captveg wrote:pro-bassoonist wrote:It is hardly as shameful as you suggested (here and elsewhere). Dr. Amicus actually makes a very good point, as a number of films from the era were matted in 1.66:1 for theatrical release.
Pro-B
The purpose of Home Theater is to recreate the theater experience. Many films are shot to be "safe" when opening up the mattes. That doesn't make it true to the intended theatrical representation.
If the filmmakers make the decision themselves, then fine. But otherwise the BD should represent the theatrical presentation.
In the case of Kubrick, his comments were in regard to 4:3 TVs that were standard definition. Now that those are no longer the industry norm, his estate went back to the theatrical aspect ratios.
With Mackendrick no longer with us, StudioCanal should have gone with the theatrical 1.66:1, as they didn't have anyone to ask if the open matted non-theatrical presentation was preferred. At least to my knowledge.
(The same post I left for you elsewhere):
This is certainly an interesting observation, but not something I could agree with.
The
theater experience, as you refer to it, isn't a standard, it is a preference. For example, during the 60s, a number of European directors shot in 1.66:1, yet their films were shown in America - theatrically - in different ratios. Some were even reshot -- take a look at
La Piscine - with entirely new audio tracks.
Out of curiosity -- do you know how Godard's
Éloge de l'amour was shot, how it was screened in Europe, how it was screened in the U.S., and with what aspect ratios the film appeared on SDVD in France/UK and the U.S.?
Now, in this case,
The Ladykillers was shot in 1.33:1 and matted to 1.66:1 due to technical limitations. With other words, precisely because Mr. Mackendrick is no longer with us, I find comments such as
shameful to be unjustified.
Pro-B
