MovieChat Forums > The World's Fastest Indian (2006) Discussion > aspect ratio NOT 2.35 as filmed... why?

aspect ratio NOT 2.35 as filmed... why?

posted 16 years ago by wayne-486
14 replies | jump to latest

I love this movie!

Can SOMEBODY please tell me why this movie is NOT in anamorphic widescreen (2.35) as it ws shot. It suffers terribly from being presneted in 1.78. It was obviously Roger Donaldson's labor of love... why would a director not INSIST that a personally passionate such as this be presented as it wsa in theaters? What's really strange is that the deleted scenes in the additional material on the DVD IS in 2.35... very, very strange.

Is it available anywhere in 2.35 as the director intended it to be shown.

[–] eljay-8 16 years ago

This is at least the second film that Roger Donaldson has released theatrically at 2.35:1 while the DVD is 16:9. ("The Recruit" also suffered from this.) I seem to recall reading his reasoning behind this when "The Recruit" was first issued on DVD: He thinks films look better (bigger) in 2.35:1 at the theater, but for home viewing he thinks 16:9 is better to maximize the size of the screen. I went into this film not knowing what the proper aspect ratio was, but it was not too hard to deduce that 16:9 was not the aspect ratio they were originally shooting for.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviegeek71 16 years ago

I'm not sure if this will help you in your quest for the elusive 2.35 viewing preference; however, the online version from Netflix is in 2.35 but I'm not sure about their DVD since I've never ordered it because I own a DVD, which is in the 1.78 aspect ratio.

----------
"If I've never seen it before, it's a new release to me."

[–] Thirdover4 13 years ago

I just watched it on HDNet and it was 2.35:1

[–] CCRider01 13 years ago

The BluRay is 2:35 and both the film and aspect ratio looks great.

[–] saneman1 15 years ago

It was not shot anamorphically. It was shot Super 35MM. Which means all they did was show more of the top and bottom portions filmed that were taken out of the printed film. You probably lose 5-10% of the sides at most.

It is not ideal, but it is an acceptable compromise. If the movie was shot anamorphically, then i would agree with your point. A lot of Super35MM movies when shot take into account the home video market.

[–] carpet_seller 15 years ago

Where are you?

In UK, (region 2) the uk "icon" dvd says on the box it is 1.78:1, 16:9.

But I can tell you that info is wrong, the film on the dvd is 2.35:1

[–] Pineapples101 15 years ago

DVD Compare give a run down of which countries/regions got the OAR...
http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=9226
The R4 CE Appears to be the way to go.

Eat this baguette! EAT IT!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviegeek71 14 years ago

All of the R4 sales that I've seen list it as 2.35 ratio.

----------
"If I've never seen it before, it's a new release to me."

[–] IAmASquirrel 13 years ago

I'm not wearing any pants.

[–] pheogm 13 years ago

Was on free to air TV in Australia yesterday in the ratio you're after.

[–] rockmail 12 years ago

Never shot a film, I see. DPs shoot with plenty of safe space in any format, to make sure that even inadvertent cropping doesn't totally screw up the movie.

The percentage change between widescreen formats will only change the main cropping a very small amount - insignificant to 100 percent of viewers.

[–] MoonPreacher 11 years ago

I´m undecided. Would pick up the australian BR but it ends more expensive due to postings...