Weekend Movies: Get On Out to Theaters

August movie releases are typically pretty mild, signaling the end of yet another summer blockbuster season. However, this year has been interesting and unpredictable. July’s box office was down quite a bit from last year’s, should-be smash hits underperformed, and only international sales have kept the studios from entirely freaking out. Now this weekend, despite starting off what is typically the so-so final month of summer, features one the year’s most entertaining films yet.

As you probably suspected, I’m referring to Marvel’s ‘Guardians of the Galaxy‘. Like many viewers, when this film was announced, I rolled my eyes a little. Who wants to see a gun-wielding CG raccoon and a band of misfit characters nobody’s ever heard of tromping through space? Not me. Having burned out on Marvel, I truly wanted nothing to do with it – that is, until Disney showed 17 minutes of ‘Guardians’ on IMAX screens last month. After seeing that surprisingly spoiler-free segment, I had to eat my words. It won me over. One minute I loathed it, 17 minutes later I loved it. Walking into the press screening of the full film this week, my expectations could only have been higher if I was walking into ‘Interstellar’ (or, for that matter, any other Christopher Nolan film). I’m happy to say that my high expectations were met.

As one of the brand’s lesser-known series amongst non-geeks, I knew nothing of the Guardians. James Gunn’s adaptation stars Chris Pratt as intergalactic thief Peter Quill. Abducted from Earth as young boy, Quill is a loner. With no friends, no family and no allies, when he unknowingly becomes tangled in the web of one of the most relentless and powerful villains in the galaxy, he and a band of similar losers (Zoe Saldana, some WWE wrestler and the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel) come together to protect everything and everyone in their galaxy. For the first time in a Disney/Marvel movie, expect swearing, obscene gestures and a few extremely crude sexual innuendos and references. Full of action, well-earned comedy and quite a bit of heart, ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ breathes long-needed life into Marvel’s cinematic universe.

Also opening wide this weekend is the James Brown bio-pic ‘Get On Up‘. Coming from the director of ‘The Help‘, the film stars Chadwick Boseman as the iconic soul musician. It seems like young Boseman is being handed all of the black bio-pic roles these days – which doesn’t appear to be a bad thing considering that ‘42‘ was pretty good and ‘Get On Up’ has mostly received strong reviews so far. Not screened for press in my region, I can’t say how it is, but with a current 81% Rotten Tomatoes rating, other critics are eating it up.

On four screens is Fox Searchlight’s ‘Calvary‘. The dark comedy reunites ‘The Guard‘ writer-director John Michael McDonagh and star Brendan Gleeson. The latter plays a Catholic priest whose life is threatened by a confessor at church. When he digs a little deeper into the possible killer, his own goodness is questioned as he’s morally put to the test. Like the other two major releases of the week, ‘Calvary’ has gotten some strong buzz.

Finally, after a successful week in a tiny number of theaters, Roadside Attractions is expanding Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s spy thriller ‘A Most Wanted Man‘ to 727 screens.

78 comments

  1. StarMenac

    “Quill is a loaner”? I’m assuming you mean “loner”. Unless, of course, you meant he is on loan from Earth.

  2. freakyguy666

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

    Fact: more and more “event movies” are finding that 16×9 is more immersive than 2.35…

    • I’m not cetain that this Blu-ray will feature the IMAX version of the movie. When I saw the 17-minute IMAX sneak preview last month, it opened with Gunn explaining that he wanted to make IMAX an extra special moviegoing experience. I can see him pulling a Brad Bird by NOT putting the IMAX version on Blu.

      I went back and re-watched Guardians last night on the IMAX screen (Disney couldn’t lock in IMAX press screenings because Paramount refused to give up their week-long Hercules slots) and was surprised that – unlike Promethus – the picture was opened up for the IMAX size for the whole movie. Only select scenes. Like The Dark Knight movies, the ratio kept changing, but nowhere near as often as The Dark Knight Rises.

      • Freakyguy666

        Gunn also stated that the aspect ratio changes are integral to the “storytelling” therefore I think its much more likely that he will use changing aspect ratios on bluray. Also the aspect ratio is probably 16×9 or thereabouts for 75% of the movie in IMAX with maybe 25% in 2.35. So it won’t be as “distracting” which was Brad Bird’s primary reason for making the choice to keep the bluray at 2.35.

        Definitely if one were to watch the IMAX 3d and then go to a 2.35 viewing it would seem like the movie was broken.

