[Landos Mustache]

This is one of my favorite war movies but every time I look for it on DVD it is only in 1.33 aspect ratio, even the new special edition. Obviously that is incredibly lame.

Was there or will there be a release of the movie in widescreen?

[Dakar]

I'll have to check the copy I have at home. If I own it fullscreen, then I must not have been paying attention when I purchased it (Though I remember it being on sale).

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'll have to check the copy I have at home. If I own it fullscreen, then I must not have been paying attention when I purchased it (Though I remember it being on sale).

If it on sale you can pretty much bet it is the ghetto one.

I mean I can't even fathom why they would even make the special edition in 1.33.

[Dakar]

I just checked Amazon. There's a 99.9% chance its the full screen one, thereby making it the only Fullscreen DVD I own.

Who knew.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

This is one of my favorite war movies but every time I look for it on DVD it is only in 1.33 aspect ratio, even the new special addition. Obviously that is incredibly lame.

Was there or will there be a release of the movie in widescreen?

No there will never be a widescreen release of Full Metal Jacket, because it was filmed in 1.33:1 - Kubrick favored this aspect ratio over widescreen.

V

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Who knew.

Me

I've been on the lookout for years every time I go into a shop that sells DVD's.

I saw on Amazon that the HD-DVD is in widescreen finally but I have no plans for an HD-DVD player so I hope they come out with it on Blu-ray but that might take them another 8 years.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No there will never be a widescreen release of Full Metal Jacket, because it was filmed in 1.33:1 - Kubrick favored this aspect ratio over widescreen.

V

I don't remember any of his other movies being in 1:33 and considering what a film nut he was I would have thought that he would be anti-1.33.

Anywho, why is the HD-DVD in widescreen then or is that a mistake?

Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Metal-Jac...432750?ie=UTF8

[MindFad]

I can never find it in widescreen either. Every time I go to Best Buy, it's the fullscreen only.

[residentEvil]

well, one of the VOOM channels, or maybe HDNET showed it 2 weeks or so ago...and it was widescreen, but obviously it was stretched.

but, here is a review of the hd-dvd version:

Full Metal Jacket HD-DVD: Review by Chris Boylan on BigPictureBigSound

it says it will be...

# US Theatrical Release Date: June 26, 1987
# Feature Film video transfer: 1080p 16:9 HD transfer
# Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1

and from here, he filmed most of his movies in 1.33

The Letterbox and Widescreen Advocacy Page

I hear every now and then from those who particularly enjoy Stanley Kubrick's movies. With very few exceptions, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, he framed most of his movies (including The Shining and Full Metal Jacket) for a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, this caused a problem with many because they were shown theatrically at 1.85:1. This is not because he wanted a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Instead, this happened because most modern theaters are incapable of showing a movie in anything less than 1.85:1. As a result, most people thought that the 1.85:1 version is what Kubrick wanted. This is not true.

[Dakar]

Here's the official specs

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I don't remember any of his other movies being in 1:33 and considering what a film nut he was I would have thought that he would be anti-1.33.

Anywho, why is the HD-DVD in widescreen then or is that a mistake?

Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Metal-Jac...432750?ie=UTF8

He shot all his films after 2001: A Space Oddissey on 35mm film in 1.37:1 aspect ratio. Sometimes the aspect ratio was edited afterwards, but they were all shot intended to be seen in 1.37:1 ratio. That's Kubrick. That's why the special editions of his films are in that aspect ratio, like the Shining et al.

V

[Landos Mustache]

Ok so it seems it was filmed in 1:85 but he wants it to be 1:33 for HOME viewing? Guess he died before the whole widescreen TV thing took off.

"Unlike earlier versions of the film, which were only available in "full screen" 4:3 aspect ratio (as the director wished, for home viewing),"

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

considering what a film nut he was I would have thought that he would be anti-1.33.

