Last Kubrick Question ever

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Anthony_J, Jan 10, 2002.

  1. Anthony_J

    Anthony_J Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2001
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know this has been discussed a million times and I've done a search for old threads and believe I know the answer, but I just want to make sure...

    I just bought Full Metal Jacket yesterday (the remastered one). I know it's full screen because that's how the director wanted it for home presentation.

    OK, now my question. The back of the box says "modified version - formatted to fit your screen." I think I'm just being paranoid, but this is OK, right? The "modification" that the back of the packaging refers to are the ones done with Kubrick's blessing, right?

    I just wanted some confirmation before I opened the package and got stuck with the disc.

    Thanks, I'll let it die now.
     
  2. Jussi Tarvainen

    Jussi Tarvainen Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 10, 2001
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, it's definitely OK. The statement on the back cover is a downright error on Warner's part - my guess is that they just couldn't bother to create a new box that said something like "...director's intentions..." and "...full camera negative...". [​IMG]
     
  3. Colin Chisholm

    Colin Chisholm Auditioning

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 1999
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It *has* been modified since the theatrical presentation. The soft matte has been removed giving you the 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Technically it is correct but still very confusing.
     
  4. Richard Kim

    Richard Kim Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FMJ is presented open matte, but I noticed that they did modify a section of the end credits showing all the actors so that they fit better on a 4:3 screen. I used artifical mattes to frame the image at 1.85:1 and the credits were obscured by them. In the original release, the actors' credits fit in the 1.85:1 frame. This is why the "modified to fit your screen" disclaimer is there, and not on the other Kubrick open matte films like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut.
     
  5. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As they have said, the copy on back of the snapper case is in error. Having seen the film gosh-I-don't-know-how-many-times in commercial cinemas and this and the previous DVD, I can tell you the framing looks better in 1.37:1 (okay, 1.33:1). Be cool; you're seeing what The Master wanted you to see.
     

Share This Page