(Okay, so I guess I'm not quite finished with you.)

Damin:

If you will read my posts in this thread, I have clearly spoken my ideas about the issue of this topic of this thread, that being, the framing of some of Stanley Kubrick's films, more specifically, Full Metal Jacket. You have very clearly made your point that my opinion does not match yours, which is fine, nor does it match Stanley Kubrick's, which is also just fine with me. Beyond that, there is nothing else to say.

Your blatant attempts at discrediting me personally because I have voiced an opinion different from yours that you cannot refute sufficently is a tactic I have seen you use numerous times with other people on this and other forums you haunt. I don't respond to that sort of thing.

I have stated my position on this topic based on reason, logic, and common sense. All you have is, "Stanley wanted it that way". Not much of a debate, but enjoy your fullscreen movies anyway.

In the interests of completely preserving the theatrical experience, I like to pour Coke on the floor and hire neighborhood kids to run around in circles and scream at the top of their lungs.

If there was nothing else to say, why did you bother with replying to my posts with non-responsive non sequiturs ("Feature films are intended to be seen in movie theaters," "Do you have an equipment fetish?")? You apparently thought there was something left to say, albiet some rather irrelevant things.

Quote:

Your blatant attempts at discrediting me personally because I have voiced an opinion different from yours

I've attempted to personally discredit you? Are you kidding me? Who called who a "troll"? Get over yourself, kiddo. Just because I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I'm out to destroy you as a human being. I was trying to discuss film. You're the one who decided to turn the discussion into one about you.

Quote:

that you cannot refute sufficently

What, exactly, have I been unable to "refute sufficiently"? Since you still won't actually give me an on-topic response to my posts, it's a bit difficult to know what in the world you're talking about.

Quote:

is a tactic I have seen you use numerous times with other people on this and other forums you haunt.

You call me names and make generalizations about me and my "tactics," yet I'm somehow trying to personally discredit you?

Quote:

I don't respond to that sort of thing.

What sort of thing? Challenging on-topic responses? You do indeed appear to run for the hills when those come around.

Quote:

I have stated my position on this topic based on reason, logic, and common sense.

And when it was challenged, you responded with non sequiturs and, eventually, insults. One can't help but question the quality of such a position based on such a response.

Quote:

All you have is, "Stanley wanted it that way".

I don't recall saying a word about what Stanley Kubrick wanted in this thread. I also never did other things you've claimed, such as making suppositions about your hardware configuration or attempting to personally discredit you. All of that, combined with how you never actually respond to anything I say on-topic, makes me truly wonder whether you even bother reading anyone's posts other than your own.

Quote:

Not much of a debate, but enjoy your fullscreen movies anyway.

Are you implying that somehow "fullscreen" is a derogatory term? Anyway, I will continue enjoying films the way their makers intended them to be enjoyed, thanks, just as you can keep thinking your opinion on films matters more than those of those who made them.

DJ

No, I'm saying it plainly and clearly. Fullscreen transfers of widescreen films is a bad thing. I don't care who thinks otherwise.

You say that like it's a bad thing. So, put another way, I think for myself and you are a sheep.

Of course, "...of widescreen films" wasn't part of the sentence when you told me to "enjoy [my] fullscreen movies." The way you said it, you might as well have sarcastically told me to "enjoy your Citizen Kane DVD."

But, yeah, anyway, who cares what anyone thinks about movies other than you, right? What do those idiot directors know? They only made their movies. How insignificant. You are clearly in a much better position to decide how films that you had no part in the making of should be presented.

Quote:

You say that like it's a bad thing. So, put another way, I think for myself and you are a sheep.

I am a sheep for what, exactly? Wanting filmmakers to have the artistic freedom to choose the manner in which their works are presented? This makes me a sheep? Isn't watching a film as its creators wanted it seen the entire point of watching it in the first place? Do you "think for yourself" and decide how a film's plot will develop, or are you a sheep who just watches the film someone else made? Do you "think for yourself" and edit every film, or are you a sheep who just watches the film someone else made? Do you "think for yourself" and choose every film's cast, or are you a sheep who just watches the film someone else made? Do you "think for yourself" and choose every film's aspect ratio...er, nevermind, I guess you do.

