Full Metal Jacket - Aspect Ratio

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Tweek, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. Tweek

    Tweek Guest

    I can only find Full Metal Jacket on DVD in full screen 1.33. I know Kubrick
    preferred that aspect ratio for his video releases, but is this what the
    film was originally shot in? Will I ever be able to get a widescreen version
    of this movie on DVD?

    TIA

    --
    Tweek
    Tweek, Mar 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tweek

    Tony soprano Guest

    "Tweek" <> wrote in message
    news:zhDZd.7864$...
    > I can only find Full Metal Jacket on DVD in full screen 1.33. I know

    Kubrick
    > preferred that aspect ratio for his video releases, but is this what the
    > film was originally shot in? Will I ever be able to get a widescreen

    version
    > of this movie on DVD?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > --
    > Tweek
    >

    It is in it's original aspect ratio.
    Tony soprano, Mar 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tweek

    Tweek Guest

    > It is in it's original aspect ratio.

    Sweet, I'm gonna buy it then.

    Thanks,

    --
    Tweek
    Tweek, Mar 15, 2005
    #3
  4. Tweek

    Jay Stewart Guest

    "Tweek" <> wrote in message
    news:gRDZd.10555$...
    >> It is in it's original aspect ratio.

    >
    > Sweet, I'm gonna buy it then.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > --
    > Tweek
    >


    It's superbly framed for that aspect ratio, too. Love this movie.
    Jay Stewart, Mar 15, 2005
    #4
  5. Tweek

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Tony soprano" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> I can only find Full Metal Jacket on DVD in full screen 1.33. I know

    > Kubrick
    >> preferred that aspect ratio for his video releases, but is this what
    >> the
    >> film was originally shot in? Will I ever be able to get a widescreen

    > version
    >> of this movie on DVD?
    >>

    > It is in it's original aspect ratio.


    No, it's not. The movie was composed for and screened theatrically at
    1.85:1. Kubrick preferred "full frame" for video, but that was not the
    film's original aspect ratio.
    Joshua Zyber, Mar 16, 2005
    #5
  6. Tweek

    Tweek Guest

    Joshua Zyber <> wrote in message
    news:eek:gNZd.4967$...
    > "Tony soprano" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >> I can only find Full Metal Jacket on DVD in full screen 1.33. I know

    > > Kubrick
    > >> preferred that aspect ratio for his video releases, but is this what
    > >> the
    > >> film was originally shot in? Will I ever be able to get a widescreen

    > > version
    > >> of this movie on DVD?
    > >>

    > > It is in it's original aspect ratio.

    >
    > No, it's not. The movie was composed for and screened theatrically at
    > 1.85:1. Kubrick preferred "full frame" for video, but that was not the
    > film's original aspect ratio.


    Thank you for some accurate information. I was finding it hard to believe
    that any pic release in the 80's would be theatrically 1.33.

    --
    Tweek
    Tweek, Mar 16, 2005
    #6
  7. Tweek

    Biz Guest

    When you have a question about the technical aspects of a film, at least
    check here..

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/technical


    "Tweek" <> wrote in message
    news:kFXZd.10702$...
    >
    > Joshua Zyber <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:gNZd.4967$...
    > > "Tony soprano" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > >> I can only find Full Metal Jacket on DVD in full screen 1.33. I know
    > > > Kubrick
    > > >> preferred that aspect ratio for his video releases, but is this what
    > > >> the
    > > >> film was originally shot in? Will I ever be able to get a widescreen
    > > > version
    > > >> of this movie on DVD?
    > > >>
    > > > It is in it's original aspect ratio.

    > >
    > > No, it's not. The movie was composed for and screened theatrically at
    > > 1.85:1. Kubrick preferred "full frame" for video, but that was not the
    > > film's original aspect ratio.

    >
    > Thank you for some accurate information. I was finding it hard to believe
    > that any pic release in the 80's would be theatrically 1.33.
    >
    > --
    > Tweek
    >
    >
    Biz, Mar 16, 2005
    #7
  8. Tweek

    Captain 20 Guest

    > It is in it's original aspect ratio.

    I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and it was "wide
    screen".

    Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains additional
    top and bottom picture information that was covered up in the theatrical
    run.
    Captain 20, Mar 18, 2005
    #8
  9. In article <Sfr_d.47$Z37.25@lakeread06>, Captain 20 <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
    >> It is in it's original aspect ratio.


    >I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and
    >it was "wide screen".


    I've seen 1.37.1 format films masked to 1.85:1 in theatres. They
    don't like to change the masks. And films that were to be shown
    wider still were cropped.

    Theatres don't care like they used to when it took a projectionist
    to run films - instead of someone pushing one button in each
    of 8,10, 12, or how many screens you local googolplex has.

    FMJ was shot open, and was printed at 1.66:1 for European release,
    and 1.85:1 for US.

    I really wish Kubrick would have let his DVD releases be shown as
    they were in the theatre but he insisted on 1.37:1 for the 'small
    screen'. And now 'samll' doens't apply to many TV screens - where
    the picture in your house appears larger than you might think in a
    theatre - depening on how far back you sat :)

    >Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains
    >additional top and bottom picture information that was covered up
    >in the theatrical run.


    Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.


    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion, Mar 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Tweek

    Steve K. Guest

    Bill Vermillion wrote:
    > In article <Sfr_d.47$Z37.25@lakeread06>, Captain 20 <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
    >
    >>>It is in it's original aspect ratio.

    >
    >
    >>I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and
    >>it was "wide screen".

    >
    >
    > I've seen 1.37.1 format films masked to 1.85:1 in theatres. They
    > don't like to change the masks. And films that were to be shown
    > wider still were cropped.
    >
    > Theatres don't care like they used to when it took a projectionist
    > to run films - instead of someone pushing one button in each
    > of 8,10, 12, or how many screens you local googolplex has.
    >
    > FMJ was shot open, and was printed at 1.66:1 for European release,
    > and 1.85:1 for US.
    >
    > I really wish Kubrick would have let his DVD releases be shown as
    > they were in the theatre but he insisted on 1.37:1 for the 'small
    > screen'. And now 'samll' doens't apply to many TV screens - where
    > the picture in your house appears larger than you might think in a
    > theatre - depening on how far back you sat :)
    >
    >
    >>Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains
    >>additional top and bottom picture information that was covered up
    >>in the theatrical run.

    >
    >
    > Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.
    >
    >


    Yes. Regardless of theatrical release, he apparently preferred the 1:37
    ratio full frame ratio altogether. Having both versions on a DVD would
    be nice, but it's not likely to happen at this point. Just enjoy the movie.



    Steve
    Steve K., Mar 21, 2005
    #10
  11. In article <2ft%d.70$>,
    Steve K. <> wrote:
    >Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >> In article <Sfr_d.47$Z37.25@lakeread06>, Captain 20 <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>It is in it's original aspect ratio.

    >>
    >>
    >>>I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and
    >>>it was "wide screen".

    >>
    >>
    >> I've seen 1.37.1 format films masked to 1.85:1 in theatres. They
    >> don't like to change the masks. And films that were to be shown
    >> wider still were cropped.
    >>
    >> Theatres don't care like they used to when it took a projectionist
    >> to run films - instead of someone pushing one button in each
    >> of 8,10, 12, or how many screens you local googolplex has.
    >>
    >> FMJ was shot open, and was printed at 1.66:1 for European release,
    >> and 1.85:1 for US.
    >>
    >> I really wish Kubrick would have let his DVD releases be shown as
    >> they were in the theatre but he insisted on 1.37:1 for the 'small
    >> screen'. And now 'samll' doens't apply to many TV screens - where
    >> the picture in your house appears larger than you might think in a
    >> theatre - depening on how far back you sat :)
    >>
    >>
    >>>Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains
    >>>additional top and bottom picture information that was covered up
    >>>in the theatrical run.


    >> Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.


    >Yes. Regardless of theatrical release, he apparently preferred
    >the 1:37 ratio full frame ratio altogether. Having both versions
    >on a DVD would be nice, but it's not likely to happen at this
    >point. Just enjoy the movie.


    I have all of SK's films starting with Killer's Kiss - his first
    real film IMO. Those had been pretty much unavailable up until a
    couple of years ago but I had managed to tape them [before DVDs
    were easily recordable] in the past when they'd pop up at some
    obscure time on some TV thing.

    And about 1984 or so I was in LA and we stayed at my friends uncles
    home. He was working at a shop where they had just finished
    transfering all of Kubrick's films to video exactly as Kubrick
    wanted them. Kubrick's assistant oversaw everything and there were
    copious notes for all the films. He was quite exacting on what he
    wanted.


