Zack Snyder's Justice League

[pipefan413]

Exactly, most people will hate having black pilars left and right in the 16/9 TV era. General audience don't even understand squat about aspect ratios. That's why "IMAX" presentations (Nolan's for instance) are full 16/9 on home video. Having both would be ideal.

To be fair to The Plebs, most people won't be watching The Dark Knight on a floor-to-ceiling projected image, they'll be watching it on a telly. So when it cuts from IMAX ratio to a smaller 2.39:1 image with the same width as it did in the cinema, that footage (which is most of the film) will look tiny in the middle of the screen, same as the theatrical cuts of the Star Wars trilogy did on those shitty 2006 LaserDisc-to-DVD transfers. And switching from pillarboxed to letterboxed and filling the width instead is not accurate to the theatrical presentation. Just using the extra height of 1.78:1 is arguably preferable for that reason. Personally, I'd probably prefer they just did the former, because I actually do have a massive image projected onto my wall and it would still look pretty good even if only a smaller portion of that screen real estate was used.

If on the other hand the entire film is framed in a boxier ratio from start to finish, like this seems to be, then that's a different matter entirely.

[PDB]

I'm kind of enamored of the recent return of the 4:3/Academy aspect ratio. It does evoke a certain sense of nostalgia does it not? If not the good old VHS days or maybe for the movies of the 30s and 40s. At least, that's the feeling I get when I see 4:3 in a bunch of indies like Ghost Story, Meek's cutoff, Grand Budapest Hotel and First Cow.

I know this is a different beast since it's Imax and a "big budget film" but still kind of cool and different to see.

[pipefan413]

I'm kind of enamored of the recent return of the 4:3/Academy aspect ratio. It does evoke a certain sense of nostalgia does it not? IF not the good old VHS days maybe for the movies of the 30s and 40s. At least, that's the feeling I get when I see 4:3 in a bunch of indies like Ghost story, Meek's cutoff, Grand Budapest Hotel and First Cow.

I know this is a different beast since it's Imax and a "big budget film" but still kind of cool and different to see.

Oh absolutely aye, I'm all for it! I just got grumpy about equating IMAX with "a big f-ing square". That's not all IMAX was to begin with, it was also about fidelity, and it's rather lost that to some extent in the digital realm (to varying degrees of course, I know some better digital IMAX theatres will use dual high res projectors, but some are still on pretty low res gear). But I'm genuinely impressed that they appear to be going for an open matte style presentation.

It's funny how quickly something simple like aspect ratio can affect the feel of a film. It's one of those things that I think was probably communicating something to me before I was fully conscious of specifically what was going on when I was younger and hadn't quite cottoned onto which aspect ratios were used and why. You know how you often get a feeling for something but can't quite put your finger on it? That. Nowadays, I'm much more conscious of it and am always interested to see what was chosen and think about why that might be. Like, a narrower frame is really good for claustrophobia (THE LIGHTHOUSE), but the increased relative height (especially with the screen size of IMAX) is also excellent for imbuing a film with a sense of wonder that you don't really get with super-wide formats like 2.39:1... but 2.39:1 and similar are brilliant for showing big epic environmental shots and a great big anamorphic lens gives a sense of "hyper-realism" you might not get from a flat presentation.

[deleted user]

Well I just saw a screenshot of Zack saying it will only be 1,66:1 after all. Sad, I was really looking forward to 4:3.

[tjmackey]

damn you snyder! NO!!!!

[Kynch]

Well I just saw a screenshot of Zack saying it will only be 1,66:1 after all. Sad, I was really looking forward to 4:3.

Source?

Could this be studio pressure?

[spoRv]

Well I just saw a screenshot of Zack saying it will only be 1,66:1 after all. Sad, I was really looking forward to 4:3.

Source?

Could this be studio pressure?

https://collider.com/snyder-cut-trailer/

[deleted user]

Well I just saw a screenshot of Zack saying it will only be 1,66:1 after all. Sad, I was really looking forward to 4:3.

Source?

Could this be studio pressure?

Originally saw it on 4chan, but seems like this could be the original screenshot:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/co...rs_on_the/ (short rant: Why do websites have to name their files .jpg but it's actually a .webp and I have to rename it?)



Impossible for me to verify as I don't wanna install VERO on my smartphone to check. I did see other screenshots of the same post though, but with different context, so I think it's real.

This might have been *before* the trailer release though. So I'm kinda praying that he just made a little mistake and confused 1.66:1 with 4:3.

[tjmackey]

strange... that collider link seems like it made an error by watching the snydercut trailer and saying "as you can see, this is in a STRAAAANGE 1.66 aspect ratio!"

But if that image of snyder's response is real (and I also assume it is), it's strange for him to say it's gonna be 1.66, but present the trailer as something else

and if it's an error on Snyder's part, it seems like an odd one for someone in his position to make

[interaser]

Does it really matter what aspect ratio it will be, how long will it be, how will it be released?

We're getting the Zack's Snyder Justice League with no compromise or studio interference.

I can't ask for more.