    • T.J. Kats

      I wasn’t able to see this in IMAX but how much of the movie is opened up for IMAX? Also isn’t the majority ratio for this film 2.35 making 9 of the top 10 (once this moves into the top ten) grossing movies this year fully or at least a majority 2.35? Which would make your “fact” not quite a fact.

          • Let’s please not go through this again. Freaky does not recognize the concept of “most.” He’s just trolling this blog, as he does periodically.

          • The Top 10 movies this year so far are:

            Transformers: Age of Extinction (variable aspect ratio in IMAX theaters, 2.35:1 in all other theaters)
            X-Men: Days of Future Past (2.35:1)
            Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2.35:1)
            The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2.35:1)
            Maleficent (2.35:1)
            Godzilla (2.35:1)
            Rio 2 (2.35:1)
            The Lego Movie (2.35:1)
            How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2.35:1)
            Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (1.85:1)

            Hence, only two of the Top 10 movies this year were anything other than 2.35:1. And one of those two was explicitly designed to be safe for 2.35:1 projection.

            But, again, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of comprehending the concept of “more” or “most,” so it’s useless to argue with you.

            Thank you for finally divulging your real name, whether intentionally or not.

          • Freakyguy666

            You will be surely adding Interstellar to the list before the year is out. And if it cracks the top 5 that means 3/5 of the top five movies this year will have had16x9 or taller ARs. That’s 60%. But no matter how you slice it, the trend over the last decade is MORE 16×9 blockbusters–not less. Draw a graph if it helps you.

            And no, I didn’t reveal my real name.

            Ps the director of guardians confirms the bluray will have variable aspect ratio.

          • No, if you look at actual year-over-year data, there is no such trend. The 2.35:1 aspect ratio has dominated blockbuster, “epic” films for decades and continues to do so today. 1 or 2 blockbuster movies a year at another aspect ratio are a consistent minority, not a trend.

            If Interstellar becomes one of the top movies of this year, it will bump Dawn of the Planet of the Apes out of the Top 10, maintaining the current balance.

            Also, movies like Interstellar, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Guardians of the Galaxy are explicitly designed to be safe for 2.35:1 projection in the majority of theaters that will show them. Your attempt to cite these as examples to support your side of the argument is extremely counter-productive.

            But we already know that math and logic are not your strong suits, so I’m sure that pointing out these facts will do nothing to shut you up.

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ, your ineptness knows no bounds….

            If you go back 10 years, how many of the top 5 movies per year were presented in 16×9 or larger on IMAX? Fast forward to this year where it is likely that 3 of the top 5 will be presented in 16×9 or larger on IMAX.

            THE TREND IS CLEARLY MORE. The fact that you cannot grasp this simple concept demonstrates that simple arithmetic alludes you.

          • Ten years ago, in 2004, 3 of the Top 10 movies were 1.85:1: Shrek 2, Meet the Fockers and Shark Tale. The rest were 2.35:1.

            3 is not more than 3.

            3 is the same number as 3.

            There has been no movement at all on this front in the past decade.

            You think you’re being clever by narrowing your focus to the Top 5 so as to make your percentage look higher. When that fails, will you try to narrow it even further to just the top movie of each year? 1 out of 1, that’s 100%!

          • Freakyguy666

            As you correctly pointed out, I was referring to top 5. If you want to expand it to top 10, then the number is likely 4 (Dawn, TF, Galaxy, & Intstellar).

            4 is more than 3.

            Hopefully that’s a simple enough idea even for your mind.

          • Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is at #10 for the year. If a new movie moves into the Top 10, it will bump that one out. Even if both Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar wind up being Top 10 hits for the year, you’ll still be left with 70% (7 out of 10) of the Top 10 movies being 2.35:1 and only 30% at any other ratio. That’s the same 70/30 mix the box office had 10 years ago. Your attempt to prove a trend has utterly, embarrassingly failed.

            You really should try to do your research before speaking up. Literally every single thing you say on this topic is false, and easily debunked with only a few seconds of effort. Why do you continue to put yourself through this time and again?

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ, your entire argument is based on incorrect data!

            You say Dawn is #10 at Box Office, when in fact it is #8 thereby nullifying everything you just wrote! Hilarious…

            You really should try to do your research before speaking up. Literally every single thing you say on this topic is false, and easily debunked with only a few seconds of effort. Why do you continue to put yourself through this time and again?

          • Freakyguy666

            Of course I’m looking at domestic! That’s where the majority of imax screens are located.

            Nice try…

          • So you’re acknowledging that the vast majority of cinemas around the world are showing/will show Transformers and Interstellar at 2.35:1? Thus, we can pull those two movies out of your calculation and move them to the 2.35:1 tally.

