Originally Posted by
burnmotherfucker!
Fair enough. GBH and the Lighthouse used those aspect ratios for historical reasons, but those weren't the only reasons, nor were they the most important reasons. The Lighthouse is actually smaller than 4:3 by just a bit. Eggers stated that the ratio made the film taller, just like a lighthouse. It was able to make the shots of the lighthouse more epic while also making the scenes of Defoe and Pattinson more cramped. Two birds with one stone. I'd definitely say GBH is an epic film, not so much the Lighthouse. GBH is directed by Wes Anderson, a meticulous director. He's using the aspect ratio to frame the film like a painting. The aspect ratios switch during the movie but the large majority of it is in the square formats. Batman v Superman is art. You may not like the art, that's fine, but you not liking it doesn't change what it is. The video I posted above actually discusses how the images were created to reflect historical paintings and how the film expects an audience to think vs the amusement park comic book movies we usually get. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's perfect, it's not Kubrick or Bergman. But it sure is standing the test of time a lot more than all the other 100 comic book movies of the last decade, save for maybe Joker and The Dark Knight.
As far as the aspect ratio being used here, Imax comes into play but it isn't the only reason. I also don't have a problem with a director finishing their film so that it looks the best in the best possible format, and in this case that's imax. I'd rather see the full image than a cropped pan and scan version just so it fits my 16:9 tv but to each their own.
Think of it this way. If you were going to make a painting of a tree, and you wanted to emphasize how tall the tree was, you would choose a tall canvas that was more narrow. You wouldn't want to put it on a wide canvas with tons of empty space on the sides that dwarf the tree. Film works on a similar level. When Iron Man levitates off the ground in cinematic widescreen there's a ton of useless sky on both sides of him and two feet of sky underneath him. The picture looks unimpressive and uneven. In 4x3 he could fly to the top of the screen and he is going to have more sky underneath with less on the sides. It emphasizes the height of the image, not the width. It is more epic, not less.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying you need to like this film, or even that you should watch it. It's just, some of your earlier posts make it seem as though you don't like the past films and you are pretty negative about this before even seeing it. Your last comment on the aspect ratios just seemed misinformed and that's why I replied, but maybe I just misread you and you already knew all of this.