Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66? (1 Viewer)

[DVDvision]

Oh yes, DoctorRossi, I master the english language, but sometimes get confused on terms. Even in my native french.

As I said if you choose to approximate the "supposed" framing (because there's no pirate cam reference of it), say by centering the image to 1.66, and find it doesn't work on all shots, you end up with a backlash like Curse Of Frankenstein, where some shots just look wrong.

So you have to adjust to what you think is best. In the end, there's only one, or a couple of guys, responsible for the framing at the transfer stage. You have to trust their choices if the end result is good looking, and blast them if it's wrong.

"Historical accuracy" framing can't be really done in this case because there's no documentation of how the projectionists would show the film (unless I'm mistaken), it may have been center crop, or like a common top crop (ie adjusted towards the top of the frame), we don't know.

 

[John Hodson]

I've been wondering about such too as I can't believe the founder of the American Film Institute would do anything to counter what that fine institution stands for.

Just a reminder, according to Jeffrey Wells:

...Stevens also told me yesterday afternoon that a 1.37 version (which he called “an Academy aspect ratio version matching the original”) had been prepared for high-def/Bluray viewing. But he said that he was very satisfied with the look of the 1.66 version. and that “given the choice of having a 1:37 version placed in the center of a horizontal television screen with bars on each side, or a carefully configured 1:66 to 1 version that filled the screen, I am confident George Stevens would subscribe to the latter.”

According to Wells, the founder of the AFI simply wants to fill his widescreen TV. Which is flabbergasting.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

Article coming soon...

 

[Stephen_J_H]

This sounds about right, and reminds me of the detailed instructions that went out with certain features as late as the early 2000s. When working part-time as a projectionist at a 14 screen megaplex, we received bulletins on a regular basis, ranging from the "don't panic" bulletin due to changing aspect ratios on Brother Bear, to the communique from Fox and Lucasfilm instructing operators to crank the amplifier to reference volume on Dolby Surround EX presentations of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. I doubt the projectionist would ride the framing knob for the best possible framing of each scene.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

Article coming soon...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Just a reminder, according to Jeffrey Wells:

...Stevens also told me yesterday afternoon that a 1.37 version (which he called “an Academy aspect ratio version matching the original”) had been prepared for high-def/Bluray viewing. But he said that he was very satisfied with the look of the 1.66 version. and that “given the choice of having a 1:37 version placed in the center of a horizontal television screen with bars on each side, or a carefully configured 1:66 to 1 version that filled the screen, I am confident George Stevens would subscribe to the latter.”

According to Wells, the founder of the AFI simply wants to fill his widescreen TV. Which is flabbergasting.

According to Wells, which isn't the best source I would take for granted.

 

[bujaki]

A story I experienced regarding another 35mm screening of a Paramount/Stevens 1.37 classic, A Place in the Sun. I went to a respected venue equipped to screen films in most ratios, including Academy, so imagine my surprise when Place started in 1.85. I went to the manager, who checked with the projectionist, who told me the leader in the film stated it should be shown in 1.85. I argued, pointlessly, that the film was released in 1951, prior to the widescreen revolution. But since someone at Paramount had attached instructions to show the film in 1.85, I was ignored. Not wanting to see the director's careful compositions butchered, I asked for my money back.
The moral of the story: even the studio can send out the wrong information to the projectionist.

 

[John Hodson]

According to Wells, which isn't the best source I would take for granted.

Granted; but seeing as he's the source here, this whole thing is practically 'according to Wells'.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Granted; but seeing as he's the source here, this whole thing is practically 'according to Wells'.

You can believe what you like, but I'm going to give George Stevens Jr. the benefit of the doubt based on his lifelong work in film preservation that he wouldn't do anything to harm his father's film legacy.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

A story I experienced regarding another 35mm screening of a Paramount/Stevens 1.37 classic, A Place in the Sun. I went to a respected venue equipped to screen films in most ratios, including Academy, so imagine my surprise when Place started in 1.85. I went to the manager, who checked with the projectionist, who told me the leader in the film stated it should be shown in 1.85. I argued, pointlessly, that the film was released in 1951, prior to the widescreen revolution. But since someone at Paramount had attached instructions to show the film in 1.85, I was ignored. Not wanting to see the director's careful compositions butchered, I asked for my money back.
The moral of the story: even the studio can send out the wrong information to the projectionist.

In repertory bookings, yes. I saw many widescreen films shown full-frame in New York City over the years.

But in 1953/54, I would say no. They were VERY specific to point out the intended ratio for anyone playing these first run.

