You are seriously asserting that this video of a funny monkey was artistically ruined by the inability to see an additional foot of dirt, dry leaves, and wire fence on either side.
It’s time to let this one go, man. Maybe it would have been a bit better in landscape, but not enough better to justify this much outrage.
Congrats on entirely missing the point.
I think you may have dropped your cahier du cinema back there. oh, are these your clove cigarrettes?
You have so far argued that it is because of biological reasons, diegesis, bad taste, uncoolness, what could come next?
I have personally made several animations for portrait formats. It works wonders. You sir are a snob.
In truth, all zoos look better in CinemaScope.
Museums fare better with Todd-AO.
Biological? Yes. To deny that we have a horizontally oriented field of view is to deny reality. Diegesis? You should really understand a word before you attempt to use it, instead of embarrassing yourself like that. Uncoolness? Never mentioned it. Having to make things up to support your argument? Sad.
To deny that we have eyeballs that rotate both horizontality and vertically is to deny reality.
To assert that the horizontal film format of the latter half of the twentieth century is to suggest that the square format used in the first half of the twentieth century is due to biology, that the vertical format of portrait paintings is due to biology, that the vertical format of sculpture is due to biology.
I’m not too clear what biological determinism you are deriving all this from, but I suspect some form of phrenology crossed with Lysenkoism.
Next time post a monkey in vertical orientation with a gun over his shoulder, lecturing about what Marx thought about internet security protocols on GamerGate forums and we miiiiiight just be able to draw all the derail to one place and nuke it from orbit…
Apparently it goes beyond “fascination” for a good number of folks…
Humans have a 200° horizontal field of vision, and only a 130° vertical field of vision. Oh, it’s those gosh darned facts again!
Why do you think that, when anamorphic lenses were developed, movie directors used them to make wider movies, not taller movies? Was it the result of a secret coin toss? Or maybe it’s the obvious choice of making a movie as immersive as possible, by filling the viewer’s field of vision? Hint: It’s the second one.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
