Zack Snyder explains why Justice League's aspect ratio is different than previous movies

By

·

September 30, 2017

You may have noticed from the Justice League trailers that it has a larger aspect ratio than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice or most big blockbuster movies. Normally they are shot at 2.39:1, resulting in big black bars on the top and bottom when you watch at home on your 16:9 HD TV. But Justice League was shot with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio that fills up much more of the frame. There will still be black bars when you watch the Blu-ray, but they'll be so small you may not even notice them. So why the switch?

It all comes down to Zack Snyder's love for IMAX when shooting Batman v Superman. A native IMAX image has a squarish aspect ratio and uses a lot of the frame. "I had so much fun shooting the IMAX sections of my movie (BvS)," Snyder said to a fan on Vero. "Sort of fell in love with that giant, less rectangular aspect ratio and so that's why I shot JL 1:85."

Despite falling in love with IMAX during Batman v Superman, none of Justice League was shot in that format. But the larger aspect ratio certainly makes up for it. For comparison, I've added some screenshots from Batman v Superman and Justice League below to give you a better idea of the difference in aspect ratios.

Batman v Superman

Justice League

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

70 comments

BatmanNewsChris
September 30, 2017
Yeah, "REAL D 3D" was advertised at the end of the last trailer. Whatever that is! I've only seen one movie in 3D (The Amazing Spider-Man 2). I hated it! https://i0.wp.com/batman-ne...
1. RadioYeh
  September 30, 2017
  Hated what? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 or 3D, because both suck.
  1. Ace20xd6
    September 30, 2017
    Notice it doesn't say Imax 3D, so they'll be 2D showings in IMAX
  2. BatmanNewsChris
    September 30, 2017
    Ha! The 3D. I liked the first Amazing Spider-Man better, but didn't hate the sequel as much as most.
    PS. Check out SpiderManNews.com if you're a Spidey fan! (cheap plug)
    1. BatmanNewsChris
      September 30, 2017
      I saw it in regular 3D, not IMAX. I wear glasses, so glasses on top of glasses wasn't fun. It just wasn't enjoyable for me.
      1. UltimateEdition
        September 30, 2017
        Wear glasses too... at IMAX they have an extra large size for those of us with goggles
    2. RadioYeh
      September 30, 2017
      Oh I absolutely do, and I love the work you do over there as well!
    3. Rust
      September 30, 2017
      The 3D didn't feel consistently (or overbearingly) in play, but it REALLY boosted The Lizard's believability for me in TASM1. I'll never forget that scene where his giant clawed hand rips through the car seat cushions. Jesus lol
      Also excellent was that shot where he's swinging infront of the helicopter light during the police chase sequence. And of course the big money shot at the end where he fires a web in slow-mo at the camera. Gorgeous stuff.
      3D works better for animated movies. Anyone who hates 3D should give that a shot with something like Frankenweenie (which I haven't seen, but the 3D was bonkers in the trailer) and see if it wins them over. :)
    4. Lucas
      October 2, 2017
      The first Amazing Spiderman was shot in native 3D, and that's why its 3D is so good. The second one was sadly not shot in 3D, so its effects are not that great.
2. UltimateEdition
  September 30, 2017
  any IMAX 3D movie is the best becuase you don’t lose brightness... and make damn sure you get at the least in the middle to as far back as possible... my first 3D movie was avatar at IMAX and some of our party showed up late. Everyone is seated all at once at an IMAX theater so we ended up having to sit in the second row from the front. Worst headache of my life...but I’ve always said that if done right no matter what your watching 3D is a more immersive experience... give it another shot!
3. sj conker
  September 30, 2017
  3D must die.
Jason Scouras
September 30, 2017
Nice, you can tell the difference.
I'm Batman Man 39
September 30, 2017
Great and understandable reasoning! After all, this is The Justice League, so seeing them in a bigger aspect ratio throughout will make it even more epic up on the big screen!
1. Kevinicus
  March 20, 2018
  It's not bigger. It's less epic. Scope is more epic. It was kind of the whole point.
Frank
September 30, 2017
I like it.
NeoTalon
September 30, 2017
There was a story awhile back about IMAX turning away from 3D movies and mostly going with just 2D movies. So I'm sure you can watch justice league in IMAX 2D when it comes out.
