Article about inconsistent aspect ratios in Jurassic Park movies

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I agree with the article, more or less. Aspect ratio can be seen as arbitrary, but IMO, a series of movies has to have the same aspect ratio for each film.

https://filmschoolrejects.com/aspect-ratios-jurassic-park-franchise/

Going a bit further: Peter Weir said once that he did not like 2.35:1 because it was awkward for close-ups and some camera moves. I am inclined to agree. And if you want to project as big as possible, use the narrowest aspect ratio you can.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are other examples of movie series that have changed aspect ratios.

The first three Sean Connery James Bond films were 1.85 before they went with 2.39 anamorphic. Then the first two Roger Moore Bond movies went back to 1.85 before going back to 2.39 anamorphic.

"Aliens" was a 1.85 movie, the rest were all 2.39.

Sam Raimi's first "Spiderman" movie was 1.85, the rest were 2.39.

The first and third "Blade" movies were 2.39, the second one was 1.85.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Oh, and there's "Young Guns" (1.85) and "Young Guns II" (2.39)...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Traditional movie theaters generally projected 2.39 as wider than 1.85, so it was a bigger screen image. It's only recently where you have theaters with 1.85 or 1.9 screens and 2.39 movies are shorter, not wider.

And for every filmmaker who said that certain subject matter was better shot in one aspect ratio, there was someone who made a movie with a similar subject in the other aspect ratio. I remember the director of "Waterworld" saying that he shot 1.85 because a boat on the ocean is a vertical subject, but soon after that, Ridley Scott shot "White Squall" and "1492" on the ocean in 2.39.

And Peter Weir made a couple of 2.39 movies -- "Gallipoli" and "Master and Commander" (again, a sailing ship movie).

Certainly 2.39 is a more usual shape to compose within, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have certain creative advantages. Look at what Kurosawa and Leone and Lean did with that aspect ratio!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

And Marvel's "Avengers" movies switched from 1.85 to 2.39. And the "Captain America" movies too.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

And "The Terminator" was 1.85 and "Terminator 2" was 2.39. And "Highlander" was 1.85 and "Highlander 2" was 2.39. And "Lethal Weapon" was 1.85 and "Lethal Weapon 2" was 2.39.

 

[jordan levy]

yeah, i dont think it matters one bit, whatever is best in the directors and cinematographers opinion for each particular film.

 

[paulherrin]

i think that we're just squinting a little bit to focus on the emotions of the animals more clearly, including the human ones.

i wouldn't start judging fallen kingdom too much yet, but the aspects changing draws a distinction that world is a new beast, which was necessary mainly because the rex should have probably beat the spino on land (which would have messed up its plot), among other shortcomings of iii. i'm interested in jurassic vii+ where perhaps our eyes will widen again for imax presentation. i do think using the full screen is important for theatre viewing, but so is cutting it with smaller screens in mind, so it's a delicate balance...

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

The problem is that if you're projecting a cinemascope film really big, like on an IMAX screen, the sides will go almost outside your peripheral vision if the height is going to match 1.85. I say, just shoot IMAX from now on for big budget movies. You'll need fewer (if any) VFX and the audiences will love it.