The Shape of Blockbuster Movies

Apropos of a long-winded argument that has raged in another post on this blog this week, I’ve taken the considerable time and effort to prepare a chart breaking down the last 20+ years of blockbuster movies, sorted by aspect ratio. Enjoy!

First, let’s set some parameters:

A lot of hot air was expended in the other thread about defining what a “blockbuster” movie is. Should we look at the Top 10 grossing movies of every year, or just the Top 5? Do we look at worldwide numbers or just domestic?

I think that looking at box office revenue is the wrong approach entirely. The real question here is intent. Even if a movie winds up being a flop, it may have been produced with the intention and hope of becoming a blockbuster. As such, I believe that production budget is a better indicator of what the filmmakers wanted their movies to be. To that end, I think it’s safe to say that any movie with a budget of $100 million or higher is explicitly produced to become a blockbuster, even if that doesn’t wind up coming true.

These are the “event” movies, the tentpole productions that studios rely on to generate most of their income for the year. These movies get released on thousands of screens worldwide, often in 3D and/or IMAX or other premium venues. These aren’t little indie dramas better suited to streaming from Netflix onto your iPad. The studios and the filmmakers want you to see these movies in a theater on the biggest screen possible. Once you spend $100 mil making a movie, it has to be a blockbuster just to break even.

Finding information on movie production budgets can be tricky. The majority of my information was sourced from the-numbers.com. I spotted a few errors and omissions that I’ve tried to correct myself. If you find other mistakes in here, please let me know. I’ve made a good-faith effort to compile a list of every movie I could find that meets the $100 million budget criteria, and to cross-reference them with aspect ratio information from IMDb and other sources.

Also: I am using the phrase “2.35:1” to describe movies composed for and projected at a “scope” aspect ratio, even though the technical theatrical standard is actually 2.40:1 (or, more specifically, 2.39:1 and change). Please see this post for an explanation of why these terms are used interchangeably in the industry.

With all that out of the way, here are the numbers for your perusal. I’ll leave it to you to determine which aspect ratio the directors of these blockbuster “event” movies overwhelmingly favor, and whether you can interpret any statistically significant trend toward that changing.

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2014 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes $170,000,000 1.85:1
2014 Mr. Peabody & Sherman $145,000,000 1.85:1
2014 Noah $130,000,000 1.85:1
2014 300: Rise of an Empire $110,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Amazing Spider-Man 2, The $200,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Captain America: The Winter Soldier $170,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Edge of Tomorrow $178,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Exodus: Gods and Kings Unconfirmed, presumably over $100,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Expendables 3 Unconfirmed, presumably over $100,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Godzilla $160,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Hercules $100,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, The $250,000,000 2.35:1
2014 How to Train Your Dragon 2 $145,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1, The Unconfirmed, presumably over $100,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Maleficent $180,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb Unconfirmed, presumably over $100,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Rio 2 $130,000,000 2.35:1
2014 RoboCop $120,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Unconfirmed, presumably over $100,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Transcendence $100,000,000 2.35:1
2014 X-Men: Days of Future Past $200,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Guardians of the Galaxy $170,000,000 Variable (1.9:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)
2014 Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, The $250,000,000 Variable (1.9:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)
2014 Interstellar Unconfirmed, presumably over $100,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else
2014 Transformers: Age of Extinction $210,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else

2014 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 18 75%
1.85:1 3 12.5%
Variable 3 12.5%
Total 24

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2013 Monsters University $200,000,000 1.85:1
2013 Pacific Rim $190,000,000 1.85:1
2013 Smurfs 2, The $110,000,000 1.85:1
2013 47 Ronin $175,000,000 2.35:1
2013 After Earth $130,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Croods, the $135,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Elysium $120,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Ender’s Game $110,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Epic $100,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Fast and Furious 6 $160,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Frozen $150,000,000 2.35:1
2013 G.I. Joe: Retaliation $140,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Gravity $110,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Great Gatsby, The $190,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Hangover 3, The $103,000,000 2.35:1
2014 Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, The $250,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Iron Man 3 $200,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Jack the Giant Slayer $195,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Lone Ranger, The $275,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Man of Steel $225,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Oz: The Great and Powerful $200,000,000 2.35:1
2013 R.I.P.D. $130,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Thor: The Dark World $170,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Turbo $135,000,000 2.35:1
2013 White House Down $150,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Wolf of Wall Street, The $100,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Wolverine, The $115,000,000 2.35:1
2013 World War Z $190,000,000 2.35:1
2013 Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, The $250,000,000 Variable (1.9:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)
2013 Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The $130,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else
2013 Oblivion $120,000,000 Variable (1.9:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)
2013 Star Trek into Darkness $190,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else

2013 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 25 81%
1.85:1 3 9.5%
Variable 3 9.5%
Total 31

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2012 Dark Shadows $150,000,000 1.85:1
2012 Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted $145,000,000 1.85:1
2012 Marvel’s The Avengers $225,000,000 1.85:1
2012 Men in Black 3 $215,000,000 1.85:1
2012 Rise of the Guardians $145,000,000 1.85:1
2012 Battleship $209,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Bourne Legacy, The $125,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Brave $185,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Cloud Atlas $102,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Django Unchained $100,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Expendables 2, The $100,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The $250,000,000 2.35:1
2012 John Carter $275,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Snow White and the Huntsman $170,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Total Recall $125,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2, The $136,200,000 2.35:1
2012 Wrath of the Titans $150,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Wreck-It Ralph $165,000,000 2.35:1
2012 Amazing Spider-Man, The $220,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else
2012 Dark Knight Rises, The $275,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else
2012 Life of Pi $120,000,000 Variable (distributed in multiple aspect ratio versions)
2012 Prometheus $130,000,000 Variable (1.9:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)
2012 Skyfall $200,000,000 Variable (1.9:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)

2012 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 13 56%
1.85:1 5 22%
Variable 5 22%
Total 23

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2011 Hugo $180,000,000 1.85:1
2011 Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows $125,000,000 1.85:1
2011 Smurfs, The $110,000,000 1.85:1
2011 Adventures of Tintin, The $130,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Captain America: The First Avenger $140,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Cars 2 $200,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Cowboys & Aliens $163,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Fast Five $125,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Green Lantern $200,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Happy Feet Two $135,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II $125,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Jin líng shí san chai (The Flowers of War) $100,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Kung Fu Panda 2 $150,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Mars Needs Moms $150,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides $250,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Puss in Boots $130,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Rango $135,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Real Steel $110,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Thor $150,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Transformers: Dark of the Moon $195,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1, The $127,500,000 2.35:1
2011 X-Men: First Class $160,000,000 2.35:1
2011 Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol $145,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else

 

2011 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 19 83%
1.85:1 3 13%
Variable 1 4%
Total 23

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2010 Alice in Wonderland $200,000,000 1.85:1
2010 How Do You Know $120,000,000 1.85:1
2010 Little Fockers $100,000,000 1.85:1
2010 Tangled $260,000,000 1.85:1
2010 Toy Story 3 $200,000,000 1.85:1
2010 Wolfman, The $150,000,000 1.85:1
2010 A-Team, The $110,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The $155,000,000 2.35:1 (theatrical, was open matte to 16:9 for video)
2010 Clash of the Titans $125,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Green Hornet, The $110,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Green Zone $100,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Gulliver’s Travels $112,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I $125,000,000 2.35:1
2010 How to Train Your Dragon $165,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Inception $160,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Iron Man 2 $170,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Knight and Day $117,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Last Airbender, The $150,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole 3D $100,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Megamind $130,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Other Guys, The $100,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Prince of Persia: Sands of Time $200,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Robin Hood $210,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Salt $130,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Shrek Forever After $165,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Sorcerer’s Apprentice, The $160,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Tourist, The $100,000,000 2.35:1
2010 Tron: Legacy $200,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else

2010 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 21 75%
1.85:1 6 21%
Variable 1 4%
Total 28

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2009 G-Force $150,000,000 1.85:1
2009 Land of the Lost $100,000,000 1.85:1
2009 Princess and the Frog, The $105,000,000 1.85:1
2009 Up $175,000,000 1.85:1
2009 2012 $200,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Angels & Demons $150,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs $100,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Disney’s A Christmas Carol $190,000,000 2.35:1
2009 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra $175,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince $250,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Monsters vs. Aliens $175,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian $150,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Public Enemies $102,500,000 2.35:1
2009 Star Trek $140,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, The $110,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Terminator Salvation $200,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Watchmen $138,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Where the Wild Things Are $100,000,000 2.35:1
2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine $150,000,000 2.35:1
2009 Avatar $425,000,000 Variable (distributed in multiple aspect ratio versions)
2009 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen $210,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else

2009 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 15 71%
1.85:1 4 19%
Variable 2 10%
Total 21

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2008 Bolt $150,000,000 1.85:1
2008 Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa $150,000,000 1.85:1
2008 10,000 B.C. $105,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Astérix aux Jeux Olympiques $113,500,000 2.35:1
2008 Australia $130,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, The $225,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The $160,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Hancock $150,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Incredible Hulk, The $137,500,000 2.35:1
2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull $185,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Iron Man $186,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Kung Fu Panda $130,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, The $175,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Quantum of Solace $230,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Speed Racer $120,000,000 2.35:1
2008 WALL-E $180,000,000 2.35:1
2008 Dark Knight, The $185,000,000 Variable ratio in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else

2008 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 14 82%
1.85:1 2 12%
Variable 1 6%
Total 17

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2007 American Gangster $100,000,000 1.85:1
2007 Bee Movie $150,000,000 1.85:1
2007 Shrek the Third $160,000,000 1.85:1
2007 Surf’s Up $100,000,000 1.85:1
2007 Beowulf $150,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Bourne Ultimatum, The $130,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Evan Almighty $175,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer $120,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Ghost Rider $120,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Golden Compass, The $205,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix $150,000,000 2.35:1
2007 I am Legend $150,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Live Free or Die Hard $110,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End $300,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Ratatouille $150,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Rush Hour 3 $180,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Spider-Man 3 $258,000,000 2.35:1
2007 Transformers $151,000,000 2.35:1

2007 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 14 78%
1.85:1 4 22%
Total 18

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2006 Flushed Away $149,000,000 1.85:1
2006 Night at the Museum $110,000,000 1.85:1
2006 Blood Diamond $100,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Casino Royale $102,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Da Vinci Code, The $125,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Eragon $100,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Miami Vice $135,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Mission: Impossible III $150,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest $225,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Poseidon $160,000,000 2.35:1
2006 Superman Returns $232,000,000 2.35:1
2006 X-Men: The Last Stand $210,000,000 2.35:1

2006 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 10 83%
1.85:1 2 17%
Total 12

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory $150,000,000 1.85:1
2005 War of the Worlds $132,000,000 1.85:1
2005 Batman Begins $150,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Fun With Dick And Jane $140,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire $150,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Island, The $120,000,000 2.35:1
2005 King Kong $207,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Kingdom of Heaven $110,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Mr. And Mrs. Smith $110,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Sahara $145,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith $115,000,000 2.35:1
2005 Stealth $138,000,000 2.35:1
2005 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe $180,000,000 2.35:1

2005 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 11 85%
1.85:1 2 15%
Total 13

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2004 Home on the Range $110,000,000 1.85:1
2004 Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events $100,000,000 1.85:1
2004 Stepford Wives, The $100,000,000 1.85:1
2004 Van Helsing $170,000,000 1.85:1
2004 Alexander $155,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Around the World in 80 Days $110,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Aviator, The $110,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Catwoman $100,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Chronicles of Riddick, The $120,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Day After Tomorrow, The $125,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban $130,000,000 2.35:1
2004 I, Robot $105,000,000 2.35:1
2004 National Treasure $100,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Ocean’s Twelve $110,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Spider-Man 2 $200,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Troy $150,000,000 2.35:1
2004 Polar Express, The $170,000,000 Variable (1.9:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)

2004 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 12 70.5%
1.85:1 4 23.5%
Variable 1 6%
Total 17

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2003 Cat in the Hat, The $109,000,000 1.85:1
2003 Hulk $137,000,000 1.85:1
2003 Bad Boys II $130,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle $120,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Last Samurai, The $140,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World $135,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Matrix Reloaded, The $127,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Matrix Revolutions, The $110,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Peter Pan $100,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl $125,000,000 2.35:1
2003 Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines $170,000,000 2.35:1
2003 X2: X-Men United $125,000,000 2.35:1

2003 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 10 83%
1.85:1 2 17%
Total 12

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2002 Adventures of Pluto Nash, The $100,000,000 1.85:1
2002 Men in Black 2 $140,000,000 1.85:1
2002 Spider-Man $139,000,000 1.85:1
2002 Stuart Little 2 $120,000,000 1.85:1
2002 Treasure Planet $100,000,000 1.85:1
2002 Die Another Day $142,000,000 2.35:1
2002 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets $100,000,000 2.35:1
2002 Minority Report $102,000,000 2.35:1
2002 Windtalkers $115,000,000 2.35:1
2002 Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones $115,000,000 Variable (1.44:1 in IMAX, 2.35:1 everywhere else)

2002 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 4 40%
1.85:1 5 50%
Variable 1 10%
Total 10

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2001 Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within $137,000,000 1.85:1
2001 Monsters, Inc. $115,000,000 1.85:1
2001 Town & Country $105,000,000 1.85:1
2001 Ali $109,000,000 2.35:1
2001 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone $125,000,000 2.35:1
2001 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The $109,000,000 2.35:1
2001 Pearl Harbor $151,500,000 2.35:1
2001 Planet of the Apes $100,000,000 2.35:1

2001 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 5 62.5%
1.85:1 3 37.5%
Total 8

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
2000 Dinosaur $127,500,000 1.85:1
2000 Emperor’s New Groove, The $100,000,000 1.85:1
2000 How the Grinch Stole Christmas $123,000,000 1.85:1
2000 Gladiator $103,000,000 2.35:1
2000 Gone in 60 Seconds $103,300,000 2.35:1
2000 Mission: Impossible 2 $120,000,000 2.35:1
2000 Patriot, The $110,000,000 2.35:1
2000 Perfect Storm, The $120,000,000 2.35:1

2000 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 5 62.5%
1.85:1 3 37.5%
Total 8

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
1999 Stuart Little $105,000,000 1.85:1
1999 Tarzan $145,000,000 1.85:1
1999 Wild Wild West $175,000,000 1.85:1
1999 13th Warrior, The $125,000,000 2.35:1
1999 End of Days $100,000,000 2.35:1
1999 Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace $115,000,000 2.35:1
1999 World is Not Enough, The $135,000,000 2.35:1

1999 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 4 57%
1.85:1 3 43%
Total 7

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
1998 Armageddon $140,000,000 2.35:1
1998 Godzilla $125,000,000 2.35:1
1998 Lethal Weapon 4 $140,000,000 2.35:1

1998 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 3 100%
1.85:1 0 0%
Total 3

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
1997 Batman & Robin $125,000,000 1.85:1
1997 Starship Troopers $100,000,000 1.85:1
1997 Dante’s Peak $115,000,000 2.35:1
1997 Speed II: Cruise Control $110,000,000 2.35:1
1997 Titanic $200,000,000 2.35:1
1997 Tomorrow Never Dies $110,000,000 2.35:1

1997 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 4 67%
1.85:1 2 33%
Total 6

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
1996 Hunchback of Notre Dame, The $100,000,000 1.85:1
1996 Eraser $100,000,000 2.35:1

1996 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 1 50%
1.85:1 1 50%
Total 2

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
1995 Batman Forever $100,000,000 1.85:1
1995 Waterworld $175,000,000 1.85:1

1995 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 0 0%
1.85:1 2 100%
Total 2

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
1994 True Lies $100,000,000 2.35:1

1994 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 1 100%
1.85:1 0 0%
Total 1

 

Release Year Movie Production Budget Aspect Ratio
1991 Terminator 2: Judgment Day $100,000,000 2.35:1

1991 Breakdown

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 1 100%
1.85:1 0 0%
Total 1

 

Grand Totals

Ratio Total %
2.35:1 209 73%
1.85:1 59 20.5%
Variable 19 6.5%
Total 287

 

112 comments

  1. Drew

    Are you certain that ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’ had variable aspect ratio? I saw it in IMAX 3D, and unless my memory isn’t serving me properly, I believe it was projected at 2.35:1 for its entirety. (I’ll admit, I could be thinking of ‘An Unexpected Journey’). I just pulled it up on the IMAX Wikipedia page, and there’s no mention of a changing aspect ratio.

