Will we ever get a Full Metal Jacket SE? (1 Viewer)

[Richard Kim]

Actually, even when matted, the helicoptor blades are still visible in The Shining.

 

[Jack Briggs]

True, but they jump out at you in 1.37:1.

 

[Chris*Liberti]

Only 2 Kubrick movies were shot in scope Spartacus which he had no control over and 2001. All of his other films were shot in Academy aspect ratio of 1.37:1 and were either hard matted to 1.66:1 (for european markets and matted again in the projector to 1.85:1 for US audiences) or left open matted and matted in projector to either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 depending on if it was being shown in Europe or the US. If you have a TV that can zoom in on the image use the mode where it zooms in and cuts off the top and bottom and if it allows you to scroll the image (like the Toshibas) then scroll it down until you can just begin to see the top of the frame. This will simulate how it would have been matted and shown in the US.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

In an odd way, you're actually seeing MORE of the picture than the people in the theater did, not less. The theater goers actually saw the cropped version. You're seeing a movie originally shot in 4:3 in its full image. With the FMJ DVD you are seeing every part of the image shot by the camera. There is not, and has never been, any more of the image to see, not theatrically or on video.

Well said Jason! One of the better explanations I have seen.

As far as Kubrick's compositions, I definitely agree that he was one of the masters....right along with Akira Kurosawa and David Lean!

 

[Jack Briggs]

Darn, but I like this thread, said the propagandist.

 

[Mark_Davis]

From what I have read Kubrick had to compromise with his theatrical presentations which lead him to shoot his later films the way he did...
He always intended for ACO to be 1.66:1 (actually 1.55:1 to be precise)... unfortunately whilst European cinemas could handle this US theatres usually didn't have the equipment and therefore matted the films to 1.85:1...
Kubrick was horrified and as a result he shot his remaining films composed for 1.33:1 because 'he liked height'... obviously theatres usually didn't have the equipment to project this so he also allowed for a 1.85:1 "safe" area... the result was a film artistically composed for 1.33:1 but where a 1.85:1 frame was considered safe to show... a bit like normal open-matte filming but in reverse... some films are shot with a 1.85:1 intended ratio but where they leave the 1.33:1 frame safe to show to J6P on VHS... People seem to get confused because Kubrick was the opposite of this...
His vision and intended way to view the films was 1.33:1 and that's the way they should be seen... Therefore if you have only seen his films at the cinema you have not seen the true version of the film... The theatrical presentation is compromised (see the tight framing on EWS and Shining 1.85:1 for example).
A rather ironic twist on the fullframe to widescreen J6P issue I think
And if anyone prefers to see the 1.85:1 version of Kubrick's later films is this any different to J6P wanting to see an openmatte version of a 1.85:1 film

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I still think The Shining looks better in it's native 4:3 aspect ratio. The additional height of the corridors and hedges adds to the atmosphere IMO.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

One of the big teases of the DVD format back in 1998 or so was the comment from a Warner official that Kubrick was looking to record commentary tracks for a few of his more recent movies on DVD, the three referenced being CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE SHINING and FULL METAL JACKET. Say what you want about Kubrick's 'reclusive' nature but he was very forthcoming about JACKET in a 1987 Rolling Stone interview and typically embraced/endured a wave of publicity upon the release of each new movie. The commentary tracks (if they had ever been recorded) would have added to the publicity for EYES WIDE SHUT, but the epic post-production on that film occupied Kubrick's time up until his death. Kubrick obviously kept a dignified distance from most discussions of his films, but as a kid I was surprised to see a letter from him in an Australian teacher's journal (again in 1987) criticising the decision of the OFLC (the Oz censorship board) to give JACKET an R-rating, (down here the equivalent of an NC-17). Short and sweet, Kubrick indicated that his intention with the movie was to show war as it truly was, and he seemed disappointed that young people who could benefit from the film would be prevented from seeing it. The comment gave me food for thought at the time, and I'm glad the film is nicely represented on Warner's remastered DVD.

 

[P and SO]

Someone mentioned the release beging bare-bones, except for the trailer. Just wondering if anyone knows what's on the second disc on this set:
Two disc set

 

[Douglas Bailey]

Truls, the second disc of that two-disc SE is the soundtrack CD. And the first disc is the exact same DVD that's sold separately.

There are no additional special features on the two-disc edition.

 

[P and SO]

Ahh, thanks so much
Doesn't matter, though, I'd buy any Kubrick flick bare-bones.

 

[Greg_Y]

the second disc of that two-disc SE is the soundtrack CD.

Whoever created the first track on the soundtrack CD should be forced to spend a day with Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. Cheesiest thing I've ever heard. You can hear parts of it at Amazon.com.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Whoever created the first track on the soundtrack CD should be forced to spend a day with Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. Cheesiest thing I've ever heard. You can hear parts of it at Amazon.com.

Ick...I listened to the clip and it IS awful.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

That track became a Top 10 dance number in Europe in 1987/8 - it was called "I Want To Be a Drill Instructor".

 

[Jack Briggs]

When was it—I think the mid 1970s—but remember when a spiffed, jazzed-up pop version of the first few bars of Also sprach Zarathustra was polluting the Top 40 airwaves?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Yep, that was Eumir Deodato's album Prelude, from 1972, with the track Also Sprach Zarathustra.

 

[David Prior]

Only 2 Kubrick movies were shot in scope Spartacus which he had no control over and 2001.

... is incorrect. Those films were not shot in 'scope, but in 65mm, which is non-anamorphic. I suspect Kubrick regarded anamorphic with its inherent image distortion as nothing more than a gimmick and not a serious format.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Quote:

Sparticus was shot on 35mm, but in Technirama. 8-perf image (with 1.5 anamorphic squeeze, I think) on horizontal VistaVision stock.

 

[David Prior]

Spartacus was shot on 35mm, but in Technirama. 8-perf image (with 1.5 anamorphic squeeze, I think) on horizontal VistaVision stock.

Of course, you're correct. I mis-spoke. But the fact that Kubrick never used anamorphic squeezing again seems to further the point.

 

[John Goodwin]

I just placed an order with my usual American dvd supplier for FMJ,who happened to be out of stock on this title.
They sent me a mail back stating that they,AND the studio were unable to supply it.
I've seen it in stock on other sites ,but was just wondering if anyone knows if its now OOP ,(maybe meaning a new disc in the works)?

It may just be my supplier being a bit lame though.