1. David
  September 30, 2017
  Lol....all the 3D haters...95% of people, at least, love 3D, that is why so many movies are in 3D. I don't mind either way...but when a movie isn't in 3D, I feel like I'm missing something for the first 10 minutes or so. If you have trouble watching it...that's a whole different thing.
  1. Adam Gallacher
    September 30, 2017
    You got this statistic from where? I don't know one person either friends or online minus you that like 3D. Very rarely done right and just annoying. The reason it's used is money of course
  2. Smart Ass
    September 30, 2017
    Usually the 3D on most movies is poor quality unless the director and the studio really give a shit. 3D is popular with them because of the extra $$$ they can charge.
  3. Ned Ryerson
    September 30, 2017
    I find it annoying as do most of my friends and family. They do it to make as much money per ticket sale as possible. Not sure where your statistic comes from...
2. NeoTalon
  September 30, 2017
  I just check blade runner 2049 and most of its IMAX screening are in 2D at least with my local theater . Blade runner and Justice league are both made by WB so if blade runner is in 2d it's a safe bet Justice league will be in 2d as well
Tom
September 30, 2017
Justice League didn’t shoot in IMAX because Christopher Nolan was using every IMAX camera that exists, for Dunkirk.
Might be worth mentioning why there’s no IMAX in the article 😊
1. Ash Singh
  September 30, 2017
  Ironically, Chris Nolan sank an IMAX camera while filming Dunkirk.
  1. Tom
    September 30, 2017
    Oh my! I think he personally owns a few.
SΛŁIM
September 30, 2017
Obvious. The adaptation of the ensemble of the greatest superheroes of the comics, also directed by a great like Zan Snyder, requires an equal screen of great.
1. MrMovies
  October 1, 2017
  *Zack
DudeofSteel1Million
September 30, 2017
Speaking of IMAX, I wish they had released the IMAX scenes from BvS on the blu-ray. I know people complained about the switching aspect ratio of The Dark Knight Rises, but I didn't mind it and I would have liked to have seen it the way it was shot for BvS. I know the IMAX scenes were leaked online a while ago, but I wanted them to have an OFFICIAL release because they looked gorgeous in theaters.
Seb
September 30, 2017
I never liked the 1:85. The 2.39 by 1 is clearly far more cinematic. The vast majority of people won't even see this movie in IMAX, so they'll see two ugly black bars in the theaters, but not at the top and bottom, but from the left and right. I find this so immensely distracting and annoying when I'm sitting in the theater. I'm really disappointed with this choice. Especially when he didn't even shoot with IMAX in the first place.
1. Seb
  September 30, 2017
  Avatar was shot in 2.39:1 and as for Avengers, I have said before that it bothered me immensely.
2. Jean Carlos Oliveira Miranda
  September 30, 2017
  the movie will be watched over and over at home, far more than in theaters, its nice to know it will cover so much of the screen, justice league is litterally a bigger film than bvs, so the ratio bring a kind of symbolism
  1. Seb
    September 30, 2017
    Far more than in theaters? That's why movies make about 70-80% of their revenues from movie theaters. You're just factually wrong, here. And don't bullshit me with "symbolism". It's got nothing to do with it. Snyder clearly just wanted a different ratio. Why? Because he prefers it. No other reason. That's not necessarily bad, but I'm saying, I don't like it. Based on OBJECTIVE reasons.
3. AquaCthulhu
  September 30, 2017
  This is off-topic but I was going through this and remembered how you said no one could've cried during Superman's death. I know I did, and so did my mom and most of my friends.
  https://superherotalksite.w...
  1. attentionisattention
    September 30, 2017
    Yeah me, my gf, and several of my friends cried too, took me a while to stop everytime lol
  2. Seb
    September 30, 2017
    I'm confused, is this something you wrote? And I don't mind you linking that article / story... but what's your point exactly? I'll say this, suicide and depression are things I take very seriously. I think everyone deals with it in a different way. I'd never have thought a movie could help someone suffering from depression, but if it did, I'm happy for them. Depression isn't something I wish upon anyone. Even if BvS was the single worst movie ever made, if it did in fact still help only one person on Earth suffering from suicidal thoughts, then I'm happy the movie got made after all.