      • Drew

        I believe IMDB is wrong. I’ll look into it further, and see what I can come up with. I’m almost certain it was projected in scope, for its entirety, in IMAX.

      • Drew

        Well, I can’t find anything concrete. However, everything that I have looked at, outside of IMDB, states that there was no variable aspect ratio. I’m going to trust the IMAX Wikipedia and my own memory, over IMDB. After all, IMDB didn’t even list the proper IMAX aspect ratio.

        Unless someone can confirm that it was projected at 1.9:1, in IMAX, I believe you should make an adjustment to the statistics.

        • Josh Zyber
          Author

          I think I’ll leave it stand for now as a way of tossing Mr. Freaky a bone. Wouldn’t want him to think I was being unfair to his side of the debate. 🙂

          • Drew

            Okay, fair enough. In case you’re interested, I did confirm that it was projected in Scope in every single IMAX in North America. The reason why IMDB states that it was projected at 2:1 in IMAX (if you look at the IMDB page closely, you’ll see that it specifically says “70mm IMAX) is due to the fact that it was projected at 2:1 in a handful of 15/70 European and Asian IMAX auditoriums, via the dual-strip IMAX 3D, that has been completely phased out, with the exception of a couple of international IMAX locations.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            I think we both know that, if the movie played in a single theater at 1.9:1 even for just one day, Freaky will insist that Peter Jackson absolutely preferred that ratio and only wanted the movie to ever be seen that way. As I said, I’ll toss him a bone. One more movie on his side of the tally won’t change the undeniable conclusion that 2.35:1 is the preferred ratio for the majority of “event” movies made each year.

          • Drew

            One more thing to add…

            It was NOT Peter Jackson’s decision to open up the aspect ratio to 2:1 for a handful of international dual-strip 3D IMAX auditoriums. He chose to shoot the film, and have it projected in Scope.

          • Drew

            Yes. I completely agree. Fair enough.

            You’re absolutely right. If it was projected on one screen on earth at an aspect ratio that differed from scope, the Freak would undoubtedly claim that Peter Jackson intended for the film to always be projected that way, that projecting it that way was an integral part of the storytelling, and that there will definitely be a future blu-ray that offers the non-scope aspect ratio.

  2. Drew

    I wonder how these statistics would look if they only presented the aspect ratio that the filmmakers ultimately decided upon, for blu-ray. Hmm 😉

  3. Timcharger

    “Jin líng shí san chai (The Flowers of War)”

    I didn’t go through the whole list, but 2011’s Flowers of War seems to be an outlier.
    That was supposed to be a tentpole blockbuster?!

    It’s more like one of those only in NY & LA premieres and selected cities to follow
    kind of films. This was released to thousands of screens?

    Maybe the $100 mil wasn’t in U.S. currency?

    Its inclusion don’t change the point of this exercise. But it sticks out like a sore
    thumb.

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      I can only go by the information available to me. By-the-Numbers says it cost $100 million to make. IMDb says $94 million, which would drop it below the threshold of this list but is close enough that it was obviously intended to be a major event picture. The movie was a Chinese production and undoubtedly had a much bigger release in China and other countries than it wound up getting here.

      Keep in mind that the purpose of this list is to look at intent. Sometimes a movie will get greenlit as a big-budget production with every intention of being released as major tentpole, only for the studio to later realize that they have a dog on their hands and decide to bury it and take the tax write-off. 47 Ronin, for example, cost $175 million and was supposed to be Universal’s big tentpole for November of 2012, but was eventually dumped on the market more than a year later with a half-hearted advertising campaign. Regardless, while he was shooting it, the director of 47 Ronin thought he was making a blockbuster, and chose the 2.35:1 format as most appropriate for that.

  4. Bill

    Hey Josh. I find your numbers very interesting but what is the exact context? Many of us haven’t read the other thread. Could you give us quick summary of what the original discussion was all about? Partticularly what triggered it? Thanks.

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      A certain reader has a habit of routinely trolling this blog on an anti-“scope” crusade. He believes that the 2.35:1 format is antiquated and that all the A-List directors in Hollywood would rather shoot big-budget blockbusters at 1.85:1 (or using a variable ratio, like The Dark Knight), because that will fill IMAX screens and HDTVs.

      That the facts of how movies are actually made and distributed do not support his belief system has not deterred him in the slightest. Every time a single movie is released with a special modified ratio for IMAX theaters (Guardians of the Galaxy, currently), he returns here to proclaim victory – disregarding the dozens of other major blockbusters shot and released each year at 2.35:1 (even in IMAX theaters).

      • Bill

        Given the numbers you’ve given us I’d say that certain reader has been rebutted once and for all. And give this message to him/her: The very name of blockbuster conjures up a wide screen 2:35:1 or even wider type of image. The big wide screen is what I and most people expect of a big bold brassy extravagant Hollywood movie. The day they stop doing that I’ll be staying home. (And yes I also long for the days when the top films were shot in eye poppingly detailed 70 mm.)

  5. T.J. Kats

    Somewhat off topic is there a generally considered biggest flop ever from a financial standpoint whether it be a pure budget vs sales amount or a percentage.

    I ask because I saw Pluto Nash when scrolling and was surprised to see it on the list. I then looked it up on box office mojo and it made under 4.5 million for a loss of 95.5 dollars and percent

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      Pluto Nash is very high on the list of worst box office flops. Another is Town & Country, which cost somewhere between $90 million to $122 million (depending on which source you believe) and only grossed $10 million. There’s absolutely nothing in the film to justify a $100 million budget, except that all of the over-the-hill stars in it demanded big up-front paydays, and significant portions of the movie had to be rewritten and reshot several times over, prolonging the production.

      The financial loss from Town & Country was so severe that it killed New Line Cinema as an autonomous studio. Warner Bros. laid off almost the entire staff and reduced the brand name to being a specialty label for its own productions.

      • You know, I always wondered what caused New Line to disappear, such a shame too because they made some of my favorite films ever over the years, and you would think with the hit that was Lord of the Rings, they wouldnt have gone under like that….but what can you do?

    • Bill

      What about that Kevin Costner “Water” something picture? Or did it make enough from video in the end to not be considered a flop?

      • Josh Zyber
        Author

        Waterworld was actually a profitable picture ($264 million worldwide gross, plus strong earnings from video), but most of that money came from overseas. It underperformed domestically and was regarded as a flop. Even so, despite its reputation, it was never really one of the worst bombs of all time.

        A recent colossal turkey was Mars Needs Moms. $150 million production budget, $21.3 million worldwide gross. It tanked so badly that it killed Robert Zemeckis’ ImageMovers studio.

  6. Timcharger

    Funny thing about this data.

    If this exercise was performed in 1995, Josh you would have to admit defeat.

    —–

    For better accuracy (if you want to spend even more time on this)…

    You should deflate the $100,000,000 amount back in time.

    In other words, in 1995, the amount might be $75,000,000, that way you have
    more data points than just 2 films.

    Otherwise, your data as it gets older and older, becomes less meaningful to
    your exercise’s goal.

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      I really don’t have the time or the ability to adjust movie budgets for inflation. If someone else wants to put in that work, I would be happy to update the post.

      • Timcharger

        Just a point of clarification…

        You don’t need to adjust each movie’s budget for inflation.

        You just need to adjust the cut-off point for the inclusion year.
        2014 is $100,000,000
        2013 is $97,000,000 and up
        2012 is $94,000,000 and up
        etc.

        And I don’t think you need to go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
        to get an official CPI number each year.

        If you knock $3 million (a guess) less each year, and it produces a
        similar result of about a dozen films each year, then you’ll have
        enough evidence for that year.

        But not spending more time on this, is a good choice, too.

        Resist it. 🙂

        • Timcharger

          Back of the envelope calculation…

          Knocking $2 million less each year might be enough.

          You went back 23 years, right? So that would make 1991,
          a $54,000,000 cut off. That should give you plenty of data
          for the older years.

    • Drew

      “Funny thing about this data.

      If this exercise was performed in 1995, Josh you would have to admit defeat.”

      That’s part of the point, Tim. Mr. or Mrs. Freak continually says that the 1.85:1 and 1.9:1 aspect ratio use is trending up, and that “more and more” (his use of that phrase is indefatigable) event movies and blockbusters are being projected in 1.85:1 and 1.9:1.

