DVD Talk
New Eyes Wide Shut DVD? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : New Eyes Wide Shut DVD?


QuiGonJosh
06-04-04, 08:07 AM
Coulda sword I heard something about the Unrated cut of this finally coming to R1...did a search and found nothing...anyone got any info?

ThatGuamGuy
06-04-04, 11:52 AM
There was a rumor on Digital Bits that it would be coming ... if memory serves, they said next year, but they might've said the end of this year ... at any rate, there's been nothing since then, and that was about a month or two back (just after I bought the R2).

Class316
06-04-04, 11:57 AM
It's a sucky movie anyway.

By the way, can anyone confirm that the R3 has original Hindu chants?

DVD Josh
06-04-04, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Class316
It's a sucky movie anyway.

By the way, can anyone confirm that the R3 has original Hindu chants?

Could have been saved if Nicole Kidman was alot more naked.

Rivero
06-04-04, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Class316
It's a sucky movie anyway.


Incorrect.

Josh Z
06-04-04, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Class316
It's a sucky movie anyway.

Thanks for the threadcrap, but people over the age of 14 might feel differently.

By the way, can anyone confirm that the R3 has original Hindu chants?

All home video editions worldwide have the altered chant. It sounds the same as the original except for the words, so unless you speak Hindi it's next to impossible to tell the difference.

Class316
06-04-04, 03:51 PM
I'm over 14. So can anyone tell me what is not crappy about it? A few softcore sex scenes???

Also, from http://imdb.com/title/tt0120663/alternateversions

The region 3 release (Hong Kong) is uncut and contains the recitation of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita during the orgy scene. It is rumored that this is the closest the film comes to being unaltered after Kubrick's last edit and is the most true to his "vision".

Johnny Zhivago
06-04-04, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Class316
I'm over 14. So can anyone tell me what is not crappy about it? A few softcore sex scenes???

This has been discussed to death, go run a search in the movies forum if you really want to know... Cause, from the sound of your question (and blatant threadcrap), you have no clue what this film is about.

OT - I've heard nothing about a new R1 release.

Kant
06-04-04, 04:22 PM
What!? i THOUGHT THAT MY R2 DK WAS UNCUT!
Damn didn't know that!

POWERBOMB
06-04-04, 11:51 PM
It's getting to the point where it is better not to buy a dvd when it first releases because a newer version will be released later down the road.

By unrated, I'm assuming your making a reference to the scene that depicts graphic sex in the house?

QuiGonJosh
06-05-04, 06:32 AM
I mean...the international cut...

ThatGuamGuy
06-05-04, 06:06 PM
It's getting to the point where it is better not to buy a dvd when it first releases because a newer version will be released later down the road.


That's all well and good, but we've already *had* two releases, haven't we?

Rizor
06-05-04, 06:44 PM
I think Eyes Wide Shut has only been released on DVD once.

Squirrel God
06-05-04, 08:29 PM
Eyes Wide Shut is in my top 10 most favourite films of all time -smile-

I have the UK R2 release but having seen the R1 as well, I don't think the digital censorship makes any difference to the plot or even the ambience of those scenes at all. Still, I hope you guys get an unrated cut soon.

cupon
06-05-04, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Josh Z
Thanks for the threadcrap, but people over the age of 14 might feel differently.

All home video editions worldwide have the altered chant. It sounds the same as the original except for the words, so unless you speak Hindi it's next to impossible to tell the difference.

I didn't like it the first time I saw it, but have grown to appreciate it over time. I've tired of the copy I recorded off HBO a few years back, so I broke down and purchased the DVD yesterday. I look forward to its arrival.

By the way, I was reading a review about the soundtrack on All Music Guide (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A5rkmikz0bb69) and it mentions the following:
For his [Stanley Kubrick] final work, Eyes Wide Shut, he employed composer Jocelyn Pook to compose some evocative string-filled music (including one track, "Masked Ball," eerily featuring backwards vocals),

Are these "Hindu" chants actual "backward vocals?"

Shroud
06-05-04, 09:33 PM
I really enjoyed this movie as I can appreciate the artistic value this movie offers. The movie isn't for everyone but Kubrick made it with that "David Lynch" style of film making.

theneobez
06-06-04, 12:16 AM
I love the film, though the difference between the uncut and cut versions is really negligible to me.

Cornelius1047
06-06-04, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Rizor
I think Eyes Wide Shut has only been released on DVD once.

