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
 
      06-17-2004
Eric R. wrote:
> "Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<cacc9g$4pe$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>
>> I don't understand - can you elaborate? This is a project they were
>> collaborating on, no?

>
> According to Speilberg it was. But I, for one, think he is either
> deluded or completely full of ****. Kubrick never once turned a
> personal project over to anyone else to direct. In fact, his "auteur"
> directorial control issues over his films was legendary (he even
> bumped heads with the unions over his control issues on more than one
> occasion). The assertion that Kubrick intended to turn over one of his
> personal projects for someone else to direct is ludicrous.


Do you have anything to support this besides gut feelings?

> It's likely that a wishful-thinking Speilberg mistook Kubrick's
> intellectual curiousity for actual collaboration. Kubrick was
> well-known for calling up other directors, technical people, writers,
> etc. in the middle of the night to ask them questions about their work
> or to solicit input on one of his projects. Somewhere along the way,
> in a deluded state, Speilberg might have translated that into "He
> asked me my opinions, as a director, about AI--therefore he must have
> wanted me to direct the film."


Uh, no. Kubrick asked Spielberg to direct it outright, and after he died,
Spielberg only continued at the behest of Kubrick's widow and her brother
(who was Kubrick's producer, Jan Harlin). That's why your statement is all
the more baffling to me - whatever else you think of the film, it was
clearly sanctioned and encouraged by Kubrick's estate.

Spielberg was even faithful enough to Kubrick's vision to include the
dreadful epilogue, which was Kubrick's idea (not Spielberg's), even contrary
to the advice and wishes of his screenwriters. The movie would have been
far better without it.

Mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2004
Smaug69 wrote:
> "Mike Kohary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<cad2gi$et1$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> Smaug69 wrote:
>>>
>>> According to Spielberg. I have heard that a couple of Kubrick's
>>> family members claim that he wanted Spielberg to do it, but unless
>>> it's coming from SK it doesn't hold water in my book.

>>
>> This was widely reported in the media. I don't see any reason to
>> doubt it.

>
> Oh, and the media has always been right or always bothered to follow
> through to find out the accuracy/veracity of their sources?


No need to be so cynical. There is no reason to doubt the reports in this
case, and all the facts are confirmed by multiple sources, including
Kubrick's estate.

> The source on that was Spielberg and certain Kubrick relatives. From
> there it was disseminated to all other media outlets. They certainly
> didn't get it from Kubrick.


The Kubrick relatives you're referring to are Kubrick's widow and her
brother, who was Kubrick's long-time producer. I think we can probably
trust them.

BEFORE Kubrick's death, this was also a known project, so you can't hide
behind his demise as a reason to doubt Kubrick's own intentions.

> Anyone that thinks that Spielberg's AI was anything close to what
> Kubrick envisoned it is delusional.


Neither you nor I have any idea of how close it was to Kubrick's vision.
For my part, I don't even think that's important.

Mike


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Smaug69
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2004
"Joshua Zyber" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<GCLzc.11486$(E-Mail Removed) link.net>...
> "Smaug69" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > > The movie was composed with
> > > its American 1.85:1 theatrical release in mind. It wasn't just a
> > > compromise. The DP had those etchings on his viewfinder and was

> actively
> > > composing for that ratio.

> >
> > You can actively compose for only one ratio. Everything else is a

> compromise.
>
> As spoken by someone with absolutely no knowledge of what he is talking
> about. Thanks for confirming that. You can run along now.


Actually, you're the clueless one. Let's say I want my film to be
1.66:1, but I know that if it's released in the states it will most
likely be shown in a cropped 1.85:1 ratio. I'll pick out one
particular shot as an example: a close-up shot of my main actor. Now,
I want my actor's eyes to be a specific distance from the top of the
frame so I set that up based on a 1.66:1 frame size. So what happens
to the eyes when the frame is cropped to 1.85:1? I'll tell you what
happens, the eyes move closer to the top of the frame thereby changing
the composition. My framing has been compromised.

Put that in your book.

Smaug69
 
Reply With Quote
 
Smaug69
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2004
"Joshua Zyber" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<GCLzc.11486$(E-Mail Removed) link.net>...
> "Smaug69" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > > The movie was composed with
> > > its American 1.85:1 theatrical release in mind. It wasn't just a
> > > compromise. The DP had those etchings on his viewfinder and was

> actively
> > > composing for that ratio.

> >
> > You can actively compose for only one ratio. Everything else is a

> compromise.
>
> As spoken by someone with absolutely no knowledge of what he is talking
> about. Thanks for confirming that. You can run along now.


Actually, you're the clueless one. Let's say I want my film to be
1.66:1, but I know that if it's released in the states it will most
likely be shown in a cropped 1.85:1 ratio. I'll pick out one
particular shot as an example: a close-up shot of my main actor. Now,
I want my actor's eyes to be a specific distance from the top of the
frame so I set that up based on a 1.66:1 frame size. So what happens
to the eyes when the frame is cropped to 1.85:1? I'll tell you what
happens, the eyes move closer to the top of the frame thereby changing
the composition. My framing has been compromised.

Put that in your book.

Smaug69
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
"Smaug69" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > > You can actively compose for only one ratio. Everything else is a

> > compromise.
> >
> > As spoken by someone with absolutely no knowledge of what he is

talking
> > about. Thanks for confirming that. You can run along now.

>
> Actually, you're the clueless one. Let's say I want my film to be
> 1.66:1, but I know that if it's released in the states it will most
> likely be shown in a cropped 1.85:1 ratio. I'll pick out one
> particular shot as an example: a close-up shot of my main actor. Now,
> I want my actor's eyes to be a specific distance from the top of the
> frame so I set that up based on a 1.66:1 frame size. So what happens
> to the eyes when the frame is cropped to 1.85:1? I'll tell you what
> happens, the eyes move closer to the top of the frame thereby changing
> the composition. My framing has been compromised.
>
> Put that in your book.


If you know that the movie is going to be displayed in both ratios, you
choose a compromise distance that works in both framings.

Duh.

Don't post in this thread again. You're wasting bandwidth.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Kohary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2004
Joshua Zyber wrote:
> "Smaug69" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>>>> You can actively compose for only one ratio. Everything else is a
>>>> compromise.
>>>
>>> As spoken by someone with absolutely no knowledge of what he is
>>> talking about. Thanks for confirming that. You can run along now.

>>
>> Actually, you're the clueless one. Let's say I want my film to be
>> 1.66:1, but I know that if it's released in the states it will most
>> likely be shown in a cropped 1.85:1 ratio. I'll pick out one
>> particular shot as an example: a close-up shot of my main actor. Now,
>> I want my actor's eyes to be a specific distance from the top of the
>> frame so I set that up based on a 1.66:1 frame size. So what happens
>> to the eyes when the frame is cropped to 1.85:1? I'll tell you what
>> happens, the eyes move closer to the top of the frame thereby
>> changing the composition. My framing has been compromised.
>>
>> Put that in your book.

>
> If you know that the movie is going to be displayed in both ratios,
> you choose a compromise distance that works in both framings.


Which is *exactly* what he said to begin with, so what are you arguing
about? "Everything else is a compromise." He's exactly correct.

> Duh.
>
> Don't post in this thread again. You're wasting bandwidth.


Not only is that uncalled for, since you ended up agreeing with him, it
makes you appear somewhat foolish.

Mike


 
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