            With every word you write, you find new ways to undermine your own argument.

          • Freakyguy666

            As usual, JZ misses the point. Not surprising….

            Once again: Filmmakers are deliberately utilizing taller AR’s in imax to take advantage of the bigger screen. It is happening more and more. And many of the subsequent bluray releases are incorporating the taller AR ratios. It is happening more and more. And these are typically among the top grossing movies in OUR country where you live.

            If you still don’t get that there is a trend then you have bigger issues….

          • Only if by “more and more” you mean “exactly the same percentage as existed ten years ago.” You have failed to demonstrate any trend. It’s time for you to stop now. I am bored having this argument again.

          • Freakyguy666

            How many blockbuster movies’ AR’s were increased to take advantage of the imax screen 10 years ago? Not a single one!

            How many this year? Transformers, Guardians, & Interstellar.

            I hope even your diluted mind could grasp the concept that 3 > 0 .

          • Freakyguy666

            There are not hundreds of blockbuster/event movies each year. Thanks for demonstrating your inability to grasp simple concepts…yet again!

          • Every time you’re proven wrong, you narrow the focus of your argument down to a smaller and smaller set of criteria, hoping to confuse the issue. First it’s “Lots of directors every year are moving to 1.85:1.” When that’s proven false, it’s “Lots of Top 10 movies every year are moving to 1.85:1.” False again. Then, “Lots of Top 5 movies every year.” Then “Top 5 movies, but only in America.”

            What’s next, Top 5 movies in America that were directed by Christopher Nolan?

            Excluding this year, which isn’t done yet, here are the actual box office Top 10s for the past decade broken down by aspect ratio. I’m counting Avatar as a Variable Ratio movie, because it played in different aspect ratios in different theaters.

            Let’s see where this trend of yours is:

            2003
            1.85:1 – 2 movies
            2.35:1 – 8 movies

            2004
            1.85:1 – 3 movies
            2.35:1 – 7 movies

            2005
            1.85:1 – 3 movies
            2.35:1 – 7 movies

            2006
            1.85:1 – 2 movies
            2.35:1 – 8 movies

            2007
            1.85:1 – 2 movies
            2.35:1 – 8 movies

            2008
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 8 movies
            Variable Ratio – 1 movie

            2009
            1.85:1 – 3 movies
            2.35:1 – 5 movies
            Variable Ratio – 2 movies

            2010
            1.85:1 – 4 movies
            2.35:1 – 6 movies

            2011
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 8 movies
            Variable Ratio – 1 movie

            2012
            1.85:1 – 3 movies
            2.35:1 – 6 movies
            Variable Ratio – 1 movie

            2013
            1.85:1 – 2 movies
            2.35:1 – 7 movies
            Variable Ratio – 1 movie

            Hmmm, looks to me like 2.35:1 consistently dominates year after year, with 60-80% of the Top 10 box office earners. 2009 was a pretty big year for you (a 50/50 split – it must be a trend!). But then things swung right back to 2.35:1 the following year. D’oh! Foiled again!

            Let’s play by your rules, and look only at the domestic Top 5 results.

            2003
            1.85:1 – 2 movies
            2.35:1 – 3 movies

            2004
            1.85:1 – 2 movies
            2.35:1 – 3 movies

            2005
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 4 movies

            2006
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 4 movies

            2007
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 4 movies

            2008
            1.85:1 – 0 movies
            2.35:1 – 4 movies
            Variable Ratio – 1 movie

            2009
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 2 movies
            Variable Ratio – 2 movies

            2010
            1.85:1 – 2 movies
            2.35:1 – 3 movies

            2011
            1.85:1 – 0 movies
            2.35:1 – 5 movies

            2012
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 3 movies
            Variable Ratio – 1 movie

            2013
            1.85:1 – 1 movie
            2.35:1 – 3 movies
            Variable Ratio – 1 movie

            Nope, things don’t look too much better for you there either. Aside from 2009, it’s a consistent majority of 2.35:1 movies with no indication at all of any trend to move away from that.

            Would you like to invent some other argument that I can easily discredit?

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ, your Alzheimer’s appears to be kicking in again as you’ve seemingly forgotten the fact that the original comment was related to IMAX presentations and the move to maintain the taller AR’s from these presentations on the bluray.

            I’ll forgive you this time due to your apparent medical condition…

  3. John

    Just out of curiosity you did enough research and or just knew to type ” (Zoe Saldana, some WWE wrestler and the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel)” but could not give the poor guy credit by actually using his name 🙂

    I thought Dave Bautista had some of Guardians funnier moments. His delivery was perfect for what he had to do.