It was released with two different covers. The regular one and the one with the "Stanley Kubrick Collection" banner.

K

shawagg
06-06-04, 01:47 AM
I remember when it was released, the word was that a better version (more in tune with K's wishes) of the disc would show up in about a year.

So far I've been waiting.

Hopfulley WB will get around to it and some of K's other films for a new 2D set. (BTW who owns Paths of Glory, I'd sure love to get a good copy of that on DVD)

QuiGonJosh
06-06-04, 09:08 AM
MGM owns Paths of Glory...its got a nice transfer...no real extras...but its a nice disc...should be able to find it for $10...

Josh Z
06-06-04, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Class316
I'm over 14. So can anyone tell me what is not crappy about it? A few softcore sex scenes???

Age has nothing to do with maturity, clearly.

Also, from http://imdb.com/title/tt0120663/alternateversions

IMDb is wrong. I own the Region 3 disc. The chanting is the same as the Region 1 edition. The only thing different is that the digital silhouettes blocking the nudity are gone.

jough
06-06-04, 06:05 PM
MGM owns "Paths of Glory" and "The Killing" and both are really nice looking transfers, albeit bare-bones (but then again, so are most of the Warner Kubrick titles too).

There's work already being done on the Kubrick Collection #3 - but who knows if we'll ever see it on DVD.

It's okay - I'd re-buy these in HD in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray anyway.

Digital Groove
06-06-04, 06:06 PM
I tried my usual Region 3 sites and even google but I couldn't find it, so can someone show me where to order the Region 3 disc, please?

Class316
06-06-04, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Digital Groove
I tried my usual Region 3 sites and even google but I couldn't find it, so can someone show me where to order the Region 3 disc, please?

Well you can get the R2 or R4 one. they're uncensored and the chants are apparently the same as the R3.

jrsl76
06-06-04, 09:43 PM
I got the R3 at Yesasia for around 20/21 dollars about 3 1/2 months ago.

dcprules
06-06-04, 10:21 PM
I'd take a new, not full screen version of this film any day of the week. I still haven't picked it up, but I did rent it and the interviews they have on there were great.

Hopefully a new two disc Warner special edition...

cupon
06-06-04, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by jough
There's work already being done on the Kubrick Collection #3 - but who knows if we'll ever see it on DVD.

If this is true I bet it'll be in widescreen. Since Kubrick is gone, perhaps Warner Brothers will have the common sense to override the "as the director intended" nonsense once and for all.

Seantn
06-06-04, 11:20 PM
perhaps Warner Brothers will have the common sense to override the "as the director intended" nonsense once and for all.

Isn't that the reason that so many movies are released in Full Screen?

cupon
06-06-04, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Seantn
Isn't that the reason that so many movies are released in Full Screen?

The Stanley Kubrick films are an oddity. He shot them in widescreen, the studio released them theatrically in widescreen, but his DVD's were released in full screen, because that's how Kubrick wanted it. I'm not surprised the studio complied. Kubrick has made many films with WB and the studio isn't going to unnecessarily defy him and damage an existing relationship. Since Kubrick is no longer alive, there's no thriving business relationship and no future Kubrick films to look forward to. I assume the studio will now have more leeway to release the films in widescreen without Kubrick arguing against it.

Unless the Kubrick "estate" contests such a judgement (assuming they have some sort of control over these films) I don't see WB releasing a major boxset of Kubrick films in anything other than widescreen. In order to keep the purists happy, they may even have both the pan & scan and widescreen versions on each disc.

Class316
06-07-04, 09:27 AM
Donít the full screen versions show more on the top and bottom in this case?

Josh Z
06-07-04, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Class316
Donít the full screen versions show more on the top and bottom in this case?

What's your point? That's how the full-screen transfers of 99% of all 1.85:1 movies work. Doesn't make it right.

Class316
06-07-04, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Josh Z
What's your point? That's how the full-screen transfers of 99% of all 1.85:1 movies work. Doesn't make it right.

Well if the director wanted them to show the most picture possible, no sense in debating it, right? And it's not like it had special effects or anything.

Mr. Salty
06-07-04, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Class316
Well if the director wanted them to show the most picture possible, no sense in debating it, right? And it's not like it had special effects or anything.