The point is, the moment you decide to watch a film someone else made, you are no longer "thinking for yourself" in innumerable ways. Pretending to put yourself in some kind of higher position is absurd.

You seem to describe allowing others to have artistic freedom as being something to be looked down upon. Well, if appreciating art and being in favor of artistic freedom make me a sheep, then baa baa.

DJ

Maybe the bickering would stop if both sides acknowledged that the issue is more complex than your Citizen Kane example implies and more complex than the other side's OAR argument implies. Full Metal Jacket was shown in theaters at 1.85:1 and the DP surely composed with this theatrical ratio in mind. On the other hand, Kubrick apparently had different ideas for the home video release and also looked at the TV-safe area when shooting. It's perfectly reasonable for somebody to object to a full screen DVD of FMJ on the basis that it doesn't represent the theatrical aspect ratio. But it's also reasonable for somebody to subscribe to Kubrick's policy regarding home video presentation and accept the full screen DVD transfer as equally legitimate. Why can't both sides just acknowledge that?

Years ago, Widescreen Review ran a couple of articles called "Film-to-Tape Horror Stories: Inside Telecine" with entertaining anecdotes about how video transfers can get screwed up by outside interference. I saved my favorite one, about Jim Cameron's fussy perfectionism causing havoc with the Aliens Special Edition laserdisc transfer. I can post it if anyone wants to read it, but it's kind of long.

It seems to me that the widescreen people simply want to see the film the way it was presented in the theater, while the fullscreen people want to force the widescreen people to watch it the way they think the deceased director wanted them to in the 1980s.

In the context of this topic, I thought that was obvious. We are in a specific discussion here.

No, allowing others to have artistic freedom is a good and noble thing. You are a sheep for blindly accepting what is placed in front of you when basic common sense should cause you to question. You are a sheep because you think that just because someone's resume includes the job title "film director" that they are infallible and beyond reproach. I have a news flash for you, a lot of film directors have made a lot of bad decisions that very well should be questioned.

Sure. In the first place. That does not mean that one does not have the right to question the decisions the filmmakers have made afterward. I think we call that "critique".

Yeah, I guess I do. I don't consider film a passive medium as you obviously do. I consider film, at the very least, emotionally and intellectually interactive.

Yeah, when I watch the DVD transfers of Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove, I electronically "matte" the image to 1.78:1 ("zoom" using RP91 player) to more cloesly match the theatrical framing because, to my eye, it looks better than full frame.

Yeah, I saw Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1977 and then I saw Steven Spielberg and Columbia Pictures "new and improved" Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1980. I liked them both. There were elements removed from the first that I liked and there were elements added to the second that I liked. So, guess what? When I had access to the rudimentary tools (the Criterion laserdisc with all the footage and a S-VHS VCR), I created Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Robert George Cut. Do I think that makes me a better director than Spielberg? Only a fool would think so, and contrary to popular belief, I am not a fool. But guess what? I like my version better than either of Spielberg's. I don't consider that sacreligous.

SpinnerX:

The issue really isn't that complex, but there are very different philosphies on both sides that can't be reconciled.

Josh:

I'm familiar with the article you mention, but I'm sure there are many here whose experience in this hobby doesn't go back that far. That WSR article would probably be interesting reading for some of them.

What I said was that the issue was "more complex than [djtoell's] Citizen Kane example implies and more complex than [your] OAR argument implies."

Perhaps you are, but I began my involvement in this thread by responding to a much more general comment of yours: "Home theater enthusiasts are supposed to be about preserving the theatrical experience to the greatest degree possible in the home. That means presenting films the way they were intended to be seen in the cinema." I commented on that, not on any specific Stanley Kubrick issue. In the context of the messages you and I have posted to one another, the "of widescreen films" addendum was not obvious at all.

Quote:

No, allowing others to have artistic freedom is a good and noble thing. You are a sheep for blindly accepting what is placed in front of you when basic common sense should cause you to question. You are a sheep because you think that just because someone's resume includes the job title "film director" that they are infallible and beyond reproach. I have a news flash for you, a lot of film directors have made a lot of bad decisions that very well should be questioned.

