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

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Crawford, Apr 11, 2013.

Tags:
?

Which of the three options below would you choose to purchase "Shane" on Bluray?

  1. Shane with 1.66:1 Aspect Ratio Only

    13 vote(s)
    8.2%
  2. Shane with 1.37:1 Aspect Ratio Only

    32 vote(s)
    20.1%
  3. Shane with both, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 Aspect Ratios

    114 vote(s)
    71.7%
  1. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    I think he said he'd be happy with both, so was in agreement with the poll.

    It certainly appears that JW's efforts managed to garner support from both Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, and this may well have been at least part of the reason for the change of heart.

    I don't agree with all of his comments, but this sort of 'attention seeking' should be supported. Without it we may not have had Shane on Blu-ray in the originally intended ratio.

    You may say that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but it would seem churlish to criticise a malfunctioning timepiece even on those two chronologically serendipitous occasions.

    Steve W
     
  2. HDvision

    HDvision Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    All in all, it's interesting that for this release, the theatrical aspect ratio have been decided wrong (damn history, let's restore the "original intent") to wide, sorry, boxy acclaim, whereas if George Lucas did it, there would be hell to pay.

    It's not like the filmmaker was fleeced and the film was taken out of his hands.

    There should be both versions on the release.
     
  3. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    David, I think your comments about the re-framing of most films for video release are both interesting and refreshing.

    I don't find it helpful to regularly allude to JW's 'boxy us beautiful' mantra (either in agreement or disagreement) - surely all aspect ratios can be beautiful - and I don't think that wanting Shane primarily in 1.37:1 makes anyone a Wells disciple.

    I don't have the same experience of film-to-video transfer as yourself or RAH, but everything I've seen of both original elements and their eventual Blu-ray Disc releases suggests to me that most 1.37:1 Blu-ray Disc releases conform fairly closely to the safe projected area of a 35mm frame.

    I think we probably agree that what was seen in the cinemas has its own historical worth, but a director's intention must remain paramount. I doubt very much that the eventual Blu-ray Disc release of Shane will be very far from the image George Stevens would have expected and intended audiences to see when he shot the film, and closer than the 1.66:1 version which was prepared. But I await the results, and your informed comments, with interest.

    Steve W
     
  4. HDvision

    HDvision Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    The 1.66:1 was the director's intention too, it's a bit like doing a director's cut, then shortening it because the market demands it right before release.

    If the director's cut reappears later, great, but the original should still remain available on home video.

    That's why I champion a release with both formats, and probably why in the poll most agree. Both are valid, one for historical accuracy, the other for the original intent. If one or the other is released, we all lose. We need them both.
     
  5. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    I wonder why both versions are not being included.

    It's a 2 hour film (almost to the minute). Bonnie & Clyde is almost two hours long and only takes up around 17gb. It looks great, too! I would have thought that you could fit a great-looking Shane on to a 50gb Blu-ray Disc twice.

    Steve W
     
  6. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,438
    Likes Received:
    4,796
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I'm pretty sure it has to come down to cost and how much they charge us. Right now, the SRP is 19.98, you include two versions of film like Laura with Fox then you're looking at 24.98. Criterion with the 3 different versions of OTW is more expensive than their usual BD releases.
     
    Cine_Capsulas likes this.
  7. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,438
    Likes Received:
    4,796
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Bob,

    Are you still posting your article?
     
  8. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,438
    Likes Received:
    4,796
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
  9. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,797
    Likes Received:
    5,328
    Yes, the article is going to document the widescreen release of SHANE in 1953. There's a lot of research involved and I'm still working on it.

    In my discussions with Mr. Stevens, he was always very cordial. He gave me permission to quote him before the recent New York Post interview. That's why I put up the preview page on our website. In fact, Mr. Stevens gave me a nice quote on the widescreen article which is now at the top of that page.

    http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation
     
  10. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,797
    Likes Received:
    5,328
    Scorsese replied to Wells?
    Did I miss something?
     
  11. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,438
    Likes Received:
    4,796
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Thanks Bob, I am really looking forward to reading the completed article.
     
    JohnRa likes this.
  12. John Hodson

    John Hodson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,530
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    Possibly a restraining order...
     
  13. Mark-P

    Mark-P Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    937
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    I think the reason Warner is choosing not to release both versions on a single disc, is because that would require dual-layer which would add to the cost and they had already priced the disc based on producing a single layer disc.
     
  14. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    2,265
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    No, you didn't miss anything. I think Steve from Yorkshire likes to just post things, but Scorsese never responded to Wells yea or nay. :)
     
  15. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,797
    Likes Received:
    5,328
    Thanks, I didn't think he had gotten a response!
     
  16. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    Apologies, I saw Scorsese mentioned in that article and presumed he must have.

    But no, I don't 'like to just post things'.

    Steve W
     
  17. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,438
    Likes Received:
    4,796
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    No question about it that cost is the main reason we're getting just the 1.37 version.
     
  18. HDvision

    HDvision Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    I think we should contact Warner and ask for authorisation to put up a Kickstarter fund, to get the 1.66:1 version.
     
  19. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    919
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    Great, they can use the leftover Veronica Mars money for it.
     
  20. Jeffrey Nelson

    Jeffrey Nelson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,070
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Real Name:
    Jeffrey Nelson
    1.66:1 was NOT the director's intention. He had to reframe it because it was going out that way whether he liked it or not. You're incorrect. Granted, it'd be cool to have it included for those who don't mind visually compromised presentations of films, but if there's going to be only one version represented, the Academy Ratio version is the correct choice.
     

Share This Page