| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Don't purchase the 05/15/2007 Release of Full Metal Jacket at this link at Amazon.com and expect it to be Widecreen 1.66:1. It's not. I received my copy in the mail today and, to my dismay, it's the same Fullframe 1.33:1 that was released on 06/12/2001  .  | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
  | Kevin | | Registered March 22, 2001 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 609 |
| | Posted: | | | | The newly remastered one will be out around Christmas, according to studio sources. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 273 |
| | Posted: | | | | Have you complained already with Amazon? Maybe they change their wrong description.
I'd return the DVD also... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting detlefs: Quote:
Have you complained already with Amazon? Maybe they change their wrong description.
I'd return the DVD also... yep - just return the dvd. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 235 |
| |
| Kevin | | Registered March 22, 2001 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 609 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yep, the Warner guys were on a HTF chat a few months ago, and while they didn't give an exact date, they said before Christmas.
I can't wait for 2001, especially. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | In the Request for Refund/Exchange I noted that I had ordered the Widescreen version as advertised on the link but received the Fullframe version instead. They appologized...appology Bot  and shipped a replacement copy. It will arrive this morning and I'll let you know if it's another fullframe version. Update: Just got the second copy of Full Metal Jacket and sure enough it's the Fullframe version again. I'll be returning them for a refund. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection | | | | Last edited: by Bad Father |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 43 |
| | Posted: | | | | I thought full frame was Kubrick's intended aspect ratio for the majority of all his films. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting KFelon: Quote:
I thought full frame was Kubrick's intended aspect ratio for the majority of all his films. Yes, that's true. He shot all of his films in 1.37:1. So, If they are reframed to 1.85/1.78:1 you are missing a part of the original picture. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet: Quote:
Quoting KFelon:
Quote:
I thought full frame was Kubrick's intended aspect ratio for the majority of all his films.
Yes, that's true. He shot all of his films in 1.37:1. So, If they are reframed to 1.85/1.78:1 you are missing a part of the original picture. According to sources, they are being remastered to 1.66:1 | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
Quoting KFelon:
Quote:
I thought full frame was Kubrick's intended aspect ratio for the majority of all his films.
Yes, that's true. He shot all of his films in 1.37:1. So, If they are reframed to 1.85/1.78:1 you are missing a part of the original picture.
According to sources, they are being remastered to 1.66:1 They may be remastered to 1.66:1, but they were not recorded in that format. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet: Quote:
Quoting KFelon:
Quote:
I thought full frame was Kubrick's intended aspect ratio for the majority of all his films.
Yes, that's true. He shot all of his films in 1.37:1. So, If they are reframed to 1.85/1.78:1 you are missing a part of the original picture. Brave man, Martin. Claiming ALL of his films were shot in Academy Ratio. I can think of one that very defintely was NOT. And it was the single longest continually playing film in Hollywood history that I am aware of. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 235 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can think of several, 2001 and Spartacus being two of them. Besides I think he wanted 1.66:1 to be theatrical ratio and 1.33(or 1.37):1 to be the ratio for video release. He's not with us to clarify and Warner have done what they could to give us the best presentations. When he was around, WS-TV's and home cinemas weren't common and I think most people would say today that they should be presented in their theatrical AR.
I am REALLY looking forward to the new releases and they (with the upcoming Blade Runner release) really makes me wanna go high def!
/Mikel | | | | DVD Profiler på Dansk |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mikl: Quote:
I can think of several, 2001 and Spartacus being two of them. Mmm, well I meant most of them. I don't know why I wrote "all". Anyway Full Metal Jacket would be missing a large portion of the original picture above and below. I can not speak for others, but I would rather have this film in it's academy ratio (1.37:1). If I want to see it in a WS format I can always zoom the picture. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 235 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet: Quote:
Quoting mikl:
Quote:
I can think of several, 2001 and Spartacus being two of them.
Mmm, well I meant most of them. I don't know why I wrote "all". Anyway Full Metal Jacket would be missing a large portion of the original picture above and below. I can not speak for others, but I would rather have this film in it's academy ratio (1.37:1). If I want to see it in a WS format I can always zoom the picture. Well, you "miss" a large portion of all movies shot in open matte if you watch them in Widescreen (people who are so unfortunate to own Terminater 3 in fullscreen know what I talk about  ), but that is not the point - the point is the inteded ratio. That is, what aspect ratio was the movie shown in, in theatres. For FMJ, I believe it was 1.66:1, however I could be wrong. /Mikkel | | | | DVD Profiler på Dansk |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mikl: Quote:
Well, you "miss" a large portion of all movies shot in open matte if you watch them in Widescreen (people who are so unfortunate to own Terminater 3 in fullscreen know what I talk about ), but that is not the point - the point is the inteded ratio. That is, what aspect ratio was the movie shown in, in theatres. For FMJ, I believe it was 1.66:1, however I could be wrong. Well, I agree the intended ratio is the point...but,actually, in this case that doesn't necessarily equate to what is was shown in at theatres. AIUI Kubrick's intended ratio was 4:3(ish) so, unlike open matte, he didn't shoot it at 4:3 and assume "nobody will see the top and bottom bits because I'll cover them up for the cinema" he said "I'll make sure 1.66:1 doesn't cut anyone's heads off but sine more people will see it on TV than on the big screen I'll make the film designed for the TV screen" | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|