"In A Violent Nature" - trailer...

[MinionZombie]

The basic pitch is that it's like if Friday the 13th (two onwards) was from Jason's perspective, with gritty indie movie style. Looks cool. I'll definitely give it a go.

[shootemindehead]

What is it with all the 4:3 movies these days. Instant put off for me.

[MinionZombie]

What is it with all the 4:3 movies these days. Instant put off for me. There's a lot of them? Hmmm... Maybe I'm not seeing them, then. Obviously Justice League: Snyder Cut (although I don't see why it needed to be 4x3, tbh) ... and then I recall The Lighthouse, but 4x3 really worked for that movie combined with the B&W.

[shootemindehead]

There's a lot of them? Hmmm... Maybe I'm not seeing them, then. Obviously Justice League: Snyder Cut (although I don't see why it needed to be 4x3, tbh) ... and then I recall The Lighthouse, but 4x3 really worked for that movie combined with the B&W. There's a number out there ('American Honey', parts of 'Grand Budapest Hotel', 'A Ghost Story', 'First Reformed', 'Meeks Cutoff', etc) and the only one I've seen in recent years where it (relatively) worked, but was still completely redundant, was in Egger's film. Even so, that film would have lost absolutely nothing if it was shot in 1.85:1. In fact, I'm thinking of throwing it through Premier and pan and scanning it to 16:9 for shits and giggles . For my sins I've seen 'Justice League' in both 4:3 and 16:9 and it made no bloody difference, other than being extremely annoying to watch in 4:3 on my TV. No shot screamed out to me that it would have looked more pleasing in a boxed ratio. The excuses and pretentious twatery you constantly hear about director's using a ratio like 1.33:1 is that it's good for close ups. Well, big fucking deal. And in any case, close ups in 1.85:1 are just as good. Jesus, Leone got great close up's in the 60's and he shot in 2.35:1. In fact, his ugly close ups in his spaghetti's are famous. In any case a slasher like the film under discussion never needs to be shot in such a restrictive ratio. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with a lot of films that were shot in 1.33:1, in the past, and a good 20 to 25 percent of what I'd watch (or even own) would be in that ratio. I look at a lot of films made between the 30's and 50's, which were nearly all shot in a narrower frame. But that's because they HAD to be, as cinemas were mostly designed to show films that were shot open matte. 35mm is a square. But the equipment we watch pictures on these days are not square, neither in cinemas or at home, so things just become irritating when modern directors shoot their movies in 4:3, especially when the reality is is that it adds nothing to the over all film.

[MinionZombie]

I will say in defence of The Lighthouse being in 4x3, it does allow for the wider shots to also appear claustrophobic, which plays in nicely with how the story unfolds. You'd lose that even in 1.85:1. It's a fair choice to make as an artist. Compare it with QT using 70mm widescreen for interiors in The Hateful Eight. It's a very different visual experience, but works in its own way for that particular story and that way of telling the story. But you couldn't swap those approaches around between THE and TL and do full and appropriate justice to those respective stories and intended tones. I think the changing of aspect ratios works well with The Grand Budapest Hotel, helping to identify certain time periods. Aspect ratio should not just be pure function, but also a tool in the filmmaker's array of methods, to be used where it'd work. There's no good reason for Justice League to be in 4x3, though. That's just wanky.

[shootemindehead]

I will say in defence of The Lighthouse being in 4x3, it does allow for the wider shots to also appear claustrophobic, which plays in nicely with how the story unfolds. You'd lose that even in 1.85:1. Would you though? I dunno. I reckon claustrophobic can be done on 1.85:1 just as well. I'm not sure that anything would really be "lost" in any actual way. You could shoot that in the wider AP and the result would still be the same? But YMMV. It's a fair choice to make as an artist. Perhaps. But I feel that these days it's chosen more for the "kewl" factor rather than for practical or meritorious reasons. But YMMV. I think the changing of aspect ratios works well with The Grand Budapest Hotel, helping to identify certain time periods. Aspect ratio should not just be pure function, but also a tool in the filmmaker's array of methods, to be used where it'd work. Maybe, and I might have been over egging the pudding there, but I still very much dislike the shifting aspect ratio in that film, even though I very much like the picture. In fact, after 'The Royal Tenenbaums', I consider it Wes Anderson's best film. Still though, pick a bloody aspect ratio. Nolan drives me up the wall with that nonsense too. There's no good reason for Justice League to be in 4x3, though. That's just wanky. Agreed.

[MinionZombie]

So you're not a fan of IMAX sequences being shown in larger ratios on, say, home video? I just re-watched MI:Fallout last night and the helicopter sequence, for instance, absolutely needs that larger frame IMHO.

[shootemindehead]

So you're not a fan of IMAX sequences being shown in larger ratios on, say, home video? No, I'm not. Never saw any legit reason to be switching aspect ratios. In saying that, at home you won't notice the difference all that much when a shift happens between 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 on the tele. But when the likes of Nolan does his IMAX nonsense, I'm always like "why?". It adds nothing really. The shifting AP on 'Dunkirk', for example, made absolutely no difference to the film whatsoever. I just re-watched MI:Fallout last night and the helicopter sequence, for instance, absolutely needs that larger frame IMHO. Never seen it. Saw the first Mission Impossible in the cinema 65 million years ago and never bothered with another one.

[MinionZombie]

Never seen it. Saw the first Mission Impossible in the cinema 65 million years ago and never bothered with another one. Your loss, then. And you definitely still can tell the difference, even on one's home TV. It's not going to have the same impact, but there's certainly a difference. Particularly in the MI films of late where they've really been using a lot of that stuff for the bit spectacle sequences, you most definitely need that more expanded frame in order to capture the shots in such a way that they're right in amongst the action but they also capture enough of the surrounding context to fully sell it. I think the MI films use it in a way that's more effective than what Nolan does, albeit I've never seen a Nolan film (or any other) in IMAX - but at least in terms of home viewing, there's not much of a difference at home for Nolan, but there is for the recent MI films.