James Cameron also sometimes favours 1.33:1. He just does widescreen cuz that's what the movie theatres are.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Ok so it seems it was filmed in 1:85 but he wants it to be 1:33 for HOME viewing? Guess he died before the whole widescreen TV thing took off.

"Unlike earlier versions of the film, which were only available in "full screen" 4:3 aspect ratio (as the director wished, for home viewing),"

No.. it was filmed on a 35mm 1.37:1 aspect ratio film.

Clearer than that I cannot put it.

V

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No.. it was filmed on a 35mm 1.37:1 aspect ratio film.

Clearer than that I cannot put it.

V

So then if it is presented in widescreen it is stretched??!!

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

So then if it is presented in widescreen it is stretched??!!

Cropped would be my guess.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

So then if it is presented in widescreen it is stretched??!!

Stretched, cropped or both.

V

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Stretched, cropped or both.

V

That is waaaaaaarped!!

Screw that!

[iREZ]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Stretched, cropped or both.

V

thats what she said.

[kaze0]

A bunch of his movies are 1.33. Pick up the HD DVD of FMJ if you reallyw ant widescreen though. It looks fan****ingtastic.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

For those who don't know 1.33 is full frame. It's the full picture that comes into the lens of a camera. Widescreen had the top and bottom chopped off so it could be projected on wide theater screens because theater owners wanted to cram more people in and make more money so they made the rows of seats wider.

Pan and Scan is even more cropped. It's what they do when they take widescreen and chop off the sides to make widescreen fit on a 4:3 TV.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

For those who don't know 1.33 is full frame. It's the full picture that comes into the lens of a camera. Widescreen had the top and bottom chopped off so it could be projected on wide theater screens because theater owners wanted to cram more people in and make more money so they made the rows of seats wider.

Pan and Scan is even more cropped. It's what they do when they take widescreen and chop off the sides to make widescreen fit on a 4:3 TV.

Many cameras use anamorphic lenses. So in essence they're filmed in widescreen, even if the film itself isn't.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Eug

Many cameras use anamorphic lenses. So in essence they're filmed in widescreen, even if the film itself isn't.

That just stretches everything and squashes it back. I hate cameras like that.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

For those who don't know 1.33 is full frame. It's the full picture that comes into the lens of a camera. Widescreen had the top and bottom chopped off so it could be projected on wide theater screens because theater owners wanted to cram more people in and make more money so they made the rows of seats wider.

Pan and Scan is even more cropped. It's what they do when they take widescreen and chop off the sides to make widescreen fit on a 4:3 TV.

What a load of dung.

4:3 is full frame on 35mm film. Widescreen is not a cinematic term, it is a TV term. Cinemascope is a cinematic term and when 35mm films were common, anamorphic lenses were used on the cameras to achieve letterbox format without compromising quality like you suggest was done.

Later the 35mm film was dropped in favor of a wider 70mm film, which does not need anamorphic lense for letterbox aspect, although it was used for Ultra Panavision and Cinerama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Eug

Many cameras use anamorphic lenses. So in essence they're filmed in widescreen, even if the film itself isn't.

Anamorphic lenses are not used today. This was a technology of the pre-80s

V

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by voodoo

What a load of dung.

V

Gee Voodoo you know what I mean. Like I'm Kubrick or something......as if

[Eug]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Anamorphic lenses are not used today. This was a technology of the pre-80s

True.

There's also digital too.

[vmarks]

I have the Kubrick box set on DVD, which came out prior to Eyes Wide Shut.

Having seen Eyes Wide Shut in the theatre, I don't think I'm missing anything.

I'll have to dig it out and see what aspect ratio it is in.

If voodoo's answers are any indication, it's as Kubrick intended, regardless of ratio, and that's good enough for me- the man wanted to tell stories, and if he released them in such a way as to tell the story he wanted to tell, I'm fine with it.


