CTHE Press Release: Dr. Strangelove 40th Anniversary (1 Viewer)

[Vincent_P]

So we agree to disagree, Juan. I never said THE SHINING looked bad or wrong in 1.85:1- both times I saw it projected in 35mm that way, it looked and played wonderfully. However, I also think it works really well in full-frame, and don't agree that headroom alone makes a composition "bad", and even your example doesn't "prove" anything. It simply shows that the 1.85:1 version is tighter. In my opinion, both versions of that shot look OK, and don't forget that overall I agree with you re: THE SHINING and widescreen displays (like cinema showings, or when viewed in HD)- it SHOULD be shown in widescreen in such cases. My point was simply that think it looks good in full-frame, not that it should forever be seen that way. And I stand by my point that an IMAX DNR-blow-up would be incredible for this film

Vincent

 

[Rich Malloy]

Heh. You forgot the intended epilog where the US president and Soviet premier link arms and promise to put aside their petty differences and save the rainforests.

But seriously folks... is the "2001" rerelease just a rumor?

 

[ArthurMy]

The worst of the full-frame shots in The Shining, IMO, are in the office sequences at the beginning of the film, with Jack and Ullman.

 

[Juan C]

Point taken, Vincent.


Or One from the Heart.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

It is indeed, merely a rumour, ie. there has been no official press release from Warner Bros Home Video.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Thanks, Gordon. I'll keep hoping.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Just as a matter of interest, The Stanley Kubrick Archives will be published by Taschen in February.

It's, uh... BIG. Apparently.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

Good news, Gordon. Not wanting to threadfart but here's an article about the book :

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/exce.../show/1/81.htm

 

[Geoff_D]

I've gotten a look at this DVD. The new transfer, as RAH has noted, is very different from previous versions. Comparing it to the 'Collector's Edition', it's obvious that contrast levels have been reigned in considerably, and the bright look of previous versions has been replaced with an altogether darker, denser and more finely detailed image.

From one of Robert Harris' previous posts:

Man, what I'd give to have half of RAH's knowledge on all things film! As usual, he's right on the money. There's a shot of a stationary bomber on the tarmac of an air force base, with giant floodlights in the background. On the earlier edition, these lights are represented by giant blobs of illumination. On the new edition, you can make out the individual lights! And this is only one example.

The downside to the new transfer is the ever-present damage and debris on the film, which appears in exactly the same places as it does on the older 'Collector's Edition' transfer. It's a pity that Columbia couldn't have let Lowry loose on this, as a digital clean-up in conjunction with this new transfer would've made for the ultimate DVD presentation of Strangelove, not to mention future HD versions. Ah well.

 

[John Alderson]

Was there a different thread about this DVD after its release? If so I couldn't find it... otherwise, why did people stop talking about it?

Anyway, I finally got this DVD yesterday (the original was the 4th DVD I ever owned; I passed on all the other releases). While watching it last night, my wife turned to me and said, "This is a very pretty film... I never thought that before."

The improvement really hit me right from the opening disclaimer; rock solid and free of specks. I can't remember the last time I so eagerly inspected every frame of a film. The improvement in contrast just has to be seen to be believed. It was also much cleaner than I had expected; there is still a bit of dirt here and there, but mostly in the process shots.

I watched with the DD 5.1 soundtrack, and it rarely strayed from the front soundstage. The gunfight opened up a little, but not as much as I had feared (it's no Saving Private Ryan, thankfully). I did some A/B with the DTS track, and I'll be damned if I could hear a difference. I also compared it to the mono track, and I prefer the 5.1; it sounds warmer and the extra fullness sounds better, IMHO. It's not at all gimmicky, and it definitely respects the material.

As for the whole AR debate, I have to say I prefer the 1.66 transfer. The only time I got concerened with the framing was when part of the title of Buck's "World Targets in Megadeaths" was partially cut off (just the word "World"), but the full title could be seen later in another shot, so the gag is not lost. If any of you are holding off on this title because you believe the AR is wrong (even thought it really is the original theatrical ratio), you're missing out on the best this film has ever looked on a home format.

I first discovered this film 12 years ago in college; this is the most excited I've been about it since then.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Yeah, it's a great set: transfer; extras; packaging are all excellent. I just wish that Columbia put this kind of effort into more of their catalogue titles.

