I had heard of this before and though it really bugs me the set beckons to me. Especially since I found it today for $20+. Was the widescreen image ever approved by the creators of the show or was thing just Warners Bros. doing whatever they feel like doing a'la IT?

Lots of information in this thread at the Home Theater Forum, including several postings from Randy Salas of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, who made some of the initial queries to MGM about the improper framing on the Bergman box set.

This, from the back of the Kung Fu DVD box, should explain it all:

WIDESCREEN VERSION PRESENTED IN A "MATTED" WIDESCREEN FORMAT PRESERVING A THEATRICAL EXHIBITION ASPECT RATIO. ENHANCED FOR WIDESCREEN TVS.

It's cropped. Say goodbye to 25% of the original 4:3 image.

[edited - correct figure is 25%, not 20% as I originally posted]

Everyone, please ask for OAR and don't automatically use the term "foolscreen", in this case the so-called full frame is the correct aspect ratio. I suppose now we can look forward to having to fight against TV series originally framed as 4:3 being cropped for 16:9.

What you've just posted is the standard blurb that Warner Bros puts on every 1.85:1 disc. It isn't specific to this or any other production. The fact that this TV show never had a "theatrical exhibition" should make that obvious.

It's not exactly the same ... the difference is in this wording about "the aspect ratio" vs. "a theatrical exhibition aspect ratio":

From Exorcist III (closest WB title at hand):

WIDESCREEN VERSION PRESENTED IN A "MATTED" WIDESCREEN FORMAT PRESERVING THE ASPECT RATIO OF ITS ORIGINAL THEATRICAL EXHIBITION. ENHANCED FOR WIDESCREEN TVS.

From Kung Fu:

WIDESCREEN VERSION PRESENTED IN A "MATTED" WIDESCREEN FORMAT PRESERVING A THEATRICAL EXHIBITION ASPECT RATIO. ENHANCED FOR WIDESCREEN TVS.

(All italics mine).

That's still an incorrect statement as they're not actually preserving anything. What they're actually doing is changing.

Either way, it still sucks.

I personally don't mind at all, since I prefer watching widescreen presentations on a widescreen TV. I don't mind if I miss a couple of clouds or a few extra blades of grass.

Actually with cropping 1:33 framed material,you should be loosing chunks of peoples heads & other important visual information. So just because you have a WS tv,does not make cropping 1:33 film & tv shows ok

I have a WS monitor & yet still prefer viewing 1:33 material IN 1:33.

But if it was never composed for widescreen, I'm sure we'd lose more than that and it'd totally screw up the shot composition. I guess I'll have to pass.

Thanks for the responses, guys.

That's exactly the same argument made by people who prefer fullscreen "pan and scan" releases.

First Buffy, now this. It looks like many of the "OAR First" folks who touted widescreen are no better than the "Joe Six Packs" they sneer at.

If you check the HTF thread referenced above, I've posted links to many screen captures showing exactly how scenes look with the new cropping, good and bad, and a comparison of the same scene in OAR and MAR. Actually seeing some examples makes it easier to judge whether you can live with the cropping, because what's done is done on this volume; it's highly unlikely Warner is going to redo it.

I'm awaiting official word on the cropping. It's not clear why it was done and who requested it, but virtually all of the creators of the show participated in the DVD.

Check the samples. It's not clear how the shots were composed.

The powers that be have stated that Kung Fu was shot widescreen and aired full screen. I don't know if that's the truth or not, but if it is, they won't be cropping people's heads. Besides, nearly every movie you see, the tops of people's heads are chopped off on purpose. Close-ups, granted, but still.

The powers that be have stated that Kung Fu was shot widescreen and aired full screen. I don't know if that's the truth or not, but if it is, they won't be cropping people's heads. Besides, nearly every movie you see, the tops of people's heads are chopped off on purpose. Close-ups, granted, but still.

In the middle of writing this, I just went and looked at some of the screencaps of the pilot. I'm just as torn as I was before, although I will grant you this is NOT OAR. However, if in fact it was the producers or creators of "Kung Fu" who opted for 16:9, how is that any different than Stanley Kubrick saying he wants his movies 1:33:1 for home video viewing, which everyone seems very quick to defend, and which I personally believe is horse****? I also think if Mr. Kubrick were alive today, and seen the popularity of widescreen TV, he'd allow his films to be seen the way he exhibited them in theaters . . . widescreen.

But there is a difference. Kubrick filmed the films open-matte 1:33,with the intent of them being matted theatrically & possibly working in either form.

