Stanley Kubrick BDs (Once more with feeling)

[demoni]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

Personally I think all of Kubrick's movies are must own's on BD.

RESPECT!!!!!!!!

[Casca]

I used to work at the BBC on the movie side, and SK was always in touch to check on the print we using to broadcast and often lending us his personal copy so that it was what he wanted.
There was a wonderful letter on file from him responding to our first screening of 2001, which we pan and scanned except for the outer space sequences which we screened letterbox, but added in a starfield top and bottom. This meant that Discovery disappeared into a clean new galaxy as it passed through frame! Bizarre (and not my choice, I hasten to add!). Stanley wrote in personally asking that we didn't do that again, please, and offered any and all personal help in ensuring that our next transmission was up to his (and the correct) standards. He was calm, measured and very positive (we did get a brand new low-con 35mm print struck from the original neg, so it was otherwise pristine), which given his reputation seemed a surprise to me. He just wanted the movie to look the best it possibly could, and the viewer have the best possible experience, so it's impossible not to be impressed by that.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

I wouldn't mind that if that was the director's intention, like Stanley Kubrick did for his films. He shot them in Full Screen but had them cropped for movie theaters but open matted for home viewing.

Kubrick actually shot 99% of his films with a 1.37:1 negative aspect ratio with the intention of the film being exhibited in 1.85:1 widescreen.

The only film he shot specifically 2.35:1 widescreen was 2001: A Space Odyssey. When the BBC broadcasted this film on television, neither he nor his cinematographer were consulted in creating a "fullscreen" presentation. They completely butchered his film with the pan & scna process.

In response, Kubrick instructed his cinematographer to frame for 1.85:1 but protect the 1.33:1 framing. This way when the film is transferred to home video, the composition is not destroyed. It is altered but no picture image is lost.

When DVD became the home video format and widescreen televisions grew into popularity, Warner Brothers was finally able to present Kubrick's original vision for his films. There would be no need to expose the protected area going foward.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker
As usual, Mr. Bean, you are wrong. Matted films were shot in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, then matted to 1.85:1 for theaters. Some filmmakers, like Stanley Kubrick, planned his films for both aspect ratios, and preferred the unmatted version for home video.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

lmfao

No offense, but I stopped reading there.

Too bad it's true. Kubrick approved of Criterion's laserdisc of Dr. Strangelove, which presented the film in 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratios, as opposed to 1.85:1, which is how the film appeared in many theaters at the time of its release. He deemed the Criterion version of Dr. Strangelove to be perfect.

Criterion also released both Paths of Glory and The Killing at 1.33:1 on laserdisc, despite the fact that they were originally released with mattes in 1.85:1. Criterion is known to get the director's approval and released their laserdiscs, and now DVDs and BDs, with the proper aspect ratios.

Next time do a little research.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

Too bad it's true. Kubrick approved of Criterion's laserdisc of Dr. Strangelove, which presented the film in 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratios, as opposed to 1.85:1, which is how the film appeared in many theaters at the time of its release. He deemed the Criterion version of Dr. Strangelove to be perfect.

Criterion also released both Paths of Glory and The Killing at 1.33:1 on laserdisc, despite the fact that they were originally released with mattes in 1.85:1. Criterion is known to get the director's approval and released their laserdiscs, and now DVDs and BDs, with the proper aspect ratios.

Next time do a little research.

That was only because there weren't any widescreen televisions then and Kubrick didn't want another 2001: A Space Oddysey debacle again. Seeing his 'newer' films like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, it's clear that the widescreen ratio is the intended one all along.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

Too bad it's true. Kubrick approved of Criterion's laserdisc of Dr. Strangelove, which presented the film in 1.33:1 and 1.66:1 aspect ratios, as opposed to 1.85:1, which is how the film appeared in many theaters at the time of its release. He deemed the Criterion version of Dr. Strangelove to be perfect.

What KubrickFan said. The open matte 4:3 version was released as a compromise. If 16:9 screens were the norm back then, that's what it would have been released as. If a previous Criterion release had both 1.66:1 and 1.33:1, I'd expect he probably preferred the 1.66:1 over even the 1.85:1 matted version in American theaters. But that's not a big deal or at all surprising.

It could have even been Criterion's choice to include the 1.33:1 version as a choice for fans. Normally a 1.33:1 version is a desecration, a complete destruction by pan-and-scan, but in the case of matted pictures, the 4:3 has a bit more legitimacy. And even today there are plenty of movie watchers who believe the black bars are removing picture from them, and in the case of matted pictures, they're right. It doesn't matter to them if they're SUPPOSED to be matted though, they want to see the whole picture.

Criterion also released both Paths of Glory and The Killing at 1.33:1 on laserdisc, despite the fact that they were originally released with mattes in 1.85:1.

I don't know anything about either of those so I cannot comment.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

That was only because there weren't any widescreen televisions then and Kubrick didn't want another 2001: A Space Oddysey debacle again. Seeing his 'newer' films like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, it's clear that the widescreen ratio is the intended one all along.

That's true about the later movies, but I mentioned his earlier ones from the 50's and 60's. Kubrick shot them in 1.33:1, and intended for some of them to be matted in 1.66:1. However, they were cropped to 1.85:1, which he did not approve of. The Criterion laserdiscs of those earlier films were presented in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, which Kubrick approved. Criterion could have presented them in 1.66:1 without any problems, as they'd already done with other films on laserdisc before. So I'm assuming that Kubrick preferred his films full frame rather than matted, even at the slight cropping of 1.66:1, for these discs. In contrast, he preferred that 2001 and Spartacus be presented letterboxed on the Criterion laserdiscs.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It could have even been Criterion's choice to include the 1.33:1 version as a choice for fans. Normally a 1.33:1 version is a desecration, a complete destruction by pan-and-scan, but in the case of matted pictures, the 4:3 has a bit more legitimacy. And even today there are plenty of movie watchers who believe the black bars are removing picture from them, and in the case of matted pictures, they're right. It doesn't matter to them if they're SUPPOSED to be matted though, they want to see the whole picture.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the Criterion laserdisc of Dr. Strangelove. It's not that Criterion presented two versions of the film -- one in 1.33:1 a.r., and one in the matted 1.66:1 a.r. The movie, as presented on the Criterion LD, has alternating aspect ratios that change, during the film, from 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 and back again. It's odd, but apparently their version was struck from Kubrick's personal print of the film -- which was a generation away from the original negative. Kubrick shot the film using in camera mattes, for certain scenes.

I saw Dr. Strangelove at a revival theater in the early 90's, and I recall that certain scenes would have that slight matted look, while others didn't. I assumed, at the time, that the projectionist made a mistake.

[Afrobean]

Dr. Strangelove may be a strange and unique anomaly then, making use of multiple aspect ratios within the same film. Whenever someone brings up Kubrick in regards to matting, I instantly think of The Shining though and all the hooplah over that, not think of shifting aspect ratios.

Could you give some examples of the places and reasons for the shifts?

But hey, even if Kubrick preferred a different version, it's not original aspect ratio anyway lol. Maybe we'll see a "Director's Cut" edition some day where the only difference would be the introduction of shifting aspect ratios... not that it would look very good on 16:9 screens.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

That's true about the later movies, but I mentioned his earlier ones from the 50's and 60's. Kubrick shot them in 1.33:1, and intended for some of them to be matted in 1.66:1. However, they were cropped to 1.85:1, which he did not approve of. The Criterion laserdiscs of those earlier films were presented in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, which Kubrick approved. Criterion could have presented them in 1.66:1 without any problems, as they'd already done with other films on laserdisc before. So I'm assuming that Kubrick preferred his films full frame rather than matted, even at the slight cropping of 1.66:1, for these discs. In contrast, he preferred that 2001 and Spartacus be presented letterboxed on the Criterion laserdiscs.

Even if they were supposed to be in 1.66:1, they would still have black bars on the screen and that was something Kubrick didn't really like. Dr. Strangelove simply was shot either hard matted or open matted. The same thing happened to Lolita, but Warner simply put that movie in 1.66:1 on the dvd. Of course it wasn't supposed to have shifting ratios. It was just shot two different ways on some shots.

[benricci]

Kubrick shot his films with the intention of them being shown theatrically. Theaters stopped projecting 1.33 films well before the Shining, etc came out. Kubrick framed his later films for 1.85, as repeated numerous times by his crew and the fact that all his storyboards were framed 1.85:1. He knew damn well that his movies were going to be shown at 1.85 in theaters.

Example:



His preference for open matte transfer had little to do with that being his actual "vision", and more to do with the limitations of televisions before widescreen sets became prevalent.

Had 16:9 televisions existed in the early days of home video, there is no doubt that his films would have been presented on home video in their original theatrical aspect ratio (as they are now on BD).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

That was only because there weren't any widescreen televisions then and Kubrick didn't want another 2001: A Space Oddysey debacle again. Seeing his 'newer' films like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, it's clear that the widescreen ratio is the intended one all along.

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Even if they were supposed to be in 1.66:1, they would still have black bars on the screen and that was something Kubrick didn't really like. Dr. Strangelove simply was shot either hard matted or open matted. The same thing happened to Lolita, but Warner simply put that movie in 1.66:1 on the dvd. Of course it wasn't supposed to have shifting ratios. It was just shot two different ways on some shots.

Originally Posted by benricci

Kubrick shot his films with the intention of them being shown theatrically. Theaters stopped projecting 1.33 films well before the Shining, etc came out. Kubrick framed his later films for 1.85, as repeated numerous times by his crew and the fact that all his storyboards were framed 1.85:1. He knew damn well that his movies were going to be shown at 1.85 in theaters.


His preference for open matte transfer had little to do with that being his actual "vision", and more to do with the limitations of televisions before widescreen sets became prevalent.

Had 16:9 televisions existed in the early days of home video, there is no doubt that his films would have been presented on home video in their original theatrical aspect ratio (as they are now on BD).

16:9 televisions weren't around, but letterboxing films for normal televisions did exist in the late 80's, at least on laserdisc. Had he wanted, Kubrick could have had the films he shot in academy ratio letterboxed for home video. Criterion was already doing that, including films matted to 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, in the late 80's. Kubrick approved the Criterion LD presentation of Spartacus and 2001 being letterboxed, so he must have known about this practice. Yet when he also approved the Criterion LDs of Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, and The Killing, all of them were presented in 1.33:1. I wonder why he wouldn't approve of these films being matted for the LD release?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Dr. Strangelove may be a strange and unique anomaly then, making use of multiple aspect ratios within the same film. Whenever someone brings up Kubrick in regards to matting, I instantly think of The Shining though and all the hooplah over that, not think of shifting aspect ratios.

Could you give some examples of the places and reasons for the shifts?

But hey, even if Kubrick preferred a different version, it's not original aspect ratio anyway lol. Maybe we'll see a "Director's Cut" edition some day where the only difference would be the introduction of shifting aspect ratios... not that it would look very good on 16:9 screens.

I can't remember the exact scenes where the aspect ration changed. My memory has never been good, and I saw the film awhile ago, but I think it happened during the battle scenes with the handheld camera. I use to have the Criterion LD of the film, and that also had the changing aspect ratio. I sold it recently, since I wanted to get the Blu-ray version. If I only still had it I could have checked it to see and answered your question.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

16:9 televisions weren't around, but letterboxing films for normal televisions did exist in the late 80's, at least on laserdisc. Had he wanted, Kubrick could have had the films he shot in academy ratio letterboxed for home video. Criterion was already doing that, including films matted to 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, in the late 80's. Kubrick approved the Criterion LD presentation of Spartacus and 2001 being letterboxed, so he must have known about this practice. Yet when he also approved the Criterion LDs of Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, and The Killing, all of them were presented in 1.33:1. I wonder why he wouldn't approve of these films being matted for the LD release?

That was Leon Vitali's word when the first Stanley Kubrick Collection was released. He insisted Kubrick wanted them released open matted. Of course I don't know what he really wanted, I never met him (unfortunately). I can just view the evidence (like the storyboard) and the actual films in widescreen or full frame. And they look pretty good in widescreen to me.

Of course, I also think you can't really compose for two different ratios, but merely for one. The other will turn out fine anyway, especially when it's open matted.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

The movie, as presented on the Criterion LD, has alternating aspect ratios that change, during the film, from 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 and back again. It's odd, but apparently their version was struck from Kubrick's personal print of the film -- which was a generation away from the original negative. Kubrick shot the film using in camera mattes, for certain scenes.

I saw Dr. Strangelove at a revival theater in the early 90's, and I recall that certain scenes would have that slight matted look, while others didn't. I assumed, at the time, that the projectionist made a mistake.

Sometimes, and I don't know that this is the case with Dr. Strangelove, movies that are meant to be shown matted in theaters will have a hard matte in the negative only for those scenes where to leave them "open matted" would reveal movie equipment and/or special effects stuff.

I think the Back to the Future films were good examples, with most of the movie being filmed in open matte format, while the special effects shots were "hard matte" and could only be shown as 1.85:1 or pan-and-scanned.

As for Kubrick, I do believe he filmed non-anamorphic movies with 1.85:1 in mind, hoping the theaters would mask the screen appropriately, but perhaps once in a while a theater didn't quite mask it the way they were supposed to. That's just an educated guess, of course.

[Deciazulado]

First is 1.37, not 1.33

1.33 is for the Silent format, 1.37 for Sound.

Camera aperture: black

Projector Aperture/Camera Groundglass Markings: red


35mm Flat

1.33 Silent:



Academy Sound Aperture 1.37:

Academy1.37.gif

Standard Widescreen 1.85:


Widescreen1-1.85.gif



Strangelove is 1.85. I projected the doctor for the LoC. You can't compose for 1.37 and project in 1.85, would be 26% cropped with the composition destroyed.

Kubrick is the ultimate film tech. He was no dummy. This is how Standard Widescreen movies are filmed.


185-1-2.jpg



You can see boom mics on the open matte DVD.



By 1954 they were making widescreen versions of Gone With The Wind, and in 1956 of Fantasia, as every studio was emphasizing wide-screen processes, the thinking being that a film in Academy ratio would be seen as somehow unappetizing and potentially unprofitable.
So more than a decade after theaters went widescreen, what do you think films were made for?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Strangelove is 1.85. I projected the doctor for the LoC. You can't compose for 1.37 and project in 1.85, would be 26% cropped with the composition destroyed.

Kubrick is the ultimate film tech. He was no dummy. This is how Standard Widescreen movies are filmed.

You can see boom mics on the open matte DVD.

From DVDbeaver:

"Firstly, this (blu-ray) transfer is in a consistent 1.66:1 aspect ratio - to quote the Digital Bits HERE - 'The original theatrical presentation varied between 1.33 and 1.66. In recent years however, we're told that Kubrick's associates (who manage his estate) have become more comfortable with the 16x9/1.78:1 aspect ratio of HD displays, and they believe that Kubrick himself - if he'd really had the chance to look into it - would have preferred his full frame films to be presented on home video (in HD) at a steady 1.66 to take better advantage of the 1.78:1 frame. So that's the reasoning for the decision.'" (Emphasis added.)

[Ex Accountant]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

From DVDbeaver:

"Firstly, this (blu-ray) transfer is in a consistent 1.66:1 aspect ratio - to quote the Digital Bits HERE - 'The original theatrical presentation varied between 1.33 and 1.66. In recent years however, we're told that Kubrick's associates (who manage his estate) have become more comfortable with the 16x9/1.78:1 aspect ratio of HD displays, and they believe that Kubrick himself - if he'd really had the chance to look into it - would have preferred his full frame films to be presented on home video (in HD) at a steady 1.66 to take better advantage of the 1.78:1 frame. So that's the reasoning for the decision.'" (Emphasis added.)

I thought that was just referring to the colorized version of Dr. Strangelove.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Ex Accountant

I thought that was just referring to the colorized version of Dr. Strangelove.

These posts got moved from a thread about colorized Casablanca. We were talking tangentially about aspect ratio and director intent as it related to the desire to see films in a different way than the director originally intended.

There was no talk about a colorized version of Dr. Strangelove.

Anyway, why would something composed for 1.85:1 be open-matted to 1.66:1 to "take advantage of 16:9 screen"? I could understand that argument if they were open-matted to 16:9 (as many 1.85:1 films are), but 1.66:1 makes for pillarboxing roughly similar to the amount of letterboxing 1.85:1 gets. I'd think 1.85:1 would be preferable to 1.66:1 unless the frame was designed for 1.66:1, and along the same lines, 1.78:1 would be preferable for a film shot for 1.85:1 than 1.66:1.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Anyway, why would something composed for 1.85:1 be open-matted to 1.66:1 to "take advantage of 16:9 screen"? I could understand that argument if they were open-matted to 16:9 (as many 1.85:1 films are), but 1.66:1 makes for pillarboxing roughly similar to the amount of letterboxing 1.85:1 gets. I'd think 1.85:1 would be preferable to 1.66:1 unless the frame was designed for 1.66:1, and along the same lines, 1.78:1 would be preferable for a film shot for 1.85:1 than 1.66:1.

That's assuming Dr. Strangelove was shot for 1.85:1, but from what I've read, Kubrick shot the film intending for it to be matted at 1.66:1, and some theaters mistakenly matted it at 1.85:1.