    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion, Mar 22, 2005
    #11
  12. Tweek

    Jay Stewart Guest

    "Bill Vermillion" <> wrote in message news:...
    > In article <2ft%d.70$>,
    > Steve K. <> wrote:
    >>Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >>> In article <Sfr_d.47$Z37.25@lakeread06>, Captain 20 <c20@setyrtfj.77com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>It is in it's original aspect ratio.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and
    >>>>it was "wide screen".
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I've seen 1.37.1 format films masked to 1.85:1 in theatres. They
    >>> don't like to change the masks. And films that were to be shown
    >>> wider still were cropped.
    >>>
    >>> Theatres don't care like they used to when it took a projectionist
    >>> to run films - instead of someone pushing one button in each
    >>> of 8,10, 12, or how many screens you local googolplex has.
    >>>
    >>> FMJ was shot open, and was printed at 1.66:1 for European release,
    >>> and 1.85:1 for US.
    >>>
    >>> I really wish Kubrick would have let his DVD releases be shown as
    >>> they were in the theatre but he insisted on 1.37:1 for the 'small
    >>> screen'. And now 'samll' doens't apply to many TV screens - where
    >>> the picture in your house appears larger than you might think in a
    >>> theatre - depening on how far back you sat :)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains
    >>>>additional top and bottom picture information that was covered up
    >>>>in the theatrical run.

    >
    >>> Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.

    >
    >>Yes. Regardless of theatrical release, he apparently preferred
    >>the 1:37 ratio full frame ratio altogether. Having both versions
    >>on a DVD would be nice, but it's not likely to happen at this
    >>point. Just enjoy the movie.

    >
    > I have all of SK's films starting with Killer's Kiss - his first
    > real film IMO. Those had been pretty much unavailable up until a
    > couple of years ago but I had managed to tape them [before DVDs
    > were easily recordable] in the past when they'd pop up at some
    > obscure time on some TV thing.
    >
    > And about 1984 or so I was in LA and we stayed at my friends uncles
    > home. He was working at a shop where they had just finished
    > transfering all of Kubrick's films to video exactly as Kubrick
    > wanted them. Kubrick's assistant oversaw everything and there were
    > copious notes for all the films. He was quite exacting on what he
    > wanted.
    >


    Great post.
    Jay Stewart, Mar 22, 2005
    #12
  13. Tweek

    Joe S Guest

    Bill Vermillion wrote:
    > In article <2ft%d.70$>,
    > Steve K. <> wrote:
    >
    >>Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <Sfr_d.47$Z37.25@lakeread06>, Captain 20 <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>It is in it's original aspect ratio.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and
    >>>>it was "wide screen".
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I've seen 1.37.1 format films masked to 1.85:1 in theatres. They
    >>>don't like to change the masks. And films that were to be shown
    >>>wider still were cropped.
    >>>
    >>>Theatres don't care like they used to when it took a projectionist
    >>>to run films - instead of someone pushing one button in each
    >>>of 8,10, 12, or how many screens you local googolplex has.
    >>>
    >>>FMJ was shot open, and was printed at 1.66:1 for European release,
    >>>and 1.85:1 for US.
    >>>
    >>>I really wish Kubrick would have let his DVD releases be shown as
    >>>they were in the theatre but he insisted on 1.37:1 for the 'small
    >>>screen'. And now 'samll' doens't apply to many TV screens - where
    >>>the picture in your house appears larger than you might think in a
    >>>theatre - depening on how far back you sat :)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains
    >>>>additional top and bottom picture information that was covered up
    >>>>in the theatrical run.

    >
    >
    >>>Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.

    >
    >
    >>Yes. Regardless of theatrical release, he apparently preferred
    >>the 1:37 ratio full frame ratio altogether. Having both versions
    >>on a DVD would be nice, but it's not likely to happen at this
    >>point. Just enjoy the movie.

    >
    >
    > I have all of SK's films starting with Killer's Kiss - his first
    > real film IMO. Those had been pretty much unavailable up until a
    > couple of years ago but I had managed to tape them [before DVDs
    > were easily recordable] in the past when they'd pop up at some
    > obscure time on some TV thing.
    >
    > And about 1984 or so I was in LA and we stayed at my friends uncles
    > home. He was working at a shop where they had just finished
    > transfering all of Kubrick's films to video exactly as Kubrick
    > wanted them. Kubrick's assistant oversaw everything and there were
    > copious notes for all the films. He was quite exacting on what he
    > wanted.



