Warner Unveils Aggressive Catalog Initiative for 2006 (1 Viewer)

[Christopher Lee]

Fantastic news about the Kubrick films: has there been any indication as to when they will be released or what they will contain? I have been trying to find anything on these releases from Leon Vitale, but to no avail. I suppose the biggest question, as always, will be "will The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut include a version of the films that preserve the 1.85:1 mattes used for the theatrical aspect ratio?" From interviews at the time of the second box set release, Mr. Vitale suggested that this would never happen, as it would oppose Kubrick's instructions as to the presentation of his work. However, now that television sets are growing more rectangular and better re-create the dimensions of a theater screen, are Kubrick's instructions still valid? The fact remains that he composed his shots in camera and prefered the open matte presentation, as that was how he designed his work, and that he only added the mattes for theatrical exhibition as a matter of necessity. Any information or thoughts on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

CLD

 

[John Hodson]

I read some scuttlebutt a while ago that said Warners would include both open-matte and matted versions to fend off any criticism (and possibly at the insistance of the Kubrick Estate).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

good...

because:


He could have easily "pillarboxed" for 1.33 if he really wanted that aspect ratio and composition for the theater...just like new prints of GWTW, Wizard of oz, or even Blair Witch.

If Kubrick thought that it would be "better" to go matted for a wide-angle large-screen venue like a theater, then IMHO a 1080P large-screen home-theater is no-less appropriate for 16x9 matting.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I saw a lot of titles to spend $$$$ on, but several wanted titles unannounced. Hopefully they will get an announcement & release later. These include:

1. "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (With Technicolor inserts included)
2. "San Francisco"
3. "Red Dust"
4. "Marie Antoinette"
5. "The Prisoner of Zenda" (Both Films like the LD)
6. "Rich and Famous" (With Jacqueline Bisset)
7. "Crossing Delancey"

And I'm hoping against hope that "Grand Prix" has a director's commentary. (Hopefully recorded before his death).

 

[dana martin]

I am waiting to see what they do with the Kubrick's as well, my question is are the SE's going to be released as BD as well, that would make me consider buying that version.

 

[Christopher Lee]

David, I think you will find this of interest. In regards to the theatrical presentations, here is Leon Vitali's response (second paragraph in particular):


Vitali first met Kubrick when he won the role of Lord Bullingdon in Barry Lyndon. After that experience, Vitali decided that he would much prefer working behind the camera, and Kubrick hired him to work on his next film, The Shining. From that point forward, Vitali was essentially Kubrick's "right-hand man" up to his death, and he continues to oversee the presentation of Kubrick's films (it was he who handled the restorations for the second boxed set).

CLD

 

[Charles Ellis]

Well, here's my piece. There are a lot of good selections here, BUT:

Regarding the Bette Davis set: why
Old Acquaintance and not the superior All This And Heaven, Too?

Where's Caged? It was supposed to be out in '05!!

As to the pre-code set- is Five Star Final part of it? It was a Best Picture Oscar nominee!

And don't get me started with WBHV releasing Night Of The Lepus while the two Dark Shadows films are still waiting in the vaults- ARRRRRGH!!!

How about some of the films Howard Hughes did at RKO starring Jane Russell:

His Kind Of Woman
Macao
Underwater
The French Line -with the uncensored version of Janes "Lookin' For Trouble" number with the CLOSEUPS on Jane as she does her then-risque soliloquy (supposedly written by HH himself!) on the opposite sex.

I second the motion for more classic silents- include Love with Garbo & Gilbert with the others.

Lastly, where's Kings Row???

 

[JeremyErwin]

I wonder what Kubrick thought of Super35.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There is always a "BUT" when it comes to dvd releases. Someway, somehow there is always going to be somebody that wants more than what's being offered.





Crawdaddy

 

[Jeff_HR]

When a company gets this deep into their catalog, I believe a little "I Want", is justified. At least in my case, the titles have been released to Video before, so someone thought that they would sell a couple of units. It is not like I'm asking for a title that has never seen the light of day since its initial theatrical release.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Hold it-- 4:3 isn't 1.66. It's 1.33.

 

[Michael Allred]

I still get a bit worried that Warner seems to focus so much of their time/money for "classic" titles.

I know those kind of films have their fans and I don't begrudge them for having their fav titles be treated in such a lavish way but not everyone cares for them (myself included.) Occasionally it seems like Warner takes something of an elite attitude towards the "classic" stuff and looks down their noses at certain films from the past 20 years (comedies, horror.)

Yes, "Spies Like Us" isn't "King Kong" and nobody is asking Warner to treat it as such but for those who'd like to buy it on DVD, we'd like *some* attention paid.

As I stated in a previous post, just re-release some of those films in their OAR on DVD and I think that'd make an awful lot of us happy.

 

[Christopher Lee]

Mr. Vitali was speaking of A Clockwork Orange at that point, which was intended for a 1.66:1 theatrical display. The later films (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut) were shot for full frame and then matted to 1.85:1 for theatrical display. As the exhibitors moved towards the 1.85:1 general standard, Kubrick realized that he could no longer effectively utilize 1.66:1 even if he wanted to (in the last paragraph, Mr. Vitali seems to be accidentally equating 1.66:1 with full frame, no doubt due to the prior discussion of A Clockwork Orange and the problems they encountered screening it in the 1.85:1 world).

CLD

 

[Robert Crawford]

I never said asking for certain titles isn't justified. My point is that there will always be certain titles not available that somebody will want on dvd which is why the word "BUT" will always be associated with any video format releases.





Crawdaddy

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Christopher,

thanks for posting that.


That ignores the fact that if 1.33:1 was the 'intended' aspect ratio the prints could simply have been pillarboxed into a standard 1.85:1 print(like the examples I gave, including Blair Witch) which would mean that theaters would have projected in simple 1.85:1 fashion without any added complication or issues on the projection side. The complexity of 1.66:1 presentation in the U.S. is moot in regards to what I'm saying.

Ok...I'll stop now...back on topic...sorry for the hijack!

dave

 

[JeremyErwin]

My favorite bit from that Vitali interview:

 

[dana martin]

i love how passionate everyone is about Kubrick's work, and after all the aspect ratio arguments, the true beauty of all of it is that i know that i am not going to be seeing a so called special extended with 3 seconds of film directors cut, i honestly think those are getting really out of hand, now if it is restoring a print that was precode, that makes a difference, if it was something like what happened to Star Trek TMP, or Donner cut of Superman, that is fine. Nice thing with Kubrick's work, what you see is all there is, because he burned the rest!

 

[JeremyErwin]

Or rather, Vitali burned the rest.

 

[Charles Ellis]

Thanks to coming to my defense, Jeff! I'm sure I'm not the only one with a "but", and there was no need to single me out, Mr. Crawford.

BTW, what about a much-needed widescreen SE of The Bridges of Madison County???

 

[Jeff_HR]

I'll add "Twilight's Last Gleaming" to my list since this is supposed to be in the pipeline somewhere but with no place to pop out yet.