    1. Jean Carlos Oliveira Miranda
      September 30, 2017
      cant believe it took me so long to realize you're an asshole, if i knew it right waway i wouldnt bother to reply your comment
      1. Seb
        September 30, 2017
        On what fucking basis, friend? For expressing my sympathy to those who unfortunately have to deal with depression and suicidal thoughts, and saying it's nothing but a good thing if a movie like MoS or BvS helped them through it? Now, it's really your goddamned responsibility to show me in great fucking detail, how in any way possible, this makes me an "asshole". Or is it just because I said you're factually wrong (which you were)? Because if that's the case, that was another comment entirely. And I don't see how pointing out FACTS somehow could make me an asshole either. I'm waiting, friend. Why the fuck, am I the asshole here?
      2. Jean Carlos Oliveira Miranda
        September 30, 2017
        i wont bother, i'm sure you can find out on your own
      3. Seb
        October 1, 2017
        "I won't bother".. Yeah, more like you have no reason to accuse me of stupid things. And the only reason you did is probably because I said you were "factually wrong" (again, which you were). I don't see any other reason as to why I should deserve such a response. And as I've said, if that's what triggered you, then you're petty as fuck.
      4. Jean Carlos Oliveira Miranda
        October 1, 2017
        such an asshole
      5. Seb
        October 1, 2017
        lol, k.
    2. AquaCthulhu
      October 3, 2017
      No, I didn't write it. I just found it while browsing through Twitter and thought it's a side of the story you might not have seen before.
      None of those…testimonials are mine although I've read a few of them separately before they were put together here.
      Like one of them said it didn't cure their depression but it sure helped.
4. Josh Ames
  September 30, 2017
  It's funny that the SAME people always complain about something
  1. Seb
    September 30, 2017
    Because I always complain, right? Oh wait, WRONG. You know what's really funny though? It's always "that the SAME people" who whine about anyone who even so much as dares to criticize one little thing. I'm not saying this will affect the quality of the film. But I find it annoying nonetheless. This isn't directed at Snyder or JL, or WB. It's just the ratio itself I don't like. Is that a crime now? I'm so tired of all these triggered fanboys who complain about valid opinions just because YOU don't like to hear them.
    So stop saying I'm always "complaining about something" when I say good stuff about DC and comics all the fucking time and when I do criticize something, I don't go out of my way to bitch and moan about other people disagreeing with me.
    1. Josh Ames
      October 1, 2017
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Seb
September 30, 2017
Also, everyone here is saying this is a good choice b/c "we'll see it in a bigger way". But that's not true. The opposite is true. You could say the new ratio "fills in the black bars from the bottom and the top", but you could also say the new screen takes away 2 equal spaces from the left and the right. The result is, theaters (outside of IMAX) ALWAYS show their movies in 2.39:1. So movies with other formats (like the first Avengers, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Jungle Book, and now JL) do NOT fill up the entire screen like regular 2.39:1 movies. Now there are 2 ugly black bars left and right because normal theater screens don't support that format. Long story short, a 1.85:1 movie is actually "smaller" to look at than a 2.39:1 movie. So anyone saying this is a good thing "because it's bigger" hasn't thought it trough. It'll be bigger on your TV screen, yes. But it won't be bigger in theaters, where it really matters. And the 2.39;1 ratio also just looks far nicer and more cinematic than the alternative, let's be honest.
1. Steph & Ayesha r havin a baby!
  September 30, 2017
  Disagree. It depends on the theater. I remember the IMAX-filmed scenes in The Dark Knight, in theater, filling out the top and bottom of the screen (the image height was taller, but the same width). There were no black bars in the right or left (the image didn't shrink in width)
  1. Seb
    September 30, 2017
    That's because you were watching in IMAX. 95% of people will never watch a movie that way.
  2. Smart Ass
    September 30, 2017
    IMAX is predominantly bigger and those screens are made negatively for that aspect ratio. Most movies are shot in the 2.39:1 aspect ratio and projected on screens with the same ratio.
