I mean can't we even get a non-anamorphic WS? why are all FoolScreen? that doesn't make logical sense...

thats the way Kubrick intended it to be...i think it says that somewere on the case.

They're not Fullscreen. It was shot 1.37:1, and displayed 1.66:1 open matte.

It's not Foolscreen, it's an unmatted open matte transfer, which Kubrick preferred over the widescreen version.

I'm sure someone knows more about it than me, but...

I believe it was shot in such a way (like other Kubrick films) so that when they were transferred from their theatrical AR to 1.33:1 (for home video), they could simply remove the mattes. Therefore, the films were framed for 1.85:1 (for example), but the full 1.33:1 frame was "protected" such that a simple removing of mattes would fit the TV screen. The reason Kubrick wanted it this way was so no one would come along and butcher it by making a pan-and-scan version.

I would prefer the OTAR with an anamorphic transfer because:

• That's the way it was shown theatrically (and framed by the director for that)
• Anamorphic transfer would increase the resolution for those of us with HD monitors

I believe what he preferred was for his films NOT to be butchered by a pan-and-scan transfer when moving to home video.

Oh boy, this again...

Wow. From someone considered "DVD Talk Ultimate Edition" too.

- The open matte policy is based on the last time Kubrick approved video transfers for his films - 1991

- All of his films from Paths of Glory to Eyes Wide Shut (obviously, exclusing Spartacus and 2001: A Space Odyssey) were shot for at least 1.66:1 matted projection. Paths of Glory, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon were all shot for 1.66:1 (Paths of Glory seems to be safe for 1.85:1, as indicated by the original 1958 35mm print specs). The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut were specifically shot for 1.85:1. This is indicated in Kubrick's own storyboards, where he explicitly says to frame for 1.85:1, but also safe for 1.33:1.

- It's important to know that Kubrick did NOT shoot the films with 1.33:1 being the intended ratio. He only shot his last 3 films safe for 1.33:1 so that either ratio could be used (this is because he had the foresight to know that his films would more likely be shown on video and TV at 4x3).

- Pretty much any major studio movie shot after 1955 was shot for 1.66:1 or wider.

I noticed on The Digital Bits' upcoming release list that Warner is planning on releasing A Clockwork Orange and 2001 Special Editions later in 2006. I wonder that the aspect ratios will be?

That's the $64,000 question and will be a major factor for me in deciding whether to double-dip on these films before buying them on whatever the prevailing HD format winds up being.

Of the thousands of DVDs that have been released with both FS and WS versions on the same release, if there were any for which an argument could be made for including both, they are the Kubrick non-scope features. Release both versions of each movie on its own single edition and end this discussion once and for all ... PLEASE!!!

Well, the people who want the fullscreen version are the ones who believe that 1991 approvals should be applied 15 years later. Brian DePalma and Woody Allen didn't mind their 1.85:1 films to be left unmatted for Criterion editions. However, when DVD came along, they opted to have original widescreen ratios because they could use 100% of the resolution.

I used to believe in the whole thing until I did research.

Same thing goes for Citizen Kane, too? Is that why it's pan & scan? NO BUY

OAR = 1.37:1 which is what the current DVD is if I'm not mistaking.

YOU'LL BUY WHAT KUBRICK MAKES AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!

yeah, i guess not fool screen. i just saw that 4:3 non-anamorphic and i guess i thought the worst. if this is how it was intended then i will buy it this weekend. but, why the hell can't we get an SE that is at least anamorphic!!

Zoom!

Ojam meet Groucho...

and, is this "remastered" version only in the SK Collector Set? or can you get it standalone?

You know, I was going to post about Groucho's post not being up to his usual level, but Ojam made it worth it.

I'd buy it again if it was released WS.

If your TV has a zoom function, try it. I watched FMJ last week and tried out the zoom on my TV for the hell of it. It was framed surprisingly well.

The existing DVDs of 2001 and A Clockwork Orange are already in their respective theatrical ratios, so it's pretty safe to say that the Special Editions will be too. The only real question is how they'll handle encoding A Clockwork Orange: will it be a letter-boxed 4:3 image, or a pillar-boxed 16:9 image?