No, but this quote clearly states that the films were composed for a 4:3 presentation:

"He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set."

Then don't watch TV! Half the shit there isn't OAR even in HD! Simple as that.

Silly me, see...I always thought that...

A: Stanley Kubrick knew what he was doing. Now I understand that w/o access to the experts here, he was just fumbling around, making a hash of things.

B: The idea was to preserve the Director's vision (even if the Director is a low-grade moron like Adrian Lyne.) Now, the criteria have been changed.

I'm glad to get these periodic updates.

Hey man, better watch out. In film circles, people have suddenly vanished from the face of the earth for questioning the all mighty Kubrick. Not that I have a problem with it though! I mean, sometimes I think Kubrick could have said, "You know, I want 2001 to be seen in Pan & Scan only. It would be so cool to have the picture cut and then I could move it around to fit the most important action in the center. And then it would fill up my friend Joe's screen!!" and then all of us home theater buffs would go, "Yes, Mr. Kubrick. You are correct. That is the only way we want to see it too. You are never wrong...." (By the way, I know none of Kubrick's full frame releases are P&S, I was just making a fictitious example.) Seriously though, I do believe that Kubrick wanted we, the viewers, to see most of his films full frame. I am all for that. However, I also see the side of those who saw FMJ in the theater matted and remember the way it looks that way. It is all in the way the film makes an impression upon us, the audience. Should Kubrick's films be released in full frame according to his desires - ABSOLUTELY. Do I think there would be any problem with them also being available in their theatrical aspect ratio? No, not really. I see this in a similar way to the Star Wars situation. Star Wars is George Lucas' baby. He can release it to us in any way he sees fit to fit his "vision" or whatever. I, though, would also like the opportunity to see them the way I originally saw them as well. I think it is kind of the same for some people and Kubrick films. They just wouldn't mind being able to watch them in the way they saw them in the theater. Although...Kubrick's films were modified for the theatrical presentation, with the home video (DVD) release represents his "true vision." With Lucas, his films are supposedly going to be modified for DVD, so I guess that is a bit different - but same principal. I want to see Lucas "final vision" for Star Wars, but I also desperately want to see the films the way I remember them too. Kubrick fans who saw his films in the theaters may also want them in Kubrick's intended aspect ratio, but would also like to be able to see them the way they remember them.

Anyways, Full Metal Jacket just plain rocks no matter what.

Disclaimer: Stanley Kubrick was a genius. The preceding comments were not intended to tarnish the man or his god-like attributes. Hail Kubrick - King of Cinema

Maybe that's what you're "supposed to be about," but please don't include me by implication as an HT enthusiast. I am only interested in recreating the theatrical experience insofar as it is a factor in presenting a given film the way its creators wanted it to be presented. If this happens to contradict some aspect of the original theatrical presentation, then, very simply, the theatrical presentation loses out. I don't want to pretend I'm in a movie theater, I want to watch a film in the way its makers wanted me to. Film, for me, is a creative enterprise, not a mechanical one. People make films, not equipment. When equipment has more say in a film's presentation than the people who actually made it, the tail truly is wagging the dog.

DJ

Amen to that . . . I think that the Extended Edition of Lord Of The Rings: FotR (and, I pray it is the same with TT and RotK) is one of the greatest examples of that. The theatrical version is excellent, but the EE is presents a much more complete picture. My roommate couldn't wait and bought the theatrical release when it came out, but when he saw the EE when I got it, he was ticked off that he bought the first one. The EE was the movie that he had wanted to see when the movie was released. Because Johnny Six-Pack was already going to have trouble concentrating on a movie for 3 hours, what we got was the theatrical version when the film opened.

I enjoyed the "theatrical experience" when I first saw it in the theater, but I could care less about seeing the theatrical version ever again . . . I only want the extended version from now on.

I would love to hear what Kubrick would have to say about this now this with the popularity widescreen TVs. I don't think anyone can say for sure how he would want the dvds presented today.

My opinion: OAR is 1.85:1. Kubrick also filmed with 1.33:1 in mind for a home presentation. However, if widescreen TVs had have been commonplace when it was filmed, he may have simply filmed it for the 16:9 ratio. He didn't like letterboxing on a traditional-size TV. My conclusion: OAR is 1.85:1.

Feature films are intended to be seen in movie theaters. Video considerations are secondary.

All of them? Wow, Robert, I didn't realize you'd interviewed every person who ever worked on a feature film. That must've taken you quite a while.

Anyway, like I said, I am interested in recreating the theatrical experience insofar as it is a factor in best presenting a given film. If a given filmmaker happens to want his film to be presented exactly as it was in the theatre, then I want the theatrical version. If a given filmmaker wants something different, so do I. Of course, you apparently think that recreating the theatrical experience is always a factor, and when you make a movie yourself, I'll listen to your wishes with regard to your own film. Until then, your opinion on the best way to present someone else's film doesn't mean all that much to me.

My devotion in film lies with its creators. I use my equipment to watch films, I don't use films to watch my equipment. You can invent rules all day about the importance of movie theatres, but it will never be a more meaningful consideration to me than what the filmmakers want.

DJ

You keep talking about equipment. Do you have an equipment fetish?

Wow. Well, it's nice to see you're not actually capable of supporting your arguments in an intelligent manner. Sorry I bothered.

DJ

I think I have supported my arguement just fine, but you keep bringing up hardware issues that are not being discussed. What is or is not the best, most accurate, correct aspect ratio for presenting widescreen films on video has nothing directly to do with hardware, and I haven't mentioned system configuration at all.

