Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (2 Viewers)

[Brandon Conway]

Far more complex. Basically every theatre would have a slightly different matte. With any theatre with a downward projection angle, literally projecting a trapezoid. And people are concerned with the different between 1.33 and 1.37...

RAH

Too true.

 

[Todd J Moore]

One thing that disturbs me about this is the fact that the person who "won"--who bullied WHV into releasing it "his" way--is also someone who has stated "who cares what the director wanted". That sets a sad and dangerous precedent. Hopefully WHV changes their mind or at the very least releases it both ways on Blu Ray. I was seriously interested in seeing the widescreen version for myself.

 

[FoxyMulder]

One thing that disturbs me about this is the fact that the person who "won"--who bullied WHV into releasing it "his" way--is also someone who has stated "who cares what the director wanted". That sets a sad and dangerous precedent. Hopefully WHV changes their mind or at the very least releases it both ways on Blu Ray. I was seriously interested in seeing the widescreen version for myself.

Am i right in thinking they were only going to release this widescreen instead of the original aspect ratio of 1.37:1, if so then its a good victory and we need more people prepared to "bully" these studio's, i wish someone would "bully" Universal to redo Spartacus.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

One thing that disturbs me about this is the fact that the person who "won"--who bullied WHV into releasing it "his" way--is also someone who has stated "who cares what the director wanted". That sets a sad and dangerous precedent. Hopefully WHV changes their mind or at the very least releases it both ways on Blu Ray. I was seriously interested in seeing the widescreen version for myself.

The difference is, in this case, he was right and did the movie and its fans a favor.

 

[David Weicker]

The difference is, in this case, he was right and did the movie and its fans a favor.

But he wasn't 'right'. We are not getting the original aspect. We are getting the open matte version. I'm sorry, but revisionist history doesn't impress me, nor does redefining terms. Next thing you know, we will have to start calling every 'director's cut' version the 'original' because that is what was shot. So Alien, Touch Of Evil, and numerous other films will now have a new original, instead of the original original.


David

 

[Ruz-El]

But he wasn't 'right'. We are not getting the original aspect. We are getting the open matte version. I'm sorry, but revisionist history doesn't impress me, nor does redefining terms. Next thing you know, we will have to start calling every 'director's cut' version the 'original' because that is what was shot. So Alien, Touch Of Evil, and numerous other films will now have a new original, instead of the original original.


David

I love how because Shane is being released in the format it was composed in instead of how it was reformatted for studio marketing purposes it now affects every film ever made since that's been released on home video. Because every film has exactly the same history and issues in it's creation I guess right?

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

But he wasn't 'right'. We are not getting the original aspect. We are getting the open matte version.

I beg your pardon.

We are getting the original format (1.37:1), just not the theatrical one (1.66:1).

 

[Mark-P]

Gosh I don't remember this much outcry over films that were actually composed for widescreen and being released open-matte on Blu-ray (Johnny Guitar and Suddenly)

 

[Robert Harris]

This thread has been taking odd twists and turns.The facts:Shane was designed and produced as a 1.37 production.Its release was delayed, and in the interim, the studios, which were up against a new competitor, and a free one at that, created the concept of wider and larger screens, in the hope of warding off TV.Both wider and larger screens had existed before, but this was a new marketing push.Shane, an extraordinary film, happened to be either in the right or wrong place at the time. It was an unfortunate test case, that was cropped to fit a new aspect ratio. What needs to be understood, is that Shane not only survived, and won kudos, not because of the wider aspect ratio, but rather, in a testament to the film's quality -- in spite of it.Paramount has supported some superb work on Shane, from a 4k scan, to a new digital recombine and color.The original scans were cropped to the proper aspect ratio, which is 1.37. Concurrent with that data, a crop was also performed to 1.66.The purpose of that crop, which was performed with the greatest respect toward the original, was to allow the film to be seen by the largest possible audience, while helping to pay for the restorative efforts, which come with a hefty price tag.As I understand the situation, the 1.66 master was created and dedicated toward broadcast, while the 1.37 was destined for DCP and home video.Why a 1.66 master was delivered for Blu-ray is an interesting question. I choose to think of it as an possible delivery error.When the 1.66 information initially came to light, no entity stood their ground, or was unwilling to discuss the situation. Wheels were moving to try and solve the problem. There were no wagons being formed into a circle.Mr. Wells and Hollywood Elsewhere, came to the defense of the film, and created huge public awareness. After that, things moved very quickly to correct the situation.The bottom line, as I now understand it, is that there was never an actual planned intent to release a Blu-ray in any other ratio than 1.37.Was the incorrect master shipped? Was there a communication failure?I have no idea. All that is known, as absolutes, is that two masters were prepared, for two different purposes, and somehow, things went off track. While it would have been interesting to see the film, lovingly maneuvered, shot by shot at 1.66, which was not as released in 1953, I'm thrilled that we'll receive a proper 1.37, as envisioned by the filmmakers in 1951.Will I tune in when the film finds its way to broadcast? Absolutely. I'm interested in seeing something close to the widescreen release, and how it has been handled.As to the missing dialogue, I've also received confirmation of a fix during re-records for the preservation project, based upon the DME.RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

And that's that!