      • Timcharger

        Drew, I know. It’s clear that Josh is building a coffin and wants to hammer
        the nails in. My deflation adjustment suggestion only means that Josh
        doesn’t have enough nails in the lower parts of the coffin.

        The body in the coffin may certainly be dead (the issue in question may
        be “dead” and settled).

        Too many metaphors?

    • Drew

      This post is evidence that the opposite is true. Clearly, less and less event movies and blockbusters are being projected in an aspect ratio other than scope.

  7. freakyguy666

    JZ, I think you just wasted a great deal of your time.

    Obviously, this is your blog so you are able to frame these arguments however you want–even if they are not representative of the other side’s position.

    But in fairness, I would ask that you not speak for me and present my position correctly.

    Again, I have repeatedly written that MOST “event” films in the past have been framed in 2.35. What I said is that the reason the directors typically choose to frame them in scope is because they are certainly aware that most theaters screens are still using 2.35 and if they choose 1.85 it would REDUCE the size of the image thereby reducing the impact. And ideally an “event” film should be projected as large as possible.

    A director who chooses 1.85 must strongly feel the need for the added height because they are implicitly accepting a reduction in image size in MOST theaters (i.e. Steven Spielberg with Jurassic Park, del Toro with Pacific Rim, Joss Whedon with Avengers, to name a few).

    Recently, with IMAX allowing “event” films to be presented on their screens, directors now have the option of having their cake and eating it, too. It must be noted that “opening up” from scope to 1.85 is not a simple thing. It must be PLANNED from the beginning meaning the filmmaker must frame the shots conscious of the fact that the image will be presented in both AR’s–this takes additional time and most importantly MONEY. Things like boom mikes must be accounted for, special effects must be taken into consideration, etc. Most filmmakers do not have this luxury–but IF they feel strongly enough that the IMAX AR will be substantially more immersive–then they WILL and HAVE taken additional measures to implement the 1.85 or taller AR’s in the IMAX version. THIS is happening more and more. And this year, it is likely that 3 of the top 5 movies will have done exactly that. Compare this with year’s past and there is no doubt the trend is to do this more.

    Oh, and there’s a little movie coming out next year that will be doing the same thing…it’s called Star Wars.

    A question for you: Why do you believe that filmmakers open up the aspect ratio on IMAX screens and then go on to state that the IMAX version is the definitive/superior version?

    • Timcharger

      Freaky,

      Post links to where filmmakers are directly quoted saying this:
      “filmmakers open up the aspect ratio on IMAX screens and then go on to state that the IMAX version is the definitive/superior version.”

      Don’t argue, let the filmmakers make your point.

    • Drew

      Mr. or Mrs. Freak has once again demonstrated that he/she clearly doesn’t understand the concept of CONSTANT IMAGE HEIGHT.

    • Drew

      Changing the parameters, using “more and more” inappropriately, manipulating the context…

      Nothing new.

      Same old Freak.

      Josh, it just doesn’t matter. He/she will simply never get it.

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      All directors, no matter what aspect ratio they shoot in, utilize “TV safe” markings on their camera viewerfinders to indicate how their movies will be cropped or open-matte for TV broadcast. This does not take any special effort or extreme measures on their part. This is standard industry practice. It does not mean that the directors prefer the TV ratio or want their movies to be seen this way – simply that they resign themselves to the reality of the market. And if a boom microphone happens to dip into the top of the frame, it can be digitally painted out afterwards. There are post-production houses whose entire job is painting out microphones and camera equipment for TV masters.

      So, again, you are misrepresenting the process of how movies are actually made.

      You keep talking about a “trend” that “more and more” of these event movies are being filmed at IMAX ratio. Where is this trend? The data is all up there for you to see. Year after year, 2.35:1 consistently dominates these event movies, while other ratios remain a piddly minority. Please, show me this trend you keep talking about. It’s just not there.

      Do you not understand how math works? The bigger number equals MORE. The smaller number equals LESS.

      • freakyguy666

        If you think that the filmmakers do not consider how the images will be received in 16×9 vs scope then you have a lot to learn about filmmaking. Directors are certainly conscious of the different impact the same scene will have in scope vs 1.85 or taller. They are meticulous in this regard and to imply that it takes no effort to plan for a shot to be available in both scope and 1.85 or taller is simply an ignorant statement.

        With regard to your reference to arithmetic: Please note what I said in the prior comment: Fully 3 of the top 5 “event” movies this year will be shown at 1.85 or taller in IMAX. Is that more or less than prior years? Simple even for you.

        • Timcharger

          Just post quotes of various filmmakers saying 16X9 / IMAX dimensions are the definitive/superior version.

          Why play this game of data mining? Get it from the horse’s mouth.

          Freaky, if you get enough filmmakers quoted saying your claim, you’ll win this debate.

          • Chris B

            EXACTLY, this thread is becoming the same thing as the last one. You two could go around in circles like this forever. Say what you want abouy Josh’s argument Freaky, the key is he has posted EVIDENCE and FACTS to support it. Until you are able to do the same you can’t expect people to buy into what you’re selling.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Freaky will just regurgitate the James Cameron quote from a few years ago, and he’ll continue to pretend that James Gunn personally told him that 1.85:1 is the most awesomest thing ever during a conversation in that very vivid dream he had.

            He can post all the quotes he wants. The facts are right in front of us in the post above. The directors of 17 of the Top 24 big-budget films this year chose 2.35:1. Last year, the directors of 24 of the Top 31 big-budget films chose 2.35:1. Actions speak louder than words. All of these directors had the option of shooting their movies at 1.85:1 and chose not to. Consistently, only a very small minority of directors choose 1.85:1 or variable ratios for big-budget “event” movies. 2.35:1 is overwhelmingly the aspect ratio favored by the directors of this type of movie.

            Those are the facts. The only conclusion to be drawn from them is very clear: 2.35:1 is the dominant aspect ratio for big-budget “event” movies, and there is no sign of that changing anytime soon.

          • Timcharger

            Josh, I’ll concede the director’s stated preference as good enough evidence. Often times what was released theatrically wasn’t the director’s preferred version.

            The director may later state that if he really could have his way, this new version is the definitive/superior one. (I know this opens a Lucas can of worms.)

            So Freaky can cite 1. Just James Cameron?

            Then I wouldn’t be too worried if I were you.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            I’m not worried; I’m just annoyed, and you’re giving him an opening to “prove” his argument with the one quote he can find. As we know, in Freaky’s mind, 1 equals “many.” Even if it’s just 1 out of a million, the 1 that says what he wants to hear will always trump the 999,999 he doesn’t want to hear.

          • freakyguy666

            I don’t have the luxury of having the time to mine up all of the quotes but here are just a few.

            All of the Directors listed below formatted their movies in 1.85 or taller for IMAX….AND they call THE IMAX VERSION the “most immersive” “superior” “definitive” or any other superlatives used to communicate the idea that the IMAX version is the best. Hear them say it themselves:

            Gunn youtube.com/watch?v=sfqF5DfOsmI

            JJ Abrams youtube.com/watch?v=uHUsFAF5v08 Discusses the benefits of the additional height in IMAX that he cannot get in scope.

            Sam Mendes youtube.com/watch?v=w0oKwNXQRgM 2:15 mark

            Joseph Kosinski youtube.com/watch?v=XlXv_eatutw “more immersive” 1:39 mark

            Michael Bay youtube.com/watch?v=7BP5njntkaI

            Chris Nolan…do we even need a link here? His position is already pretty clear.

            James Cameron http://www.wired.com/2009/12/cameron-avatar-imax/ The article is titled “Cameron: For Most Immersive Avatar Experience, Go Imax”

            I’m sure if you have the time or inclination you could find many more interviews wherein they describe why they chose to open up the AR for the IMAX version. They all describe this decision as making the film experience better (i,e. superior). I know because I’ve read them over the years.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            That James Gunn clip is hilarious. As he talks about how IMAX offers more than other theaters (never specifically mentioning aspect ratio), every clip from the movie playing behind him is 2.35:1.

            If J.J. Abrams loves the added height of the IMAX scenes so much, it’s funny that he transferred the Blu-ray at 2.35:1 without alternating aspect ratios. I guess the added height wasn’t so important after all.

