Was 'Full Metal Jacket' shot in 4:3?

Discussion in 'DVD' started by Thomas_Berg, Jan 11, 2002.

  1. Thomas_Berg

    Thomas_Berg Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2001
    Messages:
    1,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas
    Real Name:
    Thomas
    i bought one for myself online and got one for Christmas and both are in 4:3. i cant seem to find a widescreen version...was it shot in the 1.33:1 aspect?
     
  2. RobR

    RobR Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2000
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's in the correct aspect ratio. Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut were matted to 1.85:1 when shown in theaters. There is not a widescreen version available.
     
  3. John J Nelson

    John J Nelson Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kubrick liked the 4:3 ratio, and regarded theatrical matting to 1.85:1 as a necessary compromise. So relax, you're seeing the film as the great man intended [​IMG]
    -- J.
     
  4. Jeff

    Jeff Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    0
    I stated the same thing John did and got beaten up pretty bad on this forum for doing so. Seems a lot of people think that 1.85:1 is the way they should be on DVD. I disagree.

    Jeff
     
  5. Mattias_ka

    Mattias_ka Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    0
    RobR, If you have seen them in theaters in 1.85:1 you have seen them in WRONG OAR. They should be between 1.37:1-1.55:1, a soft matt. The dvd and ld versions are correct.

    Even before the Swedish dvd of Eyes wide shut there is a text that said that Kubrick wanted the movie to be in 1.33:1.
     
  6. RobR

    RobR Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2000
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. Jonathan Perregaux

    Jonathan Perregaux Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    761
    Real Name:
    Jonathan Perregaux
    In the matted theatrical presentation of The Shining you would not have seen the helicopter blades in the opening shots because they would have been cropped. The film was indeed shot with the intention of it being shown in a scope-like format, but apart from a couple oddities the filmed material looks equally good in standard.
    Example of a soft matte (taken from http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/index.html[​IMG]
    Here it seems that we really lose picture information with the letterbox version: There is clearly more information on the top and bottom of the screen in the open matted version. Unfortunately this extraneous information is also the problem of opening the mattes. The areas now opened for the viewer can't have important new information compared to the letterboxed release, because the director was only looking at the widescreen area shots when he was making the movie. There also may be some unwanted information present in the opened matte like in my example picture: a microphone at the top of the picture and a Coke-bottle at the bottom of the Enchanted Sea. These days, though, this is not such a problem anymore, because when making the video master, the picture may be zoomed into in critical scenes where unwanted things are shown.
    For economical reasons, special effects are usually shot or calculated only for the widescreen part of the movie (typically around 2:1), so in scenes with special effects a full-screen version of an open matte movie is panned & scanned just like an anamorphic or hard-matted movie. This can clearly be seen in Terminator 2 or the Back to the Future movies.
     
  8. Thomas_Berg

    Thomas_Berg Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2001
    Messages:
    1,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas
    Real Name:
    Thomas
    thanks guys...now to see if i can return the unopened one!
     
  9. Rich Malloy

    Rich Malloy Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    3,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas, a lotta folks make their own mattes (to cover up the black bars which tend to shine a bit more distractingly gray than black). If you make yourself a set, you can be your own projectionist and 'soft-matte' it down to your favorite dimensions!

    (I don't recommend this for the Kubrick films, and especially for Eyes Wide Shut, but I've heard some say they much prefer a matted Shining.)
     
  10. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
     
  11. Ken Seeber

    Ken Seeber Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1999
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  12. Jonathan Perregaux

    Jonathan Perregaux Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    761
    Real Name:
    Jonathan Perregaux
    My bad! I definitely slipped up on my terminology. I should have said "Academy Flat" (1.85:1). You're absolutely right that "Anamorphic Scope" (2.35:1) is not what The Shining was meant to be matted to (thank God).
    And those helicopter blades are damned annoying at any aspect ratio.
     
  13. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    And thus this thread draws to a close.

    Remember, the term used for what Mr. Kubrick did in framing his post-2001 works is "shoot to protect." It was rational framing chosen by an artist living in a world of pan-and-scan video.
     
  14. RobR

    RobR Second Unit

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2000
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good think it happened after 2001: A Space Odyssey was released as I can't imagine it being in anything other than the original aspect ratio. 2001 would be ruined in 1.33:1.
     
  15. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    boy, i totally scared myself for a second. i just picked this up and saw the opening scene and almost pooped when i didn't see the black bars! :b

    [edit] but then i wonder why the packaging says "standard version: this film has been modified....it has been formatted to fit your screen" ?
     
  16. Anders Englund

    Anders Englund Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 1999
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. Juan C

    Juan C Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Anders, that's why I prefer to have a home presentation as close to the theatrical presentation as possible.
    When I watch The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, I prefer to watch them in their OTAR. When I had a 4:3 TV, I used carboard mattes. Now that I have a projector, I zoom the picture. It's 1.77:1, not 1.85:1, but accurate enough.
     
  18. Richard Kim

    Richard Kim Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Ted Lee

    Ted Lee Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,390
    Likes Received:
    0
    thx for the clarification guys! i can now relax and enjoy my most excellent movie! [​IMG]
     
  20. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Indeed, but the way 2001 would be adapted for 1.33:1 is totally different from how any of his other 35mm films would be adapted for 1.33:1. Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon were shot with 1.66:1 hard-matted cameras. (Strangelove was shot with a combination of both unmatted and hard-matted cameras) Those films are presented "full film area" rather than pan & scan.
     

Share This Page