Search results

No mattes to open on that one, of course.

I hadn't heard of him either. From his Wikipedia page: "According to the New York Film Academy, Ager was one of the earliest internet movie critics and pioneered the video movie critique. He posted his first reviews in 2007." Which is a whole lotta BS. 2007 was hardly the birth of internet film...

The picture geometry is difficult to tell from that picture, because the piece of film is not aligned flat with the camera taking the photo and the left and right edges are hard to make out, but it appears that the print may have been hard-matted to 1.66:1, which is something Kubrick had done...

Well, I can tell you the theater I saw it at matted the movie down to 2:1. It was distressingly common at the time for smaller cinemas to have a fixed-ratio screen and crop all movies (either the top and bottom from 1.85:1 films or the sides from 2.35:1) to fit it. That doesn't say anything...

Did Stanley Kubrick really strike you as a "We'll just fix it in post" kind of director? If you're trying to accuse me of something here, please go ahead and dig up this quote you're imagining. I think you'll find that I was very strongly opposed to those full-frame transfers and the man...

I'm the one arguing just to argue? Well, hello there, Mr. Pot. I feel confident in saying that you cannot speak to the dead. As such, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. Thank you. First off, it was your pal Leon Vitali who created and perpetuated that myth about...

Didn't you just argue that "it's the credits, which are held to less rigorous standards"? There is no logical reason in the scene why Kubrick would want to draw attention to the helicopter. And if he had, why aren't the rotors or other parts of the helicopter more visible in the frame? No, you...

He could have optically blown-up the shot to crop out the rotors.

I'm going to bite my tongue regarding your choice of tone and simply point out that those helicopter rotors are an obvious error perfectly visible in all copies of The Shining. It was not beyond Stanley Kubrick to make mistakes, or to choose to live with them if there was something else about...

Cannot edit my post. 1.66:1 is for Barry Lyndon. The 1.85:1 storyboards were for The Shining.

From this very thread not one page ago: I mean no offense if he's a personal acquaintance, but Mr. Vitali has not been a particularly reliable source of information over the years about the technical details of Kubrick's films or his intentions. For how many years did he insist that Kubrick...

The point is that the myth of Stanley Kubrick would have many viewers believe he was an absolute perfectionist who would not allow even the tiniest fault in any frame. That was definitely not the case in reality. You yourself posted earlier: I'm not sure that's true. Perhaps Kubrick would...

The IMDb "Goofs" page for Eyes Wide Shut has a long list of flubs and continuity errors beyond that one camera reflection. Even if he'd lived to fine-tune the edit further, Kubrick could not have fixed all of these in post. Many of them would have required reshoots, and we already know how...

The green shaded portion at the top of the image is where the helicopter rotors are visible. The person who made the image highlighted the problem in green because it's difficult to capture in a screenshot. This is from the beginning of the movie with the aerial establishing shots. You're not...

Kubrick may have had a reputation as an anal-retentive perfectionist, but that's not to say he was actually perfect. He did leave flubs in his films on occasion, sometimes because he didn't notice them and sometimes because he judged other aspects of the take to be more important.