Why is Ratatouille 2.40 and Meet the Robinsons is 1.78 ?
 

I don't understand why Disney/Pixar would create a kids movie like Ratatouille with an aspect ratio of 2.40:1 while giving Meet the Robinsons 1.78:1. This is not epic movie requiring such an aspect ratio IMO. These movies were is production very close to each other. OK maybe I could understand making Cars 2.40:1.

MtR isn't Pixar.

Directors shouldn't have to justify the aspect ratios of the movies they make.

Both of Brad Bird's other feature films were scope, so maybe he just feels more comfortable with that framing. All four of Pixar's movies over the past few years have been screened at 2.39:1 as well.

the only time I've heard a director defending his decision to shoot flat (1.85) was when Spielberg shot Jurassic Park that way, in order to make the dinosaurs seem TALL not WIDE.

I don't know if this makes any sense or initial consideration on the filmmakers part, but I know that 'Meet the Robinsons 'wasn't shot wide so that the image would be larger and take up more the screen (floor to ceiling in 1.78 aspect ratio) so that the 3D imagery would be better conveyed. 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' was also quite amazing in it's 1.66 aspect ratio, the more of the screen is used height wise, is better IMO. Newer multiplex theaters are constructed more box like so when films are shown in scope (2.35 or higher) the screens seem to get smaller, the image is wider but the screen size diminishes as a result. I love to see flat films (1.85) at the Tysons Corner theatres because the projected image takes up more the wall/screen.

I see Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo were 1.85 and 1.78

Cars and Ratatouille were both 2.40 and The Incredibles at 2.35.

Oh wait, I'm not sure about Wall-E's aspect ratio.

I guess they have been trending towards 2.40 in recent years but I don't think it was required for Ratatouille.

Wall-E was 2.40

Everything after Finding Nemo -- every Pixar movie from 2004 and on -- has been scope.

Why does that matter? Do you think Ratatouille is worse for it?

How is Cars more epic than Ratatouille?

Wide shots of the desert scenery, the terrain, and race track.

Ahem, Paris at night.

sadly that was the only thing going for CARS...

:rimshot:

Film makers make the movies in whatever aspect ratio they feel comfortable with and ones they like. They dont have kids in mind when they do it and if they did then they defenitly wouldn't release good editions of the movies. Also the movie company's for MTR and Rat. is different so thats also why one is in big widescreen and the other is small widescreen.

AGREED!!

You're correct. I wonder why this is the case however since Pixar entered into an agreement to merge with Disney on 1-24-06 and made it official on 5-5-06 and MtR wasn't released until 3-30-07. That's plenty of time for them to have created or at least contributed to MtR.

well at one point, Disney really embraced the 2.35 aspect ratio: Lady and The Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, The Black Cauldron, granted shooting traditional cel animation in widescreen took more time, money and work, widescreen movies were to do just that, not look like the traditional TV square imagery - now a days, that seems the opposite, the less cropping telecines have to do to convert the image to non-High Def TV sets (1.78) - the average joe and his family don't have the widescreen tv, is better off.

MtR was a in house Disney Production, Pixar have their films, the two have and will always be seperate. Disney distributes Pixar's films, the deal was never to merge the two.

I also believe that this is the primary reason for the chosen aspect ratio.

why does a movie have to be "epic" to have a 2.4:1 aspect ratio???

And before them, Pixar's second movie ever, "A Bug's Life," was 2.39:1.

I trust Brad Bird's and Pixar's judgment more than yours.

Actually some of the Pixar folks did contribute to MtR. A large portion of it was rewritten and reanimated as a result. It's discussed in the extras on the MtR disc.

Brad Bird has utilized "CinemaScope" for all of his features so far, with every single one taking full advantage of the width.

Given that animation is generally shot so it's TV safe (4x3 or 16x9), using scope for animation is wonderful.

Same thing for live-action. Too many filmmakers are going digital or Super-35 instead of shooting in Panavision. Thank God we have Paul Thomas Anderson, Christopher Nolan, and Wes Anderson sticking to Panavision.

Wow, I didn't realize this board had so many 2.40:1 Zealots. Do you guys picket Wal-Marts full screen DVD section? Start letter writing campaigns to the studios for chopping movies down to 1.33:1? Maybe you all should speak to Congress about the TV conspiracy to convert millions of Americans from Full screen TVs to 16x9 format?
Remember Bug Life's in Full Screen Version and countless others? I guess the studio didn't give a sh!t about the Director's artistic integrity did they? Is a movie a piece of art or a product? Maybe both but to say that directors should be ignorant as to the target audience is....well ignorant.

Nevertheless, these movies are geared towarded a majority childrens audience. Not to mention they aren't even filmed but rather rendered.

I think Disney films that are done by Pixar, are well and good enough that they're made to be enjoyed by everyone, not just kids. Take The Incredibles for example, it works on SO many different levels for either audience. Making them in the wide aspect ratio makes them feel more 'theatrical'.

In the end, I don't care what the aspect ratio is, as long as it's what the director originally intended.

Pixar movies aren't kids movies.

That implies children don't like widescreen... I have found most children don't really notice or care one way or another.