How to feel about non-OAR DVDs when full frame is prefered by director? (1 Viewer)

[Richard Kim]

It would make sense to re-issue the films in their original theatrical aspect ratios, so that we can see them the way Kubrick intended the MOVIE AUDIENCES to see them.
Kurbrick's intentions were based on an outdated concept. WB needs to step up and take these films into the next century.

WB wanted widescreen, but Kubrick stipulated that they be shown fullframe, and they honored his wishes. Since Kubrick is dead, don't look for widescreen anytime soon.

And Kubrick was aware of widescreen TVs. Look at Eyes Wide Shut, in which a widescreen TV is prominently displayed in one scene.

 

[Jack Briggs]

"Shoot to protect."

 

[Eric_R_C]

I want OBR Bab 5 to watch on my plain old 4:3 TV.

I wish you well. Again, I don't know either way how they'll be done. If you get what you want, great. Just remember that there are other people who want it differently. I wish everyone could have what they wanted, as this insures that I will get what I want. If I don't, well then, I'll either buy it and complain (Hooper DVD) or not buy it and complain (Ace Ventura: Pet Detective). Either way, I do NOT impose my wishes on others. If you don't like my choices, there's not a whole lot I can do about that.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Let's all play nice now, you hear?

 

[Eric_R_C]

Sorry 'bout that, Jack.
I just don't like people telling me what I'm going to tell them.
If they REALLY could read my mind, I'd be in jail

 

[Grant B]

I think stanley wanted us to listen to his movies on Bose speakers!
(it's so fun to press buttons, sorry jack couldn't resist belting one out of the park)

 

[Dwayne]

Hi there.
As far as Kubrick goes...
If you really want to assert blame, point fingers at broadcast television. I believe it's well known that Kubrick was appalled at watching a broadcast pan-and-scan version of 2001, and rightfully so. He was so appalled that after-wards, as our esteemed Kubrick resident (Jack Briggs) pointed out, he shot his future films with this in mind (shoot to protect). And in retrospect, can you really blame him for feeling that way?
I understand that some want to view his films (the later films that were matted) the way they were presented theatrically. But all of the effort that Kubrick put into composing for the whole negative is lost when viewing them matted. Dare I say that the full frame versions represent the sum of Kubrick's efforts? I believe so.
Honestly, I'm surprised that Warner re-mixed the soundtracks for 5.1, but that's for another thread.
P.S. Although the original BBC television broadcast was presented in letterbox format, it was far from perfect. Some genius had the idea of filling the bars above and below the image area with "stars" that remained static throughout the entire presentation. Even during the non-space scenes!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Again, I don't buy it.
Why?
If 1.33:1 was such a preferred aspect ratio for Kubrik, then he could have had his prints made so that they would be presented this way theatrically.
I watched Blair Witch project theatrically and it had a very respecatble 1.33:1 aspect ratio. It mattered artistically to the director of that film to maintain this traditional academy aspect ratio on the big screen. If 1.33:1 was really the *preferred* aspect ratio for Kubrick then that's the way they would have looked theatrically.
If he didn't mind 1.85:1 on a large theatrical screen, then why should he mind it on a 10' projection screen in someone's home-theater room?
Yes I know that if you hard-matte a theatrical print to display 1.33:1 with traditional 1.85:1 projection techniques that you loose resolution. Doesn't matter. You still end up with more effective resolution than our 1080 x 1920 HDTV standard and managed to preserve the artistic integrity of your film during theatrical exhibition.
Again...if 1.85:1 was good enough for the theater, then I should have the *option* for my *home* theater. When WB finally releases these films in HD form to the public, it will be very telling to see what aspect ratio is chosen.

 

[Eric_R_C]

Grant, Kubrick would be very happy with me, then

 

[Grant B]

Eric
I am sure he is laughing at this right now.
All I know is when I watch something in 4x3 ratio, I feel like I am watching TV.
When I see those black bars, I am watching a movie.
Stanley made movies, not TV.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

All I know is when I watch something in 4x3 ratio, I feel like I am watching TV.

So movies weren't made until 1953, in your book?

 

[Dwayne]

Stanley made movies, not TV.

Stanley was, first and foremost, a photographer. I don't think any of his photos for Look magazine were hard matted for public consumption.

 

[Eric_R_C]

So movies weren't made until 1953, in your book?

Why do people insist on making rules out of obvious generalizations? You can roll your eyes all you want, but its clear that you completely missed the intent of Grant's reply. Perhaps, if you are nice, he or I will spell it out for you.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

E

Quote:

I got it very well thank you... insulting my intelligence isn't neccessary. But prior to 1953... the year cinemascope was invented, all films (with a very very few notable exceptions) were composed and released at 1.37:1, a close approximation of 4x3. Therefore they wouldn't have black bars on a standard shaped television.

 

[Eric_R_C]

Okay, fair responses, and you were pleasant, so...
[/RANT]
Some details...

I was simply taking you exaggeration of the case and throwing back.

I would suggest using smileys then. Smiles can be "heard" on phones, but not always in posts
BTW, I am a bad man :p

 

[Richard Kim]

As pointed out earlier, some theaters matted Blair Witch to 1.85:1 when the OAR is 1.33:1. The same cropping has occured to theatrical rereleases of Academy Ratio films like Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz, totally ruining the composition. Kubrick knew individual theaters would matte his films regardless of his wishes (he was dismayed when A Clockwork Orange was shown in the US in 1.85:1 when he specifically framed it for 1.66:1) so for his final 3 films he composed for both 1.85 and 1.33, the latter being his preferred AR.

 

[Richard Kim]

Here's an interview with Kubrick's asistant Leon Vitali in which he talks about aspect ratio in his films.

If full frame was so important why didn't Kubrick release them theatrically that way?
After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn't shot that way. He had no control. He couldn't go around every cinema and say "You show this film in 1.66" as you could with Clockwork Orange, because then the projectors had 1.66 mask. With multi-plexes things are different and so they only show a film in 1.85 or in 2.21, the Cinemascope. You know? You cannot put a mask in 1.66 as it should be for Clockwork Orange. You can't put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon and that's what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards. He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it. Stanley realized that masking for 1.85 would far outweigh having 1.66 projected at 1.85. We did a re-release of Clockwork in the U.K. and it's 1.66. It's composed for 1.66. It's shot in 1.66, and the whole shebang. Well, you know, they had to screen it in 1.85. I can't tell you how much it hurt that film.

You can read the entire interview here:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

 

[Patrick McCart]

Kubrick could have had his last 3 films center-boxed within a 1.85:1 frame...you'd see 100% of the intended picture AND it's all on screen.

The catch?

This would be from an optical reduction, which would have made the film go through one extra generation for printing. Even worse, the picture would have less resolution on film.



The POINT of presenting these films at 1.33:1 is totally being missed here. Kubrick obviously composed the images to where normal 1.66:1-1.85:1 matting could be added without destroying the image. Kubrick wanted them on video with the fullest aspect ratio (as in taking away all matting) because that's how he preferred home presentation.



You can't be pro-OAR without accepting the presentation preferences of filmmakers. It's like being a vegetarian, but not regarding chicken as meat.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I would suggest using smileys then. Smiles can be "heard" on phones, but not always in posts

One of the great challenges of navigating a text-based world, indeed

 

[Patrick McCart]

In fact, the high definition transfers done for the remastered re-release were all supervised and archived at the theatrical OAR's by Kubrick's estate and the DVD's were a modified version of those HD masters.

Are you trying to imply that the remastered DVDs are simply cropped to make the "open matte" image?