  4. T.J. Kats

    Actually my question which started the convo was in regards to this

    “Fact: more and more “event movies” are finding that 16×9 is more immersive than 2.35…”

    • Freakyguy666

      You’re taking that out of context. That sentence was preceded by “Given the IMAX aspect ratio, it seems likely that this movie is another prime candidate for 16×9 on the bluray.”

      I also followed that post with numerous others that made clear my point was related to how filmmakers are utilizing IMAX screens.

      The bottomline is this: Over the past decade, when filmmakers have been afforded the option to present their films on an IMAX screen rather than the old-fashioned “scope” screens, the trend is to utilize the additional height by changing the aspect ratio of their films for the IMAX presentation–AND THEN, MAINTAINING THAT ASPECT RATIO FOR THE HOME. In 2014 it’s likely that 60% of the top 5 movies will fit that description. That’s significant because that means those with constant image height 2.35 screens will be watching these films on a smaller screen than their run-of-the-mill scope movies–EVEN THOUGH the filmmakers intent was to actually have these films appear BIGGER in the home theater.

      Hope this helps!

      • T.J. Kats

        Actually you’re taking it out of context. My post which is where the discussion between you and Josh came from is as follows

        “T.J. Kats
        August 2, 2014 at 6:41 pm – Reply

        I wasn’t able to see this in IMAX but how much of the movie is opened up for IMAX? Also isn’t the majority ratio for this film 2.35 making 9 of the top 10 (once this moves into the top ten) grossing movies this year fully or at least a majority 2.35? Which would make your “fact” not quite a fact.”

        Anyways I don’t care about the argument on the whole so this will be my last post on it.

        • Classic Freaky. When backed into a corner and confronted with his own BS, he tries to divert attention by changing the parameters of the debate. It’s pure desperation.

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ, parameters were always the same. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

            As noted to TJ, the post to which he himself responded to was regarding Imax.

            Luke’s response was specific to IMAX.

            I also followed up with numerous statements that reiterate my position. Here are a few examples since you seem to be still suffering from your medical condition:

            Freakyguy666
            August 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm –
            JZ, your ineptness knows no bounds….

            If you go back 10 years, how many of the top 5 movies per year were presented in 16×9 or larger on IMAX? Fast forward to this year where it is likely that 3 of the top 5 will be presented in 16×9 or larger on IMAX.

            THE TREND IS CLEARLY MORE. The fact that you cannot grasp this simple concept demonstrates that simple arithmetic alludes you.

            Freakyguy666
            August 4, 2014 at 10:32 am –
            Of course I’m looking at domestic! That’s where the majority of imax screens are located.

            Nice try…

            Freakyguy666
            August 4, 2014 at 10:50 am –
            As usual, JZ misses the point. Not surprising….

            Once again: Filmmakers are deliberately utilizing taller AR’s in imax to take advantage of the bigger screen. It is happening more and more. And many of the subsequent bluray releases are incorporating the taller AR ratios. It is happening more and more. And these are typically among the top grossing movies in OUR country where you live.

            If you still don’t get that there is a trend then you have bigger issues….

            Freakyguy666
            August 4, 2014 at 11:35 am –
            How many blockbuster movies’ AR’s were increased to take advantage of the imax screen 10 years ago? Not a single one!

            How many this year? Transformers, Guardians, & Interstellar.

            I hope even your diluted mind could grasp the concept that 3 > 0 .

            FACT: JZ is clearly wrong. I am clearly right. Deal with it.

        • Freakyguy666

          TJ, setting aside the fact that your comment was in response to my post which was specific to the imax version, it is unclear what you are referring to when you say, “…how much of the movie is opened up for IMAX? Also, isn’t the majority ratio for this film 2.35…”. If by “majority ratio” you are referring to the percentage of the imax presentation that is in 16×9 vs 2.35, then the answer is NO. The MAJORITY of the imax presentation is 16×9–not 2.35. I hope this clears it up.

    • William Henley

      Ah, but we would have to have someone else write the article – Josh would have a biased article. 🙂

      Truthfully, as long as we are on obsolete formats, I expect betamax or needlevision next!

      • Freakyguy666

        Who’s talking about absolete formats? I missed that part. Please advise.

        In the interim, it should be noted that historically speaking, 2.35 came about as a gimmic to get people back into theaters after television took away audiences. 16×9 came about only recently and is in its infancy. It will take years before theaters are forced to spend money to upgrade their theaters to larger imax-type screens or face bankruptcy. Until then, it is not economically viable for studios to make films in 16×9 unless it is an “event movie” where the budget is large enough to allow them to the luxury of creating an alternate aspect ratio for specialty theaters like Imax.

