What's new

WHV Press Release: Full Metal Jacket (1987) (4k UHD) (1 Viewer)

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,127
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
Kubrick’s storyboards for The Shining state 1.85, stands to reason he would not have decided to shoot his next film in a theatrical ratio that was obsolete in the USA.


Can you elaborate on that?

Who were the storyboards created for? Could they not have been used to simplify or generalise his artistic intent?

Mr Vitali does mention that Stanley shot in 1.66 knowing perfectly well it would be matted in theatres for 1.85 and that was a reluctant compromise he made. It seems it was a trade off he accepted as opposed to shooting the picture specifically in a 1.85 frame.

Stands to reason for me that Mr Kubrick would prefer not to lose 27% of the picture with a 1.85 ratio and keep to 1.66.

For me, I will go with Leon Vitali's comments on it. He was as close to Stanley as anyone creatively so as far as I am concerned he is the authority on the matter.

It would be nice if both presentations are available with the release so at least they can be both watched and compared and all admirers of the movie will be happy.

If only one is provided I personally would like 1.66 over 1.85.

Here's a storyboard that says just that.

1597635050750.png
 

cineMANIAC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
2,150
Location
New York City
Real Name
Luis
Why did WB switch from the iconic helmet poster to a zigzag line of the platoon?

Hey, don't knock it - I love the new artwork! The helmet art is iconic but at least this new art isn't a step back, as is typical of major studios. Plus it looks great in that black case :)
 

Rob W

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
943
Real Name
Robert
Love the directions on the storyboard :

The frame is exactly 1-1:85 . Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area.
 

Tino

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
19,457
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
Hey, don't knock it - I love the new artwork! The helmet art is iconic but at least this new art isn't a step back, as is typical of major studios. Plus it looks great in that black case :)
Yeah I agree. Imo, the new artwork is cool and original. Especially the steel book. TBH I always thought the “iconic” helmet was kinda dull. No matter. It’s the movie that counts right?;)
 

Mike Brantley

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 1, 1998
Messages
202
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
Real Name
Mike Brantley
The storyboard image shows the entire frame. The lines show where the 1.85 framing would be within the entire frame. It has been said above that Kubrick was being mindful of both but had a preference for the latter. Not saying I know which is correct.
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,148
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
The storyboard image shows the entire frame. The lines show where the 1.85 framing would be within the entire frame. It has been said above that Kubrick was being mindful of both but had a preference for the latter. Not saying I know which is correct.
But as was earlier mentioned, it explicitly says:
The frame is exactly 1-1:85 . Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area.
I don't doubt that Kubrick preferred the full frame for video transfers at the time when all televisions were 4:3. I can also believe that he would have preferred 1.66, given that Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon were all composed for that ratio, but knew that most cinemas would just crop to 1.85.
 

Blu Eye

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
166
Real Name
Carl
But as was earlier mentioned, it explicitly says:

I don't doubt that Kubrick preferred the full frame for video transfers at the time when all televisions were 4:3. I can also believe that he would have preferred 1.66, given that Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon were all composed for that ratio, but knew that most cinemas would just crop to 1.85.

If you look at the 1:85 area you can see just how much of the original design of the storyboard frame is left out.

In my opinion, the full 1:33 picture of that one storyboard emphasizes the isolation of the hotel in contrast to the bleak natural landscape that surrounds it. Around a third of the central path leading to the hotel is omitted in the 1:85 frame and almost a full tree is left out of the picture.

If that wasn't important then why did Stanley design it in the first place?

Wouldn't he just compose a storyboard with the whole image framed within the 1:85 ratio? The way I see it is the 1:85 picture is missing 23% of his orignally designed shot.

Obviously I have not seen any of the other storyboards so I can't know for sure but until someone can convince me otherwise my opinion is still that Mr Kubrick shot for 1:66 predominantly.

At least if both ratios are released and we can watch both versions then we are in a position to make up our own minds based on comparing both versions.

I would very much like that opportunity.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
20,781
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
If you look at the 1:85 area you can see just how much of the original design of the storyboard frame is left out.

In my opinion, the full 1:33 picture of that one storyboard emphasizes the isolation of the hotel in contrast to the bleak natural landscape that surrounds it. Around a third of the central path leading to the hotel is omitted in the 1:85 frame and almost a full tree is left out of the picture.

If that wasn't important then why did Stanley design it in the first place?

Wouldn't he just compose a storyboard with the whole image framed within the 1:85 ratio? The way I see it is the 1:85 picture is missing 23% of his orignally designed shot.

Obviously I have not seen any of the other storyboards so I can't know for sure but until someone can convince me otherwise my opinion is still that Mr Kubrick shot for 1:66 predominantly.

At least if both ratios are released and we can watch both versions then we are in a position to make up our own minds based on comparing both versions.

I would very much like that opportunity.

With respect, you’re misunderstanding the point of that drawing.

The film negative that passes through the camera has a ratio of 1.33:1. That’s just the physical shape of the film. It was always intended to be exhibited theatrically at 1.85:1, but there is no film that comes specifically at that shape, so to achieve a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, the top and bottom of the 1.33:1 image is matted out during projection.

When converting a 1.85:1 film to television back in the days when televisions were 1.33:1, there were two different techniques that could be used to accomplish this. One technique is to zoom in on the 1.85:1 image, that is, crop the left and the right of the frame. Kubrick did not want to do this. The other option is to remove the matting and show the entire 1.33:1 image that the camera captured. This is only practical when the 1.33:1 frame has been protected to allow that extraneous visual information to be shown without revealing technical things the audience isn’t meant to see, like microphones and lighting equipment.

In those drawings, Kubrick is explaining to the camera operator two things: first and most important is what he wants the 1.85:1 composition to look like. The second thing he is showing is how that 1.85:1 image fits within the 1.33:1 area that the camera captures. It does not mean that he prefers 1.33:1; what he’s saying is, “you need to keep this area above and below the 1.85:1 area clear of things that don’t belong in the film, like in this drawing, so that when home viewers see that 1.33:1 frame on their 1.33:1 televisions, there is nothing visible to them that ruins the movie magic.”

A lot of other filmmakers shot only with the 1.85:1 frame in mind and didn’t pay attention to protecting 1.33:1, either not caring about television and VHS viewings, or deciding that they’d rather have the left and right cropped vs revealing more on the top and bottom. There are many filmmakers that never thought about it, and when their films were shown on television, the home audience would see microphones and lights they were never meant to. That’s what Kubrick was trying to avoid.
 

seangood79

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
158
Real Name
Sean
Here's a storyboard that says just that.

View attachment 77051
My favorite part of this storyboard is from the bottom left.
"In order to accurately central path curve, you have to set up the shots and put stakes in the ground that the curve as seen through the ground glass corresponds to what is drawn. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT/REPEAT NOT OTHER WAY exercise the greatest care as the compositional effect of a different path might be BAD BAD BAD"

The ground glass is what you see in the viewfinder marking the 1.85 frame. It's pretty obvious here that 1.85 was Kubrick's intended ratio. (Even ignoring the part where he says the frame is exactly 1.85).

What bothers me about this aspect ratio debate whenever his last three movies are rereleased on home video is that he was hardly the only director to protect the entire frame for 20th century TVs. It was fairly common practice, but because STANLEY KURICK did it, it's given more weight than it deserves.

Even if it's true that he didn't like that ratio, he still composed for it. If he had the freedom to release all his movies in 1.33, he would have made different choices when framing the shots, and you would have gotten a different looking movie.

So unless you're still using a 1984 Zenith, widescreen is the only way to watch these movies.
 

Mike Brantley

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 1, 1998
Messages
202
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
Real Name
Mike Brantley
But as was earlier mentioned, it explicitly says:

I don't doubt that Kubrick preferred the full frame for video transfers at the time when all televisions were 4:3. I can also believe that he would have preferred 1.66, given that Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon were all composed for that ratio, but knew that most cinemas would just crop to 1.85.

Upon further reflection, I have no doubt you are absolutely correct. So, nevermind. :)
 

David Wilkins

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 5, 2001
Messages
951
There’s already a review at Blu-ray.com. Sounds very solid, but the included BD is from 2007.

There were questions earlier about the aspect ratio. According to the reviewer, it’s 1.78.
 
Last edited:

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
20,781
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I’m surprised they didn’t update the included BD as they did for their other two Kubrick 4Ks.
 

Kaskade1309

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
644
Real Name
S
Heard about this coming out, and being a favorite of mine that I grew up with, I was interested -- especially because I only own the Warner snapper case version of the DVD (taken from The Kubrick Collection; I also had The Shining in this form, which I replaced with the 4K Blu-ray).

I was always confused about the whole Kubrick aspect ratio preference thing; I know the films I owned of his on DVD came only with full screen transfers, and when I got The Shining in 4K, I was surprised to see the presentation was in the nearly-screen-filling widescreen ratio. I recently took Full Metal Jacket off the shelf to watch on DVD, after hearing about this news of the UHD coming, and because my new Panasonic DP-UB9000 4K BD player doesn't allow for any kind of aspect ratio or zoom manipulation, unlike the Oppos or Cambridge unit (it's locked into a widescreen only output), I was forced to watch the film with the pillarboxing on the sides, which I hate for some reason (since the DVD is in 4:3).

I couldn't help but think, as I watched FMJ on my 65" widescreen 4K display, that this wasn't really a great way to view it -- even though there was debate regarding Kubrick's "intended presentation" or "vision," the 4:3 image really didn't give any kind of scope or immersive element to the narrative. It was actually disappointing watching it with massive pillarbox bars on the sides of the screen.

I'll probably upgrade to the 4K of FMJ when funds allow.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,762
Is that very significant when we're talking about a one-channel or two-channel mono mix?

I think it makes a difference when the the source is relatively modern like "FMJ".

If this was a movie from 1937, then not so much, but given the potential quality of a recording from 1987, I think lossy likely restricts the mix...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
347,105
Messages
4,802,734
Members
141,996
Latest member
javalsu
Top