            Sam Mendes does not say anything about aspect ratio. Mendes transferred Skyfall to Blu-ray at 2.35:1. The added height was obviously not important to him.

            Joseph Kosinksi explicitly states in the video you link that he composed Oblivion for the scope 2.35:1 aspect ratio (at 1:56 in the clip) and only “protected” for the taller IMAX frame. Kosinski transferred Oblivion to Blu-ray at 2.35:1.

            Michael Bay does not mention aspect ratio in his interview.

            It of course must also be pointed out that every one of these videos is a paid endorsement by the IMAX Corporation.

          • Drew

            Chris,

            Exactly what evidence as Freak ever posted?

            I’ve read every comment on every thread, and I’ve never seen a shred of it.

            Furthermore, what was it evidence of?

            The evidence is right here, in this very post.

            2.35:1 is the overwhelmingly chosen aspect ratio for event films. What other evidence could there possibly be?

          • freakyguy666

            Chris B, I hope that you have not allowed JZ’s straw argument to distract you from my actual position. Again, my position is that directors are utilizing 1.85 or taller AR’s in IMAX for the same “event” movies that are otherwise presented in scope more and more. This is a fact! And JZ has not posted anything to rebut this fact. Instead he resorts to distracting with straw arguments.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Look at the numbers, Freaky. How many directors utilized 1.85:1 or taller for “event” movies this year? How many did it last year? How about the year before that? You claim there is a “trend” that “more and more” directors are shooting these movies at 1.85:1. Where is this alleged trend? Show it to me.

          • Drew

            None of these links direct to a site that contains a quote that pertains to this debate. The quotes from these filmmakers are all about MONEY.

            Go see this film in IMAX! It will be so worth it to pay double for your ticket! You won’t regret it!

            They all want their films to make MORE MONEY. You’re simply providing links to quotes that confirm this. But we already know that.

            I’ve made enough statements about my enjoyment of seeing films in IMAX, on this blog, that everyone knows my stance on IMAX. I admit, I’m a sucker for paying the IMAX surcharge. For me, it’s all about the sound. (Well, the sound combined with the fact that I get to see the film on an enormous 3D screen). All of the other premium large format options, and the Dolby Atmos — with a gigantic screen — options that I have are non-3D. If I could go to a Dolby Atmos auditorium that featured 3D and a screen size comparable to the better IMAX screens, I would never see another film in IMAX.

            Anyway, linking to quotes that confirm that the filmmakers want their movies to make more money is completely irrelevant. I know I’m being suckered into paying more for IMAX. I’m happy to do it, until I have an option that gives me similar screen size, sound, plus 3D. It has absolutely nothing to do with aspect ratio for me, and I’m educated about it. Do you really think that Joe Somebody, who doesn’t know aspect ratio from gear ratio goes to IMAX to see a taller movie? If you do, you’re even more ignorant that I thought. Do you know how many films I have went to see with friends, colleagues, and family members, in IMAX (even 15/70 films like ‘Catching Fire’ and ‘The Dark Knight’) that they had no idea that the aspect ratio had changed during the entire film.

            Non-nerd/geek audiences don’t notice such things, and they certainly don’t care. They go to IMAX, solely because it’s big and loud. Filmmakers frame the occasional film for IMAX friendly projection because they want their film to make more money and IMAX tickets cost a lot more. Moreover, they know very well that doing so will generate enough publicity, with headlines abut THE IMAX EXPERIENCE that their film will sell even more of those precious $15 – $20 IMAX tickets.

            If you think it has to do with anything else, I have a bottle of air that I can sell to you for a great price.

          • Chris B

            Drew, um…you may have misunderstood my post. I never stated that Freakyguy666 had produced eveidence, I was just asking him to post links pertinent to his argument. All is forgiven though as this is clearly a heated debate and we are probably all reading these posts pretty quickly. If you want to hug it out we can…..I’m a good hugger.

          • freakyguy666

            Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that when presented with direct quotes from the filmmakers stating that their 1.85 AR IMAX versions of their movies is superior, Drew simply says they are lying? If you won’t even take the filmmakers word for it, then you have bigger issues.

            Take care!

        • Josh Zyber
          Author

          This post thoroughly disproves your “Top 5” claim. You are trying to narrow down your criteria to artificially inflate the percentage and make a very small number look higher than it actually is. 3 movies is not a lot of movies. 3 movies is 3 movies. When you say “3 out of the Top 5,” you try to make 3 sound like a lot. However, what we’re really talking about here are 7 movies out of 24, which is 29%. That’s consistent with the prior year and down from 2012. There is no trend.

          How much money a movie actually winds up earning at the box office is irrelevant to the intent of the filmmakers when choosing their aspect ratio. What if Transformers had been a flop? What would that do to your “Top 5” argument? The director has no control over whether people pay to see his movie or not. However, he does have control over the budget and aspect ratio.

          Further, currently, 4 of the Top 5 movies this year are 2.35:1 productions. You are merely assuming that Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar will rise to the Top 5. This has yet to be seen. What if they don’t? What if Guardians had a huge drop-off next week and Interstellar is a flop? What if Exodus and the new Hunger Games move into the Top 5 instead? Your “Top 5” argument is misleading and ultimately meaningless.

          • freakyguy666

            JZ, you have deliberately ignored my point that the reason for movies being presented in 2.35 has a lot to do with the fact that most theater screens are currently 2.35 and therefore if a director prefers 1.85 he must concede a smaller image. Do you acknowledge or deny that this fact has something to do with the AR the directors utilize?

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Let’s see here. Freaky has conceded that:

            A) Most cinema screens are 2.35:1.
            B) 1.85:1 offers an inferior experience on the majority of cinema screens.
            C) When making big-budget “event” movies, most directors choose 2.35:1 for the best experience on the majority of screens.

            Soooo… What part of this supports your contention that 1.85:1 is better for these “event” movies? Seems to me that you’ve just admitted that your entire argument is bullshit. Good luck spinning your way out of this one.

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ, as an editor your reading comprehension skills are pathetic.

            My point–for the umpteenth time–is that when these event movies are presented in imax, more and more we are seeing the directors open up the frame to 1.85 or taller and then describe these versions as superior to the scope versions.

            Understand? If not I could repeat it as many times as it takes to get thru to you.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Again with the “more and more.” Where is the “more and more”? Show me the “more and more.” The facts are right there in front of you. There is no “more and more.” The “more and more” is an illusion. It does not exist.

            If “more and more” directors are formatting their movies for IMAX, why is it that the actual number of movies made this way isn’t going up at all from year to year? EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. The math is absolute. The numbers do not lie.

            How can you have “more,” when it’s the same number or less than it was the previous year?

          • Freakyguy666

            Again, the fact that there are still vastly more 2.35 screens in theaters worldwide than 1.85 or taller, influences the directors decision on how to present these event films. Scope is clearly not always the most immersive according to many of these directors themselves (see quotes above). So it stands to reason that if all screens were imax that these same directors would present their event films in 1.85 or taller GIVEN THAT THEY THEMSELVES CALL THE TALLER AR IMAX VERSIONS MORE IMMERSIVE!

          • Drew

            Here’s the bottom line: Freaky keeps talking about a taller aspect ratio. 1.85:1 and 1.9:1 are not taller than Scope. Scope is the exact same height, it’s just a lot wider. If there was some new gimmick format that offered a Scope screen that was the exact same height as the tallest IMAX screen you’ve ever seen but also much wider than that, do you seriously think that another filmmaker would ever even occasionally frame a film for THE IMAX EXPERIENCE?

            THE IMAX EXPERIENCE is a marketing ploy, nothing more. It’s as simple as that.

            If a brand new gimmick format — let’s call it I-INFINITI — debuted tomorrow and offered a proprietary audio system with even more power and better imaging than IMAX, higher resolution projectors, superior 3D (viewers could actually tilt their heads without losing the image), and Scope screens as tall as the tallest IMAX screens in the world — but A LOT wider — not a single filmmaker would EVER frame another film for the all mighty marketing ploy known as THE IMAX EXPERIENCE.

          • freakyguy666

            Drew, are you implying that Scope screens are intended to be WIDER than IMAX??? If not, and since 1.85 on IMAX is what I am discussing, your argument is moot.

