Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Is there a widescreen version of Full Metal Jacket?

Reply
Thread Tools

Is there a widescreen version of Full Metal Jacket?

 
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2004
Eric R. wrote:
> Mike Kohary <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
>
>> Being dead, his heirs should consider reconsidering that decision.
>>

>
> Hell, why not? Steven Speilberg has already started the post-mortem
> raping. His kids might was well have a shot at ****ing him in the ass
> too.


What are you referring to?

Mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2004
Brian The Demolition Man Little wrote:
> That's it Ant I'm sick and tired of this crap!
> Now someone hit my music....
>> I've been wondering if there's a widescreen version of Full Metal
>> Jacket. I haven't seen one anywhere and hate fullscreen, but I have
>> to have this movie.

>
> No because Fullscreen is the way Stanley Kubrick intended
> "Full Metal Jacket" to be in, which I fully support.


I support OAR, and Full Metal Jacket hasn't been released to DVD in OAR.

Mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Smaug69
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2004
Andrew Venor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<q%rxc.2232$jw.521@attbi_s04>...

<snip>

> > Yes, and both movies looked great. HBO has also run a 16:9 edition of
> > Eyes Wide Shut on thier HD channel.
> >
> >

> Thanks, that's what I thought.
>
> So to the whoever started this thread, yes their is a widescreen version
> of Full Metal Jacket. It's just that it's not on DVD.


However, it's still not at the correct aspect ratio either. Doh!

Smaug69
 
Reply With Quote
 
Grand Inquisitor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2004
Doonie wrote:
>>If you look at the composition of FMJ, The Shining, or EWS, you will
>>notice a lot of similarities to the composition of his earlier 4:3
>>films, Paths of Glory and The Killing, namely.

>
>
> All the awkward, extra space at the top and the bottom?
>


I disagree that FMJ or The Shining or EWS has awkward framing when shown
in 4:3. Go and watch his early movies.

--
"I like the cover: 'DON'T PANIC.' It's the first sensible thing I've
heard all day."
--Arthur Dent

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2004
"Smaug69" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > > Yes, and both movies looked great. HBO has also run a 16:9 edition

of
> > > Eyes Wide Shut on thier HD channel.
> > >

> > Thanks, that's what I thought.
> >
> > So to the whoever started this thread, yes their is a widescreen

version
> > of Full Metal Jacket. It's just that it's not on DVD.

>
> However, it's still not at the correct aspect ratio either. Doh!


A 16:9 transfer is a reasonable compromise between 1.85:1 (American
projection standard) and 1.66:1 (European standard, and Kubrick's
preferred theatrical projection ratio).

The INHD screening had only one single shot that I felt looked too
cramped on the top of the frame. The rest of the movie looked very good
in 16:9.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Doonie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2004
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 22:58:55 GMT, Grand Inquisitor wrote:

>I disagree that FMJ or The Shining or EWS has awkward framing when shown
>in 4:3. Go and watch his early movies.


I thought The Shining looked real dumb. Pretty distracting when
everyone is right small in the middle.

--
http://911research.wtc7.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve K.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2004
Joshua Zyber wrote:
> The INHD screening had only one single shot that I felt looked too
> cramped on the top of the frame. The rest of the movie looked very good
> in 16:9.


Thanks for your expert opinon based on years of experience as a
Cinematographer Joshua. We'll have WB consult you from now on when
doing DVD transfers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2004
"Steve K." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ThOxc.8327$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
> Joshua Zyber wrote:
> > The INHD screening had only one single shot that I felt looked too
> > cramped on the top of the frame. The rest of the movie looked very

good
> > in 16:9.

>
> Thanks for your expert opinon based on years of experience as a
> Cinematographer Joshua. We'll have WB consult you from now on when
> doing DVD transfers.


I have had experience as a cinematographer, thank you very much, even if
only in short films. If you want a professional opinion, here's an old
post in this newsgroup from David Mullen (Independent Spirit Award
nominee for his work on 'Twin Falls Idaho' and recently 'Northfork').

http://tinyurl.com/2z2lg

The relevant excerpt:

--------------------
For another, they were composed for theatrical projection since they
were
made for theatrical release! It makes no logical sense that Kubrick
composed them for 4:3 television so that they would look wrong in their
original widescreen theatrical release. Also, cameramen who have worked
for
Kubrick like Garret Brown and Doug Milsome have said that Kubrick
composed
his films for widescreen; Robert Harris, who restored "Spartacus" said
that
Kubrick preferred that the entire negative are be transferred to 4:3
video
with no artificial electronic matting so that any camera mattes would
become
visible, hence why "Dr. Strangelove" has some matted shots and some that
are
not, while all of "Clockwork Orange" and "Barry Lyndon" have some
matting
all the way through (one scene in "Clockwork Orange" is more matted than
all
the others) -- and why "2001" and "Spartacus" need to be letterboxed to
fit
their widescreen negative area onto video. In regular projection, the
widescreen mask would have hidden the inconsistency of the camera mattes
used in "Dr. Strangelove" and "Clockwork Orange"..

The last three films were shot without any mattes, which is why they are
full-frame on 4:3 video. But they were composed for some degree of
cropping
to widescreen, which is evidenced by the extra headroom visible on 4:3
TV in
his last three movies. Milsome said that Kubrick liked the 1.37 Academy
format but composed his films for widescreen (he thinks that 1.66 is
their
proper aspect ratio, by the way) but didn't want the 4:3 TV transfers to
use
any electronic letterboxing. Maybe it was Kubrick's way of getting a
1.37
Academy look for the TV version at least. But that's not the same thing
as
saying they were COMPOSED for 1.37 Academy. If you look at any classic
1.37
Academy movie, you can see that the compositions are different than what
Kubrick did in his last three films, which was set the headroom for some
degree of projection cropping to widescreen.

True 1.37 compositions would use the whole vertical space when composing
a
face, not leave excess space above and below. The general rule is that
the
eyes should be two-thirds up from the bottom of the screen in a medium
close-up. In a tight close-up, the eyes can be framed higher if
necessary
in order to not crop the chin. But in the unletterboxed transfers of
his
last three films, the eyes are about halfway up from the bottom in a
medium
close-up, with excess space above the head. This is especially evident
in
the transfers of "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket".
--------------------





 
Reply With Quote
 
Smaug69
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2004
"Joshua Zyber" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<jLMxc.19614$(E-Mail Removed) hlink.net>...

<snip>

> > However, it's still not at the correct aspect ratio either. Doh!

>
> A 16:9 transfer is a reasonable compromise between 1.85:1 (American
> projection standard) and 1.66:1 (European standard, and Kubrick's
> preferred theatrical projection ratio).


It's still not the OAR. For all the railing against pan and scan and
non-OAR in this newsgroup I'm surprised to see someone make a case for
either.

Smaug69
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2004
"Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<ca7h7j$jsm$(E-Mail Removed)>...

> > Hell, why not? Steven Speilberg has already started the post-mortem
> > raping. His kids might was well have a shot at ****ing him in the ass
> > too.

>
> What are you referring to?


AI

-Eric
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
All the bodies are metal, METAL! RichA Digital Photography 9 09-16-2011 02:00 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? MowGreen [MVP] ASP .Net 5 02-09-2008 01:55 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version 2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? PA Bear [MS MVP] ASP .Net 0 02-05-2008 03:28 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version 2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? V Green ASP .Net 0 02-05-2008 02:45 AM
Widescreen shows on widescreen TV Limited Edition Clear Vinyl DVD Video 10 04-04-2004 10:03 AM



Advertisments