2:35:1 for me. I like my movies wide as possible.

1:85:1 looks too much like Fullscreen. Just compare the two side by side and you'll see what I mean.

Well, what's your favorite?

1:85:1.

I don't mind 2:35:1, but I like to see my entire widescreen real estate used up.

My favorite is the ratio the director wanted

Agreed. But, I do a little happy dance when I see a movie is 1:85 and my widescreen TV is completely filled.

There's nothing as satisfying as a 2.35:1 movie when the director knows how to intelligently use that ratio.

1.85:1 pleases me the most.

"Enhanced for Widescreen TVs" are my favorite words to see.

I feel that every aspect ratio is excellent, depending on how it's used. I think the Academy ratio used on Citizen Kane is just as well utilized as the Todd-AO frame on Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version).


However, I love the scope 2.20:1/2.35:1 frame. When I see films that use that ratio well, it makes me smile.

It always sounds so pretentious when someone says "the aspect the director wanted".

Who cares what he wants?

George Lucas was the director of Star Wars and I disagree with tons of changes he's made. I disagree with tons of decisions made by directors during the filming.

I don't know, I guess it's alright -- but I'm going to like the aspect I like, not the aspect that some director wanted.

Personally, I think the directors should all film in the same aspect ratio. I really can't see where it really helps to have that extra screen. I understand the argument ... but it just doesn't add that much for me.

2:35:1 is my favorite.

I suggest you watch just about anything by John Carpenter. Whether you like the films or not, just WATCH the use of 2.35:1

On the one hand, 2.35:1 is an awesome expanse of scenery, but on the other hand, I still watch on a 27" 4:3 TV, so I do see a lot of black bars...

I certainly wouldn't want a P&S version, or even a P&S widescreen version (down to 16X9,) however. LOTR, Star Wars, and other 2.35: films wouldn't be watchable in any other aspect ratio.

I probably have more titles in my collection that are 4:3 Full Frame than any other aspect ratio, as I enjoy TV shows, tons of anime, and plenty of pre-1950s films that were filmed in Academy Ratio.

Using DVD Profiler's graphs function, it looks like I have 348 full-screen titles, although some of those may be discs with P&S and WS on them, 25 that are 1.66:1 (mostly Disney, I would think,) 60 that are 1.78:1, 175 titles that are 1.85:1, and 115 that are 2.35:1. Any other ratios are negligible.

My favorite aspect ratio: original. Period.

2.35:1 is my favorite. Watching a "scenic" movie shot in scope is beautiful.

And what's wrong with that? 1.85:1 is most certainly not the same as Fullscreen in the "Pan & Scan" sense of the word. Simply because a film may be shot "wider" does not necessarily make it better. I've seen far too many films shot in scope that would have worked much better as 1.85:1.

As said before, I prefer the aspect ratio the director shot the film in.

Sometimes I think people take this whole "widescreen" thing a little too far. It's not about Widescreen, it's about OAR.

In terms of "Who cares what the director wants?" question: I do, as well as many others, because we respect that the director is crafting the film, not you. Hence it is basically his film.

In terms of "...director's should use the same aspect ratio", well that is just absurd. Why not just make them use the same cameras? Or make them use the same sound boons? Hell, let's just use the same sound mix for every theatre. I think you see where my sarcasm is going

I can't believe someone actually posted that.

Then either you don't actually understand the argument at all, or you're simply not a movie lover, just a "fill-my-screen" lover.

You want to see where it helps to have that "extra screen"? Try watching films where they were meant to be seen.... in the theater.

1: 2.35

Yes, that's right, I want an Aspect Ratio that's taller than it is wide. As of yet, no director has caved in to my demands, but one day...

It isn't that I don't understand the argument or the concept.

I just don't care.

I rarely attribute the success of a film to a director's aspect ratio selection ... nor to a director. I usually attribute a good film to the script and the concept behind the script.

The director is almost completely interchangeable to me.

That's just my opinion. It doesn't have to be yours.

I used to love 2.35:1 when I was a frequent movie-goer.

Now that I watch nearly all my movies on my plasma, I really prefer 1.85:1

Couldn't agree more. Before I got a WS set it didn't matter, as long as it was "enhanced for widescreen tv's." Now that I have a WS set, 1:85 really gets my toes a tappin'!

It depends on the movie.

I like 1.85 for comedies and so on (like meet the parents and American Pie).

But, I like 2.35 for others (like Star Wars and so on).

I have a 61in DLP tv, so the aspect ratio is important.

I NEVER buy full screen when it is not the OAR. Period.

I have a widescreen TV and like any anamorphic DVD, but if a director uses 2:35 well, it makes for a more enjoyable experience.

I look at directors as artist. As such, I wouldn't tell Michaelangelo what medium to use. Nor would I tell the director what aspect ratio to use.

I also feel the director is the most important cog in the film making process. Project Greenlight helped me come to this conclusion. Seeing multiple directors using the same script and such but coming up with many different visions really showed how he/she affects the final product.

2.35:1 is probably my favorite, although I don't like Super 35.

1.33:1 represent.