- Post
- #1571668
- Topic
- Slipstream 1989 (WIP)
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1571668/action/topic#1571668
- Time
It’s my holy grail film, ever since it came out.
I still think that AR is wrong, I would love to know the source on itNot that IMDb doesn’t ever have wrong information, but they list it as 1.85:1
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098350/technical/?ref_=tt_spec_sm
When you start talking about aspect ratios, you get into a tangled web. You hear stuff like WELL, THE DIRECTOR INTENDED IT TO BE _______________. And it’ll be an old film and the director has passed away and can’t confirm that’s correct. It can sometime seem like idle gossip: WELL, I HEARD…
I read an article a few years back that talked about that.Invasion of the Aspect Ratios
https://www.chicagofilmsociety.org/2012/07/02/invasion-of-the-aspect-ratios/You really get into the artistic and aesthetic look of a movie seeing it in a wider scope. “Artistic vision”. When I watch a movie I want to immerse myself in that world. I want as much information about that world as I can get. That includes seeing as much of that world as possible. I run across a lot of old DVDs that have “open matte” versions of the films. Not pan and scan, but open matte. Yes, I understand that the director intended that image to be matted for presentation in theaters (or home theaters), but I can’t help it. Some might say, OPEN MATTE?! SACRILIDGE! Not me. I just want to see as much as I can see. For me, I feel sometimes like the director can ruin their own movie. Going back and changing things again and again and again. Yes, I’m talking to you, George Lucas. How many times are you going to change the sound that Obi Wan makes in New Hope to scare off the Sand People?
https://youtu.be/_O-Fdf2-8Z4?feature=shared
Anyway, I just thought I’d pipe in and share my thoughts. Yeah, I know - no one asked! 😃
If it has the same framing as the LD then the trailer is miles different in its framing