If you've been around here any length of time, you know it isn't about showing the "most" picture, it's about showing the correct picture. That means showing the frame that was composed by the director to be seen, which in the case of most Kubrick films is 1.33:1.

And special effects have nothing to do with it.

darqleo
06-07-04, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by POWERBOMB
It's getting to the point where it is better not to buy a dvd when it first releases because a newer version will be released later down the road.

And cheaper too with the inevitable 6-12 month MSRP drop.

Class316
06-07-04, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by darqleo
And cheaper too with the inevitable 6-12 month MSRP drop.

Even after 6-12 months the MSRP price usually isn't cheaper than the DDD price

PixyJunket
06-07-04, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by cupon
In order to keep the purists happy, they may even have both the pan & scan and widescreen versions on each disc. Incorrect. The Kubrick DVDs are not in Pan & Scan format.

Dan Average
06-07-04, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by jough
There's work already being done on the Kubrick Collection #3 - but who knows if we'll ever see it on DVD.

I hadn't heard about this. Is there any more info out there?

jough
06-08-04, 12:39 PM
Leon Vitali is supervising new transfers being made for HD-TV - I believe they're using 4K scans so that they won't have to do it again for "Super HD-TV" or whatever higher definition format comes out next.

No source other than talking to the man briefly.

In other words, don't hold your breath on seeing new transfers any time soon.

ThatGuamGuy
06-08-04, 01:07 PM
If you've been around here any length of time, you know it isn't about showing the "most" picture, it's about showing the correct picture. That means showing the frame that was composed by the director to be seen, which in the case of most Kubrick films is 1.33:1.

There *could* be legitimate debate on this. This thread hasn't touched upon it yet, but there *could* be, on the following grounds...

Kubrick was aware of *both* the cropping *and* the fullscreen ... which is to say, he knew the cropping would take place theatrically, but chose to compose for fullscreen because he felt that more people would see the films on television ... there are other reasons, like he liked the height, and these would be especially applicable to 'Strangelove', but I mean when he went back to fullscreen later in his career ... he understood his audience, and knew that composing the shots for the medium they'd see the film in was a reasonable thing to do ... or, anyway, that's always been a major reason I've heard cited as to why he liked fullscreen.

So, if that is all true (which, not having ever met the man, I can't confirm), I can see it being a legitimate interpretation of his wishes to update the croppings when the "standard" of television becomes 1.85, or whatever those new-fangled flatscreen HD-TV things are.

That said, I can't imagine why people would advocate going against the director's wishes and call themself a "purist". That's not a "purist", it's a "fascist".

Unless the Kubrick "estate" contests such a judgement

... which they've always said they would

(assuming they have some sort of control over these films)

Yep, they do.

Since Kubrick is no longer alive, there's no thriving business relationship and no future Kubrick films to look forward to.

Ah, but they'd lose the prestige of having had Kubrick in their line-up if they turn around and defy him as soon as he's dead. If I were a director and watched that happen, I'd never work with WB again.

Wanting 'Eyes Wide Shut' in widescreen is weird to me. I totally understand the argument from directors -- not just Kubrick -- who feel that the black bars can be distracting, and that shooting for fullscreen which can be cropped is a better compromise than shooting for widescreen but having to put up with a tiny image and one to two-thirds of the screen filled with black.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate widescreen, but no more than neccessary. If a director wants to go to the trouble of composing for fullscreen and making that the movie he wants to see, I appreciate that effort.

jough
06-08-04, 06:04 PM
That's the thing, though. Fullscreen to me is 16:9, since that's the shape of my screen.

Surely Kubrick did not wish for there to be large grey bars on the SIDES of his images - he wanted the films to fill the screen of a home viewer's display.

Would not releasing the films in 16:9 to fill a widescreen display not be keeping with his wishes?

In a few years more people will have widescreen tvs than standard 4:3 displays.

It's not as cut and dry as you say, TGG.

Kant
06-08-04, 07:58 PM
and so it begins alllll over...

POWERBOMB
06-08-04, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by ThatGuamGuy
That's all well and good, but we've already *had* two releases, haven't we?

I rented this movie. Is there any real difference between the two releases? I just figured the second released conincided with the S.K. Collection release.

cupon
06-08-04, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by POWERBOMB
I rented this movie. Is there any real difference between the two releases? I just figured the second released conincided with the S.K. Collection release.