        Again, I hope the distinction is not lost on readers. Many filmmakers would PREFER to use 16×9 or taller, but because of the reality that most theaters are still using the now antiquated scope AR, they are forced to use scope if they want their film to appear as large as possible on MOST theaters’ screens.

        IF most theaters were IMAX, there is no doubt that most event films would be presented in 16×9 or taller to take advantage of the larger area. You can look up quotes from many of the top filmmakers supporting this when they describe why they changed AR’s for imax versions of their films.

          • freakyguy666

            Sadly, that’s the closest we will come to seeing JZ admit defeat….but I’ll take it!

        • Drew

          This is by far the most ignorant and unintelligent statement I’ve ever seen on the HDD Bonus View.

          Josh, I’m actually quite surprised that you’re allowing it to remain active. Freak addresses readers as if he is educating them. If you allow this comment to stay up, I’m afraid you’re putting the integrity (and quite frankly, the relevancy) of the Bonus View on a slippery slope. This comment is full of inaccuracies and lies. I know it wasn’t posted by one of the staff, but if certain readers believe Freak and think that any part of this is true, it could go a long way towards making HDD look bad.

          • freakyguy666

            Drew, that is hilarious coming from you.

            It should be noted that Drew has had more posts retracted than anyone else I know on these boards.

        • Drew

          Freak is delusional enough to present these fallacies as fact. That’s my biggest concern. Read this statement while pretending that you are naive. I’m afraid that a certain percentage of readers will misinterpret it, and accept it as factual, when it couldn’t be more inaccurate.

        • Drew

          Any posts of mine that have been removed were removed solely for the fact that they were attacking Freak. I’ve never had a comment removed, due to it being ignorant, inaccurate, and downright stupid, like the comments that Freak has made in regards to aspect ratio.

          • freakyguy666

            Thanks for the confirmation, Drew.

            Please enlighten us on why you believe that filmmakers open up the aspect ratio on IMAX screens and then go on to state that the “open” version is the definitive/superior version?

            Thanks in advance!

        • Fine, let’s break this down, fallacy by fallacy:

          > “In the interim, it should be noted that historically speaking, 2.35 came about as a gimmic[k] to get people back into theaters after television took away audiences.”

          This part is actually correct. Freaky leads off with a true statement in an attempt to fool people into believing the rest of his nonsense.

          Of course, even right off the bat he leaves out critical information. You know what else came about as a gimmick to get people back into theaters after television took away audiences? IMAX. Naturally, you won’t see Freaky admitting that.

          >“16×9 came about only recently and is in its infancy.”

          FALSE. “16×9” is a television aspect ratio, not a theatrical aspect ratio. No theatrical movies are composed for 16:9, not for IMAX or any other venue.

          Even on television, 16:9 has been around for over 20 years. It is not in its infancy.

          What Freaky is actually referring to is the theatrical ratio of 1.85:1, which is very close to 16:9. The 1.85:1 ratio was introduced in 1953 and has been widely used by tens of thousands of movies. In its infancy? It’s positively elderly.

          The IMAX theatrical ratio is 1.9:1, which is a hair’s breadth away from 1.85:1. Photographically speaking, directors compose for 1.85:1 and allow their movies to be slightly cropped to 1.9:1. Their camera viewfinders and video taps have frame markings for 1.85:1. The two ratios are treated as indistinguishable.

          >“It will take years before theaters are forced to spend money to upgrade their theaters to larger imax-type screens or face bankruptcy.”

          Deliberately misleading. IMAX competitors such as RPX and ETX use 2.35:1 screens. The push for premium venue theaters has nothing to do with aspect ratio. It’s all about screen size, comfortable seating and (frequently) food service at the seats.

          >“Until then, it is not economically viable for studios to make films in 16×9 unless it is an ‘event movie’ where the budget is large enough to allow them to the luxury of creating an alternate aspect ratio for specialty theaters like Imax.”

          A flagrant lie. “Event movies” are overwhelming composed for and distributed in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, not in 1.85:1. Most directors prefer the 2.35:1 ratio for these “event” movies.

          Should a director not want to work in 2.35:1, there is absolutely nothing to stop him from shooting at 1.85:1 instead. This is the director’s decision to make. The studio doesn’t care what ratio the director chooses. Theaters don’t care what ratio the director chooses; their screens will reconfigure for either aspect ratio with masking panels.