Meanwhile Kung Fu was NOT filmed with the intent of matting off the top & bottom of the image. I doubt any tv shows back then.

So there is a huge difference between filming something with matting in mind..& not filming that way.


So when you take something that was intended & filmed at 1:33 & matte off the top & bottom. You will be losing alot of important intended to be seen visual information.

Even if some shots don't look 'that bad' in your eyes. That still does not make it ok.

As an example of cropping not looking 'that' bad at first. I will use the precredit sequence of Friday the 13th part 3,which recaps the finale of part 2.

part 3 was filmed in 2:35,while part 2 was 1:85. They matted the part 2 footage to 2:35. For the most part it does not look 'that' bad. Could even fool some into thinking it was actually shot in 2:35,which it was not.

Meanwhile the P&S version of part 3 crops the already heavily cropped part 2 footage to absurd lengths,that it is incomprehensible what is happening onscreen. They could have easily subsituted the 1:85 AR footage for the P&S version.

Anyway while viewing part 2 in it's entirity. I imagined how it would look,had they matted it to 2:35. Yet that is when it really jumps out at you,it was not intended for that. Huge chunks of footage,not to mention charecters bodies(including heads) would be hacked off no matter where they placed the mattes.


I can only imagine this is how most 1:33 tv shows & films will look when they matte them all to 16.9 which is pathetic. They should all be present in OAR no matter what. Even if the director thinks "Well while it was not filmed in 16.9 widescreen,since those tvs are the norm now. We might as well hack up the picture,so no one complains about bars on the side" proves the person to be clueless & more likely cares little about his work,only the profit. Thus the director is not always 'right' in these cases if they decide years from now,to retransfer a film/show into an aspect ratio that was never planned,nor intended while filming.

Julie, according to Warner Brothers, the program was shot in widescreen and aired in full screen, since there were no widescreen programs on television then. Now you can debate whether they're telling the truth or not, but that's is the debate, and they say the show was filmed in widescreen. So again, my point is the same. IF THEY ARE telling the truth, then there is no difference between Kubrick's films and Kung Fu, just in reverse.

Also, if Kubrick wanted his films to be shown full screen for home video, why are "A Clockwork Orange" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" in widescreen, and 2001 at 2.35:1, no less?

And another thing . . .

. . . if directors alter their films in anyway for DVD, there is a large outcry of people who say, "We want the movie the way we first saw it in theaters." Well, all of those same people watching a full screen open matte version of "The Shining" are not seeing the movie the way they first saw it in theaters (it was widescreen in theaters), but none of them complain about that, because that is how Mr. Kubrick wanted it for home video formats.

Well, if they wanna defend Mr. Kubrick for his decision, then they really shouldn't criticize George Lucas or Steven Spielberg for theirs, because that is the way they want it on DVD.

Boy, this'll open up a can or worms . . . LOL!

But there is a difference. It was 2001 being panned & scanned for tv,that made Kubrick,who I feel is abit obsessive & delusional in being a 'perfectionist' decided to film movies from then on open-matte,so nothing is cropped when aired on tv or home video.

Why Clockwork is 1:66 then,is anyones guess. But all his films AFTER Clockwork was when he started his open-matte 1:33 only crusade. Meanwhile he had the common sense to keep all his widescreen shot films(not open matte..but WS!) in there correct O.A.R.!

I think you can not predict,nor should attempt to make a film with the intent of whatever AR is more prevalent at the time. So if you don't want your films chopped & cropped for tv/home video. You could always demand they be released in OAR only,get it put in your contract.

Yet that seemed to have slipped Kubricks mind & he opted for open matte 1:33 presentations only.

Also I highly doubt the film was 'filmed WS' back then,then 'P&S'. Did you look at the screengrabs on the HTF site? Some bad framing is obvious including half of peoples heads chopped off,or parts of their body that should be in the frame(such as Caradine doing his karate moves jumping in the air).

Besides like i said,sometimes they can appear 'ok' to the naked eye,while othertimes they do not.

Most films,including ones shot in open-matte do appear pretty damn well framed when matted.
So making an excuse of 'well not all movies are framed perfectly' is nonsense.

The only 'bad' matte job I can think of right now,was In The Company of Men. Durring a scene where a guy in a party hat has a lengthy conversation on the phone. his forhead & entire party hat is completely cut off screen with a tiny portion being visible when he nods his head. Really bad framining job there,meanwhile the unmatted version looks far better in that scene.

Can you post a link to the Warner statement?

I would like a link as well,since this is Kung Fu from the 70's we are talking about here. A time when WS did not exist on tv,all films were P&Sed,shows were filmed 1:33 with no intent of matting them at all.