 

[Stephen PI]

I worked in the cutting rooms with Stanley and Ray on "The Shining" and there was definately markings on the steenbeck screen for 1.85:1. On one occasion, I recall, we were looking at a scene with Nicholson at the bar and his hands would move position from shot to shot, and I made a comment about it. They both quickly retorted with the statement that the continuity errors were below the 1.85 cutoff and would never be seen. So, at that stage, there was no thought of the film being exhibited, if ever, in fullframe.

 

[RobR]

Are the extras/featurettes captioned and/or English subtitled?

 

[ArthurMy]

Thank you, Stephen. I swear, I've told everyone over and over that the editor has said this repeatedly about The Shining's aspect ratio and no one wants to hear it. You should also post in the aspect ratio thread that's currently up.

As I've stated in that thread, the new The Stanley Kubrick Archives book is in my hands - and every storyboard for The Shining has 1:85 markings on it, and in Stanley's own notes pasted to the production painting of the Overlook, he clearly states that the film will be framed at 1:85 and protected for 1:37. Which simply means he framed his film to be projected at 1:85, and he protected the rest of the negative for broadcast and video. In 1990 he obviously preferred the broadcast and video to be open matte. None of us know what he would have preferred if he'd lived to know how good anamorphic DVDs would be.

But, there will still be those who say, "But Stanley wanted them open matte" Sorry, he may have wanted them that way for broadcast and video in 1990, but he framed his films for theatrical presentation, and that's how we should have them on DVD. And that's how we WILL have them on DVD - mark my words. They'll find some way to backtrack and justify why they wouldn't do them that way before - but we'll get them done correctly on the next release (coming sooner than you might imagine).

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Arthur,
There are two different issue at play. Did SK shoot/frame the Shining for 1.85 and protect for open matte? Yes. Unquestionably. IIRC, one can even see this on the "Making of the Shining" documentary available on the DVD. IIRC, they show either a video assist or editing bay monitor matted to the widescreen ratio. No reasonable person will contest this. It would have been commercially unwise to do otherwise. The same holds true for "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut".

The next question would be "how did he want these films shown on home video?". All available evidence suggests that he wanted them shown with the full exposed frame, even when letterboxing became common. While I don't necessarily share this preference, and I would welcome future editions at the 1.85:1 ratio, I don't feel compelled to rationalize his preference, either, and become suspicious when others without first hand knowledge try to do so. I certainly don't think that folks like Jan Harlan and Leon Vitali have been lying about it. If widescreen versions eventually get released, I will be happy to own them, as their representation of the original theatrical presentation is enough to legitimize them regardless of SK's expressed preferences.

Regards,

 

[Lyle_JP]

Not to beat a dead horse (since the threads on the first Stanley Kubrik Collection release drove this into the ground) but SK clearly disliked letterboxing because he found the black bars a distraction from the film. At the time of his death, there weren't enough 16:9 TVs in households for him to make an informed comment on the subject.

But since his only objection to a widescreen "The Shining" were black bars, and since the film was indeed meant to be shown at 1.85:1, then an anamorphic disc played on a 16:9 monitor with the film at 1.78:1 would certainly not seem to be against SK's wishes.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Wow! Do you really believe that he was incapable of making an informed comment on the subject of video transfers for widescreen televisions in 1999? There were certainly more widescreen televisions in the UK than in the USA, but even I was fully aware of the subject at the time. I guess we will have to agree to disagree about his level of ignorance at that time.

Regards,

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I am a qualified Medium (I hold a PhD) and last night, I conducted a seance and managed to contact Stanley Kubrick. But just as I was about to ask him how The Shining and Full Metal Jacket should be presented on DVD and future 16x9-compatible formats, my uncle Bert barged in through the back door, cursing about a seagull which had deficated on him and the Circle was broken. What a dick.

Looks like we'll never know the definitive answer regarding the aspect ratios...

 

[rich_d]

Thanks for trying Madame Blanche.

 

[ArthurMy]

In 1999 Mr. Kubrick was fully immersed in his film Eyes Wide Shut. Knowing what we know about Mr. Kubrick I don't imagine that he was thinking much about anything else, especially widescreen TVs. Just my opinion.

I completely understand your attitude, Ken - it is reasonably presented. But, I think if you'll revisit earlier threads you will see many many posts that are not reasonably presented and don't acknowledge the obvious - that these films were framed, storyboarded and shot for theatrical exhibition at 1:85.