        • Rafael Clark

          I think I get the comment from the “freaky” user.
          He is not saying that the directors of event movies prefer 1.85:1 to 2.35:1, he’s just saying that more and more directors are taking advantage of the taller IMAX screens. If you look at 2011, only Brad Bird did it (with Mission Impossible). Now, this year, we have Transformers, Interstellar and Guardians of the Galaxy doing it – and probably Hunger Games will do it too (and maybe The Hobbit? I don’t think so).
          But I think this is not an “artistic” decision, it’s more a marketing ploy to make moviegoers pay for the most expensive ticket.

          As for J.J. Abrams, he is releasing Star Trek with the variable aspect ratio on Blu-ray next month. I also don’t think the directors choose the aspect ratio in which the Blu-ray will be released, this is a studio decision, made by the marketing department. Just speculation, of course, because I don’t work in a movie studio.
          I personally prefer the 1.85:1 aspect ratio for big action movies, specially if they are in 3D, so if I worked in a movie studio, Skyfall would have been released on Blu-ray using the IMAX AR.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            The director of Hunger Games has confirmed that the next two movies will be entirely 2.35:1. The variable IMAX ratio was only used for Catching Fire.

  8. Drew

    Man! Unbelievable!

    I just realized that Josh must have spent numerous hours doing research, compiling data, and then presenting it (Thank you, Josh), only to have the infamous troll, Mr. or Mrs. Freak once again throw up a bunch of smoke screens and distract everyone from the cold hard facts.

    I’m disgusted. The statistics are here. They’re indisputable. And yet Freak has somehow turned this into a game of what he did say/what he might have said/what he didn’t really mean to say, but said anyway/what he meant without really meaning it/what he didn’t mean, but possibly could have meant it, if it assists whatever point he’s trying to make but not make, at the same time, at that particular moment/what he didn’t really say, but possibly could have said/what he never said, unless it would have benefited his trolling, in which case he definitely did say it.

    Is there a better expert manipulator/master troll anywhere on the internet?

    The debate is over. Josh gave us the statistics. There’s nothing more to be said.

    • freakyguy666

      The Statistics ARE clear:

      This year 3 of the top 5 event movies are likely to be presented in a 1.85 or taller AR on IMAX rather than the scope AR that they will appear on classic scope screens. That is a clear increase over the past, i.e. MORE.

      And going forward we have more of these types of IMAX presentations to look forward to including Star Wars next year among others.

      Those are facts.

      But rather than dealing with them you and JZ throw out straw arguments to make your case and I don’t think the readers are falling for it.

      • Josh Zyber
        Author

        What a joke. Just for fun, I’m going to try to spin the numbers the same way you do. Here we go:

        1 out of the Top #1 movies of the year will be 2.35:1. That’s 1 out of 1 = 100%!!!! That a huge increase over the 0% for Top #1 movies last year. Meanwhile, 0 out of the Top #1 movies of the year will 1.85:1. 100% for me, 0% for Freaky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s how math works, right? Oh, and this is based on the assumption that Hunger Games will be the #1 movie of the year. It’s not the #1 movie of the year yet, but it might be later and I’m just guessing that it will be because it suits my argument to believe that. Therefore, this is indisputable proof that more and more and more and more theoretical Top #1 movies will be 2.35:1 and Freaky is stupid. Nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaaa…

        Ahem.

        Dear lord, it actually hurts my brain to stoop to your level and try to think like you do.

        The actual numbers are above. Here’s the reality: 7 big-budget movies were produced at 1.85:1 or variable ratios this year. 7 big-budget movies were produced at 1.85:1 or variable ratios last year. 7 is not more than 7. 7 is the same number as 7.

        17 big-budget movies were produced at 2.35:1 this year. 24 big-budget movies were produced at 2.35:1 last year. Both 17 and 24 are much larger numbers than 7.

        And this is giving you the benefit of the doubt that the Hobbit movies were projected at 1.9:1 in IMAX, which is in some dispute. If they were actually 2.35:1 in IMAX, your number for both this year and last year goes down to 6, and my numbers go up to 18 and 25 respectively.

        The math really isn’t very difficult. You just have to be honest about it.

        • eric

          Actually to make freakys argument true, you can’t look at 2D presentations in non-IMAX theatre at all and only consider the ones in IMAX that were also 3D presentations. This brings his argument closer to the his point.

          But, that being said, I could say that theatre seating is 100% more comfortable year over year if I only look at the data from new theatres and don’t consider the older theatres.

          I could also say that digital is the preferred format over 35mm film reals in theatres if I only consider the theatres that actually have digital projectors and not just 35mm.

          I could also say that more people prefer to use the internet now than 20 years ago…

          BTW all six previous STAR WARS films where filmed in scope, but since the new one is being film on IMAX cameras… Mr Freaky is correct because only 0 previous STAR WARS movies have been filmed IMAX cameras… also, corporations are people and films are people and robots are real and aliens are real…

          • freakyguy666

            Eric, I believe that you may have only skimmed thru my posts. If you hadn’t you would realize that you are being mislead by JZ on what my position truly is.

            Here it is in a nutshell from a prior post…

            “Freakyguy666
            August 7, 2014 at 2:10 pm –
            JZ, as an editor your reading comprehension skills are pathetic.

            My point–for the umpteenth time–is that when these event movies are presented in imax, more and more we are seeing the directors open up the frame to 1.85 or taller and then describe these versions as superior to the scope versions.

            Understand? If not I could repeat it as many times as it takes to get thru to you.”

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Freaky, you do not have an IMAX theater in your house. What difference does it make what was done in IMAX theaters? You cannot recreate the IMAX experience at home. Why do you insist that these movies be transferred to Blu-ray at 1.85:1 when it is abundantly clear that the directors of these movies prefer 2.35:1 for all non-IMAX theaters, including home theaters? (And many of the directors prefer 2.35:1 in IMAX theaters as well.)

            Your entire argument is based on the fallacy that what happens in IMAX theaters is somehow relevant to Blu-ray or home theater. It is not.

          • Freakyguy666

            Try to stay on point, JZ.

            The debate we’re having here has nothing to do with bluray. Your attempts to distract from the fact that this thread and the previous one prove that I have been correct all along is not going to work.

            Nice try…

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Liar. Your first comment on Friday’s post, the one that started this argument:

            “Given the IMAX aspect ratio, it seems likely that this movie is another prime candidate for 16×9 on the bluray.”

          • Freakyguy666

            That was a different thread. And that comment has since been validated by the director himself.

            Next?

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      “Is there a better expert manipulator/master troll anywhere on the internet?”

      This question presumes that Freaky is good at manipulating or trolling. I will give you that he’s good at trolling, but he’s not good at all at manipulating the facts. His efforts are transparent. I would venture that many superior manipulators exist on the internet.

  9. Chris B

    This is crazy, after nearly a week of heated debate neither side’s postition has changed at all. Please guys…agree to disagree and let’s all move on with life and enjoy the weekend!

  10. eric

    See the quote below from Cameron, he says 1.85 only works well for 3D… and that is it.

    “For Avatar we’re shooting in a 16:9 ratio, we’re extracting a cinemascope ratio from that for 2D theatrical exhibition, and for 3D theatrical exhibition we will do, in the theaters that can, we’ll be in the 16:9 format and the theaters that can’t we’ll be in the scope format. Because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D. It really pulls you through the screen. So I’m actually going back on years of kind of eschewing the kind of 1.85 format, now saying 1.85 – or actually, it’s 1.78:1 – actually works really well in 3D. But only in 3D. I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection.”

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      James Cameron later changed his stance and now says that he likes 16:9 for everything. Hence the reason that the 2D Blu-rays for Avatar are 16:9, even though the deleted scenes in the Collector’s Edition are presented in their original 2.35:1.

  11. freakyguy666

    JZ, you asked, “Again with the “more and more.” Where is the “more and more”? Show me the “more and more.” The facts are right there in front of you. There is no “more and more.” The “more and more” is an illusion. It does not exist.”

    Yet your own data makes my point.

    Just within the past 5-6 years we have seen the number of films that are altered from the Scope AR to 1.85 or taller on IMAX go from 1 to a consistent 4.

    Is 4 “more” than 1???

    Please tell me you know the answer is yes.

    Case Closed.

    • Josh Zyber
      Author

      Actually, that 4 is not consistent if the Hobbit movies prove to actually be 2.35:1 in IMAX.