    In this case, if you're in watching this on a non IMAX screen with the said ratio, you'll get black bars on the side as a result since the movie isn't wide enough, only taller.
    1. Seb
      September 30, 2017
      Thank you. I know you probably disagree with my opinion, but at least you understand the facts.
2. Mark
  October 1, 2017
  I don't know if it's still common, but time was when theaters could close in the sides of the screen to match the aspect ratio of the film. The image wouldn't be any bigger, but the pillarbox wouldn't be noticeable.
  The key point is that, outside of IMAX, theaters don't letterbox so the height of the image is fixed.
  But the idea that "more people will see them at home than in the theater" still has some truth. I own all the DCEU films on Blu-ray, and can watch them many times, even with people who will never see them in the theater True that that doesn't make WB any extra money, but still a true statement regardless. Case in point: what is the ratio of posters here who have seen Batman '89, relative to those here who ever saw it in a theater?
  1. Seb
    October 1, 2017
    No, it's not a true statement. Most people who've watched for example BvS, have done so in theaters. Not at home. Again, the vast majority of revenues comes from theater box office. BvS made $ 870 million dollars during its entire run. Additionally, it made somewhere around $ 75 million in its home release. That's less than 8% of the total gross. I realize the latter number will continue to grow in the years to come, but the fact of the matter is, it's still completely insignificant compared to theater grosses. So yes, while YOU may have watched BvS more at home than in theaters, that's just not true for the majority of other viewers.
    1. Mark
      October 1, 2017
      Revenues and viewership is a false equivalence, first, because a home viewing could include 10 people and I only paid $20 for the disc, and we're discussing number of viewers. Second, you're dismissing the long tail and the fact that the vast majority of potential viewers of the movie haven't even been born yet, given the existing 95 year term of copyright in the USA, and assuming that nuclear war doesn't happen.
      For that matter, BvS sold, tops, 90 million tickets. Assuming no one saw it twice (which we already know is false), that's slightly more than 1% of the world's population, and leaves an awful lot of people who might be watching at home, soon or at some point in the future.
      1. Seb
        October 2, 2017
        That's just not true, I'm sorry. Your argument assumes Home Media sales remain somewhat constant, which is actually the opposite of the truth. Just like theater box office, the DVD and Bluray sales diminish with each passing day. We're talking a 40% drop in sales every week since its release, at best.
        http://www.the-numbers.com/...
        Just look at these numbers ffs... These are from last year and it barely sold more than 10.000 units (with the exception of Christmas obviously). That number has undoubtedly decreased ever since (Looking at the usual drop, it's reasonable to assume the movie barely sells 1.000 copies each week right now, and that's being generous). Case in point, that $75 million figure for DVD and Bluray sales isn't likely to change that much in the coming years. Or in other words, not many "more" people are going to buy BvS in the future. Your argument literally rests on the false assumption that people will continuously buy the movie on home media, ignoring the fact that those sales have practically ceased to exist at this point.
        Also, 10 people watching a single movie? Stop exaggerating your assertions to prove your point. If anything, it makes your argument seem desperate, as if only hyperbolic numbers could prove you right. People watch movies at home with their entire family at the most (which is 4 people in the West, on average. NOT 10). I mostly watch movies alone, or with one other person. Hardly more than freaking 10. That's just obscene and almost never happens. And furthermore, it's funny that you're saying "viewers" matter, when you ignoring the very obvious fact that the vast majority of DVD and Bluray sales come from people who have undoubtedly already SEEN the film anyways. And don't forget that Bluray and DVD prices are vastly higher (double at least) than theater tickets. So the $75 MIL stat could have easily been $37.5 MIL if costs had been similar.
