Barry Lyndon

[RegularKarate]

Who is this angry little man?

Can someone with more knowledge in projectionist history explain "and in no event at less than 1.75 to 1."?

I used to be a projectionist and have worked with some older projectors.
From what I understand, the standard back then for European projectors was 1:1.75  "FLAT".  They would have had to have an older projector in order to project at 1.66 and in the states, the minimum they would be able to handle is 1:1.85. So how could he expect it not to be "less"?  at least in the states.

I'll ignore that he wrote "1-1:75" when the correct way is "1:1.75" (though that seems odd for a stickler like Kubrick), but why would he write a letter telling everyone to project the film at a ratio that most theaters can't project at?

ALSO, if this was his intention, it seems he would be smart enough to know that if he had the film printed for 1.66 projection and that the majority of the world would see it projected at either 1.75 or 1.85, the image would be (slightly) distorted.  Why not just print the film for 1.85/1.75 projection and mask off the areas you don't want seen?

It seems ridiculous to call this letter a fake (mostly because it IS ridiculous to fake this letter), but I'm just a little confused by it. 

[cronopio 2]

you're good with words, RK.

[RegularKarate]

Ha, my gut reaction is to assume sarcasm and get defensive. 
Instead, I'll say "thanks(?)".

[cronopio 2]

no, man. it's the second time in less than a week that i've congratulated you.
your last line over this thing is great.
WRITE A BOOK,MAN.

[Ravi]

I used to be a projectionist and have worked with some older projectors.
From what I understand, the standard back then for European projectors was 1:1.75  "FLAT".  They would have had to have an older projector in order to project at 1.66 and in the states, the minimum they would be able to handle is 1:1.85. So how could he expect it not to be "less"?  at least in the states.

I don't know if 1.75:1 was in use in the US in the 1970s, but MGM and Disney adopted the aspect ratio in the 1950s for flat, non-Panavision (anamorphic) films.

Barry Lyndon looked fine at 1.77:1 on the Blu-Ray, which is negligibly wider (shorter, really) than 1.75:1.

[Alexandro]

As usual, the real problem is the studio being cheap and not releasing the film in both versions. One for the obsessives and one for the people like myself who will enjoy it anyway. Or at least to be able to see the difference. How hard can it be? And will fans of fucking Barry Lyndon won't pay a little extra for a blu ray with both versions?
It's just fucking stupid.

[DocSportello]

That moment when at the party you've thrown, out of all the movies in a generous stack, a guy comments on your Barry Lyndon blu-ray.

[ono]

What did he say?

[Pubrick]

"This party is so fucking boring that if you were to play Barry Lyndon right now everyone in the room would shit their pants with excitement."

[Reel]

What did he say?

"Why don't I own this??"


I played Barry Lyndon at the end of a party once with the sound off. Great way to get everyone to leave.

[DocSportello]

He basically just said it was one of his favorites and commented on the use of lenses and lighting in the film. When I asked what other movies he's in to he said Robocop, a movie I have never seen for some reason. He said he loves it for it's satiric undertones. He was cool.

[socketlevel]

The uncut Robocop is amazing, sounds like a solid dude. wide enough palette to have a good conversation.

[Alethia]

This is a slightly older pic of the one-sheet we commissioned, still a *tad* rough - it's been touched up since, but this is the general gist.

[WorldForgot]

That's really fkn cool !