    Any idea if what he wanted was based upon some now-antiquated
    assumptions about home display size/shape? I wonder if he would have
    felt the same had millions of people had 65" widescreen units.


    --
    Joe
    Joe S, Mar 22, 2005
    #13
  14. Tweek

    Andrew Venor Guest

    Joe S wrote:
    > Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >
    >> In article <2ft%d.70$>,
    >> Steve K. <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <Sfr_d.47$Z37.25@lakeread06>, Captain 20
    >>>> <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> It is in it's original aspect ratio.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and
    >>>>> it was "wide screen".
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I've seen 1.37.1 format films masked to 1.85:1 in theatres. They
    >>>> don't like to change the masks. And films that were to be shown
    >>>> wider still were cropped.
    >>>>
    >>>> Theatres don't care like they used to when it took a projectionist
    >>>> to run films - instead of someone pushing one button in each
    >>>> of 8,10, 12, or how many screens you local googolplex has.
    >>>>
    >>>> FMJ was shot open, and was printed at 1.66:1 for European release,
    >>>> and 1.85:1 for US.
    >>>> I really wish Kubrick would have let his DVD releases be shown as
    >>>> they were in the theatre but he insisted on 1.37:1 for the 'small
    >>>> screen'. And now 'samll' doens't apply to many TV screens - where
    >>>> the picture in your house appears larger than you might think in a
    >>>> theatre - depening on how far back you sat :)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains
    >>>>> additional top and bottom picture information that was covered up
    >>>>> in the theatrical run.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Yes. Regardless of theatrical release, he apparently preferred
    >>> the 1:37 ratio full frame ratio altogether. Having both versions
    >>> on a DVD would be nice, but it's not likely to happen at this
    >>> point. Just enjoy the movie.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have all of SK's films starting with Killer's Kiss - his first
    >> real film IMO. Those had been pretty much unavailable up until a
    >> couple of years ago but I had managed to tape them [before DVDs
    >> were easily recordable] in the past when they'd pop up at some
    >> obscure time on some TV thing.
    >>
    >> And about 1984 or so I was in LA and we stayed at my friends uncles
    >> home. He was working at a shop where they had just finished
    >> transfering all of Kubrick's films to video exactly as Kubrick
    >> wanted them. Kubrick's assistant oversaw everything and there were
    >> copious notes for all the films. He was quite exacting on what he
    >> wanted.

    >
    >
    >
    > Any idea if what he wanted was based upon some now-antiquated
    > assumptions about home display size/shape? I wonder if he would have
    > felt the same had millions of people had 65" widescreen units.
    >
    >


    Speaking of which, the INHD channel on cable showed high definition 16:9
    transfers of Full Metal Jacket, as well as Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork
    Orange not too long ago. Would anyone know if those transfers were
    produced using notes from Stanley Kubrick to maintain his exacting
    standards?

    ALV
    Andrew Venor, Mar 22, 2005
    #14
  15. Tweek

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Bill Vermillion" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > And about 1984 or so I was in LA and we stayed at my friends uncles
    > home. He was working at a shop where they had just finished
    > transfering all of Kubrick's films to video exactly as Kubrick
    > wanted them. Kubrick's assistant oversaw everything and there were
    > copious notes for all the films. He was quite exacting on what he
    > wanted.


    Those transfers were what he wanted *in 1984*.
    Joshua Zyber, Mar 22, 2005
    #15
  16. Tweek

    Larry Guest

    In article <Z4U%d.1651$>,
    says...
    >
    > Those transfers were what he wanted *in 1984*.
    >


    Yes, that is what he wanted back before TVs could do the 16:9 thing and get
    all the resolution concentrated into the widescreen frame.

    It was also (AFAIK) before the wide availability of 16:9 televisions, and the
    current crop of high end video gear that we currently can get.

    Im fairly certain that he would agree with widescreen transfers now, but he
    isnt arounf=d to ask, so we are left with his wishes.

    You will notice he didnt complain about the widescreen transfers of 2001 ( a
    movie that just cant be made to fit the 4:3 screen no matter what you do.)


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Mar 22, 2005
    #16
  17. Tweek

    Doonie Guest

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:00:09 GMT, Joe S wrote:

    >Any idea if what he wanted was based upon some now-antiquated
    >assumptions about home display size/shape? I wonder if he would have
    >felt the same had millions of people had 65" widescreen units.