EDIT:
LOLITA (Widescreen 1.85:1, Eng Fr Dolby Mono, Eng Fr Sub, 152 mins., 1961), DR. STRANGELOVE (Multi-aspect ratio 1.33:1 & 1:66.1, Eng Fr Sp Dolby Mono, Eng Fr Sub, 93 mins., 1963),
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (Widescreen 2.35:1, Eng Dolby 5.1 & Fr Dolby Mono, Eng Fr Sub, 139 mins., 1968),
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (Widescreen 1.66:1, Eng Fr Dolby Mono, Eng Fr Sub, 137 mins., 1971),
BARRY LYNDON (Widescreen 1.66:1, Eng Fr Dolby Mono, Eng Fr Sub, 184 mins., 1975),
THE SHINING (Full Frame 1.33:1, Eng Dolby Mono, Eng Fr Sub, 143 mins., 1980),
FULL METAL JACKET (Full Frame 1.33:1, Eng Fr Dolby Mono, Eng Fr Sub, 117 mins., 1987)

Stretched, squashed, 1.33:1, 1.85:1, anamorphic, whatever...

It's still one of the best movies ever made and no matter what aspect ratio you watch it in, it doesn't change that fact.

[mitchell_pgh]

Full Metal Jacket is simply iconic. Truly a Kubrick masterpiece.

One scene in particular... in the barracks, Lee Ermey has a scene that goes on forever [in the most amazing sense of the word]. He either completely memorized the entire dialog (which went on for minutes)... or was a master of ad-lib. There isn't a scene cut during the entire time.

Also, the movie (if made in Hollywood today) would have been broken up into two movies...

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Also, the movie (if made in Hollywood today) would have been broken up into two movies...

If it were made by someone other than Kubrick.

In this day and age, if Stanley Kubrick were still alive and wanted to make the exact same movie in the same way he did it then, they would have let him. His status as respected director would allow him to do it.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by voodoo

No there will never be a widescreen release of Full Metal Jacket, because it was filmed in 1.33:1 - Kubrick favored this aspect ratio over widescreen.

V

I came to post the same thing. Darn you!

[Eriamjh]

If Kubric shot it in Full Frame and it was shown in theaters in the USA as 1.85:1, and the DVDs are 1.33:1, then they are what is known as "Open Matte".

This means that the mattes that were used to block content to show the movie in theaters are removed to show the full picture on the negative.

Either way, it kinda sucks that Kubric thought that 1.33 was better than 1.85 or even 2.35:1. Maybe for a 1.33:1 TV, but not for movies.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

If Kubric shot it in Full Frame and it was shown in theaters in the USA as 1.85:1, and the DVDs are 1.33:1, then they are what is known as "Open Matte".

This means that the mattes that were used to block content to show the movie in theaters are removed to show the full picture on the negative.

Either way, it kinda sucks that Kubric thought that 1.33 was better than 1.85 or even 2.35:1. Maybe for a 1.33:1 TV, but not for movies.

Well, that's not always the same thing. There are movies which were INTENDED to be widescreen, but shot at 4:3 with mattes. Those may suck if shown open matte, since things not meant to be in view (like boom mics or props on the floor) will show up in the open matte version.

A great example of this is A Fish Called Wanda. In the matted widescreen theatrical version, John Cleese is naked and surprises an unsuspecting family by his birthday suit. In the open matte version, it's obvious he's only naked from the waist up. He's wearing pants.

Full Metal Jacket should not be lumped in with these types of movies. It was filmed with the 4:3 aspect ratio in mind.

[vmarks]

Let us remember that once upon a time, Cinemascope was a new thing. That it wasn't always the standard.

Look at Pinnochio. It was animated in 1.33:1. It was made in 1940. At that time, there were no widescreen theaters.

Kubrick wasn't doing something oddly unique using this ratio, he was using what he liked, what he thought would let him tell the story he wanted to tell, and falling back on an older standard.

I don't think 'sucks' is the right word.