          >“Again, I hope the distinction is not lost on readers. Many filmmakers would PREFER to use 16×9 or taller, but because of the reality that most theaters are still using the now antiquated scope AR, they are forced to use scope if they want their film to appear as large as possible on MOST theaters’ screens.”

          Another flagrant, bald-faced lie. I defy Freakyguy to find me a quote from even one single director, ever in the entire history of cinema, who claims that he or she was forced to use 2.35:1 against their wishes. He will not find one, because such a thing does not exist.

          >“IF most theaters were IMAX, there is no doubt that most event films would be presented in 16×9 or taller to take advantage of the larger area.”

          Speculation based on fantasy. IMAX theaters are widely available now, yet the overwhelming majority of “event” movies continue to be composed for 2.35:1. Because the directors of these movies prefer that ratio.

          >“You can look up quotes from many of the top filmmakers supporting this when they describe why they changed AR’s for imax versions of their films.”

          An egregious exaggeration and deliberate misuse of the word “many.” Only a tiny handful of movies have had modified aspect ratios for IMAX. Not “many.” Barely a very small few.

          Meanwhile, more than 70% of all movies that play in IMAX theaters are projected at 2.35:1. The directors of those movies (which would in fact constitute “many”) prefer 2.35:1 and DO NOT want their movies modified to fill the IMAX screen.

          Even of those movies that have been modified to fill IMAX, let’s look at what some of their directors did with them:

          Brad Bird returned Ghost Protocol to 2.35:1 for Blu-ray.
          Sam Mendes returned Skyfall to 2.35:1 for Blu-ray.
          Joseph Kosinski returned Oblivion to 2.35:1 for Blu-ray.
          Ridley Scott returned Prometheus to 2.35:1 for Blu-ray.

          These movies were all composed for 2.35:1. In fact, Brad Bird made an explicit public statement that he did not like the variable aspect ratio on Ghost Protocol and wanted that movie presented at 2.35:1.

          For whatever reason, Freakyguy has an irrational hatred of the 2.35:1 aspect ratio and is pathologically incapable of comprehending the difference between “many” and “few.” His arguments are all based on prevarications, misdirections and (very often) outright shameful lies. He is a troll on this blog, and every word he says on this topic should be treated with skepticism and disdain.

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ, you finally acknowledged that 2.35 came about as a gimmick! Excellent!

            Unfortunately, you completely missed on the other points….

            You say imax was also a gimmick to get audiences away from TV. Wrong. Imax was created as an alternative to scope theaters. Color tv was invented in the mid 1950’s which is almost exactly when cinescope (aka scope) came about. Coincidence? I think not! IMAX did not truly hit until 20+ years later when scope had already proliferated most theaters. Clearly imax was not designed to pull tv audiences–but to offer a superior option to Scope.

          • Yes, 2.35:1 was invented as a gimmick. Other gimmicks: color, sound, motion picture film rolling through a camera to be projected onto a screen. Every one of them a gimmick designed to con some sucker out of his hard-earned nickle.

            IMAX – a massive, massive gimmick. “Come see movies on our really big screen. It’s way bigger than your little television at home. We know you don’t like going to movie theaters anymore, but please come back anyway. We’ve got a lot of speakers here too. We’ll even make it in 3D, if that helps.”

            You are of course woefully mistaken about IMAX being an alternative to scope. It is so much NOT an alternative to scope that the overwhelming majority of movies that play in IMAX theaters are projected at scope ratio there. How many times do I need to point that fact out to you before you acknowledge it?

            Recently:
            Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Hercules – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            How to Train Your Dragon 2 – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Edge of Tomorrow – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Maleficent – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Godzilla – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            The Amazing Spider-Man 2 – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Transcendence – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Captain America: The Winter Soldier – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Divergent – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            300: Rise of an Empire – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            RoboCop – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            I, Frankenstein – 2.35:1 in IMAX
            Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit – 2.35:1 in IMAX

            That’s just this year. In fact, do you know how many movies so far this year have played in IMAX theaters at any ratio other than 2.35:1?

            Noah, Guardians of the Galaxy and Transformers: Age of Extinction. That’s it. Three movies. Literally every other IMAX “event” movie so far this year has been 2.35:1.

            Gareth Edwards had the option of shooting Godzilla at a narrower aspect ratio for IMAX. He chose not to.

            Doug Liman had the option of shooting Edge of Tomorrow at a narrower aspect ratio for IMAX. He chose not to.

            Marc Webb had the option of shooting The Amazing Spider-Man 2 at a narrower aspect ratio for IMAX. He chose not to, even though the first Amazing Spider-Man had featured a variable ratio for IMAX. He went back to 2.35:1 after having tried it the other way once.