    Exactly. He just didn't want his movies pan and scanned.
    Doonie, Mar 22, 2005
    #17
  18. Tweek

    Ronald Cole Guest

    (Bill Vermillion) writes:
    > Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.


    I'm so glad that Stanley preferred the black bars on all his movies on
    my 16:9 HDTV... what a putz.

    --
    Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
    Ronald Cole <> Phone: (760) 499-9142
    President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
    My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
    Ronald Cole, Mar 22, 2005
    #18
  19. Tweek

    Steve K. Guest

    Joe S wrote:
    > Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >
    >> In article <2ft%d.70$>,
    >> Steve K. <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Bill Vermillion wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <Sfr_d.47$Z37.25@lakeread06>, Captain 20
    >>>> <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> It is in it's original aspect ratio.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I don't think so. I recall seeing it in the theater in 1987 and
    >>>>> it was "wide screen".
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I've seen 1.37.1 format films masked to 1.85:1 in theatres. They
    >>>> don't like to change the masks. And films that were to be shown
    >>>> wider still were cropped.
    >>>>
    >>>> Theatres don't care like they used to when it took a projectionist
    >>>> to run films - instead of someone pushing one button in each
    >>>> of 8,10, 12, or how many screens you local googolplex has.
    >>>>
    >>>> FMJ was shot open, and was printed at 1.66:1 for European release,
    >>>> and 1.85:1 for US.
    >>>> I really wish Kubrick would have let his DVD releases be shown as
    >>>> they were in the theatre but he insisted on 1.37:1 for the 'small
    >>>> screen'. And now 'samll' doens't apply to many TV screens - where
    >>>> the picture in your house appears larger than you might think in a
    >>>> theatre - depening on how far back you sat :)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Unless of course it was matted, and the full-screen DVD contains
    >>>>> additional top and bottom picture information that was covered up
    >>>>> in the theatrical run.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Yes. Regardless of theatrical release, he apparently preferred
    >>> the 1:37 ratio full frame ratio altogether. Having both versions
    >>> on a DVD would be nice, but it's not likely to happen at this
    >>> point. Just enjoy the movie.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have all of SK's films starting with Killer's Kiss - his first
    >> real film IMO. Those had been pretty much unavailable up until a
    >> couple of years ago but I had managed to tape them [before DVDs
    >> were easily recordable] in the past when they'd pop up at some
    >> obscure time on some TV thing.
    >>
    >> And about 1984 or so I was in LA and we stayed at my friends uncles
    >> home. He was working at a shop where they had just finished
    >> transfering all of Kubrick's films to video exactly as Kubrick
    >> wanted them. Kubrick's assistant oversaw everything and there were
    >> copious notes for all the films. He was quite exacting on what he
    >> wanted.

    >
    >
    >
    > Any idea if what he wanted was based upon some now-antiquated
    > assumptions about home display size/shape? I wonder if he would have
    > felt the same had millions of people had 65" widescreen units.


    Then again, some director's prefer B+W. Should they shoot color because
    of "some now-antiquated assumptions about home display size/shape?"

    I would imagine it was based on they way he liked to compose his images
    regardless of display medium. He may have generally prefered a more
    square look for his films. It's an artistic call, not a technological one.

    It is what it is, just enjoy the film.
    Steve K., Mar 22, 2005
    #19
  20. Tweek

    Andrew Venor Guest

    Ronald Cole wrote:
    > (Bill Vermillion) writes:
    >
    >>Yup. That's the way Stanley wanted it.

    >
    >
    > I'm so glad that Stanley preferred the black bars on all his movies on
    > my 16:9 HDTV... what a putz.
    >


    Actually Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Oarnge, and Full Metal Jacket looked
    pretty good shown in 16:9 widescreen HD transfers on the INHD cable
    channel a few months back. I wonder how much input Mr. Kubricks estate
    had on the creation of those HD transfers.

    ALV
    Andrew Venor, Mar 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. AVI aspect ratio

    , Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,481
    John H. Guillory
    Jul 12, 2004
  2. ed
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,190
    Rafe B.
    Jul 23, 2003
  3. Ant
    Replies:
    75
    Views:
    2,334
    Mike Kohary
    Jun 18, 2004
  4. Happy Dude

    Full Metal Jacket

    Happy Dude, Jan 7, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    527
    Bill Vermillion
    Jan 8, 2006
  5. RichA

    All the bodies are metal, METAL!

    RichA, Sep 1, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    382
    John Turco
    Sep 16, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page