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. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,246
    Likes Received:
    4,621
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I know some have already acknowledged their intentions. However, based on the poll so far, my next poll will be on who's buying this 1.66:1 ratio BD on June 4th?
     
  2. Joe Bernardi

    Joe Bernardi Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Sarasota, Florida
    Real Name:
    Joe Bernardi
    I voted for both; don't know why having a choice wouldn't make most people happy.

    However, I have preordered Shane Blu-ray on Amazon.com.
     
  3. Adam_S

    Adam_S Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    113
    Real Name:
    Adam_S
    Since the film isn't that great, I wouldn't spend much on the title, so if it were more expensive because it were two disc or had both ratios, I wouldn't buy that. If I had to choose between the two, I'd buy the widescreen presentation, which represents the original theatrical release of a film that was a cornerstone of the widescreen revolution, and a film whose widescreen version hasn't been properly presented on home video ever.
     
  4. JSul

    JSul Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    5
    I vote for Academy....but in order to get it, will accept the widescreen version too.
     
  5. David_B_K

    David_B_K Advanced Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    365
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Real Name:
    David
    I voted for both. Release of the 1.66:1 version alone is my least favored option.
     
  6. Professor Echo

    Professor Echo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    1,035
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Glen
    One of my all time favorite novels, I've read it multiple times, but one of my least favorite western films and directors, though it's beautifully cast. So I won't be buying any version, but just for academic sake, I voted for both. I think that SHOULD please casual and dedicated fans while appeasing the marketing department at Warners who are no doubt hoping and praying that the coveted demographic of 18-34 will somehow mistake this as a new video game. ;)
     
  7. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    8,349
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    Brandon Conway
    I voted both, but I will be buying the 1.66:1 only release. More options is always a plus, but I'm OK with purchasing a disc with just the premiere theatrical AR being the only version on the disc. The only version of the title I would not purchase is 1.33:1 only.
     
    Moe Dickstein likes this.
  8. Vegas 1

    Vegas 1 Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 1999
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Real Name:
    Alvin Kuenster
    I voted for both, I would imagine most of if not all already have the SDDVD of Shane, so as someone mentioned above who will pickup the BR. I know I will so I can have both ratios.
     
  9. Mark-P

    Mark-P Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,005
    Likes Received:
    879
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    While I voted for "both", if my only choice were 1.37:1 or 1.66:1, I'd go for 1.66:1.
     
  10. WadeM

    WadeM Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    962
    Likes Received:
    50
    1.37:1 is what was intended and is all that matters in my book. I remember seeing a film sometime in the last few years that was projected in the wrong aspect ratio in my local theater, but that doesn't make me want that on the blu-ray.
     
  11. ahollis

    ahollis Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,501
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Real Name:
    Allen
    I voted for both for I think both are historically accurate. Even though there can be anargument that the 1.66 is not what was seen at its release.
     
  12. Jack Theakston

    Jack Theakston Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    61
    Real Name:
    Jack Theakston
    I voted for both, so long as the 1.37-1 version is available.
     
  13. Persianimmortal

    Persianimmortal Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Real Name:
    Koroush Ghazi
    I voted for both, but I'll buy the widescreen version if it's the only version that comes out.

    While a set with both versions would be ideal, it's not the worst thing in the world to be able to see Shane in HD the way it was first presented theatrically.
     
  14. Charles Smith

    Charles Smith Extremely Talented Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Location:
    Nor'east
    Real Name:
    Charles Smith
    This is off topic, but I wonder why I keep getting this thread showing up in bold, meaning "new response(s)", but seeing the same last response over and over. This has been happening ever since the first two replies.

    Oh -- got it. I think. It's reflecting an additional vote, if not an actual response.
     
  15. dana martin

    dana martin Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    640
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Real Name:
    Dana Martin
    voted for both, but would pefer 1:37:1 as originaly intended, i understand WB and Paramount's decision, as trying to release it as it was shown in theaters, well with WB doing the distribution, does that mean that we might see Hondo in 3D some time soon?
     
  16. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    I think you forgot 2.20:1. Or is Todd AO/ Super Panavision 70 not a proper aspect ratio?

    Doug
     
  17. Keith Cobby

    Keith Cobby Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    759
    Location:
    Kent "The Garden of England", UK
    Real Name:
    Keith Cobby
    Doug, my list wasn't meant to be comprehensive which is why I suffixed it with 'etc'. My point was really that I don't consider 1.66 to be widescreen.
     
  18. Persianimmortal

    Persianimmortal Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Real Name:
    Koroush Ghazi
    If it's wider than a 1950's TV screen, it's widescreen. That was, after all, the intention of widescreen. Obviously the term's taken on different connotations since then with the plethora of ever-wider aspect ratios.
     
  19. Douglas Monce

    Douglas Monce Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,514
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sorry I didn't see the ...etc.

    Doug
     
  20. Stephen_J_H

    Stephen_J_H All Things Film Junkie
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,159
    Likes Received:
    643
    Location:
    North of the 49th
    Real Name:
    Stephen J. Hill
    My reason for voting both is for comparison and curiosity. i want to be able to see the impact of 1.66:1 on the overall picture.
     

Share This Page