Quote Originally Posted by roxics View Post
Hard to imagine what that would look like. I'd have to see it in action. Part of me thinks it would pull me out of the story though. Suddenly the scene shifts from looking like what I expect a movie to look like into something more soap opera looking. Seems like it would be distracting. But I don't know.

I'm one of the few that didn't mind the Hobbit movies at 48fps, but they were consistently that throughout the film. In 3D it felt like a really epic stage play to me. I wouldn't want to watch every movie like that, but every once in a while it's interesting.
Understood, but that's also what people said about changing aspect ratios in a movie -- too distracting.

1927 - Abel Gance shoots the final reel of Napoleon to be shown as three 1.33 images projected side-by-side, decades before Cinerama. The effect is quite dramatic & impressive, much like the video re-release of Ben Hur, which is pan & scan except for the letterboxed Charriot Race sequence.

1979 - (I'm probably forgetting some examples in between.) More American Graffiti tells several intercut stories, with a Vietnam War narrative shot in 1.33 grainy 16mm reversal. This one is a little bit hokey but it does help distinguish between the stories.

1983 - Just four years later (really two years due to production delays related to an actor's death), Doug Trumbull shot Brainstorm with most of the film in 1.85 but the "Brainstorm" VR scenes in 2.39. The film was shown in 2.39 with black borders on the side for the 1.85 material. The effect is subtle and most audiences had no idea the frame shape changed, but they did experience the heightened reality effect for which Doug was striving.

1999 - Galaxy Quest does the same aspect ratio change for humorous effect. The earth-bound beginning was 1.85 and when they move to space the image expands to 2.39. I liken this to how the "Vertigo" dolly/zoom was so mind-bending when Hitchcock invented it in 1958 but by the time Speilberg used it in Jaws it was just another way to add emphasis to a moment.

And then there's Christopher Nolan switching at will between IMAX and 35mm in a bunch of his films. That would take a lot to describe but my point is that used judiciously with craft and artistry, audiences have come to accept if not embrace these frame shape changes as part of the languge of cinema. Just like accepting a zoom or an edit, or where is that music coming from? Used with well I believe that it is possible to add temporal shifts to filmmaking to positive effect.