As stated on thedigitalbits.com (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews/eyeswideshut.html)
I should say that there's really only one actual version of the disc. It was released originally in 2000, and has now been repackaged in the newly remastered Stanley Kubrick Collection. Just be aware that it's the exact same disc as before, simply with new box art. No, it's not a maxed-out special edition, and I'm frankly thankful for that. It's presented in full frame (Kubrick's preferred format). Warner includes a card at the beginning that states that this presentation of the film is full frame as Kubrick intended the film to be seen (instead of the uninformed and misleading "formatted to fit your screen").

Tarantino
06-08-04, 11:43 PM
Aye. Class316 - if you don't like a movie, don't post in a thread about said movie. Thanks. That'll avoid these fruitless arguements.

Julie Walker
06-08-04, 11:46 PM
Speaking of WS tvs...are the bars always grey on those things? If that is the case,I will just stick with a 4X3 tv to view WS films with black bars.

Heck my laptop WS monitor has black bars on it,so I don't mind viewing WS or fullframe/1:33 films on that. But the grey bars are not pleasent to look at. Of course the dvd player is not working at the moment,so back to standard tv for me,not that I mind.

So do all WS tvs have grey bars,or just some models?

Giles
06-08-04, 11:48 PM
hmm, well if they are going to produce a 'new' SE of Eyes Wide Shut, you think they might digitally erase the blooper where the camera is seen in the reflection of the shower edge beam.

Tarantino
06-08-04, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Julie Walker
Speaking of WS tvs...are the bars always grey on those things? If that is the case,I will just stick with a 4X3 tv to view WS films with black bars.

Heck my laptop WS monitor has black bars on it,so I don't mind viewing WS or fullframe/1:33 films on that. But the grey bars are not pleasent to look at. Of course the dvd player is not working at the moment,so back to standard tv for me,not that I mind.

So do all WS tvs have grey bars,or just some models?

No, they're an option.

Jepthah
06-09-04, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Giles
hmm, well if they are going to produce a 'new' SE of Eyes Wide Shut, you think they might digitally erase the blooper where the camera is seen in the reflection of the shower edge beam.

They already did that...or were you ;)

Giles
06-09-04, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Jepthah
They already did that...or were you ;)

ohhhhh! you're right, I only saw this in the theatre and never saw the 'corrected' video version, interesting.

ThatGuamGuy
06-09-04, 12:06 PM
I rented this movie. Is there any real difference between the two releases? I just figured the second released conincided with the S.K. Collection release.

I had thought that *all* the discs in the Kubrick collection were re-mastered, but, as said elsewhere in the thread, I was wrong, it was just a cover change.

It's not as cut and dry as you say, TGG.

Um, I don't think you know what "cut and dry" means, since I was the one who said, specifically, the exact reason that you're agreeing with as a possible complication (ie: *not* cut and dry, if it's complicated) as to the fullscreen vs. widescreen debate.

Looking back, I honestly don't know what you're referring to being "cut and dry"; the first thing I said was that there *could* be legitimate debate on this, even though I disagree with it. I just said that all the reasons in the thread stated prior to that were wrong or mis-stated, which *is* cut and dry.

Surely Kubrick did not wish for there to be large grey bars on the SIDES of his images - he wanted the films to fill the screen of a home viewer's display.

Actually, it's possible; the secondary reason I've heard for why he preferred fullscreen was that Kubrick, apparently, *loved* height, he like his images to seem taller than they were. Now, as I said, I can't confirm any of the alleged reasons for why he liked fullscreen, but if that were true, he might still prefer the picture which seems taller, and has the full image that he shot.


So, okay, "purists", why doesn't anybody complain about the dialogue dub that the IMDb says they did to one of Kidman's lines?

Pants
06-09-04, 12:51 PM
The last time we had this arguement someone pointed out that HBO-HD broadcasts Full Mettle Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut matted to 1.78 HD widescreen. This means that WB has made HD masters of the films in widescreen. I find this very interesting.

Rypro 525
06-09-04, 01:00 PM
another reason i heard was because he was very upset on learning on how cropped 2001 appears on tv pan and scan

majorjoe23
06-09-04, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Julie Walker
Speaking of WS tvs...are the bars always grey on those things? If that is the case,I will just stick with a 4X3 tv to view WS films with black bars.

Heck my laptop WS monitor has black bars on it,so I don't mind viewing WS or fullframe/1:33 films on that. But the grey bars are not pleasent to look at. Of course the dvd player is not working at the moment,so back to standard tv for me,not that I mind.