So I find it hard to believe they were thinking of shooting the film in WS,then P&Sed/open matted them for broadcast.

Sure they do that with some shows today. Such as Showtime airing Queer As Folk in both 1:33 cropped & widescreen 1:78 which the show was shot in.

Yet I severely doubt any networks were doing that back then.

So please post a link,before making such claims

To be fair, and to put it into context, as I noted when I posted those screen captures, those are still-frames from scenes that last just a fraction of a second each. Watched normally, those frames are fleeting. Not only that, but in the shot of Carradine flying through the air (he's jumping down from a cliff, not doing a karate move), parts of his body would have been cropped out in 1.33:1 framing, too.

Also, to put it into context, as I noted, there are many, many more shots that look fine in their widescreen framing than those few bad shots. The fourth widescreen shot, for example (the candles in the Shaolin temple), is actually breathtaking and wouldn't be nearly as effective in 1.33:1. The creators of the show even refer to its unique cinematic look on the DVD.

As far as I know, Warner has not said anything on this topic, other than that it took the opportunity of the hi-def remastering of the show to present it in a format that offered the highest resolution--anamorphic widescreen. I'm expecting to interview someone next week in greater detail about why the widescreen cropping was done and if the creators were involved.

I would urge those who refuse to buy the set (but love the show) to at least rent the first disc of the set and see for themselves before denouncing it. Once you see it, you might agree with HTF reviewer Herb Kane and me that it's not a clear-cut "OAR or nothing!" issue. Too many questions are raised by the fact that there are too many shots that look fine to say in a blanket statement that Kung Fu was shot only for 1.33:1.

It would be disappointing if this became yet another thread in which the people complaining the loudest are the ones who haven't even watched the DVDs.

One frame of video is 1/30th of a second, so the screengrabs may not be completely fair. It's 1/24th of a second for film, but they've all been converted to video and 29.97 frames per second.

If things looked cramped at the top throughout the videos, I could understand, but to say the tops of their heads are chopped off is just ludicrous, since nearly every movie chops off people's heads . . . on purpose. It's the way the shot is framed, and yet no one complains or apparently even notices. Watch a movie tonight, just about any movie and notice how much people's heads are cut off.

I will attempt to find some sort of statement from Warner. I got the information in these very forums, so I don't know for sure who made the statement. I just know it sparked some debate and a lot of people didn't even believe Warner was telling the truth, as has been suggested in recent posts as well. I'll agree it's rather unlikely, but even so, the Kung Fu creators and producers were involved and if they say that's they way they want it, then take it up with Stanley Kubrick.

A Clockwork Orange was hard matted in camera to 1.66:1. The DVD, like the rest of Kubrick's movies, has had all soft mattes lifted to expose the entire camera negative. In this case, the negative itself has the letterboxing bars present.

It does seem quite mysterious (and unlikely) that a TV show from the early 70's would ever be filmed in a screen format which could not even be displayed on any TV at the time, and which then would have to be cropped for broadcast. I am at a loss to figure out some even remotely logical rationale for such a thing. Doing anything which would necessitate much extra time and expense for editing and post-production seems to be quite contrary to typical TV production standards.

In that case, you should have stated previously that you were merely spreading a rumor.

Again, the widescreen presentation of the show takes the original 4:3 image from the TV broadcasts and crops it at the top and bottom. So the widescreen presentation shows less image than the original broadcasts. It wasn't the other way around, as you imply.

The theory that the show's directors/creators composed shots for a more cinematic widescreen framing--and there's evidence from actually watching the new DVDs that this might be the case--is that the original broadcasts essentially were shown "open matte"--just as most 1.66:1-1.85:1 movies are when modified for TV broadcast. So those shows would not have been cropped for broadcast, and the issues about time, expense and rationale that you bring up would not have applied.

The creators--again, they refer to the show's unique cinematic look on the DVD and that they were trying to make the show look different than anything that came before--could have composed shots for a widescreen framing to give the shots a more theatrical feel even though they knew the episodes were for a 1.33:1 TV broadcast. That's the issue that remains to be resolved.

EPKJ, it has all been thoroughly discussed in here already. So I'm not "spreading a rumor."

You most certainly are. It amazes me that you need to have this explained. You read an unsubstantiated statement in another thread. That unsubstantiated statement is called a rumor. You repeated that rumor in this thread. That is called spreading a rumor. Is that clear enough for you? Whenever you post something for which you can provide no evidence or which you do not know to be true from personal observation, you are spreading a rumor.