 

[John Hodson]

You can believe what you like, but I'm going to give George Stevens Jr. the benefit of the doubt based on his lifelong work in film preservation that he wouldn't do anything to harm his father's film legacy.

I can choose to believe - or not - the facts that have been offered thus far. Nobody has countered Wells' assertion that the BD will only consist of a reframed 1.66:1 version of the film. I honestly don't care how well achieved such a version is - it truly beggars belief that Stevens has no issues with that. But that's where we are right now.

 

[Eastmancolor]

You can believe what you like, but I'm going to give George Stevens Jr. the benefit of the doubt based on his lifelong work in film preservation that he wouldn't do anything to harm his father's film legacy.

You can work in film preservation and have your heart in the right place and still do plenty of damage to a legacy.

Again, the answer to all of this is to offer both the 1.37 and 1.66 versions in the same package. Actually, the best answer to this is to not tamper with the film at all.

Just about every film released after mid-1953 was shown in some sort of faux widescreen during it's initial release, whether it was composed for it or not. And you can bet some theatre, somewhere, went so far as to run SHANE in 2.1 ratio. Theatre owners were doing everything they could to bring folks back into their theatres and these widescreen "cheats" were common.

Personally I think the rule of thumb should be to present a film in whatever aspect ratio the DP and the director composed for it during production. Not what the front office later decided to present it in. Or the director's son thought it should be 60 years later.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

Article coming soon...

 

[John Hodson]

I agree that the directors intended compositions should always be respected, but here is a unique case: an important film that played the most prestigious venues in the country in widescreen.

I absolutely agree; and I apologise for repeating this, but that's why the set should comprise principally of two versions - of the film as originally composed in Academy *and* as premiered in 1.66:1. They want to chuck in a third option of a newly reframed 1.66:1 version, that's fine. But it's low man on the totem as far as I'm concerned; it's not the film Stevens and Griggs shot, not the film that won an Oscar.

If this was simply the version of Shane that audiences saw in 1953 in widescreen, I'd be unhappy and I'd still be lobbying hard for the inclusion of the Academy version, but I *would* buy it.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

Article coming soon...

 

[haineshisway]

Has it been confirmed there won't be two versions included? Because until it is, all this upset is kind of meaningless.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Just a reminder, according to Jeffrey Wells: ...Stevens also told me yesterday afternoon that a 1.37 version (which he called “an Academy aspect ratio version matching the original”) had been prepared for high-def/Bluray viewing. But he said that he was very satisfied with the look of the 1.66 version. and that “given the choice of having a 1:37 version placed in the center of a horizontal television screen with bars on each side, or a carefully configured 1:66 to 1 version that filled the screen, I am confident George Stevens would subscribe to the latter.” According to Wells, the founder of the AFI simply wants to fill his widescreen TV. Which is flabbergasting.

Not really - sounds a lot like Kubrick, who wanted people's TV screens filled, hence his 4x3 open matte edicts. James Cameron also was a big proponent of films being intelligently reframed to have the best possible impact on the home screen, so it doesn't blow my mind to think that given the two options above, the filmmaker might endorse the 1.66 version that would fill current screens.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You can work in film preservation and have your heart in the right place and still do plenty of damage to a legacy.

Again, the answer to all of this is to offer both the 1.37 and 1.66 versions in the same package. Actually, the best answer to this is to not tamper with the film at all.

Just about every film released after mid-1953 was shown in some sort of faux widescreen during it's initial release, whether it was composed for it or not. And you can bet some theatre, somewhere, went so far as to run SHANE in 2.1 ratio. Theatre owners were doing everything they could to bring folks back into their theatres and these widescreen "cheats" were common.

Personally I think the rule of thumb should be to present a film in whatever aspect ratio the DP and the director composed for it during production. Not what the front office later decided to present it in. Or the director's son thought it should be 60 years later.

I don't think that's going to happen though.

Just about everybody in this thread agrees that two versions should be on this BD.

The rule of thumb to me is how the director wants to present his film. For me, that is the question I want answered about Shane. There will be major disagreements with how a film should be presented because directors, due to circumstances, sometimes change their minds while the studios in most situations own the films and then there is a vocal segment of the general public that believes the film belongs to them.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

As I've shown, Stevens was involved with publicity for the film and would have been very closely involved in the first few months of 1953 when the decision was made to send it out in widescreen.
Surely, there must be some quotes from him. Somewhere...

 

[Mark-P]

What I hadn't realized until seeing Bob's vintage advertisements was that Shane was originally released with a stereophonic soundtrack. Does that survive? The Paramount DVD had a "Dolby surround" mix in addition to a mono mix but I was under the impression that that was a remix created specifically for the DVD.