        And I don't buy your "haven't even been born yet-viewers" argument for one second. How many people do you think still watch Superman 3 and 4 to this day? How many people do you think still watch Batman Forever or Batman & Robin? Or any other badly received movie from the last 40 years? The right answer is: very very few people. Your argument is valid, and ONLY valid if we're talking about widely beloved classics like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and so on... I could see this happening to The Dark Knight, as it was considered an instant classic on release. But Batman V Superman?? Lol... I know fanboys can be delusional, but that's just arrogant to assume beyond rational belief. BvS was not liked. In fact, it was critically panned. It wasn't supported by regular audience members. It had one of the worst drops in box office history (which is the best indicator of word of mouth) and the same cinema score as Green Lantern (btw, do you think people will watch Green Lantern in the future as well? Right... No they won't. Because everyone's forgotten about that turd, just like people will forget about BvS, because it's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination).
        People didn't like the film. There's no word of mouth to speak of, except if it's bad.
        I mean really... I have proven with actual statistics that you're talking pure nonsense. It's just not true, and you haven't got the slightest bit of evidence to base your false narrative on.
        And suppose you're right about everything regardless, what is your point? That movies are primarily seen on TVs? In that case, why the fuck even bother with theater releases? Why the effort? Why do studios and directors put all their time and work into making sure it's the best experience on a big screen?? Right... because that's where most of the money is to be gained, as most people will watch it in that way.
3. Micksey “micksey”
  March 23, 2018
  well put seb straight to the point i won't even bother buying this bluray because i HATE1.85. I watch movies on my 132inch 2.39:1 screen not on my 42 inch tv. 1.85 is for tv shows.
Supermansteve
September 30, 2017
This news is awesome.
I just hope it’s a massive visual difference.
Zack Snyder really knows what he is doing.
Bob Burger
September 30, 2017
Mmmmm dat Bat-Bulge is gonna get bigger.
#nohomo tho
Master Bruce
September 30, 2017
Its a bad news for Indian people..We roughly got 10 IMAX screens across the country.
Daniel Moshee
September 30, 2017
Great. Hate them black bars.
Cos Zorro
September 30, 2017
same...
Jason_Fallen_Son
September 30, 2017
Awesome
dannphou
September 30, 2017
So, for those that don't see it in IMAX, they won't get the 1:85:1 aspect ratio, but the regular 2:35:1?
Alexx
September 30, 2017
I personally like the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. I think the bigger bars make some scenes look really cool like the picture of the trinity above. But still hyped anyway.
1. Halberdier17
  September 30, 2017
  I think the only good thing about the black bars is when people put subtitles in them because I watch movies with subtitles because I want to know every line from the movie before the actors say them.
badblokebob
October 1, 2017
Funny how the point of 2.39:1 was to be wider and more cinematic, but it's become so commonplace that 1.85:1 is increasingly seen as the 'bigger' ratio.
Alan Conn
October 1, 2017
Nice!!!
Sisyphus
October 3, 2017
Yea. That will be a blessing to watch it in 2D. 3D really sucks.
Sisyphus
October 3, 2017
Thats pretty cool!!
VitaminAK
November 29, 2017
This article is misleading in the comparison part. The comparison they show is how it will look at your house on a standard 16:9 or so "consumer" display. At the theater this looks horrible as the projector screen is not 16:9 and there are huge black bars on the left and right. Kind of like watching a 4:3 old square tv on a modern 16:9 display. I was confused by this and I almost asked the staff wth was going on. The whole movie felt less theatrical due to this head scratching decision.
Pirata
March 21, 2018
Unless it's actually shot in real 15-perf 65mm IMAX format with all the unique aesthetics that comes with it, the 2.39:1 anamorphic scope format (as long as it's originally shot that way) looks better. Love the barrel distortion artifacts, lens flares and longer oval bokeh; It's just more aesthetically pleasing. 1.85 for the sake of 1:85 is just... bleh. Boring.
J Smith, MAGA Force
March 24, 2018
Love this aspect ratio, looks fantastic in 4K at home. Wish all movies standardized on this aspect ratio.

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com