Stanley Kubrick widescreen vs. fullscreen debate!

[zombiehorror]

Anyone else research or know anything about this?!  I always wondered why The Shining and Full Metal Jacket could only be found in fullscreen on dvd and upon looking it up I saw that there was quite the controversy over how Kubrick intended the films to be seen!

Apparently Kubrick caught an airing of 2001: A Space Odyssey that was edited for tv and was so disgusted by the presentation that it gave him a whole new perspective on the way he wanted to present his films.  It seems he was quite fond of the 1.66:1 aspect ratio which is kind of a happy medium between 1.33:1 fullframe and 1.85:1 widescreen, having used it for most of his films.  For whatever reason he went with 2.20:1 for 2001 which of course is going to be the absolute worse for a fullframe presentation as far as image lose.  Apparently after that he started filming with fullframe in mind, knowing that the film would live on longer in home media than on the big screen, but always aware of a widescreen surrounding!  The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut can all be viewed in 1.33:1, 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 without losing any information and without having anyone edit them to that ratio.

I recently caught a widescreen airing of The Shining on AMC and was surprised to find that I actually prefer the film in fullframe! 
It is really interesting to realize the boundaries that Kubrick was working with, there are tons of scenes that actually work better and seem to be composed for fullframe.  Take for instance Jack breaking into the room with the axe, all the info you need for that scene could have easily fit in the widescreen format but Stanley jarringly shakes the camera back and forth with each swing.  Now this could have been done for dramatic effect but it also keeps all the action completely within the refines of the fullframe format!

To me the fullframe also just feels more claustrophobic and yet you still get the impression of the vast openness of the Overlook Hotel and its grounds.  I was actually searching for the fullframe version of Full Metal Jacket in the $5 bin at Wal-mart but ended up buying the widescreen Blu-ray for $5, to me the widescreen will benefit the film.....opinion on that will have to wait until I can watch it/compare it to my ol' fullframe VHS.

Anyone else have an aspect preference on the films?!

[horrorhunter]

I prefer widescreen. Most of the films that I value were shot for the big screen. It's aggravating to have the sides chopped off to fit a TV screen, or worse yet, having the image stretched vertically. I don't mind the black spaces top and bottom if I can watch the movie in correct aspect ratio. This is my preference regarding movies in general. As far as just the Kubrick films go I haven't really made the comparison.

[zombiehorror]

I prefer widescreen. Most of the films that I value were shot for the big screen. It's aggravating to have the sides chopped off to fit a TV screen, or worse yet, having the image stretched vertically. I don't mind the black spaces top and bottom if I can watch the movie in correct aspect ratio.

But that is the whole point, Kubrick intended in the long term for the sides to be chopped off, knowing as he directed it that (at the time anyway) it would live on in fullframe in the home video market.  He apparently was not a fan of the black bars presentation either and that is why at the time of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket's dvd releases (released in 2001 under the Stanley Kubrick Collection banner) they were still presented in fullframe as Stanley himself preferred!  Having died in 1999 there is no way of knowing how he would have felt about widescreen becoming the norm for home theater, would he have embraced widescreen presentations of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut or would he have stuck to a fullframe presentation?!  If black bars were a hangup then I doubt he would like them anymore on the sides of an image than he did on the bottom/top of it!

These three films are sort of like Munster, Go Home!.  That film was shot with fullframe in mind and then shown as widescreen feature so either way you go, fullscreen/widescreen, you really lose nothing!  Check out my comparison shots here http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=13403.msg232990#msg232990

I was going to do some fullframe/widescreen comparison shots for The Shining but decided not to.  I think the best thing to do for films like these, especially given the capacity of Blu-ray, is to present them in both fullframe and widescreen!  These films are not like other fullframe releases which have been "pan 'n' scanned"/re-edited/formatted for your tv, essentially changing a director's vision; they were always intended to look good in either format.....though in Kubrick's case it seems he favored the fullframe presentation!

[horrorhunter]

I went back and clarified that I was generalizing. I suppose for films shot to be viewed either way then full frame would be fine. As for films shot for the theater screen, which covers most, then I prefer having it shown in correct aspect ratio, even if the black bars top and bottom are present. I would have to compare the Kubrick films to give an accurate opinion, but you do make some interesting points.

[Fester]

Part of Kubric's problem with the editing of 2001 for TV was the original release was in Cinerama. 
It was shot in Super Panavision 70 and some sequences in Todd-AO and intended to be shown on a Cinerama curved screen.  That means the movie would be projected on a screen that covered up to 146 degree field of view.
Try jamming that on a TV screen and see what you get. 
No wonder he was not happy.

Here are a few movies that I prefer in their wide screen formats. How the West Was Won, Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, The Hallelujah Trail, Battle of the Bulge, and 2001: A Space Odyssey-- all originally Cinerama releases.  There is so much going on across the whole screen that pan and scan/full screen just does not work.

[zombiehorror]

Part of Kubric's problem with the editing of 2001 for TV was the original release was in Cinerama. 
It was shot in Super Panavision 70 and some sequences in Todd-AO and intended to be shown on a Cinerama curved screen.  That means the movie would be projected on a screen that covered up to 146 degree field of view.
Try jamming that on a TV screen and see what you get. 
No wonder he was not happy.

Yep, I mentioned that cinemascope is the absolute worst for formatting into fullscreen, given it's even larger presence!

Here are a few movies that I prefer in their wide screen formats. How the West Was Won, Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, The Hallelujah Trail, Battle of the Bulge, and 2001: A Space Odyssey-- all originally Cinerama releases.  There is so much going on across the whole screen that pan and scan/full screen just does not work.

Personally I prefer to watch all movies in their proper aspect ratio, I'd  rather have bars on top and bottom of my widescreen tv than get a cropped picture!