So do all WS tvs have grey bars,or just some models?

My Phillips 30 inch widescreen HD has black bars on the side.

PatrickMcCart
06-09-04, 01:19 PM
Since Kubrick is gone, perhaps Warner Brothers will have the common sense to override the "as the director intended" nonsense once and for all.

Hey, while we're at it, let's get the edited version of Spartacus released on DVD. It's not how the director intended it, so it must be better!

Why stop with Kubrick, though?

Let's make sure Shane gets re-released in 1.66:1 (especially since the "director" intended it to be shown at 1.33:1... what an idiot) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers at 2.35:1 (How dare they shoot a film for 1.33:1!)

Josh Z
06-09-04, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Pants
[B]The last time we had this arguement someone pointed out that HBO-HD broadcasts Full Mettle Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut matted to 1.78 HD widescreen. This means that WB has made HD masters of the films in widescreen.

Actually, it means that INHD and HBO have made 16:9 widescreen transfers. Warner Bros. didn't have much to do with it other than licensing them the titles.

jough
06-09-04, 05:53 PM
Time Warner owns HBO, and also holds the elements to Kubrick's films with the studios. So someone who is a legal steward of the films (the physical films) would have had to okay the new transfers.

And they were widescreen (16:9 cropped).

From what I've heard, Vitali wasn't satisfied with these, nor was he consulted, but he's working with WB on new transfers of all eight films.

PixyJunket
06-09-04, 06:12 PM
I find it interesting that it's okay to modify a film from it's director intended ratio, IF it's modifying it to widescreen.

cupcake jesus
06-09-04, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by PatrickMcCart
Hey, while we're at it, let's get the edited version of Spartacus released on DVD. It's not how the director intended it, so it must be better!

Why stop with Kubrick, though?

Let's make sure Shane gets re-released in 1.66:1 (especially since the "director" intended it to be shown at 1.33:1... what an idiot) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers at 2.35:1 (How dare they shoot a film for 1.33:1!)

I believe that Invasion of the Body Snatchers was shot in 2:1 (listed on IMDB), not 1.33:1. I appreciate your sentiment, but if you're going to be sarcastic, be sure to research.

Cheers.

- the Jesus

P.S. The DVD lists the aspect ratio of 2.35:1, but it looks closer to the IMDB listed 2:1.

P.P.S. I would support the release of widescreen versions of Kubrick films that were shown as such upon (Kubrick-approved) theatrical release.

Julie Walker
06-09-04, 11:54 PM
Actually Cup,Body Snatchers original aspect ratio was 1:33. It was then matted to 2:1 by the studio to hop on the WS bandwagon. The process was called 'super-scope' or something like that. Basically what it means is the studio tried to fool people with fake 2:35 images by cropping 1:33 films they released..and Body Snatchers was one of them.

So while 2:1 was the OAR of the theatrical release. It was not the correct directors intended OAR which was 1:33.

There is a website that details that process extensively, widescreenmusuem is the websites name.but I am not sure what the address is.

MrDs10e
06-10-04, 12:08 AM
I think the Kubrick situation is one case where it would be best to simply include both. It's not like including a second disc, or making it a flipper is some great difficulty. There are legitimate arguments for displaying it as the director shot it, or displaying it as it was shown in the theater. I hate pan & scan as all movie buffs should, but we're not talking about p&s here. We're talking about movies that, for all practical purposes, were intended by the director to exist in both widescreen and fullscreen formats.

If I were the WB big wig making this decision, I think that including the matted 16:9 and unmatted 1.33:1 for all the relevant Kubrick films would be the only way to satisfy everyone and give these great movies the comprehensive treatment they deserve.

jough
06-10-04, 03:56 PM
Amen.

Yeah, nearly all of these have an OAR in some widescreen format. Eyes Wide Shut showed at 1.85:1. Full Metal Jacket was shown at 1.85:1 in the US and 1.66:1 in Europe.

The Shining was matted to 2.35:1 in the US.

My DB only goes back that far (I keep track of the ratio of every film I see theatrically) but IMDB confirms that Barry Lyndon's correct ratio is 1.66:1, not 1.33:1 as it appears on home video (ditto with A Clockwork Orange).