            Despite IMAX, all of these directors (and many others!) chose 2.35:1 for their “event” movies, because they felt that 2.35:1 was the best ratio for their movies. Yet you keep clinging to the trickle of 2 or 3 variable ratio movies a year as proof that the entire world is changing, when it is manifestly not.

            At what point do you give up this insane crusade of yours? Everything you state is factually incorrect, yet you keep coming back time and again to humiliate yourself and get sledgehammered into the ground by the weight of evidence against you. Just stop, already. Don’t you have anything better to do with your life than annoy me?

          • Freakyguy666

            “16×9 came about only recently and is in its infancy.”

            You correctly point out the distinction between 16×9 and 1.85, yet you still imply they are the same. 16×9 is a tv AR and it has only been widely available for about 16 years so yes relative to scope it IS in its infancy.

          • Freakyguy666

            “Until then, it is not economically viable for studios to make films in 16×9 unless it is an ‘event movie’ where the budget is large enough to allow them to the luxury of creating an alternate aspect ratio for specialty theaters like Imax.”

            Your response that ““Event movies” are overwhelming composed for and distributed in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, not in 1.85:1” proves my point that given most theaters are 2.35, they must use scope or else deal with a smaller screen. You just made my point!

            But when presented with the opportunity to present the same film on imax, many times the director chooses to utilize the taller screen–AND THEY STATE THAT THIS IS THE SUPERIOR/DEFINITIVE VERSION. Now why would they say that if the scope version were truly what they wanted all along????

          • Freakyguy666

            The fact remains that this year we will likely see 60% of the top 5 movies presented with taller aspect ratios in IMAX, and when they are released on bluray, we will see variable aspect ratios as well. E

            And there is this little movie coming out that is being shot in imax…oh, it’s not an event movie at all…it’s called Star Wars.

          • Freakyguy666

            Once again, JZ completely misses the point….this is getting old.

            You said, “You are of course woefully mistaken about IMAX being an alternative to scope. It is so much NOT an alternative to scope that the overwhelming majority of movies that play in IMAX theaters are projected at scope ratio there.”

            What I said was, “Imax was CREATED as an alternative to scope theaters”.

            If the distinction is still lost on you, here’s the rest of my post word-for-word: “Color tv was invented in the mid 1950′s which is almost exactly when cinescope (aka scope) came about. Coincidence? I think not!

            IMAX did not truly hit until 20+ years later when scope had already proliferated most theaters. Clearly imax was not designed to pull tv audiences–but to offer a superior option to Scope.”

            Now, what has happened recently is that in order to make more money, IMAX has made concessions including showing non-IMAX films on their IMAX screens. BUT THAT IS NOT THE REASON IMAX WAS “CREATED”.

            It never ceases to amaze me how many times you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension….it must be embarassing especially as an editor of this site! The irony provides me with a good laugh each time. For that I must thank you!

          • IMAX was created to show nature documentaries, not feature films. When IMAX was created, there was no intention to be an alternative to scope or any other movie theater format, because there was no intention of showing Hollywood feature films in IMAX. IMAX was a specialty venue for science museums. Only years later did IMAX transition to showing Hollywood movies, and in doing so modified the shape of the screen from squarish 1.44:1 to the current widescreen.

            You know nothing about IMAX. You know nothing about movies. As always, everything you believe and everything you say are totally wrong.

          • William Henley

            Josh is right here. Older FILM Imax theaters cannot show movies longer than 45-50 minutes – have you seen the size of the film reels? The machines are completely incapable of of holding a reel larger than that. Most theaters had to be retrofitted to show feature-length films, either with new projectors – film threaders (whatever those things are called that house the reels, I’m not a projectionist) or by going digital. Its pretty much why the only film IMAXs that are still around are at science theaters and very few other venues, and most others have converted to digital.

            Imax, when it was invented, was never intended to show feature length movies, and screens that did usually had another non-Imax projector

          • Drew

            Josh, you know how much I love this post, but…

            (Remember, I love it so much that I HATE to do this)

            ‘Noah’ was projected at 1.9:1 in IMAX. The blu-ray is 1.85:1.

          • Freakyguy666

            JZ, you once again have inadvertently proven my point! Thanks!

            To wit, you said, “IMAX was created to show nature documentaries, not feature films.” Exactly! So how is that not an alternative to going to a standard scope theater???

