I was watching the Spielberg version of War of the Worlds and wondered why he didn't shoot the movie in 2.35:1. It seems the wider aspect ratio would have lent itself better to some of the scenes than the 1.85:1 he went with. Then I remembered that Munich was released the same year and was shot 2.35:1. That movie seemed like it would be a better 1.85:1 candidate.

Has anyone else had these thoughts about other movies?

Jersey Girl. I'm one of the Smith appologetics here, but there is no way why it needed to be in 2:35 (and shot with panavision/anamorphic lenses too)

The Good German should have been left at 1.66:1 for home video instead of 1.33:1.

Spielberg probably used 1.85:1 for War of the Worlds for the same reason he used it for Jurassic Park - to stress the height of the antagonists. On that note, I think King Kong (2005) would have been better in 1.85:1.

As long as it fills my screen, I'm happy.

I think Duel should have been 2.35:1 and Spider-Man 1 should have been 2.35:1 also. I think all of the "found footage" movies should be 1.33:1 to give it a more authentic feel.

The only time that this has ever crossed my mind, I think, is when I saw, of all things, Dodgeball. I thought "what the hell is this doing in 2.35:1?".

On a related note, I don't think that Hitchcock did a 2.35:1 movie, did he? It would have been interesting to see what he would have done with that.

Aliens. The others are 2.35 except this one. It would have been great if the entire series was all the same ratio. At least imo.

Yea. If not, you just hit the "wide zoom" button on your remote and everything is peachy.

In general, I prefer my films to be 2.35:1. I just feel this aspect ratio looks "more like a film" to me, especially for "bigger" films. The BD/DVD release of Avatar is a good example of an aspect ratio decision I would disagree with. But, as others have mentioned, the only time aspect ratio choice might bother me is if it is a film franchise/series and the aspect ratios start to differ after the initial installment. The Blade and Spider-Man trilogies come to mind. Also not really a fan of alternating aspect ratios (as in the IMAX presentation of TDK).

I usually hate when film series don't match aspect ratios. I don't really have a problem with sequels going wider, For instance T2 was 2.35:1. To me this was ok because it was a big budget sequle to a smaller film, going bigger, going wider was a progression. Same goes for Spider-man. I would prefer the same AR for the series, but in this order it doesn't bother me as much.

I'll always hate that Aliens sticks out from the rest of the series. Not sure why Cameron chose to shoot in 1.85:1.

I think the one that irks me the most is Red Dragon. Silence was 1.85:1, Ridley Scott said (who usually shoots 2.35:1) he chose to shoot Hannibal in 1.85:1 to match Silence. (Which is strange seeing how he didn't try and match much else from the previous film.) What when Brett Ratner comes along to direct the prequel Red Dragon what does he do? He shoots 2.35:1, eh just ticks me off

Manhunter was 2.35:1

I remember being surprised when I went to see Apocalypto that it was 1.85:1.

It's not something I think much about. Just another choice of style. But when the home releases are changed from their OAR that bothers me.

How about when film makers let Vittorio Storaro retroactively change films to 2:1? That just pisses me off.

Stupid black bars...

I don't get why so many comedies are shot 2.35:1 nowadays. I love Observe and Report, but I don't get why Jody Hill went scope with it.

I think the Godzilla films work better at 1.85 and even 1.33 for that same reason.

I guess it depends on which version you count as being in the series.
I consider Red Dragon (even though I love Manhunter) to be the version connected to Silence and Hannibal because it feature Hopkins. Manhunter to me is a well made stand alone 80's masterpeice.

100% agree. I have no input into the AR for the film. So for me to bitch about a director's decision for it is worthless. What I do give a damn about is when the OAR is changed when we get it at home.

Probably for the same reason some movies are cropped to 1.78:1 when they are released on dvd. They just want to fill up the screen. In this case, the theater screen.

Most theaters I have been to don't actually project a bigger image for wider films. The mask off the screen at the top at bottom to show anything wider than 1.85:1. Most AMC and Regal theaters do this.

The only theaters I have ever been to that have a larger screen for wider aspect ratios are the Chinese Theater and Cinerama Dome.

most theaters here will litterally make the screen wider for 2:35 movies. Ive been to enough midnight showings where the screen before is 1:85 then right when the previews start, it widens out to 2:35

It's one of those things I couldn't care less about. Seriously? People sit in the theater and think about aspect ratios? Not trying to put anybody down but really, people do this?

Same here.