The only Kubrick films that are in their OAR on DVD are:

The Killing
Paths of Glory
Spartacus (thanks to the Criterion Collection)
2001: A Space Odyssey
Dr. Strangelove (which shifts ratios throughout the film)

Too bad. I'd love to see these properly represented on video.

Pants
06-10-04, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by jough


The Shining was matted to 2.35:1 in the US.

Now I don't think that's true.

Johnny Zhivago
06-10-04, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by jough
My DB only goes back that far (I keep track of the ratio of every film I see theatrically) but IMDB confirms that Barry Lyndon's correct ratio is 1.66:1, not 1.33:1 as it appears on home video (ditto with A Clockwork Orange).

jough - Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange are matted to 1.66:1 for their current DVD presentations.

ThatGuamGuy
06-10-04, 04:49 PM
Since you brought up 'Strangelove', you're mis-applying your own rules to it. Sure, Kubrick *intended* some of the scenes to be 1.33, but in its initial screenings, the whole film was cropped. He didn't like it, but it was. So, actually, the current disc of that isn't good enough for you either.

jough
06-10-04, 04:59 PM
If that's true then no, it's not OAR.

But everything I've read about its exhibition says that it was in multiple aspect ratios.

jough
06-10-04, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Zhivago
jough - Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange are matted to 1.66:1 for their current DVD presentations.

Are they? I'll have to dig out the discs again. Are they anamorphic?

EDIT: A Clockwork Orange is actually 1.55:1 on the current DVD. Barry Lyndon is 1.66:1. Neither are anamorphic.

cupcake jesus
06-10-04, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Julie Walker
Actually Cup,Body Snatchers original aspect ratio was 1:33. It was then matted to 2:1 by the studio to hop on the WS bandwagon. The process was called 'super-scope' or something like that. Basically what it means is the studio tried to fool people with fake 2:35 images by cropping 1:33 films they released..and Body Snatchers was one of them.

So while 2:1 was the OAR of the theatrical release. It was not the correct directors intended OAR which was 1:33.


Huh. No kidding. Thanks for the info. I'm gonna look for that website.

Body Snatchers looks pretty decent in the 2:1, IMHO, so I wonder if it was just plain matted, or there was some forethought during shooting.

Nevertheless, Kubrick was well aware of the ratio that his films were released in, and if he actually had the amount of control over his films that is reported in nearly every biography, and A Life in Pictures, he could have released the films in the near-academy ratio, rather than removing the mats later for video release. Hell, he had marketing control.

I'm inclined to agree with an earlier posting that had Kubrick been around for the growth of 1.85:1 TVs, he would have released his films in widescreen.

Cheers.

- the Jesus

Josh Z
06-11-04, 04:18 PM
There is a lot of mis-information in this thread. Kubrick composed his movies for widescreen theatrical projection. His cinematographer was looking at widescreen markings on the camera viewfinder. At a retrospective of his films prior to his death, Kubrick asked that they be projected at 1.66:1, which was his preferred theatrical projection ratio.

For home video, Kubrick asked that all soft-matting be removed from his films to expose the entire camera negative, regardless of how this looked on screen.

A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon had been photographed with a hard-matte over the camera gate, blocking light from exposing the top and bottom of the frame. Removing all soft matting exposes the edges of the hard mattes, leaving the picture with an aspect ratio of about 1.5:1.

Dr. Strangelove was photographed with a hard-matte in place for some shots, but not all shots. It was always intended to be projected at a constant widescreen aspect ratio, but Kubrick's insistence that all soft matting be removed for video now leaves the movie varying in aspect ratio from shot to shot. This did not bother him, even though it looks pretty odd.

Spiderbite
09-10-04, 09:12 PM
I just recorded this last night on Cinemax-HD (courtesy of Voom) and was surprised to see that the aspect ratio was 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1). Anyway, it filled my 16X9 screen beautifully and did not appear to be zoomed in as some movies do (ala Scarface on Encore-HD which makes the 2.35:1 film a 16X9 butcher cut).

So what did I see? Was it zoomed in or matted? It looked great whatever it was. Anyone know?

Josh Z
09-13-04, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by brianluvdvd
So what did I see? Was it zoomed in or matted? It looked great whatever it was. Anyone know?

It was matted from the 1.37:1 camera negative.

HBO/Cinemax has an infuriating policy of presenting all movies at 16:9 on their HD channels regardless of OAR, but in some rare instances like this one it works out in our favor. 16:9 is very close to the original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1.