New Kubrick SE's

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Hmm ... earlier someone posted that they had FMJ in their hands and it was not anamorphic ... can anyone confirm one way or the other?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

The separate disc or the one in the box set?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

The Full Metal Jacket included in the box set IS ANAMORPHIC.

Also it is only included in the box set and isn't available as a seperate release. Any version seen on the shleves is the older release from 2001.

Hope that helps.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Again, withstanding whatever Warner might have said in an online chat, it was not made abundantly clear that the new BL and Lolita releases would simply be re-issues. You need only look back through this very thread, not to mention nearly every online discussion regarding the Kubrick re-releases, to see that there was not even a remote consensus on what these two re-releases would be. Believe me, I know because I searched high and low across every online discussion of this subject to find some definitive answer. The only consensus that these would simply be re-releases was equally speculative - ie "they're not part of the box set, so they must just be the same ones, but no one knows for sure"

Warner's own press-release only says that they would not be included in the boxset. And even including mention of these two additional films (with plot summaries) in the press release for the Kubrick box amounts to some caginess on Warner's part, if not outright disingenuousness.

Granted, the presumption that they were just re-packages turned out to be a good one, but it was not such a cut-and-dried presumption by any means either. And still a crappy move on Warner's part, in my opinion.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

WTB: deluxe ed. WS FMJ from boxset. please pm offers to sell. thanks.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I'm confused... why are the Bits reporting that people will be let down by the lack of Theatrical Cut for Eyes Wide Shut? It's my (possibly mistaken) understanding that the only difference were changes made to the film (the insertion of CG "actors") against the director's wishes.

Am I missing something here?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Yes, but the original press release stated that the new 2-disc set of EWS would include both cuts.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I am disappointed that the new DVD release of Eyes Wide Shut does not contain the American theatrical version. Given that the DVD contains only one version of the film, I am of course glad that it's the uncensored international version, but I would also like to have the American version, which was promised in Warner's promotions and is even listed on the back of the package!

John, it's not exactly the case that the changes were done against the director's wishes. Kubrick had already finished his final cut of the film when he died (though he was notorious for making changes to his films right up until the last minute, so it's likely that it might have changed further had he lived to see it released), but it had not yet been rated by the MPAA. When the MPAA gave it an "NC-17," Warner inserted the digital figures to obscure the more explicit sexual scenes. While Kubrick was no longer around to approve the final product, he did realize that the film was likely to get an "NC-17," and as he was contractually obligated to deliver an "R"-rated film, he had already discussed the idea of obscuring the action in this way.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I have yet to see one person effectively support why the American theatrical version should be desired. I mean, really, who gives a flying flip if it isn't there? With the unaltered international release now available, who in their right mind would ever bother with the American release again?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

As I see it, why would I want a censored version rather than the one the filmmaker wanted to release? So, we agree.

However, to each his own. Some have a preference to seeing a film as they first saw it. Call it nostalgic, call it reliving that same experience, call it what you will. If Kubrick was okay with releasing a different version, to my mind it's flat out okay for someone to prefer that release.

I think what muddies the water for me is the censorship part. That I'm dead against. But artists do things against preference that is not censorship per se ... like a producer telling them what to do. Or even a filmmaker watching/listening to a test screening audience and deciding to make some changes on his own. Another example, people do prefer the voice-over in Blade Runner to Ridley Scott's preferred version without voice-over. It's also the way many first saw the film.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Because that's the way it was originally exhibited in theaters in the U.S., and that's the way that millions of people originally saw it. There was a great deal of controversy of the film at the time and like it or not, the R-rated version is a major part of the film's history. I, for one, would like to see it preserved as such.

I don't expect anyone to prefer it over the unrated version, but there's no reason that both versions couldn't be included--in fact, that's exactly what is listed on the pack of the packaging!

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I guess I can see for the sake of completeness that someone would want that.

However, even if it was on the disc, I'd never watch it so I couldn't care less if the edited version never saw the light of day again.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Did Warner resubmit the uncut version to the MPAA and get an R? If not, and the cut R version isn't on the disc, then to have the R rating logo on the packaging could get them in trouble (although I doubt the MPAA really cares). There have been quite a few unrated cuts showing up lately where the packaging still indicates R even though the films are the pre-censored versions.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Exactly my feelings as well. I have waited patiently for years for the unedited version. I refused to purchase the edited copy and if it was included here, it would never be watched. Mr. Kubrick would have placed extras in the frame if he wanted the action censored. He did not, so I do not want to see them either.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I'm not very satisfied with this counter-argument, in the sense that, taking your BLADE RUNNER example, for instance, between the theatrical and Director's Cut(s), there are actual narrative variations between the different versions. This is not the case with EYES WIDE SHUT. The only difference whatsoever between the theatrical and international releases is the digitally inserted figures over images of nudity and sexual conduct. Considering the subject matter with which the entire film concerns itself, if one is repelled or offended by such imagery, this wouldn't be their film of choice anyway, so I stand by my assertion that there is no satisfactory defense in retaining the American version, not even from a "historical preservation" angle, like cafink (over)asserts.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

The edited American version of the film is a part of the history of Eyes Wide Shut--a rather controversial film from one of the most important American directors. If one believes in "preserving" the history of a film on DVD, then of course the American version of EWS must be included, because it is a part of the film's history. What about this line of thought do you find "unsatisfactory"?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

As I stated, it only exists as a "veiled" version of the original edit--it has not been narratively altered, just cosmetically, so I believe informed discussion of the two edits can continue to be made in the years to come without Warner Bros. feeling obliged to actually produce discs no one will ever care to watch again.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Jeez, what next? Are people going to start whining when the edited-for-TV version isn't included? I swear, some people just love to hear themselves bitch.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

If a director was contractually obligated to deliver a film fit to air on network television, finished a too-explicit cut of said film, then died before having the opportunity to instate the appropriate edits, only to have the studio integrate his already-planned edits into the film posthumously, then yes, I would expect whining should that film later be released on DVD without the originally released version of the film, despite that version being listed among the press materials and on the actual DVD packaging.