So, are you making some assumption about my opinion based on what you suppose is my hardware config? You know what "assumption" is, right?

Let's calm down.

For whatever it's worth, I saw FMJ three times in the theater - twice in the States and once in Europe - and each time it was projected at approximately 1.85:1.

Now, if they would put "full screen" on one side of the disc and anamorphic widescreen on the other everybody would be happy.

Kubrick's movies were composed for widescreen theatrical presentations. His cameras had both 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 etchings on the viewfinders (European and American theatrical standards), and his editor cut them on an editing bay matted to 1.85:1.

At a retrospective festival of his films prior to his death, he asked that most of them be matted to 1.66:1 and stated that was his preferred theatrical ratio.

However, he had some eccentric views about home video and preferred that the movies have all matting lifted to expose the entire camera negative, regardless of whether that was the way he composed them or if unintentional things (like in-camera hard mattes) were visible in some shots. That was just his preference for watching them on television. He liked to see the whole negative regardless of what it looked like.

Watching his films full-frame, if you have any eye for composition you can clearly see that they were not composed for 4:3. Shots frequently have too much headroom and characters faces in close-ups are not properly centered. The golden rule for composing a close-up is that the actor's eyes should be 2/3 of the way up from the bottom of the screen in order to grab the viewer's sightline. In The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, in 4:3 the actors' eyes are almost always much lower in the frame, with too much forehead visible, leaving the shots off-balance and awkward.

As for Leon Vitali, as well-meaning as he may be, if you read the entire interview he did for DVDFile it is very evident that he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to anything technical. He demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what anamorphic enhancement means until the interviewer (our editor) finally gives up in frustration from trying to explain it and just moves on with the next topic.

That is an extremely important point that seems to be ignored far too often, whether from hero-worship, or just a natural tendency to overlook certain foibles in otherwise well-regarded individuals. The fact is, there are many very gifted filmmakers that don't know which end of a TV plugs into the wall. I have listened to horror stories from telecine colorists about some director or another very nearly ruining (or actually ruining) a video transfer because of their lack of knowledge of the process coupled with an unwillingness to admit such.

You said that "Home theater enthusiasts are supposed to be about preserving the theatrical experience to the greatest degree possible in the home." Does this not discuss hardware? What do HT enthusiasts use to preserve the theatrical experience, then, if not hardware? A seance? Psychic powers?

You brought up hardware when you made your pronouncement about what HT enthusiasts are "supposed to be about." I don't "keep bringing up" anything other than what you've said. If you find that problematic, perhaps you should reconsider what you've said so far.

Quote:

What is or is not the best, most accurate, correct aspect ratio for presenting widescreen films on video has nothing directly to do with hardware, and I haven't mentioned system configuration at all.

It has nothing to do with hardware? But I thought that HT enthusiasts are "supposed to be about preserving the theatrical experience to the greatest degree possible in the home." The "theatrical experience" is a creation of the hardware (and the software that is used on it) used in theatres, is it not? Or do theatres, too, use some other secret process of displaying films that you've yet to disclose to us?

Quote:

So, are you making some assumption about my opinion based on what you suppose is my hardware config? You know what "assumption" is, right?

What assumption did I make, exactly? I've made no suppositions about your hardware configuration. Where in the world are you even getting that from?

I'm only going by what you've said. You've told us that HT enthusiasts are "supposed to be about preserving the theatrical experience." I'm telling you that I think that this ignores the entire purpose of the enterprise of filmmaking. There are no assumptions here. I'm replying to exactly what you've said and giving my opinion of it. That you're apparently somehow distracted by my mention of the words "hardware" and "equipment" (and that this further causes you to not formulate meaningful responses to me) is unfortunate, but not my fault.

DJ

Damin:

I have always considered you an intelligent individual. Up to now.

Now I see you are little more than a forum troll out to pick a fight. I know you know better, so I am finished with you.

So anyone who actually challenges what you have to say in a cohesive and logical manner is simply a troll? I'm not out to pick a fight. I was out to have a discussion, but you stopped that from happening. First, you posted an opinion. Then, I replied to your post and gave my differing opinion in a logically structured and relevant manner. One would expect that the next step would be a reply in kind. This was apparently not to be. Instead, you've since decided to reply to each of my posts with strange flamebait instead of actual relevant responses. Who, exactly, is the troll here? The one who explains and supports his position logically, or the one who apparently expects to have his opinion go unchalleneged and just gives odd replies that are utterly non-responsive to the subject matter?

Be honest with yourself for a moment. I gave my opinion in a logical and detailed manner. You then responsed with: "You keep talking about equipment. Do you have an equipment fetish?" And you call me a troll? Give me a break. If I'm a troll for daring to disagree with the legendary Obi, who appears to be completely unable or unwilling to stand behind his own statements, then so be it. If you being "finished" with me means that I won't be subject to further non sequitur responses to my posts, then I'm thinking I'm probably not losing out on much.

I don't get what your problem is, but again, I'm sorry I bothered.

DJ

Yeah. Right.

I don't think Robert knows what "troll" actually means.

I'm so sorry your skin was so thin that two or three moments of mild sarcasm caused you to not be able to actually respond to me and instead just post non sequitur flamebait. Perhaps this would not have happened had you ever bothered to construct a meaningful response to anything I've said. Instead, you continue to avoid doing so for reasons known only to yourself.

DJ