      2012 had 5 movies with variable IMAX ratios. By your logic, there has been a significant trend downward in the number of IMAX formatted movies over the past two years. That’s it, I guess. IMAX is dead. It’s over. FEWER AND FEWER directors are choosing IMAX.

      • Freakyguy666

        Wrong. Again, it seems you missed my entire point.

        Life of Pi could have been seen in 1.85 on many scope screens so the Imax version was not a differentiator and therefore there is no reason to include it–similar to why one wouldn’t count any other 1.85 film that’s also presented in Imax.

        With regard to time frames, 2 years does not establish a trend. In fact the further back you go the clearer it becomes that my assertion (that the number of scope event films that are presented in taller AR’s via IMAX is increasing) is irrefutable. To wit, if you go back thru YOUR OWN data set, it’s clear that there were ONLY 3 (three!) films spread out over 14 (FOURTEEN!) years that met this criteria; whereas this year we will likely witness 40% of the top 10 movies presented in this manner. THAT TREND IS IRREFUTABLE.

        • Josh Zyber
          Author

          Life of Pi was distributed in multiple aspect ratio versions, like Avatar. Some were all 2.35:1 scope, and some were 1.85:1 with selected scenes letterboxed (like the Blu-ray). Different theaters got different versions.

          2 years out of 3 isn’t a trend? You don’t say! Kind of like how 3 movies out of 5 isn’t a trend when we’re actually talking about dozens of movies every year. Your ability to detect blatant condescending sarcasm is as poor as your logic and math skills.

          • Freakyguy666

            You just reiterated what I wrote. The fact remains that you failed to disprove my assertion (that the number of scope event films that are presented in taller AR’s via IMAX is increasing). Instead you keep dancing around it.

            Keep dancing JZ.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            I don’t need to dance when it’s easier to stomp and crush.

            Since 2002 (when Apollo 13 and Attack of the Clones were released in IMAX DMR, marking the first time that IMAX became a player in the realm of Hollywood feature films), the number of $100 million “event” movies produced at 1.85:1 or variable ratios has risen from 6 to 7. (And that’s being generous enough to give you the new Hobbit prequel. If that proves to be scope, the number hasn’t budged at all.) Meanwhile, the number of “event” movies produced at 2.35:1 has risen from 4 to 17.

            During this 12 year span, the number of 1.85:1/variable movies peaked in 2012 with 10. The number of 2.35:1 movies shot up a year later to 24.

            The overall number of movies made for $100 million has risen over the last decade. As it rises, the number of 2.35:1 movies rises with it, meeting or exceeding the pace of new 1.85:1 movies.

            By your own logic, if “more and more” event movies are being made at 1.85:1, then EVEN MORE AND EVEN MORE event movies are also being made at 2.35:1. The number of new 2.35:1 event movies consistently exceeds the number of new 1.85:1/variable event movies, and there is absolutely no sign of that trend changing.

            Shall I fetch you some crutches, Freaky? Your argument has been thoroughly hobbled. There is no spin you can put on these clear and indisputable facts that I can’t easily disprove by telling the truth.

          • freakyguy666

            We should call you “JZ Straw” from now on given your propensity to draw up straw arguments rather than deal with the actual debate!

            To wit, your comment bundles up all films that were originally presented in 1.85 on scope screens with the films that I have been referring to, namely, scope films that were opened up exclusively on IMAX.

            I’ll ask the question one more time: HOW MUCH HAS THE NUMBER OF SCOPE EVENT FILMS THAT ARE PRESENTED IN TALLER AR’s via IMAX INCREASED IN THE PAST 7-8 YEARS????

            The answer: It has gone from 0 to 4. That is MORE no matter how you slice it! AND it is likely that those 4 movies will all be in the top 10 for the year thereby resulting in fully 40% of the top 10 films being presented this year–whereas just 7-8 years ago they represented 0%. That is also MORE!

            Keep dancing “JZ Straw”!

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            I have already debunked all of these points. If you want to narrow your argument to just movies with variable ratios, your number goes from 1 in 2002 (Attack of the Clones) to 4 in 2014 (more likely 3, removing The Hobbit), while the number of 2.35:1 films continues to jump from 4 to 17. This just makes your side of the debate look even worse. The number of new 2.35:1 “event” films significantly outpaces the number of new variable ratio movies at least threefold. MORE AND MORE directors are choosing to shoot their big-budget event films at 2.35:1. WAY MORE than choose variable ratio.

            I have already explained why ranking these films by box office revenue tells us absolutely nothing about their directors’ intent. The real criteria of importance is budget.

            Even if we were going to use box office revenue, you are FLAT-OUT LYING about your numbers. Right now, only 1 of the Top 10 movies this year has a variable ratio (Transformers). That’s 10%, not 40%. You’re placing movies in the Top 10 (sometimes even the Top 5) that are not there yet and may not ever get there. You’re calling Interstellar a Top 5 movie for the year, and it hasn’t even opened yet. That movie could be a huge bomb for all you know. If we were in a court of law right now, you’d be censured for assuming facts that are not in evidence.

            If that’s how you want to play the game, then I’m going to state that Hunger Games 3, Exodus, Night at the Museum 3, Expendables 3, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles will all be massive, massive, massive blockbusters that push Transformers out of the Top 5, leaving you with 0 movies in the Top 5 this year. I have no evidence that all of those movies will actually be in the Top 5 this year, and in fact most of them probably won’t, but since you’ve already established a precedent for COMPLETELY MAKING SHIT UP OUT OF THIN AIR, then my fictional Top 5 movies are just as valid as your fictional Top 5 movies.

            You want to try again? I eagerly await your next batch of lies and bullshit.

          • freakyguy666

            Everyone take note: I have asked JZ the same question OVER AND OVER, yet he REFUSES TO ANSWER! I wonder why….

            ONCE AGAIN: HOW MUCH HAS THE NUMBER OF SCOPE EVENT FILMS THAT ARE PRESENTED IN TALLER AR’s via IMAX INCREASED IN THE PAST 7-8 YEARS????

            Let’s see if he answers…

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Why are you limiting the date range to only 7-8 years? This is another attempt by you to manipulate the statistics by narrowing your criteria to ever more specific, contained parameters.

            IMAX theaters have played Hollywood movies since 2002. The first Hollywood movie to have its aspect ratio modified for IMAX happened in 2002.

            I have already given you these numbers. Since 2002, the number of scope event films presented in taller aspect ratios in IMAX theaters has taken a tiny step from 1 to 3. (I’m not giving you The Hobbit anymore unless you can prove to me that it will have a variable ratio.) Meanwhile, during the same time period, the number of event movies produced exclusively in 2.35:1 has made a much bigger jump from 4 to 18.

            MORE AND MORE directors are choosing to film their big-budget event movies in 2.35:1.

          • freakyguy666

            JZ, you know very well that in the 5 years after IMAX Attack of the Clones, there was only 1 movie that was “opened-up” exclusively on IMAX–and it was an animated film. Moreover, there were many years that there were NONE, i.e. ZERO.

            In just the past 3 years the number has JUMPED from wavering between 0 and 1 to a CONSISTENT 4!

            Again, when a number goes from between 0 and 1 to a 4 is that not an substantial increase???

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            I’m taking away the Hobbit movies from you, since it appears that those were 2.35:1 even in IMAX. That brings you down to 3, not 4. The difference between 1 and 3 over the course of 12 years is not a “substantial increase” by any stretch of the imagination, not even yours.

          • Freakyguy666

            You’re “taking the hobbit movies away from” me?? So now who’s manipulating the facts! Imdb clearly states that both films were presented in 1.78 in IMAX.

            I guess JZ won’t let facts get in the way of a good story!

            Take heed readers! Your editor is denouncing imdb and changing facts to suit his fantasies.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            I’m taking the Hobbit sequels away from you because new evidence points to IMDb being incorrect. I threw them to you as a bone before, but you’re being such an annoying prat that I’m no longer feeling so generous.

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ admits defeat!

            By his own skewed interpretation, he admits that the number of scope event films that are presented in taller AR’s via IMAX is increasing.

            Hence, when I said there were “more” at the beginning of this debate–I WAS CORRECT AND JZ WAS WRONG TO CHALLENGE IT.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            Stop being childish. It’s irritating. You have not scored a point on me, and you certainly have not “won” any portion of this debate.

          • Drew

            Read above, Freak.

