How can you shoot women and children?

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Amused
Pan and scan suck big fat donkey dicks.

Is tht necessarily a bad thing 😉 IF they don't suck them, who will!?!?! 😕

 

[macwinlin]

Originally posted by: GiLtY

Originally posted by: Skoorb
You're the kinda guy that would *#($ a guy in the #$@ and not have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach around!

hahaha... the sergent owns!

He's got his own tv show now too 🙂

You mean R. Lee Ermey?

 

[snik]

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

WTH are you smoking? Kubrick NEVER shot a movie other than full frame.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: snik

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

WTH are you smoking? Kubrick NEVER shot a movie other than full frame.

damn, the nub putting the lifer in his place! damn!

 

[Sluggo]

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

I would love to see this released in widescreen format.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: snik

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

WTH are you smoking? Kubrick NEVER shot a movie other than full frame.

Shot, yes, theatrically displayed, no. Go check out what "open matte" is and get back to me, OK?

FMJ was diplayed in 1.85:1 in theaters.

DVD file.com:
This newly remastered release again presents the film in the camera negative aspect ratio of 1.33:1 instead of the theatrical dimensions of 1.85:1.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: snik

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

WTH are you smoking? Kubrick NEVER shot a movie other than full frame.

Shot, yes, theatrically displayed, no. Go check out what "open matte" is and get back to me, OK?

FMJ was diplayed in 1.85:1 in theaters.

DVD file.com:
This newly remastered release again presents the film in the camera negative aspect ratio of 1.33:1 instead of the theatrical dimensions of 1.85:1.

but you said "pan and scan" which is very different from "full frame"

 

[Kev]

in other words, the theatrical display was the one that was missing part of the picture

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: maladroit
in other words, the theatrical display was the one that was missing part of the picture

Open matte means they shoot a wider or taller field of view than they intend to be included in the finished product. Directors will often tape cardboard over the top and bottom of their monitors to see what the field of view will be once matted.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: maladroit

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: snik

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

WTH are you smoking? Kubrick NEVER shot a movie other than full frame.

Shot, yes, theatrically displayed, no. Go check out what "open matte" is and get back to me, OK?

FMJ was diplayed in 1.85:1 in theaters.

DVD file.com:
This newly remastered release again presents the film in the camera negative aspect ratio of 1.33:1 instead of the theatrical dimensions of 1.85:1.

but you said "pan and scan" which is very different from "full frame"

Actually, it's open for debate. The FMJ DVD cover says: "this film has been formatted to fit your screen" which hints that it IS, in fact, pan and scan.

 

[snik]

No harm intended right, Amused? 😉 Wording can always get tricky. I know what open matte is btw. I'm a big Kubrick fan.

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: snik

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

WTH are you smoking? Kubrick NEVER shot a movie other than full frame.

I'd like to see it as it was originally presented, though...I went to Fry's to buy it a week or two ago and the case had the "formatted to fit your screen" blurb on the back. 🙁

Edit - ...so I didn't buy it

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ObiDon

Originally posted by: snik

Originally posted by: Amused
Why Why WHY can't this be released in it's original aspect ratio of 1.85:1??? Pan and scan sucks big fat donkey dicks.

WTH are you smoking? Kubrick NEVER shot a movie other than full frame.

I'd like to see it as it was originally presented, though...I went to Fry's to buy it a week or two ago and the case had the "formatted to fit your screen" blurb on the back. 🙁

Yep, which makes me wonder if they took the 1.85:1 verson, and pan and scanned it rather than the open matte version. Like I said, it's open for debate. Some review sites swear it's been panned and scanned.

If you LOOK at the framing in the DVD, it's hard to imagine it being matted to 1.85:1 as it is presented on the DVD. That would cut off the tops of heads. Personally, I do not believe this is the open matte version.

 

[Kev]

whether its pan & scan or open matte, i would just want to have a widescreen version anyway... so when i buy my amazing home theater system with my amazing widescreen HDTV, the movie will take up the whole screen.

 

[ObiDon]

Why is this one $60?

In the available formats at the bottom of the page, it has "ws spec" in the description and there is a different cover for it but the aspect ratio is still listed at 1.33:1. 😕

Then again, it looks like they just slap descriptions together since the Spanish VHS description says "Number of Discs: 1" 😉

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ObiDon
Why is this one $60?

In the available formats at the bottom of the page, it has "ws spec" in the description and there is a different cover for it but the aspect ratio is still listed at 1.33:1. 😕

Then again, it looks like they just slap descriptions together since the Spanish VHS description says "Number of Discs: 1" 😉

No clue. Very strange indeed. I wonder if anyone can find a UPC code for this version.

It looks like the earlier version and the picture quality of this earlier version is much worse than the new one. Too much compression... and it shows.

 

[zCypher]

I didn't like that movie at all EXCEPT for the introduction up till when the drill sargeant gets shot by Private Lawrence (Pyle/"Fat-body").

Up to that point the movie is pure hilarity! It's like twenty minutes of constant laughter.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jacket1.html

 

[Electrode]

You seem to be forgetting the most important quote of them all:

"Private Pyle, I am giving you 3 seconds, exactly 3 f!cking seconds to wipe that goddamn ugly grin off your face or I will gouge out your eyes and skull f!ck you!"

Cracks me up every time I hear it. 🙂

 

[Encryptic]

"How tall are you, private?"

"Six feet, SIR!"

"Six feet?! I didn't know they stacked sh*t that high!