Since The Incredibles over 4 years ago, all the Pixar films have been rendered in a scope ratio of 2.39:1. But it looks like with this one they are going back to a flat aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Now, I relize most people don’t even notice what the AR is, and if they do it’s only because of the “size of the bars” (the higher up the number the bigger the bars). But, what’s the deal. I personally prefer films in a scope ratio simply cause it gives you more on the sides, plus most TV shows are now done in a flat aspect ratio which is around the same, so it makes it feel more theatrical when it’s widescreen. Plus, with Pixar only doing scope movies and DreamWorks sticking with a flat aspect, it made them seem a bit more superior cause they can render more on the sides. But not anymore!
There is nothing wrong with this movie!
Perhaps the shift was to make the transition to home media cleaner.
Really just guessing here, but while the ubiquity of 4:3 a few years ago would have made it a non-issue (as everything would be heavily letterboxed anyways), the current 16:9 standard is not very far removed from 1.85:1 and would mean more people seeing more on their larger screens, and the end of “fullscreen” versions, something I welcome.
There definitely has been a shift too, with large screens becoming much more practical than they used to be. In CRT terms, a 36" was quite large, but for a LCD, 42" is considered a standard size, even 60" Plasmas are becoming commonplace.
nubetre’s reason is really good. I agree with him.
Not anymore?!
For me, Pixar movies are still more superior than DreamWorks’ and will always more superior than DreamWorks’, and you know it. 
Actually, a lot of us notice the aspect ratio of a film…
I noticed it right away. But keep this in mind: A film being shot at 1.85 (what most films are shot at) is not a bad thing, and I’d be willing to bet the aspect ratio decision wasn’t made arbitrarily.
Doing it at 2.35 doesn’t always mean it’s better. There are pros and cons with each choice, and I suspect they chose 1.85 for a reason. At 1.85 you don’t have to worry about dealing with anamorphic lenses and the little problems and artifacts they can create… but that aside, you also have to remember there are two sides to every coin. If you do it 2.35 you can say “it’s wider” – but by definition, it also winds up being shorter in height. For home video later on (which probably isn’t a major factor) having 1.85 means it fits perfectly on all those 16:9 TVs people have finally started buying. 2.35 means it’s still going to be letterboxed, even on a 16:9 TV. What’s more important though, is the loss of height in 2.35. Reality is that in most cinemas, where space is at a premium, the screens already extend out pretty much to the walls, so in order to change the aspect ratio properly on your average movie screen (which almost always has to be able to go back and forth between 1.85 and 2.35 films), it’s acheived by lowering the top curtain (or other similar method) and shortening the height of the picture, making it actually smaller than if it was in 1.85. It’s the old “is the glass half empty or half full?” question. 2.35 gives you wider vistas, but you lose the height. Heck, IMAX is practically square, but it looks pretty awesome because of its height. With 2.35 you’d lose height. And what’s this movie called? It’s not called Left or Right… it’s called Up… (balloons… floating up into the air…) Not only that, but you always have to consider the style, mood, and type of picture it is too. Incredibles may have looked good in 2.35, but would Monsters Inc have? No, because of the type of movie it was. 1.85 suited it better.
I have nothing against 2.35 but not all movies look better in 2.35, and I have a feeling it was very intentional to do it in 1.85. Remember, Pixar folk are so detail-oriented that they purposely tried to simulate the subtle defects of lenses for Wall-E… I would think they put some thought into deciding the aspect ratio…
In practice, this decision is always made in response to the content of the individual film. I can guarantee you that this choice does not represent a change in policy at Pixar (and neither did the apparent shift to the 'Scope ratio you perceived from The Incredibles on), but reflects the way they prefer to present this particular movie. It’s an aesthetic choice like which film stock(s) or camera lenses to use.
Aspet ratio is as much an artistic choice for each specific project as anything esle. Chastising the choice of aspect ratio before you’ve seen the film is useless.
Do you suddenly stop watching so many classics because they were not composed in any sort of widescreen ratio? The composition works for the films. They can be done artfully, and now that we modernly have the luxury of choice, it can coming another artistic tool.
I notice aspect ratio, I prefer 1:85:1, because when I watch it at home, it fills up the whole screen black bars annoy me… I don’t know why, they just annoy me. I only like 2:35:1 if it’s at a cinema…
1.85: 1 isn’t “flatter.” And some films in 2.39:1 don’t use the space well. I wouldn’t want to see Toy Story in 2.39:1. And I couldn’t imagine The Incredibles in 1.85:1.
Dreamworks has made at least one “scope” film, that horse movie that flopped.
Everything you wanted to know about film formats, color film history, and sound film history:
I’m sorry but it’s really really ridiculous. Aspect ratio is what made something “more superior”? If that’s what you prefer then fine but I wouldn’t like to have any prejudice for a movie because it’s 4:3 or black-and-white, or, it’s by DWA.
And btw, DWA is not sticking with “flat,” 2 of their last 3 movies, KFP and MVA were both 2.35:1, so because they “can render more on the sides,” they’re both more superior than Up?
Don’t know why they chose 1.85:1 but I’m sure it’ll be explained with a fine reason.
Here’s my prediction:
- TS3: 1.85:1
- Car 2: 2.35:1
- The Bear and the Bow: 2.35:1
- Newt: 1.85:1