this is a tv format, that's what i found out! so 2:35:1 sounds a little strange, 1:85:1 makes mores sense, if i recall correct i only have seen this flick 1:33:1, so i guess this is the right format, since it never felt that anything was cut off, at any side! does anyone know for sure, please no wisecracking or far fetched ideas! i really need to know! knowledge would be most appreciated! thanks in advance!
share[deleted]
[deleted]
According to the director, the film was originally shot with a theatrical release in mind. It ended up going direct-to-video. The original aspect ratio was 2.35;1.
shareAccording to the "technical specs" right here on site, 2:35:1 is correct, but since this was a made-for-TV movie it sounds suspect. Sometimes TV movies here in the states were shown in theaters overseas, so the wider aspect would make sense in that case. At any rate, if you think about it, when this was filmed in 1990 they just needed to keep the center of the action in the 4:3 range, the then prevailing ratio for analog television. That's why most cameras have a range finder that shows multiple screen ratios.
share[deleted]
There's no way it was shot open matte. The full-screen version is already really tight, and shooting 2.35:1 open matte is rather rare (it does happen though). James Cameron did it with Avatar, but that was all shot digitally.
share[deleted]
2:35:1 is the correct ratio. They just cropped it for TV.
,
Your friendly neighborhood pastor