Kubrick Blu-ray aspect ratios

[#Darren]

I thought most of us understood by now that he was framing for old 4x3 TV's (for the post cinema home video release) when he composed/protected a 4x3 image. So now we have widescreen TV's........

And if we need any further proof of that, we need look no further than this:

[Capt Spaulding]

yeah but it's a whole different movie in 4:3
It's aesthetically different, you see the world differently, it creates a different atmosphere...
So I think that summarizing this simply to tv screen size is missing the point.

The note on the storyboard is in my opinion counterbalanced by what vitali said.

[radewagon]

Y'know, someone brought up Evil Dead. I'm glad they did that (more on that later).
I realize that there are many different ways to look at this whole Kubrick's intentions situation and though I agree with the original poster to a degree, I certainly don't think the films were butchered when released in widescreen.
The really sad thing about this whole scenario is that the fix is so unbelievably easy that it's embarrassing that Warner hasn't spent the few extra bucks needed to make it happen.
Evil Dead has been released (twice now, once on dvd and once on bluray) with BOTH the widescreen and fullscreen versions in a single package. That really does seem like the perfect solution. Think about it, if Anchor Bay can make it happen for a director like Sam Raimi (great but certainly not of Kubrick's caliber), why can't Warner do the same to preserve Kubrick's intentions AND keep his catalog up to date in a widescreen age?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by radewagon

Think about it, if Anchor Bay can make it happen for a director like Sam Raimi (great but certainly not of Kubrick's caliber), why can't Warner do the same to preserve Kubrick's intentions AND keep his catalog up to date in a widescreen age?

I think it boils down to most people not wanted letterboxing or pillarboxong on their movies, so as technology has changed people have gone from not wanting letterboxing on their 4:3 televisions to people not wanting pillarboxing on their widescreen TV's. The OAR crowd is a minority (with John Q Public) as people don't even like 2.35:1 films and would prefer fullscreen widescreen.

The Evil Dead is a niche market were buyer's appreciate the difference. I think with Kibrick he composed the shots for 4:3 televisions so stations couldn't butcher them with pan and scan the cinema release was a compromised image he was happy with.

It would nice to have both versions on a disc as I hate it when I know I'm missing out some visual information even if it's on the borders of the screen.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by radewagon

Y'know, someone brought up Evil Dead. I'm glad they did that (more on that later).
I realize that there are many different ways to look at this whole Kubrick's intentions situation and though I agree with the original poster to a degree, I certainly don't think the films were butchered when released in widescreen.
The really sad thing about this whole scenario is that the fix is so unbelievably easy that it's embarrassing that Warner hasn't spent the few extra bucks needed to make it happen.
Evil Dead has been released (twice now, once on dvd and once on bluray) with BOTH the widescreen and fullscreen versions in a single package. That really does seem like the perfect solution. Think about it, if Anchor Bay can make it happen for a director like Sam Raimi (great but certainly not of Kubrick's caliber), why can't Warner do the same to preserve Kubrick's intentions AND keep his catalog up to date in a widescreen age?

His intentions were for the movies to be released in widescreen. Look at the storyboard posted above. It really doesn't get any clearer than that.

Originally Posted by chip75

It would nice to have both versions on a disc as I hate it when I know I'm missing out some visual information even if it's on the borders of the screen.

Well, you're missing some visual information on every single film. There's always bits of information on the actual film that's either not projected or used for an HD master. And of course, with Super 35 movies and movies shot in 1.85:1 you're missing even more. You shouldn't focus so much on what's not there, but instead look at what is there.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

His intentions were for the movies to be released in widescreen. Look at the storyboard posted above. It really doesn't get any clearer than that.



Well, you're missing some visual information on every single film. There's always bits of information on the actual film that's either not projected or used for an HD master. And of course, with Super 35 movies and movies shot in 1.85:1 you're missing even more. You shouldn't focus so much on what's not there, but instead look at what is there.

It's just amazing in this day and age that people still don't understand anything about ratios, framing, and director and cameraman intention. As stated above, there is always visual information above and below the 1.85 frame lines, unless someone is hard-matting when they shoot, which is rarely done anymore. The entire negative is being exposed. It doesn't mean the director and cameraman wish you to SEE that information. Kubrick was PROTECTING for 1.37 because by the time of The Shining he knew it would be shown on TV and he didn't want them to zoom in on the image should there be anything in the portions above and below the 1.85 frame that shouldn't be seen (mics, lights, etc.). That does not mean that he framed the film that way - the storyboard tells you EXACTLY how he framed his film for theatrical showing. So, unless anyone is silly enough to think that one of the world's major filmmakers was making his film for eventual showing on a TV screen, the folly of this argument is obvious. Mr. Kubrick knew how his films would be shown in theaters. He was making his films to be shown in theaters. Leon Vitali is a nice, well-meaning guy who simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Mr. Kubrick made The Shining in 1.85. His editor said so, his cameraman said so, what else do you need to hear? Yes, viewing the open matte transfer is a different experience and not in a good way. No cameraman or filmmaker in his right mind would have that kind of headroom in any medium or close shot because the eye goes directly to the head room rather than where it should - THE FACE. But everybody's an expert and everybody knows what "Stanley" wanted because of some stuff he said in the era of 4.3 TVs.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Well, you're missing some visual information on every single film. There's always bits of information on the actual film that's either not projected or used for an HD master. And of course, with Super 35 movies and movies shot in 1.85:1 you're missing even more. You shouldn't focus so much on what's not there, but instead look at what is there.

That's not what I meant (I know exactly what you mean though). I meant that if you take Eyes Wide Shut as an example (the red lines indicate the border of the Blu compared to the DVD). Although there isn't anything which adds to the narrative.... There's a big difference between the versions released on home video (enough for the two aspects ratios to be available on BD in my opinion) and it's always a shame to loose anything by Kubrick.

Think about all the table legs you'd be missing out on....

eyes_de_002b.jpg

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

It's just amazing in this day and age that people still don't understand anything about ratios, framing, and director and cameraman intention. As stated above, there is always visual information above and below the 1.85 frame lines, unless someone is hard-matting when they shoot, which is rarely done anymore. The entire negative is being exposed. It doesn't mean the director and cameraman wish you to SEE that information. Kubrick was PROTECTING for 1.37 because by the time of The Shining he knew it would be shown on TV and he didn't want them to zoom in on the image should there be anything in the portions above and below the 1.85 frame that shouldn't be seen (mics, lights, etc.). That does not mean that he framed the film that way - the storyboard tells you EXACTLY how he framed his film for theatrical showing. So, unless anyone is silly enough to think that one of the world's major filmmakers was making his film for eventual showing on a TV screen, the folly of this argument is obvious. Mr. Kubrick knew how his films would be shown in theaters. He was making his films to be shown in theaters. Leon Vitali is a nice, well-meaning guy who simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Mr. Kubrick made The Shining in 1.85. His editor said so, his cameraman said so, what else do you need to hear? Yes, viewing the open matte transfer is a different experience and not in a good way. No cameraman or filmmaker in his right mind would have that kind of headroom in any medium or close shot because the eye goes directly to the head room rather than where it should - THE FACE. But everybody's an expert and everybody knows what "Stanley" wanted because of some stuff he said in the era of 4.3 TVs.

+1. There's a world of difference between PROTECTING for 1.33:1 and COMPOSING for 1.33:1. Kubrick protected for 1.33:1 so the movies wouldn't be totally butchered when it was released on VHS, but if you view the movies it's pretty obvious that they were composed for the 1.85:1 frame. The storyboard for The Shining confirms this.

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

I have read that many of these blu-ray kubrick films are not his preferred aspect ratio. here is a quote from lean vitali:

"From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it."

So the blu-ray releases with 1.85 frame, he could live with, because theaters could only show them that way. but artistically he preferred them as 1.66 ... as his fan, that means I prefer it too. if you look at the comparisons in still frame you see a huge difference, the compositions are way better and powerful at their original frame.

so these ones are butchered:
Paths of Glory (cropped to 1.66 from full screen)
Eyes wide shut (1.85)
Shining (1.85)
Full Metal Jacket (1.85)
Barry Lyndon (1.85)

are not Kubrick's preferred aspect ratio

and:
Clockwork Orange
2001
Dr strangelove
Spartacus
are correct.

not sure (can someone say?)
Lolita

I think they only released the butchered ones as a business decision, to fill the HD screen. to get the correct ones we have to go back to the dvds released in the early 2000's. but they probably look awful.. everythings a compromise. what should us purist fans do??

Haha! "Butchered"... Such an ugly, over-used term. Are you sure you know what you're talking about??

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by chip75

That's not what I meant (I know exactly what you mean though). I meant that if you take Eyes Wide Shut as an example (the red lines indicate the border of the Blu compared to the DVD). Although there isn't anything which adds to the narrative.... There's a big difference between the versions released on home video (enough for the two aspects ratios to be available on BD in my opinion) and it's always a shame to loose anything by Kubrick.

Think about all the table legs you'd be missing out on....

Attachment 35706

It is so obvious that this film was shot for 1.85 and if some cannot see that well there' nothing else to say. It's not opinion - look at the frame. The shot is perfectly framed at 1.85. Everything above and below those framelines is useless information that robs the shot of its major center of interest, which is, of course, the actress.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by chip75

That's not what I meant (I know exactly what you mean though). I meant that if you take Eyes Wide Shut as an example (the red lines indicate the border of the Blu compared to the DVD). Although there isn't anything which adds to the narrative.... There's a big difference between the versions released on home video (enough for the two aspects ratios to be available on BD in my opinion) and it's always a shame to loose anything by Kubrick.

Think about all the table legs you'd be missing out on....

Attachment 35706

I don't mean to be critical of a genius or anything, but the way that tv is facing, makes no sense.

[retablo]

More inanity. I'm POSITIVE Kubrick WANTED that helicopter shadow in the beginning of The Shining, since he shot it 1.33:1 and all.

Yeah, THAT makes sense. (Even if the footage was taken from Blade Runner outtakes, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want shadows or microphones in his frame, regardless.)

Let's hear the reasoning behind that, everyone who thinks 1.85:1 is wrong.

[Eny-]

It cracks me up when people discard the man's own words and instructions on a storyboard for something that an assistant said.

No, it's not a matter of OPINION, it's a FACT that Kubrick composed his later movies for the 1.85 ratio while protecting them for 1.33.

Will this issue ever die?

[joenostalgia23]

Kubrick wanted 1.37 for his more recent films because he didn't like seeing black bars on 4:3 TVs because he felt they were distracting. He preferred to watch his films in his own private theater in 1.66-2.35. Yes, 1.33 versions have more information, but its just excess that was intentionally cut off in the theatrical presentations. Now, with 1.78 TVs, most of his films that were shot 1.66-1.85 will not need to be reframed in 1.37, and look more like they did in theaters. There's thin black lines on the sides or top/bottom but its not as distracting as a letterboxed film. A 1.33-1.37 version on an HDTV would now have distracting black bars to the sides, and useless excess information on the top and bottom that ruins the framing of shots.

The only real argument left are for his earliest films and films that were shot in a scope format. Distributors have decided to not crop his widescreen films because they would remove important information from the frame and because the black bars on the scope films aren't as thick as they were on 4:3 TVs.
With his older films like Paths of Glory, 1.66 is chosen because that's what Kubrick preferred, because they remove most of the black bars and because those films were often hard-matted to 1.66 anyways. It may have been shot in 1.37, but Kubrick knew that it'd be presented in most places as 1.66 and he didn't really care because he probably made sure to compose his shots so that the important information stayed intact.

[whitesheik]

Oh, I see - Captain Spaulding just joined this board yesterday so he could post on this topic. Nice. I'll look forward to your posts on other films and topics.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

I've said it once and I'll say it again, I am not convinced at all by your facts and evidence

So Kubrick's own storyboard that specifically says 1:85:1 is not good enough evidence? You sound like you are just here to troll.

[Capt Spaulding]

I've said everything already, so now I can just repeat myself. I have found no evidence yet that proved to me that the 4:3 version of the film isn't good or interesting enough to deserve a place on a BD. (which is my point since the beginning) And neither have I found one that was good enough to overthrow my personal opinion on the two versions (that comes from watching them), which is that the 16:9 isn't objectively better than the other.

That obviously includes the storyboard, as well as all of whitesheik's cinematographic talk, etcetera. I'm not blind, I've read every comment, no need to repeat them over and over. If you really believe that those arguments prove undeniably, to anyone, that the 4:3 version is bad and the 16:9 version is automatically better in every way, then I simply disagree with you and there's nothing more you or I can add to that.

If I respond in details to everything I disagree with in those arguments, it will only uselessly drag this debate for even longer, and I already find it very tiering.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

I've said everything already, so now I can just repeat myself. I have found no evidence yet that proved to me that the 4:3 version of the film isn't good or interesting enough to deserve a place on a BD. (which is my point since the beginning) And neither have I found one that was good enough to overthrow my personal opinion on the two versions (that comes from watching them), which is that the 16:9 isn't objectively better than the other.

That obviously includes the storyboard, as well as all of whitesheik's cinematographic talk, etcetera. I'm not blind, I've read every comment, no need to repeat them over and over. If you really believe that those arguments prove undeniably, to anyone, that the 4:3 version is bad and the 16:9 version is automatically better in every way, then I simply disagree with you and there's nothing more you or I can add to that.

If I respond in details to everything I disagree with in those arguments, it will only uselessly drag this debate for even longer, and I already find it very tiering.

So apart from all the facts that are stated earlier, you still haven't seen any undeniable proof?

Of course you can prefer the open matted version, but it's quite obvious that it's inferior to the widescreen version. You only have to look at any comparison of The Shining that shows both aspect ratios.

[bboisvert]

Matted films aren't a new concept. There are thousands of them. At the start of home video, they were all opened up to 1.33:1. Later (mostly on laserdisc and, even later, on DVD) they started showing up matted to 1.85:1 or sometimes presented in both versions.

As resolution increased, TV ratios changed, and home theater became the norm, most of the open matte presentations fell by the wayside and the films have largely been presented as matted to 1.85:1 (or 1.78:1), as shown theatrically.


I don't see why Kubrick's films should be treated any differently than other films. The BDs represent how they were composed (and projected) theatrically. Comments that Kubrick made 25 years ago when people were watching VHS tapes at home on 25" 4:3 screens doesn't seem applicable here.

We don't know what Kubrick would think about modern HD home theater presentations. Therefore, I think looking to the theatrical presentation seems to be the best guide. Makes a heck of a lot more sense than looking to this:

[notops]

On the storyboard, Mr. Kubrick states: "Obviously you compose for 1.85". OBVIOUSLY. There is no hidden meaning here. Obviously Kubrick intended it to be framed for 1.85, with the "shoot and protect" area kept free of any unwanted information (usually things like boom-mikes overhead, or an actor's mark taped to the floor).

If you like the version intended for TV broadcast and VHS/Beta, fine. To each their own, but assuming 1.37 was Kubrick's intended ratio is absurd. This was not a miniseries or a made for TV movie. This was a feature film intended to be seen in a theater and theaters are set up for 1.85, not the 4:3 TV ratio.