            I confirmed that both ‘Hobbit’ films were projected in Scope, in every IMAX in North America, and all but a handful international dual-strip IMAX auditoriums, worldwide. In the handful of dual-strip IMAX auditoriums, they were projected at 2:1, NOT 1.78:1. Peter Jackson had nothing to do with this decision.

          • freakyguy666

            JZ, you lost the argument.

            The only way you “win” is if you can prove that 4 (or even 3, for that matter) is not more than 0 or 1.

            That’s the bottom line.

            Good luck!

          • Drew

            Just ignore this, Josh.

            Everyone knows that the argument had absolutely nothing to do with this.

            The argument was about whether there has been a more substantial increase in EVENT films being projected exclusively in Scope, or EVENT films being projected in 1.85:1 or a variable aspect ratio.

            You have thoroughly proven that there is a much greater increase in the number of EVENT films being projected exclusively in Scope.

            Don’t feed the troll. Hang in there. Be strong. Resist.

            If you ignore the troll, it will go away.

          • freakyguy666

            Drew neglected to read and/or comprehend my comments before offering another uninformed opinion.

            To wit, I outlined my position clearly many many times. Here’s just one example…

            freakyguy666
            August 7, 2014 at 10:50 am – Reply
            JZ, I think you just wasted a great deal of your time.

            Obviously, this is your blog so you are able to frame these arguments however you want–even if they are not representative of the other side’s position.

            But in fairness, I would ask that you not speak for me and present my position correctly.

            Again, I have repeatedly written that MOST “event” films in the past have been framed in 2.35. What I said is that the reason the directors typically choose to frame them in scope is because they are certainly aware that most theaters screens are still using 2.35 and if they choose 1.85 it would REDUCE the size of the image thereby reducing the impact. And ideally an “event” film should be projected as large as possible.

            A director who chooses 1.85 must strongly feel the need for the added height because they are implicitly accepting a reduction in image size in MOST theaters (i.e. Steven Spielberg with Jurassic Park, del Toro with Pacific Rim, Joss Whedon with Avengers, to name a few).

            Recently, with IMAX allowing “event” films to be presented on their screens, directors now have the option of having their cake and eating it, too. It must be noted that “opening up” from scope to 1.85 is not a simple thing. It must be PLANNED from the beginning meaning the filmmaker must frame the shots conscious of the fact that the image will be presented in both AR’s–this takes additional time and most importantly MONEY. Things like boom mikes must be accounted for, special effects must be taken into consideration, etc. Most filmmakers do not have this luxury–but IF they feel strongly enough that the IMAX AR will be substantially more immersive–then they WILL and HAVE taken additional measures to implement the 1.85 or taller AR’s in the IMAX version. THIS is happening more and more. And this year, it is likely that 3 of the top 5movies will have done exactly that [and 4 of the top 10–whereas just a few short years ago we were lucky to get one] . Compare this with year’s past and there is no doubt the trend is to do this more.

            Oh, and there’s a little movie coming out next year that will be doing the same thing…it’s called Star Wars.

            A question for you: Why do you believe that filmmakers open up the aspect ratio on IMAX screens and then go on to state that the IMAX version is the definitive/superior version?

  12. I’m not a smart man, but I do know what movies are (paraphrasing Forrest Gump). This isn’t relevant to the discussion (sorry for that), but when I was listening to Robert Zemeckis on the ‘Back to the Future’ audio commentary (the “Do you mind if we … park?” scene), he mentioned he shot the movie in 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1 because he likes ‘1.85:1’ more. Of course, this has nothing to do with IMAX of immersive, but it always struck me as a funny choice by Zemeckis. I very much like my movies to be wide.

    (Ben-Hur is even more awesome, because it’s 2:70:1! When my dad saw ‘Ben-Hur’ in a local cinema in 1961, the silver screen wasn’t wide enough, so part of the film had to be projected on the wall. Funny!)

    • Freakyguy666

      And it wasn’t an easy decision, for Zemeckis knew this choice meant the film would be projected smaller because the standard theater screen was 2.35 resulting in pillar boxes. He must have REALLY REALLY liked 1.85 more to sacrifice a larger presentation–something most directors of event films (some of whom may actually prefer 1.85) are not willing to do.

      • Josh Zyber
        Author

        There would be no pillarbox bars. Cinemas have masking panels or curtains that automatically move in to cover any unused portions of the screen.

        Robert Zemeckis is such a huge fan of 1.85:1 that, the more experience he’s gained as a director, and despite the proliferation of IMAX, he has transitioned to making his movies almost exclusively in 2.35:1 over the past two decades: Forrest Gump, Contact, What Lies Beneath, Beowulf, A Christmas Carol and Flight – all 2.35:1.

        Yup, Bob Zemeckis, another of Freaky’s heroes of 1.85:1 who doesn’t actually use 1.85:1 anymore.

        • freakyguy666

          The point is that even with masking or pillarboxing, the image size is reduced and Bob made the choice to use 1.85 and sacrifice image size anyway.

          It’s reasonable to expect that going forward he realized how important image size is and did not want to make the same sacrifice going forward. But–when he was offered to opportunity to present Polar Express on IMAX he changed the aspect ratio to take advantage of the increased height. Now why would he do that if he was truly converted to scope? The answer is obvious: when you have a larger screen like IMAX there is no image size sacrifice when presenting in 1.85 or taller.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            After The Polar Express, Zemeckis released Beowulf and A Christmas Carol to IMAX without altering their aspect ratios. He learned his lesson after Polar Express and kept the later movies at 2.35:1, even in IMAX.

          • freakyguy666

            Yes, but there could be myriad reasons why.

            The point is he DID use the taller AR for IMAX after going to 2.35 from BttF. Therefore it was not correct to imply that he won’t use 1.85 anymore given history.

          • Josh Zyber
            Author

            No, the point is that he DID use the wider 2.35:1 aspect ratio (including in IMAX) after trying 1.9:1 for Polar Express. Therefore, it is not correct to imply that he loves 1.85:1 and wishes all of his new movies could be that ratio. The actual facts before us show that he favors 2.35:1 today, even in IMAX.

            Please stop trying to interpret what you believe these directors may be secretly thinking even when they do the opposite of what you want them to do. What matters is what they ACTUALLY DO, and more of these directors actually make their $100 million event movies at 2.35:1 than at 1.85:1 or variable ratio.

          • freakyguy666

            The point is that if one were to only have read your initial response one would be likely to assume that Zemeckis used 2.35 exclusively, when in fact, he didn’t.

            My point has been made.

            Now, why don’t you tell us why you disagree that 4 is more than 0?

            Thanks!

  13. Timcharger

    What makes a film a IMAX feature or not a IMAX feature?

    In the sense that 2.35 films are being shown on IMAX screens,
    so why can’t any film be shown on IMAX screens?

    Even if a studio has prearranged that the next 2?3? weeks, IMAX
    will schedule screenings for a film, if that film is a bomb and no
    one is watching it, can’t IMAX show a different film?

  14. Deaditelord

    Personally, I would block Freaky and call it day Josh. You have thoroughly debunked Freaky’s claims and you don’t need to explain it any more. Freaky is a troll and it’s time to stop giving Freaky what he wants by arguing with him/her.

    • Drew

      I agree. I’m surprised that Josh didn’t block his/her IP address, a while ago. I don’t even believe that he/she believes any of the nonsense that he/she spews. I think that whoever it is is just screwing with Josh and laughing about it. Their behavior is deplorable, and no matter how many times Josh proves them to be patently wrong, they just continue screw with him, without believing or even understanding a word that they are saying.

      • Freakyguy666

        Drew, your name has been added to the short list of people who don’t understand that 4 is “more” than 0 or 1.

        Congrats!

    • William Henley

      This is kinda where I am at too. I was looking at how much work and research went into this post, and while there are 108 comments as of this morning, Its pretty much all Josh, Freaky, Tim and Drew going back and forth.

      What is really sad is, when you can get Freaky off his pedistal about aspect ratios, he actually has some great information to share. The problem is, there is like 10-20% good stuff thrown in with 80-90% crap. He is a troll, and Josh feeds him.

      I pretty much skimmed through this article. With as much work as Josh has put into it, I know all of this. I think most of the board does, and a majority are on Josh’s side. I mean, we may not all have CIH displays at home, but we get the concept and agree with his reasoning. It just seems like Josh is putting an insane amount of work into this to convince one person.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *