[quote name='Deadpool']But Kubrick shot them that way... that's the way he wanted them presented.[/QUOTE]
Negative.
Here's two good posts from a different forum that basically sums this up.
[quote name='MrGonk']After the '70s (mostly), kubrick did all of his films in 1.37:1 Super 35 to be friendly to home video. the original camera negative is approximately 4:3 but he framed every shot to be friendly to 1.85:1 framing because he knew that most theaters would display it that way. so the original theatrical aspect ratios of "the shining," "full metal jacket" and "eyes wide shut" were 1.85:1 but the original camera negative and subsequent DVD and VHS presentations were all framed in 1.33:1. the upshot being that whether you did it in widescreen or fullscreen, you were getting an image the director framed with your ratio in mind.
in that sense, there is no real fixed original aspect ratio for those three movies. they all look magnificent in 1.33 and 1.78:1. it's been speculated that kubrick himself prefers the full camera negative ratio, and i'm actually pretty inclined to agree. maybe it's just because they were framed for a different ratio, but the square format framing is usually more attractive than the wide format framing in those three movies. that said, if you have a zooming DVD player and EWS, just use the zoom function and you'll see how well the 1.78:1 aspect ratio works for that film.
i think it's pretty telling of his talent as a director that he could frame for two totally different ratios so perfectly that either one of them will give you a better framed picture than most any other movie. he really was head and shoulders above the rest in that regard.
the super 35 thing is also only a consideration for those three movies. barry lyndon was shot in the oh-so-euro 1.66:1 aspect, as were lolita and a clockwork orange. 2001 and spartacus were done in 2.4:1 because, well, they're just more epic that way, and dr. strangelove was done in a variety of different aspect ratios because kubrick was bat sh*t crazy.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Josh Z']The idea that Kubrick composed his movies for 4:3 is a myth that has been debunked time and again. Storyboards for his movies specifically mention the 1.85:1 framing. People who worked in post-production on this movies have confirmed that only 1.85:1 footage was ever displayed during editing.
In addition, if you actually look at his movies, you can see that close-up shots of actors' faces are positioned much too low in the frame for the open-matte version, while in the 1.85:1 matting maintain the "Golden Rule" of placing the eyes 1/3 down from the top of the frame.
The reason Kubrick instructed the VHS and LD transfers of his movies to be open-matte back in the '80s was because he was a straight-up black bar hater. He had a peculiar notion that the bars themselves affected the viewer's perception of the movie, distancing them from the story, and wanted his TV screen filled instead.
Unfortunately, Kubrick died before the prevalence of 16:9 TVs, and we will never know his wishes for viewing his movies in High Definition. However, given his prior explanations, it stands to reason that pillarboxing his movies into the center of a 16:9 screen would have exactly that "distancing" effect that he was trying to avoid on 4:3 TVs.
William Friedkin is another director who used to be a black bar hater and demanded that all of his movies be transferred open-matte, until recent years where he has completely reversed course and started supervising widescreen transfers for his movies.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Deadpool']*and on a side note all the Kubrick films and Twilight Zone are up for preorder on the Warner HV site. Hurry because i think the 20% off expires on tuesday.[/QUOTE]
Shit, I thought I had more time then that. There is no way I can pass up all 5 for 80 but I wanted to grab Blade Runner too.
yes, it's about time 
:lol:
