. If WB offered to finish Zack Snyders version, but would do so through crown funding, would you contribute. And if so, how much would you really pay?

Nope. Can't polish a turd.