The entire point of having respect for art is wanting works of art to presened as their creators wanted, good or bad. I am not the gatekeeper who decides how other people's films should be presented. I do not only respect the integrity of works of art I think are good. That's not respect at all, it's egoism. I'd much rather see a bad film presented as its director wanted than have some armchair director who had no involvement with it change it to make it "better" twenty year later. "Common sense" tells me that any given director is in a much better position to decide how his or her film should be presented than Robert George is. You can attempt to belittle directors (and me) all you wish, but even the most insignificant and untalented director has a much more valid opinion on the proper presentation his own film than you do.

Quote:

Sure. In the first place. That does not mean that one does not have the right to question the decisions the filmmakers have made afterward. I think we call that "critique".

You can question all you like. Your answers to those questions, however, don't count for much. Just because someone's resume includes the job title "film critic," it doesn't mean their opinion has any actual impact upon the way in which a film should bre presented. Aesthetic criticism has no bearing on the proper presentation of a work of art. They are wholly different enterprises that, despite your best efforts, have no necessary connection.

DJ

Man, you guys are really going around in circles. DJ, why don't you just acknowledge that a widescreen Full Metal Jacket is as much a "proper presentation" as a full screen presentation? Then you can both just agree to disagree. There's no reason to take a hardline "Kubrick wanted it full screen" stance, when the film was composed for and projected at 1.85:1 during its theatrical run. You can choose to recreate that theatrical experience at home or you can subscribe to Kubrick's home video policies, but arguing about which is "proper" is just pointless.

Why would I acknowledge that? It wouldn't have an impact on this discussion. I haven't said anything about Full Metal Jacket in this thread. Indeed, that's the first time in this thread that I've typed that title.

Quote:

There's no reason to take a hardline "Kubrick wanted it full screen" stance, when the film was composed for and projected at 1.85:1 during its theatrical run.

I've taken no such stance in this thread.

Quote:

You can choose to recreate that theatrical experience at home or you can subscribe to Kubrick's home video policies, but arguing about which is "proper" is just pointless.

I haven't argued about what's "proper" for any Stanley Kubrick film.

Why does everyone think I'm talking about Kubrick films? Yes, we're in a thread that started off with a discussion of Kubrick and Full Metal Jacket. However, Obi made an extremely general comment about the goals of Home Theatre. I responded to that theoretical point, not anything specifically related to Kubrick.

DJ

This is a thread about Full Metal Jacket and, by extension, Kubrick's policies regarding home video viewing versus theatrical presentation. If your side of the discussion doesn't take this practical example into account (the example that everyone else seems to be discussing), then you're pretty much just arguing for the sake of arguing.

i would just like to say that I agree with djtoell 100%. I never read Josh Z reviews because of his stance on Kobricks and Josh Whetons dvd releases. Robert George..., no comment.

It was. Then Robert made an extremely general comment about what HT enthusiasts are "supposed to be about." I'm not the one who brought that topic up.

Quote:

If your side of the discussion doesn't take this practical example into account (the example that everyone else seems to be discussing), then you're pretty much just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm pretty much discussing a comment someone else made. You, however, seem to be arguing about what we're arguing about, and if that isn't simply for the sake of arguing, nothing is.

I do take Full Metal Jacket into account. I just haven't made the sort of specific comments about that film that you and Robert are saying I have. Acknowledging something about FMJ won't have any impact on the discussion, as it is broad one of aesthetic theory and criticism. I am only interested in discussing those philosophical concepts. Arguing about what Kubrick wanted is a pointless exercise, especially when people start citing to things they heard third-hand. I have no interest in wasting my time on it.

DJ

I think I just found my new sig:

"It is a broad [discussion] of aesthetic theory and criticism. I am only interested in discussing those philosophical concepts."

Sorry, but that's got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read at DVD Talk.

This is more of a side issue of this topic, but I wanted to add my observations made over the past few months since adding both DirecTv HD and OTA antenna for digital local service.

I can't say "most" because I don't have a percentage, but certainly quite a lot of the HD content on the satellite services is not in OAR. The biggest culprit is HBO-HD which routinely uses 1.78:1 transfers of 2.35:1 films. In fact, I think I have seen exactly one properly framed 2.35:1 movie on HBO-HD since June, though I obviously have not looked at everything they have shown.

Also, HDNet has been showing several older sitcoms and dramatic series that originally aired well before the advent of HD yet these have been cropped top and bottom for 16:9. However, to their credit, the movies on HDNet Movies are all in OAR that I have seen.