Not really, more to come I'm sure.

 

[David Weicker]

Mr Harris,

In your last post, you kept using the phrase 'as I understand it' (or words to that effect). I'm curious, what is the source for your 'understanding'?I've seen nothing here that confirms or contradicts you, but you seem very assured in your post. Did I miss something official?



You also state that it won kudos "in spite of" being widescreen. Is this your opinion, or were there statements from '53 to this effect.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Mr Harris,

In your last post, you kept using the phrase 'as I understand it' (or words to that effect). I'm curious, what is the source for your 'understanding'?I've seen nothing here that confirms or contradicts you, but you seem very assured in your post. Did I miss something official?



You also state that it won kudos "in spite of" being widescreen. Is this your opinion, or were there statements from '53 to this effect.

I hope you don't expect him to name his source? Without little doubt, it's obviously somebody with the studio.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr Harris, In your last post, you kept using the phrase 'as I understand it' (or words to that effect). I'm curious, what is the source for your 'understanding'?I've seen nothing here that confirms or contradicts you, but you seem very assured in your post. Did I miss something official? You also state that it won kudos "in spite of" being widescreen. Is this your opinion, or were there statements from '53 to this effect.

Having gone through the process several times, I'm aware of the areas where problems can occur. It isn't difficult to follow a project through its steps, especially when so many voices are involved. Add to this, those such as Mr. Lumenick, who has official input...As to the 1953 theatrical, one would surmise that a film will be more comfortable as shot, than adapted. As I said, I'm interested in seeing the new 1.66, to see how natural it can be, when adapted with care and maneuverability.RAH

 

[Douglas Monce]

If I were a suspicious man, I'd say that Warner Bros is crazy like a fox. With all this controversy, they will sell 3 times as many units of this film!Doug

 

[John Hodson]

Add to this, those such as Mr. Limerick, who has official input...

There was a young man called LouWho saw Shane and decided to sueIt wasn't framed rightAnd gave him a frightIn the end had to buy not one, but twoIt's, ah, a work in progress...

 

[Robert Harris]

There was a young man called LouWho saw Shane and decided to sueIt wasn't framed rightAnd gave him a frightIn the end had to buy not one, but twoIt's, ah, a work in progress...

Coleridge would not be amused...

 

[Robert Harris]

If I were a suspicious man, I'd say that Warner Bros is crazy like a fox. With all this controversy, they will sell 3 times as many units of this film!Doug

Generally, publicity -- both negative and positive -- tend to carry a project, and help sales.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It would be a brilliant move on their part to now release both ratios on the same BD even if they charge another $5 on MSRP.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Having gone through the process several times, I'm aware of the areas where problems can occur. It isn't difficult to follow a project through its steps, especially when so many voices are involved. Add to this, those such as Mr. Limerick, who has official input...As to the 1953 theatrical, one would surmise that a film will be more comfortable as shot, than adapted. As I said, I'm interested in seeing the new 1.66, to see how natural it can be, when adapted with care and maneuverability.RAH

A person's name should be spelled right, Mr. Lumenick.

 

[DVDvision]

Mark, you don't get many people complaining about Johnny Guitar being cropped square on Blu-ray because the general consensus is that old movies are square.

Regarding Shane, I like to think it won kudos for being a great film, but being in widescreen too. I think the problem is here is that we have people substituting themselves to the director's intentions. I still haven't come across any document where George Stevens, whose next film was Giant, in, well, 1.66:1, affirms that the format was imposed by the studio and amounted to a butchery and that he wanted academy all along.

Plus we had the initial comments from George Stevens Jr. that the 1.66:1 would be how his father have chosen to present it today on home-video.

Was it a marketing, commercial move to release the movie in widescreen in 1953? Certainly. As most films are. They are marketed and commercial. It's the reality of hollywood. You can't take that away from the film and pretend to restitue an original intent in place of the actual release.

I have no problem with the original intent... just that here, it erases the original theatrical format from history.

Blu-ray and DVD prime intent is to documents theatrical cuts and formats. Alternate versions are a plus. The problem here is due to internet noise, we have an alternate that is now going to be released in place of the archival release. I don't care if it's the original intent, it's not what was released in theaters. (Thought I have an interest in seeing the academy version too and I welcome it, the theatrical ratio is the theatrical ratio, regardless of the original intented ratio).

Relegating the theatrical format to HDTV only is wrong.

It's like, if The Magnificent Ambersons was released in a restored cut, and the initial cut would be erased from history. That's wrong. Both versions should be available.


The poll shows 75% in favor of a release with both versions. Commercialy, releasing the academy version only, may be a bad move.

It will probably sells better as a double feature disc.