can I get FMJ in widescreen for less than $50?

[I 8 Piglet]

I know there has been a lot of debate as to whether Kubric intended FMJ to be in 1:33 or not, but its been playing on INHD alot lately, and it looks mighty nice up there in 1:78. Ive been trying to find the dvd in WS for a while now, and no one seems to carry a WS version. Online you can find a collectors edition thats WS (or at least claims to be) but its $50 and I cant seem to find anything else. This is from BB website.

[MooglePorn]

I don't think there is any debate at all on whether Kubrick wanted Full Metal Jacket in 1.33 or not....

[snipsnapsappy]

The $50 one is not in widescreen. So do not buy it for widescreen. And I firmly belive that Kubrick did not truly want his films shown fullscreen only, it is just that he thinks the foolscreen version is fine. I find it impossible to believe that he would not care at all about how his films looked in the theater. Think about it, he also made the films in mono, yet they have 5.1 mixes now. I definitely think we will eventually see a 1.66:1 or 1.78:1 version of this.

[Riedenschneider]

Do it like us all, get a widescreen TV (or a beamer) and zoom the picture into widescreen.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

The $50 one is not in widescreen. So do not buy it for widescreen. And I firmly belive that Kubrick did not truly want his films shown fullscreen only, it is just that he thinks the foolscreen version is fine. I find it impossible to believe that he would not care at all about how his films looked in the theater. Think about it, he also made the films in mono, yet they have 5.1 mixes now. I definitely think we will eventually see a 1.66:1 or 1.78:1 version of this.

He composed the films using the entire open matte, as he had a photographer's eye. Read the large bold section here.

[I 8 Piglet]

so if what your saying is that its actually 1:66, than the 1:33 versions I have found are indeed pan and scan, and should be able to find something that will look better on my 16:9 screen. Right?

I didnt check too closely but Im assuming that when I saw it in HD it was 1:78, so does that mean that INHD would have edited the film themselves? Or will Kubrics people produce special copies for HD networks?

[disclover]

Originally Posted by I 8 Piglet

so if what your saying is that its actually 1:66, than the 1:33 versions I have found are indeed pan and scan,

No, they are open matte. I believe the link Moogle has provided makes this pretty clear.

My understanding of OAR has been that it is the aspect ratio intended by the director, not necessarily the AR at which the films were projected in the theatre. Ninety-nine percent of the time these are the same, but occasionally they are not. We may not have Kubrick's word, directly from him before his death, that he prefers open matte for several of his films, but we have Vitali's, and I'm willing to accept that since Vitali worked closely with him for a long time.

When I saw Eyes Wide Shut in the theatre, the first thing I noticed on walking into the screening room was how "boxy" the screen looked. It was probably not projected at 1:33:1 when I saw it, but it was probably as close as most modern projection systems will allow. It was definitely not shown anywhere near 1.85:1 at my theatre, that is for sure. Of course, other theatres may have shown it at that ratio. I saw FMJ upon its original release in 1987, but I wasn't into aspect ratios as that time so I can't comment on how much the theatre may have matted it.

Part of me hopes they will release widescreen discs of these, so this can of worms would just go away. But this is one case where I would not watch them. Short of Stanley giving us an answer from the grave, I believe open matte 1.33:1 is his intended ratio, as far as can be determined.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by disclover

My understanding of OAR has been that it is the aspect ratio intended by the director, not necessarily the AR at which the films were projected in the theatre. Ninety-nine percent of the time these are the same, but occasionally they are not.

Exactly. Joss Whedon deciding to have the Buffy DVD's in 1.33:1 is another example. As long as it's creator decided, I'm happy.

[I 8 Piglet]

Im sorry I misread the quote, I thought it said it was filmed in 1:66 and shown in 1:85.

I still wonder about the HD version though.

[leemik]

I saw the HD version on INHD recently along with the open matte DVD and although the 16x9 HD picture looked good, it felt a little bit constrained vertically. I had watched the DVD about 2 days before I watched the HD version.. I prefer the open matte version because I could see so much more of the picture.. The prints seemed equally as worn.

--mike

[Tsargrad]

Can anyone explain open matting in simple terms? Is it shot in a full frame ratio, and just got the tops and bottoms chopped off?
I've read about it, but still double dutch to me.

[disclover]

Originally Posted by Tsargrad

Can anyone explain open matting in simple terms? Is it shot in a full frame ratio, and just got the tops and bottoms chopped off?
I've read about it, but still double dutch to me.

Open matting means the film is shot full frame. To produce certain widescreen ratios (for example 1.85:1), the typical method involves matting (cropping) the top and bottom of the frame to produce the rectangular (widescreen) image. Of course, the director and cinematographer must make sure that the image is framed correctly so that no important information appears in the parts of the frame that won't be included in the widescreen ratio.

To show the film open matte, the parts that would normally cropped out are simply restored so you see virtually the whole 35mm frame (the mattes are removed). In some films, when you do this, the extra picture that is revealed contains things that were never meant to be seen, like boom mikes, electrical wires, etc. For these films it is best to view them widescreen, since you will then see the intended picture.

Kubrick's open matte films, obviously, were framed so that no unintended objects would be seen in the open matte versions (although you can supposedly see the shadow of a helicopter used to film an aerial shot in The Shining; I haven't watched that film in a long time though so I don't know how obtrusive this is).

Does this make it a little clearer?

[Tsargrad]

Makes it very clear. Thanks muchly mate...

Definitely explains the debate on the Kubrick films...