ESPN-HD is another network that has some learning to do. Except for true HD content, most of the programming on ESPN-HD is simply the 480i 4:3 feed from the regular ESPN channel that has been upconverted and stretched out to fill the 16:9 frame. Very poor decision.

More on topic, HDNet Movies has shown Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange in the past couple of months and both were 16:9, so at least Warner did widescreen transfers of these films, even if we don't get to see them on DVD.

While Full Metal Jacket was composed in a way that 1.33:1 AND 1.85:1 would work, A Clockwork Orange was composed specifically for 1.66:1.

1.78:1 would result in some nasty overmatting... Overmatting is worse than keeping the mattes off.

Sorry, but DJ's absolutely right on this one. If Kubrick wanted to have each frame hand-rendered on the fly using an Etch-A-Sketch, it would be his prerogative. We don't have to like his decision, we don't have to agree with his decision, and especially don't have to buy the movie if his decision bothers us that much, but to try to force it into a format other than that which the artist (let's face it, that is what a director is) wants for his art, in a broad sense, a form of censorship. It is essentially saying that one person/group/entity has the right do deem anothers artistic creation incorrect or invalid because they have established a "correct" set of criteria with which the piece does not comply. I might think that the Mona Lisa has too much green in it, but I'll be damned if I would tell da Vinci that he did his painting wrong.

So, make your own specially formatted edits, zoom your DVD player in to a different aspect ratio, tape cardboard across the top and bottom of your TV screen to make a matte . . . heck . . . whip out a jar of Smuckers, smear it on the screen, and watch it in "Jelly-vision" if you you think it makes the movie look better . . . that's your business and I won't stop you . . . but it is just as much Kubrick's business to decide that he wants Full Metal Jacket to be shown in a "full-frame ratio" and we need to accept that decision, because it was his, and his alone, to make.

Notice that I never gave any opinion about whether DJ was right or wrong. I will say (again) though, that there's a little more to it than your post indicates. You're ignoring the fact that Kubrick shot the film for theatrical exhibition as well as for home video. A letterboxed presentation of Full Metal Jacket adheres to Kubrick's artistic vision for the theatrical experience and a fullscreen presentation follows his wishes for home video. That's not even getting into the issue of whether or not the existence of widescreen televisions negates Kubrick's original reasons for fullscreen DVDs. There is no right or wrong here. Kubrick shot the movie to be screened at 1.85:1, but he simultaneously composed for the TV-safe area with home video in mind. One isn't any more right or wrong than the other.

Oh, I agree that the theatrical release was widescreen . . . no argument there . . . my comments were directed towards the video/DVD release format, which is what where Kubrick's request directly applies and which is where the conversation started turning at this point . . .I was actually addressing this point more so than yours . . . yours just happened to be closer in the thread and enough related that I went from there instead. In relation to this quote, what I was trying to say is that, in the case of someone's personal creation (Kubrick's FMJ, in this case), there is no wrong . . . only right, in that whatever the artist wants his art to portray is right because it is his and that is the way he wants it. Convention, standard practice, government edict, good taste, planetary alignment, or any other point of view external to the artist is really irrelevant. While the widescreen Full Metal Jacket is "proper presentation" for the theatrical release, because Kubrick specifically requested otherwise in the case of the home release (and, therefore, pressumably, had specific reasons for wanting it full screen), a widescreen presentation is not proper for a home release.

One other side point, related to whether or not Kubrick would have changed his mind based on the presence of widescreen TV's . . . the first widescreen TV was released in 1989, a full 10 years before Kubrick died. He had plenty of time to change his mind, with full knowledge of the presence of widescreen televisions, before he died.

Kubrick was insatiably curious about all things technological. The man helped invent a lens to capture natural light so he could film Barry Lyndon the way he wanted to. To have him depicted, by inference, as either some bozo stuck in the 50's or some oddball crank, is simply absurd.

I think that sums up things pretty well! I really think Kubrick was living in the past on this issue, knowing that at the time so many people had 4x3 TV sets. I can't believe he wanted his films to be shown 4x3 for evermore, up to the time when everyone has a widescreen set. I find it really odd that people insist on OAR as seen in theaters but make this exception for Kubrick's films.