Brad Cook
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2001
- Messages
- 151
Richard Kim said this in the "Newbie question about open matte" thread:
"My guess is that most filmmakers do not purposefully shoot for both the 1:85 and 1:33 ARs. There are a few exceptions, like Kubrick for example."
So then Kubrick shot most of his films in soft matte, correct? Were all his films--with the exception of 2001--then shown in 1.85:1 in the theaters? I assume he had to account for both 1.33:1 (his desired ratio, or thereabouts; I know that Barry Lyndon and Clockwork Orange are 1.78:1 or something like that) and 1.85:1 when he shot his films, then.
Why do some people prefer his films letterboxed? I picked up The Stanley Kubrick Collection, and I don't mind seeing his films full screen. If that's what he intended, then that's fine with me. I've never noticed boom mikes or anything like that getting into the shots, so he obviously planned his filming well.
Of course, Kubrick also throws a monkey wrench in the works when you discuss OAR with people. After all, if we insist on the aspect ratio that his films were shown in, then almost all of them are wrong.
Personally, I want to see the aspect ratio that the director wanted me to see. Almost all the time that's what was shown in the theater, but sometimes you get guys like Kubrick. And that's cool with me.
BTW, who else has shot their films this way? I know Cameron has done some of his films in Super 35, but my understanding is that he wants those films shown in 2.35:1, despite whatever misunderstandings some may have about that.
- Brad
"My guess is that most filmmakers do not purposefully shoot for both the 1:85 and 1:33 ARs. There are a few exceptions, like Kubrick for example."
So then Kubrick shot most of his films in soft matte, correct? Were all his films--with the exception of 2001--then shown in 1.85:1 in the theaters? I assume he had to account for both 1.33:1 (his desired ratio, or thereabouts; I know that Barry Lyndon and Clockwork Orange are 1.78:1 or something like that) and 1.85:1 when he shot his films, then.
Why do some people prefer his films letterboxed? I picked up The Stanley Kubrick Collection, and I don't mind seeing his films full screen. If that's what he intended, then that's fine with me. I've never noticed boom mikes or anything like that getting into the shots, so he obviously planned his filming well.
Of course, Kubrick also throws a monkey wrench in the works when you discuss OAR with people. After all, if we insist on the aspect ratio that his films were shown in, then almost all of them are wrong.
Personally, I want to see the aspect ratio that the director wanted me to see. Almost all the time that's what was shown in the theater, but sometimes you get guys like Kubrick. And that's cool with me.
BTW, who else has shot their films this way? I know Cameron has done some of his films in Super 35, but my understanding is that he wants those films shown in 2.35:1, despite whatever misunderstandings some may have about that.
- Brad