Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Aspect ratio's in Bond films
DarthDimi
Behind you!Moderator
My favourite AR for films that offer wide vista's and breathtaking sceneries lies between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1. However, there are films that benefit from a different AR. Jurassic Park, for example, was shot in 1.85:1 so that the dinosaurs looked bigger. Now, as we are aware, DN and a couple of other Bonds were shot in AR's such as 1.37:1 and 1.66:1.
How do you feel about AR's for the Bonds that aren't around 2.40:1? Would you like to see one of those again?
How do you feel about AR's for the Bonds that aren't around 2.40:1? Would you like to see one of those again?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
A great piece of audio commentary appears on the TND special edition DVD during the stealth boat takedown. Spottiswoode debates this very subject with Dan Petrie Jr. Very interesting little chat for those who love this technical angle to things.
I hope I've responded to this in the right vain Darth? Was this what you were lookin for?
James Bond, I think, needs to stay at 2.35:1 or greater. An aspect ratio in that range captures the essence of locations and action sequences perfectly. I also think the cinematography benefits from having a larger aspect ratio and Bond films should be a little 'show-boaty' when it comes to what is visually presented.
I´m a sucker for wide ratios. Those Bond films that were shot in smaller ratios were framed with the ratio in mind I guess, so I´m not entirely sure if it would make sense to show them in something like 2.35:1, otherwise I would like or prefer to see them in that ratio.
I am all for a widescreen format, it brings back memories of some glorious film experiences in the past. Widescreen is so great for vast outdoor scenery, as in Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur, North By Northwest or many great Westerns.
Then, when the action is cramped, like the staircase fight in CR, I think benefits from a smaller shoulder width. Of course you can't change aspects ratios in the middle of a film, but you can use camera angles to box in a scene.
That said, IMDB lists FRWL's AR as 1.33:1. Is this correct? I would have assumed it to be between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1... :-?
I will always remember the trailer for the Sean Connery collection in widescreen in 1993...during the promo the 4:3 presentation shrank to the middle of the screen and then the edges tore away to reveal the rest of the picture... I was floored!!!! Happy days they were. (yoda seems to have chipped in there lol)
The ghost of Stanley Kubrick may not agree with you, sir. ;;) And neither do I for that matter. You see, when for example a horror film takes place in confined spaces and we need many close-ups of the characters in order to read their thoughts and emotions, 1.85:1 works too IMO. Except when Carpenter did Halloween. He works the magic with 2.35:1!
Are widescreen films today shot all on 2.35.1? Or are they actually shot on 2.39.1?
It seems to be a mixture of both, with most 2.39 films just saying they are 2.35 just for conventions sake. Is this right?
I'm sorry, @Pierce2Daniel, I don't quite know. I hope someone with a deeper knowledge of this will answer your question.
Have you been talking to my girlfriend, @retrokitty? ;-)
Just joined this forum to comment on this thread. :)
First of all, let me help by answering Pierce2Daniel's 2.39 vs. 2.35 question. Movies have never been filmed at 2.35:1 aspect ratio, it has always been 2.39:1.
2.35:1 is a technical term (used for the film stock, I believe) used by film operators, and now on DVDs showing the full image. With soundtracks added there's only room for approximately 2.39:1.
Today the term 2.35:1 is used less and less, simply because it refers to the type of film or the mechanics of the process (still, not entirely sure), since most films are recorded digitally (and still at aspect 2.39:1).
Hope that answers your question. For FRWL, the correct VIEWING aspect ratio is 1.66:1. The 1.37:1 aspect ratio refers to the original film stock - the entire image, including parts that were never intended to be viewed on the screen. That's why the 1.66:1 on the DVDs is exactly as it should be.
On that note, let me comment on what I think about aspect ratios: I think it's a shame that we've moved so far away from 1.66:1. Disney used it for their animated features in the 90's, but otherwise it's a pretty dead format. I find the compositions beautiful, and aesthetically for more pleasing than the new 1.77 aspect ratio, which is being utilised for digital television. That said, I agree with many of the above, that the modern Bond is well suited to a 2.39:1 aspect ratio.
I just wanted to point out the lost aesthetics of less-than-widescreen presentations. It does indeed provide something different.
The reason I actually joined this forum, was to ask about changing aspect ratios of all the 2.35:1 Bond movies until Die Another Day, in which the aspect ratio changes to something near 2.21:1 in the title sequences and end credits. This happens on all the Ultimate Edition DVDs. I was wondering: Does this prevail on the Blu-Ray discs (of which I have still to own a single one) and does anyone remember if this was how any of these movies were presented theatrically?
Tenet would like a word with you hahaha
I do appreciate when blockbusters like THE AVENGERS go for a 1:85:1 ratio than the typical 2:39:1. Hell, I don't care for Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE, but good on him for putting out a film with a 1:33:1 AR. I wouldn't be against seeing a future Bond film on a taller aspect ratio like 1:66:1, after all, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is my #1 Bond film, and I don't see how a wide AR would make the film any better.
But yeah, I've come to appreciate 1:85:1 a lot more in recent years because it's so rarely used in blockbusters. Hitchcock never went any wider with his films, because he already figured back then that 1:85 was the perfect AR because it's neither too narrow or too wide. It's got the right balance.
I can’t remember what happed with LALD; why did that switch back to the narrower format? Always seems an odd choice. Roger even had to do a new gunbarrel when the screen got wider again!
As for the Bonds, I find the 2:35:1 films oozing more of those "cinematic" flavors. I used to not really care, though, since in the '90s, VHS tapes were 1:33:1, and our TV screens naturally too. But once the switch to widescreen TVs was made, and DVDs used the actual aspect ratio (or the closest thing to that), I discovered more Bond than ever before. ;-) Films like YOLT, MR, TLD, ... benefit spectacularly well from their 2:35:1 aspect ratios. Wouldn't want them any other way. As for LALD, well, the aspect ratio doesn't bother me. It makes the film feel "more confined", more "indoors" so to speak, but that it probably in keeping with the tone that Hamilton and others were going for anyway. A "smaller" film, literally and figuratively.
That said, if the next Bond film is deliberately shot in, say, 1:85:1, and all the framing of the shots and such is tailored to that ratio, then of course I'm game. I'll happily leave it to the artist to decide on the canvas he wants to paint on.
It will be interesting to see how NTTD approaches it, will it be Nolan i.e. constant changing between ratios, or will it be on a scene by scene basis a la Fallout. Hoping for the latter.
That's interesting: I never spotted that. So the TV version is a version we can't buy.
Did it swap between formats? I can't remember how Skyfall worked- I only saw it in IMAX once.
There was no aspect ratio swapping for Skyfall, it was opened up for the entirety of the film. A decision made after they started shooting it, Deakins photography was so framed to allow this without further adjustment.
That is interesting, thanks. I wonder why we've never had much in the way of a movement to see this again.
Probably because the filmmakers prefer the wider presentation. The most recent Marvel film SHANG CHI was done just like this too, but that’s likely going to only be presented in home media at 2.39:1. The taller aspect ratio I think is just a bonus for movies like these.
The only times we see the IMAX format on home media is when filmmakers like Christopher Nolan prefer it. Zack Snyder recently did that with the recent reissue of BATMAN v SUPERMAN featuring scenes in the taller aspect ratio.