is that sarcasm?

It's funny because I was just talking to someone about zooming in. That's even worse than pan & scan. At least with P&S you get that crappy camera movement. But with zooming in you're going to lose what is going on, on the sides of the screen, period!

Thank you for that link. That's what I was talking about. The framing when the T-X first appears was more open in the theater, and considerably tighter on DVD. It does look like it could be a deliberate reframing, though, rather than an error. If it's the latter, it should be corrected in the next release of T3. I still remember a DVD review that suggested it was a mistake, but I'm not able to locate that right now.

I read something a little while ago about Kubrick and his feelings toward matting films for letterboxed presentation. He composed for 4:3 because that was the aspect ratio he actually preferred for his films. That was his choice. He deemed matting a "necessary evil" of the industry, and preferred to keep the mattes open. That's why films like Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut are available only in open matte.

--THX

It's interesting to me that a guy like Kubrick, who did a great deal of his work between the advent of widescreen movies and the beginnings of home video would prefer a presentation he had to think many people would never see.

I mean, he really only made two movies after home video became widespread. If he always preferred fullframe presentations, then in his movies prior to Full Metal Jacket, he was composing an image that, at the time, he wouldn't expect anyone would ever see.

There may not have been home video, but there was certainly Television. I've read that Kubrick's preference for open-matte arose after seeing a P&S version of 2001 broadcast on TV.

You're right, since I rarely watch movies broadcast on television, I hadn't thought of that rather obvious outlet in the days before home video (and I watched a good many movies on television growing up since my family didn't get a VCR until 1986 or so, so I really should've thought of that).

What I hate are posters that start threads like this and then never post anything in them again -- I always have the feeling they check back and laugh at the stupidity they cause when they know full well that their original posts are crap.

But that's just me.

I haven't seen Dr. Strangelove (I know, I know), but I've read that Kubrick used multiple aspect ratios. How is the DVD presentation?

It depends on which DVD you get. The Warner Kubrick Collection and the original Columbia and the original Special edition all vary between 1.33 and 1.66. The new 40th Anniversary special edition is entirely 1.66. The editor of the newer DVD says that it is the way it is supposed to be but many feel that Kubrick prefered the changing aspect ratio. One of the best pieces of proof for this is the Criterion LaserDisc which Kubrick himself approved has the shifting ratio.