            Again, my original statement is correct that IMAX came about because they wanted to be able to provide a superior format to scope. I never said that IMAX was created to present existing scope movies in a superior format! You incorrectly inferred that even though I never said such a thing. Your habit of creating straw arguments is getting old.

            Bottomline: I was right. JZ’s reading comprehension skills are being proven practically non-existent!

          • This is by far the dumbest argument you’ve made yet, and you make nothing but dumb arguments. Even you must be ashamed about posting this one.

            This debate is not about nature documentaries. It’s about blockbuster “event” movies. As I said before, every time you’re backed into a corner, you try to distract attention by changing the parameters of the debate. Unfortunately for you, you’re not very good at it.

          • Drew

            There he goes again…

            After stating that IMAX is an alternative to scope, and proven wrong, he just throws in the towel and says, “Well, of course IMAX was originally intended for nature documentaries. That’s what I was saying, all along.”

            Freak,

            Why do you bother? How many other sites do you troll? Can you add one more separate site, and just stop visiting HDD. I’m starting to feel sorry and embarrassed for you. Don’t you get sick of being humiliated?

          • Freakyguy666

            Take note readers: Drew & JZ are admitting defeat.

            Rather than attempting to debunk my statement (impossible because it is correct–and HAS BEEN CORRECT ALL ALONG!) they now resort to name-calling.

          • Drew

            Show me where anyone resorted to name calling.

            There’s nothing to debunk. You haven’t made a coherent statement, during the duration of this debate.

            You don’t even know what you are saying; and you certainly don’t believe anything that you are coming up with. You’re trolling. That’s it. Nothing more. As Josh alluded to, even a troll like you has to be ashamed by the last comment you made. After all, in the context of the comment, you did nothing more than attempt to manipulate one of your previous statements to make it seem like you had said something that you had clearly never even thought of.

          • Freakyguy666

            It’s very simple…

            I said IMAX was invented to provide a superior experience than what scope could offer. JZ & Drew disagreed. Instead they created a straw argument implying that I said IMAX was created to present scope films on an alternative screen–something I never said.

            The facts are clear.

            Try again…

          • A “superior experience” compared to what? You cannot compare the experience of watching nature documentaries in a science museum to the experience of watching blockbuster “event” feature films in a movie theater. These are apples and oranges. There is no comparison to be drawn. Your argument is once again totally invalid. Further, it’s obvious that you know you’ve been caught in a lie and are desperately grasping at straws.

          • Drew

            No. You’re lying. And every time you are caught lying, you attempt to change the conversation.

          • freakyguy666

            Your arguments are hilarious!

            Are you seriously trying to make the case that IMAX was NOT created to be more immersive than scope? If so, then pray tell for what reason was it created? Inquiring minds want to know!

          • Drew

            Here we go again…

            Vintage Freak…

            Yet another desperate attempt to distract attention by manipulating the parameters of the debate.

            Nobody is going to bother paying attention to your trolling any longer, Mr. or Mrs. Freak. Furthermore, your sad efforts to grasp at straws are not going to get anyone to buy your lying/hypocrisy.

            It’s over.

            Give it up.

            Next time a film with varying aspect ratio released (looks like it will be quite a while, by the way), please don’t come and troll HDD. We’ve all been witness to every single desperation tactic that you could ever possibly dream up. They’re all extremely tired.

          • Freakyguy666

            Let it be noted that once again Drew has dodged the question. So predictable, it’s sad.

    • Chris B

      Me to man! Though I’m also curious to know, who is this freaky guy? Why does he seem to have such a vested interest in 16×9? Does he work in the industry or a related field? Where does he get all this information he posts as facts? Give us some background…

      • While we’re at it, how did James Gunn himself tell him about the GOTG blu with shifting aspect ratios? I feel like he wanted someone to ask, so I’m asking. I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire nor am I here to break balls, but since the conversation is still going, lets hear it.

  5. I get the feeling that somewhere down the line, MI Ghost Protocol, Prometheus, Oblivion, and Skyfall will get IMAX bluray double dips. With “See it the way they were meant to be seen” on the box cover.

  6. Freakyguy666

    “It will take years before theaters are forced to spend money to upgrade their theaters to larger imax-type screens or face bankruptcy.”

    Your retort to this is that Rpx & etx use 2.35. That’s because the auditoriums are typically not built around a taller screen. They are usually old auditoriums that are simply upgraded with better speakers & projectors and the screens are many times not even touched! There is no movie that is specially formatted for Rpx or etx.

  7. IMAX- An immersive format created by the Canadians specifically so that G.I. Josh and FreakyDevil can “immerse” themselves in epic nerd battles of the Internet.

Leave a Reply

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