Ant-Man (2015)

[Kevinicus]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

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?

Wouldn't the framing necessarily be different with a different aspect ratio?

Not to support his idea that the aspect ratio would influence the story (though I'm sure with some real creativity, it could), the aspect ratio can impact how the movie is portrayed/perceived. Of course, you hope the director chose the best one for whatever they were trying to convey to the viewer.

Personally, I prefer 2.35, because A: It feels more grand, and B: I have a 2.35 screen that I like to fill up. I would never forgo buying a movie based on the aspect ratio though (unless we're talking "Full Screen" crap from the DVD era).

[Gold Ranger]

[IMG]https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-zbfNPJXFb4w%2FVGoJTnTFzWI%2FAAAAAAAAAZI%2F2nvIo4x0 ghQ%2Fs1600%2Falexa65-size-comparison.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteM ime=image%2F*[/IMG]

[StingingVelvet]

I do prefer scope for movies by a wide margin, though I would never say 1.85 is "bad" or be turned off a movie because of it. Though The Avengers being filmed in literal TV ratio of 1.78 DID turn me right off, I need those thin bars or else it looks like the next episode of Agents of Shield.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I do prefer scope for movies by a wide margin, though I would never say 1.85 is "bad" or be turned off a movie because of it. Though The Avengers being filmed in literal TV ratio of 1.78 DID turn me right off, I need those thin bars or else it looks like the next episode of Agents of Shield.

I don't think it's that hard to tell the difference between a movie with a $220 million budget, and a TV show on ABC.

[motorheadache95]

I can't imagine being put off by a movie because it's in 1.85:1. It's like well, I'd love to watch The Godfather, or Aliens, or Goodfellas, or any Miyazaki film, or Taxi Driver, or The Avengers, or The Terminator, or any Stanley Kubrick movie, or the Back to the Future trilogy, or 90% of all comedies... but no thanks. They don't make black bars on my TV.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Sman

They chose 1:85:1 because they felt it would be best considering the size of their hero. I think if it was filmed in 2:35:1 it would take away from the scenes where Scott is shrunk. I'm sure if Marvel felt 2:35:1 was the best choice they would have used it since all of their other films excluding The Avengers (which was 1:78:1 due to the Battle of New York scenes) have it. I feel like the director knows what is best for his film so as long as the aspect ratio is approved by him, I could care less what it was filmed in.

Just for future reference.

Dear America... | David Mitchell's SoapBox - YouTube

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Seymour

I don't think it's that hard to tell the difference between a movie with a $220 million budget, and a TV show on ABC.

Filling the entire screen just makes me think TV show, for obvious reasons. If you have your TV properly setup than a 1.85 movie will have bars that make it feel more like a film. Avengers does not, which throws me off. Also Whedon wasn't exactly hitting the ball out of the park with shot design in that movie either, IMO. He did much better with Ultron though (which is also scope, yay!).

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Filling the entire screen just makes me think TV show, for obvious reasons. If you have your TV properly setup than a 1.85 movie will have bars that make it feel more like a film. Avengers does not, which throws me off. Also Whedon wasn't exactly hitting the ball out of the park with shot design in that movie either, IMO. He did much better with Ultron though (which is also scope, yay!).

He also used a POS iphone to shoot a scene in it...

So glad Joss is gone from Marvel!

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by Gold Ranger

He also used a POS iphone to shoot a scene in it...

So glad Joss is gone from Marvel!

Wrong.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...-iphone-252083

The Canon MkII was used for one shot (Captain America parkouring over an obstacle course of flipped over cars), but an iPhone was not used. They even call out that particular shot on the commentary track

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

Wrong.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...-iphone-252083

The Canon MkII was used for one shot (Captain America parkouring over an obstacle course of flipped over cars), but an iPhone was not used. They even call out that particular shot on the commentary track

Odd, because I remember in the run up to Theatrical Release Joss said that an iphone was used to capture a scene.
I'll see if I can find the article...

[Gold Ranger]

Here are a few articles:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/...he_avengers_em

http://gizmodo.com/5851829/the-aveng...220-million-go

http://www.shortlist.com/entertainme...shot-on-iphone

http://petapixel.com/2011/10/21/some...-the-iphone-4/

[Radioactive]

I'm assuming that we're not getting Walmart exclusive slipcovers since we didn't for The Avengers: Age of Ultron? They would have been cool, but I suppose the standard artwork is good for both, and this way my spines match... It's funny; the MCU cases seem to "transition" in design slowly so it's not jarring to browse through them on the shelf.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by Radioactive

I'm assuming that we're not getting Walmart exclusive slipcovers since we didn't for The Avengers: Age of Ultron? They would have been cool, but I suppose the standard artwork is good for both, and this way my spines match... It's funny; the MCU cases seem to "transition" in design slowly so it's not jarring to browse through them on the shelf.

After Yellowjacket no one else is eligible for an alternative cover.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

After Yellowjacket no one else is eligible for an alternative cover.

Hank Pym Ant-Man
Janet Van Dyne Wasp
YellowJacket
Scott Lang Ant-Man
Antony

That's 5 right there...

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by Gold Ranger

Hank Pym Ant-Man - Nick Fury
Janet Van Dyne Wasp - Black Widow
YellowJacket - Winter Soldier
Scott Lang Ant-Man - Captain America
Antony - ?????

That's 5 right there...

Janet/Wasp had how much screen time????

[Optimus-Prime-Rox]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Janet/Wasp had how much screen time????

A few seconds at the most.

[bell_packet]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

Janet/Wasp had how much screen time????

Yeah, she was only the one who taught Scott how to fight and actually get him to be able to use the ants.

[Optimus-Prime-Rox]

Originally Posted by bell_packet

Yeah, she was only the one who taught Scott how to fight and actually get him to be able to use the ants.

That was Hope.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by bell_packet

Yeah, she was only the one who taught Scott how to fight and actually get him to be able to use the ants.

Nope, Hope taught Scott.

[coulson96]

The full screen can work if it looks cinematic texture wise, lighting wise, composition and framing wise, grading wise and the information in the frame IE the mise en scene. For instance, Nolan's Interstellar is shot partially in IMAX which fills a regular TV, not at any time do i think that looks like a TV show, same with the two dark knight films, terminator, back to the future trilogy, heck even avengers has a cinematic texture with some selective focus and the framing and the shot style that differentiates it from TV. Ant Man is another one of these few examples, the grading is very cinematic and looks far apart from anything made for TV, it is shot exceptionally well and the cinematic texture looks sharp and precise but far more natural than any TV show. TV shows vary the cameras and do some bizarre shot types for effect and quality changes, just look at AOS season 1's finale in some places for examples of that. To be honest if a film is made well and cinematic, it should look fine in any aspect ratio. I have to say i liked the large frame for Ant Man, there was so much raw detail and information especially in the shrinking scenes that i fear a widescreen aspect ratio wouldn't have been able to capture as much as the shot sizes would be different. Thats just my two cents on the matter. In my opinion it is the decision of the cinematographer and the Director to decide the aspect ratio for THEIR film, and our duty as cinema goers to respect their wishes, if this is how they intended we see the film then there's a reason for that and we should respect their decision.