Hey Outlaws!

I picked up a copy of the newly remastered FMJ and it's in full frame. I've heard some sources say that this is the only version of the movie on DVD.

So my question is this.

Was FMJ originaly intended to be shot in the "full frame" format? As I watched the film I was amazed by it's composition. It doesn't look (to me) like it was "panned and scanned" but rather intentionaly shot with that format in mind, however I've been searching on the web and I cant find anything that states this.

So, if anyone has the skinny, I'ld love to know.

Jason

It may have been shot in 35mm with the intention of being masked to a widescreen format. When you see a "full frame" version of such films, you're actually getting more of the picture, not less.

However, before you get all giddy with the "more picture for your dollar" concept, keep in mind that usually, this is not how the director intended you to see the film (although exceptions like James Cameron do exist), and often you'll catch things in the frame that shouldn't be there, like boom mikes and marks.

Jeff

Jeff, I'm well aware of this. However I'm wondering if FMJ was shot EXPLICITY by Kubrick in 35mm, to be shown in the Acadamy Standard. I know when I was searching the web that some people had said it was intended to be shown in full 35mm, but it was edited down by Kubrick in order to get it released to skittish theaters. I found this in only one source...on a chat board...although reading through an article on the Digital Bits I got the impression that 1.33:1 was the way Kubrick ultimatly wanted the film to be presented in (since there isn't a widescreen version of the Disc available anywhere, and there is only one form of software that has ever had it in widescreen-the 1991 Laserdisc.) I was wondering if anyone could confirm this.

Jason

And while we're on the subject of aspect ratios, check out this site if you want to be a true cinematic geek.

Jason

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

Kubrick is well known for playing havoc with aspect ratios, often switching ratios in the middle of the film. That being the case, I wouldn't even dare speculate what he had in mind when he filmed it. Have you checked IMDB?

Jeff

Yes I have, but I've yet to find anything there that has said one way or another what his intention was.

As I've said before, the only thing that comes close to an explination is that it was intended to be viewed as a 35mm (acadamy standard) film, but WB was concerned that most theaters (read commercial) would not show the film if it was sent to them in this format, so Kubrick was asked to "trim" it down to be shown in a widescreen theater.

Like I said, I can only find one source for this...and it was on a IMDB chatboard. (Which may or may not be a "reliable" source.)

Perhapse I'm beating a dead horse here. I love the film, the transfer is excellent, and if it wasn't intended to be seen in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, it is amazingly re-edited so you wouldn't know. I should probibaly just be happy with the way things are, but it's just gnawing away at me.

Jason

Jason,

I hear you, believe me. You want the absolutely perfect experience. I know the feeling.

Jeff

Yes that was a great flick, yes I was in the Marines 73-76, the first 30 min. of that movie still brings chills to my body..it was just like that at Parris Island, SC

[This message has been edited by HI-FI (edited April 02, 2003).]

Hmmm....I thought that the film was shot in England.

May have gotten wrong info off of one of my sources.

You may be correct, but I heard the first part was filmed there, but anyway it was a great movie...