But I don't know of any film where that's the case, so I don't think that's a very apt comparison.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I'm not really bummed about the missing American cut because 1) I don't have any interest in watch it and 2) Adding it to the disc could have caused some technical issues (branching glitches or over-compression).

However, I hope the censored cut is discussed in the extras and clips are shown of the digital changes.

As far as FMJ goes, can anyone speak to the new transfer and extras.

No one seems to be reviewing the disc.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I think he's making a comparison of a type of movie edit that no one would give too shits about with a type of movie edit that no one should give two shits about; ergo, I think it's most apt of a comparison.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

The new FMJ transfer looks A+. The parts of the commentary I listened to are good. It's a little awkward to hear R. Lee Ermey speak over his scenes with complete calmness.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

This box set has some of the worst packaging in recent memory. I could care less about the theatrical cut of Eyes Wide Shut, but if it's not included it shouldn't be advertised on the packaging. I hate sloppy rush jobs, especially for films such as these. Also the covers are awful. Why is the spine of The Shining different to the others? Why is "Eyes Wide" on one line and "Shut" on the next? Awful...

Re: New Kubrick SE's

That was his point as I understood it, as well. Since an edit planned by the director but ultimately completed without his participation due only to his untimely passing--the type of movie edit about which one might "give too shits"--is nothing like an edited-for-TV version--about which most would probably not give any shits--the comparison is quite inapt.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Fixed. Need to keep going with this pissing contest?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

As long as you're interested in acting like it's a "pissing contest" rather than as an actual discussion in which you contribute something more to the discourse than snide remarks, then no, I don't think there's any reason to continue.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

cafink, you have yet to bring a single defending point to the discussion, other than your "historical" argument, which I've already addressed and, furthermore, isn't even an issue since the American release is still in wide release on the original DVD for the three people on the planet who might still want it. I maintain that there is no compelling reason for Warner Bros. to continue being obligated to press a version of the film virtually no one will be interested in owning or watching now that the true version of the film is available in all regions. You want to have an engaging discourse, then bring something to the table, man.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

While I don't agree that the TV version comparison is apt, and I think it's entirely justifiable to be a bit ticked that the U.S. cut isn't on it as said on the case.

But I don't see the need for it to be on there anymore than the Casino Royale version should have the edited British censored version, or any other movies that have been have been censored in other countries.

The digital people were there for only one reason, to get an R rating in the States. In most other countries, they weren't there and were allowed the pleasure of seeing the uncut versions.

Would it make sense to demand that Anchor Bay (or someone) release the censored versions of Dario Argento's movies just because that's the way they were first shown in the U.S. and it's important that they be preserved, or how the many other countless movies that have been censored to appease the review board of whatever country (as the aforementioned Casino Royale cut)?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I wonder why you aren't arguing as vehemently for the inclusion of the European edit of THE SHINING, which runs some 25-minutes shorter than the U.S. release? After all, it was released in European movie theaters and all and is an important part of the movie's history...

Vincent

Re: New Kubrick SE's

If you've addressed my "historical" argument, I must have missed it. You have simply proclaimed that it's invalid, but you haven't defended that assertion, except to compare the R-rated version of Eyes Wide Shut to an edited-for-TV version of a movie (though you're not the one who originally drew the comparison, you were rather eager to go along with it).

I have already outlined the inadequacies of this comparison. Again, an edited-for-TV version of a movie is generally not:

- Contractually required of the director,
- Exhibited as the primary theatrical release in the film's country of origin, or
- Specifically planned by the director, who does not oversee the final editing himself only because he is dead.

Eyes Wide Shut is obviously a special case, because it's not every day that a director dies before finishing the film he is contractually obliged to deliver to the studio. Had Stanley Kubrick lived to see Eyes Wide Shut released, the unrated international version of the film is not what would have appeared in American cinemas. As I understand it, Kubrick himself had discussed using digital figures to obscure the more explicit sexual action of the film, should the MPAA rate his initial version "NC-17," which he certainly thought possible if not likely. Therefore, the R-rated version of the film is, if anything, closer than the unrated to what would have been released domestically had Kubrick lived. Of course it's now impossible to know exactly what Kubrick's final version would have been like, but the unrated version definitely isn't it.


Good question.

I agree that it's an important part of the film's history, and I believe that the European version was edited by Kubrick himself, was it not? Accordingly, I would indeed like the European version of The Shining to have been included on its respective DVD release, probably even more so than the domestic version of Eyes Wide Shut, since the changes are much more profound.

The reason I am not arguing as vehemently for its inclusion is two-fold. The first reason is that I'm simply not that interested in The Shining. I know it's supposed to be a great classic, but it's just never really done it for me, so I don't own any version of it, whereas I love Eyes Wide Shut and this latest DVD release is the third version of that film that I've purchased.

The second reason is that nobody in this thread has asserted that the European version of The Shining is without value or that nobody could possibly be interested in owning it, so I didn't see any reason to bring it up. On the other hand, that has been said about the domestic version of Eyes Wide Shut, so it seemed appropriate to respond to Travis's query with my thoughts on the subject.