But he specially filmed them the way he did for a reason. And that's certainly important to me.

It's like deja vu all over again. This is how all of these threads go.


Kubrick framed his movies for 1.85:1, but protected for 1.33:1 (for home video). This is not unusual. Tons of movies are filmed this way. It allows you to present "full screen" television versions that do not lose picture information.

That's a double-edged sword. While you don't lose info, you do disrupt composition and sometimes introduce info that was never meant to be seen (the helicopter blades at the open of The Shining, for example).

Presenting open matte 1.33:1 versions made a lot of sense for a lot of years. But it's making less and less sense when home video is switching to a 16x9 environment with higher resolutions -- an environment that is getting much closer to the theatrical presentation than old, small 1.33:1 standard def sets.



If you want to hang onto the 1.33:1 versions because they have "extra" info... that's definitely a valid choice. But understand that the "reason" Kubrick filmed them that way was as a compromise for home video.

Widescreen.org is a bad offender of this. There's so much bad information out there and combined with posters that will ignore any corrections, it's a nightmare to explain all the technical details. Even scope films require proper framing. People insist on films like Ben-Hur to be seen a 2.76:1 when they were actually shown at 2.55:1 at the widest. Some prints were even made for 2.20:1. So, opening up image just to have "all of it" is unnecessary.

But don't always trust open matte. For the Beatles film "Help!" the telecine engineer insisted that the image was opened up totally for the 1998 MPI DVD. Well, the trailer for the new Apple/Capitol remastered DVD (which is 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen) has clips that show that the MPI transfer cut off a lot of image off the sides. I'm sure that the Kubrick 4x3 DVDs were opened up as much as possible, but I won't be surprised if the 16x9 versions will reveal that the sides were cropped a bit.

Aside from framing issues, has it been confirned that the new release of The Shining will only be the 119 min version?

Does anyone know where to get these pics of the back covers?

I hope you're kidding. When Kubrick became a FILM maker, he didn't have television in mind as the ideal medium in which to show his work. No director works that way - it's ass backwards.

Many directors and cinematographers used to keep the eventual television version in mind when composing shots but no one designed their films strictly for 1.33 TV-safe aspect ratios once widescreen was introduced.

Well Kubrick did put a lot of detail in filming 1. 33 He was very concerned about the long run of how his films would be viewed. So the notion that he would "compose" for full screen is a very real possibility.

The picture from the Stanley Kubrick Archives states "the frame is exactly 1-1:85. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area". That clearly indicates he prefered 1.85:1

Oh god, didn't we know this would happen? The endless subjective interpretations of a dead man's supposed intentions?

Given the huge amount of memory in the next-gen discs, there is no reason save scrimping and corner-cutting for Warner not to have released those films where there's controversy in both ratios. Back at the start of the DVD days, there were double-sided widescreen/pan-and-scan releases. It's just a shame that this wasn't done here.

(And not only because I greatly prefer "EWS" in Academy ratio, but because we all have our preferences, and we can only go so far in discerning Stanley's.)

Make it stop, please.

Basically I've come to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong version. It's personal preference. I'll be keeping my original 2001 DVD set, and getting the new set as well. This seems to be the only answer. Maybe one day they will just release the DVDs including both ratios and everyone will be happy, watch their preference, shut up and enjoy the many classics of Kubrick.

Post #12 explains everything.

2001: A Space Odyssey was filmed 2.35:1, Kubrick was apparently very upset when he viewed the "cropped" version aired on TV. His films since were filmed to "protect" for 1.33:1, as has been said a zillion times here.

In other words, all his movies were meant to be "matted" to 1.85:1 for theatrical release, with the full-negative (1.33:1 ratio) still acceptable for television viewing. He did this so that when his movies were watched on standard TV no picture loss would occur.
If you want the film the way it was meant to be seen in theaters get the new ones. I think it's arguable that Kubrick would support 1.85:1 DVD versions of his films had he known that that home video was trending toward a more theatrical experience as opposed to the "formatted for TV" approach.

I'm sure he knew that this trend was coming, always on the cutting edge, he just never made anything official because he didn't intend to die at 70.

Kubrick, above all, hated (or maybe feared) the black bars. It's stands to reason he would hate them as much on the sides as he did on the top and bottom. Thankfully for him he, had he lived longer, this would've been a non issue as he would've been able to keep the theatrical aspect ratio when it went to home video.

Certainly it's a personal preference at this point, but I'm more concerned about Kubrick's preference than my own. It's his film, I'd like to watch it the way he intended it.

Warners re-re-release a Kubrick collection.... nahhhhh, would never happen

His films have been presented in fullscreen in the past (even on DVD) because of some comments that he made nearly 20 years ago about preferring full-screen presentation on home video.

Warner and the Kubrick estate folks decided that the had to "honor" his wishes and present his films that way, apparently until the end of time. The logical error here (that they have since corrected with the high def FMJ and this larger release in October), is that he made these comments during the early days of home video. Think VHS and a few laserdisc owners... mostly watching on 27" (or smaller) tube sets.

This was before most people had home theaters, large 16x9 sets, 1080p resolution, etc. -- stuff that gets people's living rooms much closer (and sometimes *better*) to the theater experience than they were in 1990. I'm sure there are lots of directors that preferred to not letterbox their films for old 4:3 sets (James Cameron comes to mind), but have since embraced widescreen in the 16x9 era. We have no comments from Kubrick about this home theater environment... when there are no statements, going back to the theatrical presentation (where there were no compromises required) seems the logical approach.


It's impossible to decide what a dead man thinks. But I don't think it's a stretch to assume that he'd want the theatrical presentation available at home. That's certainly less of a stretch than thinking he wants 4:3 open matte versions released in 2007.

The rich irony here of course is that Kubrick is probably the one filmmaker whose films would have legitimately benefited from the dual presentation format (ie - FF and WS versions in the same release) that was provided on so many DVD's in the earlier days of the format (and to which so many purists usually objected, BTW).

And yet, not one single DVD of a Kubrick film was released in that format, AFAIK. Funny isn't it?

I have a question about Stanley Kubrick himself: why, during the last 20 years of his life, did he only make 3 films?

well, he only directed 12 feature length films in his 50-year career, so although he slowed down in the latter part of it, it wasn't by all that much. he was just never all that prolific.

I think for a long ass time, after Clockwork Orange and onwards, he was trying to make a Napoleon movie, so he was doing research on that for years...read like 500 books on him, etc. That might have contributed to him not doing other projects.

the new boxeset will have both fullscreen and widescreen versions of each film, except 2001.
Its a mystery of all mysteries why they didnt remaster and enhance BARRY LYNDON and LOLITA, and include them even as bare-bones for the box- I mean a Definitive KUBRICK box set, and these two are left out.
And if you want FULL METAL JACKET, you have to buy the boxset.
What were they thinking (or smoking?)