KalMart
239-Bean Irish Chili
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 16,733
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 58
If you're referring to the BluRays with the 'original aspect ratios' that are pillared, the entire film was shot with that intended aspect ratio...not a mix of that and 2.35 or 1.78. Apples and oranges...but nice try nonetheless.I guess Stanley Kubrick isn't worth his weight in salt then according to you.
It's meant to be done as much as the format allows while still maintaining a constant width...it was not meant to fully simulate the IMAX experience, since the screen cannot suddenly increase in height to a full 1.44:1 while keeping the same picture width (which would entail doing it properly). If you notice on the actual BD box/case, it does not advertise itself as 'the IMAX edition', or what have you.The version on Blu-ray is already adjusted to accommodate the IMAX shots so why not do it properly? Cropping a 1.44:1 image to 1.78:1 adds NOTHING to watching TDK on Blu-ray.
It's not 'the IMAX cut', nor is it intended to be a full simulation of an IMAX viewing....that was for IMAX theaters. Think, McFly.To put it lightly, there shouldn't be an IMAX cut if you don't want to show it in it's OAR. If you're going to crop the image and concerned about the "PRESENTATION" you crop it or matte it to 2.35:1. Do one or the other. WB did what they did exactly because of people like you who complain about the "black bars."

Last edited:



t: