Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Entertainment and Media  ›  SD DVD - Film and Documentary  ›  New Kubrick SE's
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

New Kubrick SE's

#61
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 1:13pm
  • Joined: April 2000
  • Post Count: 3,999

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden
The FMJ HD-DVD is widescreen only. I presume the upcoming HD-DVDs will be the same. I doubt the SE DVDs will have 4:3 transfers either since it would likely involve having an additional disc for just the movie. If you want the 4:3 version, you'll have to hold on to your previous DVDs (and grin and bear your censored Eyes Wide Shut).

Regards,
Thanks, Ken, although I consider that to be *very bad news*(TM).

(And I already have an uncensored "EWS", but of course it's *merely* standard def!)

Well, as always, it seems that not all of us will be happy with the new releases. I've watched "EWS" in widescreen three times now, and "FMJ" twice, and they just don't work for me in that ratio. I wish I was able to "Tivo" the HD broadcasts and grab a few screens to show you how horrible I think the framing is, but I haven't got a Tivo (and am not even sure if you can record HD or pull screengrabs from it...)

That "Everybody wins!" comment is not exactly accurate.

\"Only one is a wanderer;
Two together are always going somewhere.\"
Export to Wiki
#62
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 2:29pm
  • Joined: December 1999
  • Post Count: 2,127

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Malloy
Well, as always, it seems that not all of us will be happy with the new releases. I've watched "EWS" in widescreen three times now, and "FMJ" twice, and they just don't work for me in that ratio. I wish I was able to "Tivo" the HD broadcasts and grab a few screens to show you how horrible I think the framing is, but I haven't got a Tivo (and am not even sure if you can record HD or pull screengrabs from it...)

So you're saying that they didn't "work" for you when they were released theatrically (since they only played in 1.85), but better on video?

Movies the way they were meant to be seen: Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre

Export to Wiki
#63
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 6:33pm
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Location: Georgia, USA
  • Post Count: 7,217

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I had the chance to see Eyes Wide Shut in 35mm earlier this year and I can't imagine seeing it any other way than 1.85:1 now. The compositions were absolutely flawless.

It just needs to be made clear that Kubrick didn't intend his last three films to be 1.33:1, he only protected them for the ratio. Like several other directors in the laserdisc era, it seemed like a better idea to keep mattes off and max out the resolution rather than wasting a bunch of resolution. This is all null with 16x9 enhancement and HD.

Woody Allen requested Annie Hall and Bananas to be open matte on the Criterion LDs and Brian de Palma was fine with Carrie being open matte. Richard Lester was also fine with open matte for A Hard Day's Night and Help! on the laserdisc transfers (and later composite video MPI/AMC masters of the restored versions). All of these except Help! (which is OOP) are widescreen on their DVD versions.

Also, the last time Kubrick approved video masters was back in 1990 or 1991.

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!
Export to Wiki
#64
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 7:06pm
  • Joined: February 2001
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Post Count: 1,706

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack
Wasn't there pretty much no home video market back in 1980? (The Shining era)
Who was gonna watch them "on video"...? 100 people?

There was this thing called broadcast television that ran movies all the time. Kubrick saw 2001 on broadcast television and was horrified, and realized that long after his films were gone from the theatre, they'd be showing up on TV.

The number of people with VCRs is completely irrelevant -- he decided that from then onwards he'd be protecting for television.
What's in the 10 LB meat box? Photographs by Aaron Reynolds.
Export to Wiki
#65
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 7:45pm
  • Joined: September 1998
  • Post Count: 1,590

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Even if he subsequently preferred them unmatted, he authorized their initial theatrical release that way, and we will now have DVDs that represent the result of that.
Spielberg sat down in 1989 and oversaw the entire pan & scan transfer of Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Thus, he "authorized" the VHS Pan/Scan release....but only because he had to....Paramount was going to do it with or without his help. Kubrick "authorized" the theatrical release of The Shining in 1.85 only because he had no other choice. He could not have released it in any other ratio. His hands were tied.

Warner repeatedly tried to convince him otherwise for the LD release. This was when widescreen LDs were quite common, yet he still refused although he did sign off on Criterion's 2001 transfer.

Quote:
Woody Allen requested Annie Hall and Bananas to be open matte on the Criterion LDs
Well, if he requested that, they sure didn't listen because the Criterion Annie Hall LD was 1.85 and I'm fairly sure they never released Bananas at all.

Quote:
Also, the last time Kubrick approved video masters was back in 1990 or 1991.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Both Jan Harlan and Leon Vitali insisted on Eyes Wide Shut being 1.33 on DVD. If anyone would know Kubrick's intentions, it would be them.

Quote:
The theatrical ratios are legitimate since that is how they were originally presented
It's amazing that so many people trash the MGM DVD of Robocop for being 1.85, despite the fact that it was originally presented that way theatrically, yet use that argument in favor of the Kubrick films.

Quote:
I have no problem resolving this in my mind with believing his preference for home and special presentations was the unmatted full exposed frame. Both formats have legitimacy, and, finally, both are going to be available in quality presentations. Everybody wins.
Agreed. Everybody wins, except in the case of the Full Metal Jacket HD-DVD which isn't available 1.33. I think it's interesting to have both versions available, but on those 3 films the 1.33 version should be considered definitive. I seriously doubt we'll ever see a 1.33 version of The Shining in HD, which is a shame because the film works so well in that ratio.
Export to Wiki
#66
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 7:46pm
  • Joined: November 2000
  • Post Count: 221

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Reynolds
There was this thing called broadcast television that ran movies all the time. Kubrick saw 2001 on broadcast television and was horrified, and realized that long after his films were gone from the theatre, they'd be showing up on TV.

The number of people with VCRs is completely irrelevant -- he decided that from then onwards he'd be protecting for television.
And that makes sense. So for standard TV formats (VHS, LD), release the films framed for the 4:3 format. But for widescreen TV formats (DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-ray), release the films framed for either 16:9 or 1.85:1 format.

.

Don
MST3K Review

Export to Wiki
#67
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 8:03pm
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Location: Georgia, USA
  • Post Count: 7,217

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins
Spielberg sat down in 1989 and oversaw the entire pan & scan transfer of Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Thus, he "authorized" the VHS Pan/Scan release....but only because he had to....Paramount was going to do it with or without his help. Kubrick "authorized" the theatrical release of The Shining in 1.85 only because he had no other choice. He could not have released it in any other ratio. His hands were tied.

Yeah, but a widescreen LD was released at the same time.




Quote:
Well, if he requested that, they sure didn't listen because the Criterion Annie Hall LD was 1.85 and I'm fairly sure they never released Bananas at all.

Hmm, looking back at the IMDB, I must have had some films mixed up.

Still, there's nothing wrong with showing Kubrick's films at their theatrical ratios. They were filmed for them, so what's the sin?

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!
Export to Wiki
#68
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 10:07pm
  • Joined: February 2001
  • Post Count: 3,219

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Aspect ratio arguments rarely make sense without visual aids. Instead of getting into the whole black bars/no black bars mess, why not defend your choice of aspect ratio as a photographer would?

What's the lens focused on? How it used? Does one method of framing introduce unfocused bits into the picture? Does the visual focus correspond with the narrative focus?
Export to Wiki
#69
Rating: 0
8/25/06 at 10:22pm
  • Joined: August 2003
  • Location: Sunny California, USA
  • Post Count: 716

Re: New Kubrick SE's

If Kubrick wanted his film to be seen full frame in 1980 would be to print down a 1.37 in a 1.85 frame, and that was certainly possible.

Anyone who thinks that Kubrick actually composed his films for 1.37 has never seen these films presented correctly to make that statement. Sorry.

-J. Theakston

Export to Wiki
#70
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 6:57am
  • Joined: February 2006
  • Post Count: 211

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
If Kubrick wanted his film to be seen full frame in 1980 would be to print down a 1.37 in a 1.85 frame, and that was certainly possible.

While it was possible, it seems unlikely to me that Warner would've released their new Jack Nicholson or Tom Cruise pictures theatrically with black bars on the sides of the screen... or that Kubrick would have wanted a centered 1.37 frame for the theatrical release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Theakston
Anyone who thinks that Kubrick actually composed his films for 1.37 has never seen these films presented correctly to make that statement. Sorry.

Huh? I've seen all 3 of the films in question presented correctly, and I believe that Kubrick composed his films for both 1.85 and 1.37 - so your statement is already wrong. I would also be willing to bet that a bunch of the other people in this thread who don't agree with you have seen the films presented correctly.

We really don't need to rely on subjective comparisons of the two presentations to know that Kubrick composed for both formats. There's already much more objective evidence available to confirm it.

My DVD Collection:
http://adam-santangelo.dvdaf.com/

Export to Wiki
#71
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 7:29am
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Location: Regensburg, Germany
  • Post Count: 1,246

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Santangelo
We really don't need to rely on subjective comparisons of the two presentations to know that Kubrick composed for both formats.
That's not what Kubrick's storyboard (posted on the previous page) says though. It says "compose for 1.85:1, protect the 1.33:1 area". 2 quite different things.
Export to Wiki
#72
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 7:58am
  • Joined: February 2001
  • Post Count: 3,219

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I'm guessing that Kubrick didn't intend for us to see the storyboard.
Export to Wiki
#73
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 8:04am
  • Joined: April 2000
  • Post Count: 9,138

Re: New Kubrick SE's

So um........still no news on these SE's?

Maybe Dec?

07?

2010?
The Movie Library
Export to Wiki
#74
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 10:55am
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Location: Georgia, USA
  • Post Count: 7,217

Re: New Kubrick SE's

It's also important to note that The Killing and Paths of Glory were meant for at least 1.66:1 (The Killing is 1.75:1 and Paths of Glory is 1.85:1). The new restoration prints of PoG are hard-matted to 1.66:1.

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!
Export to Wiki
#75
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 12:33pm
  • Joined: December 2000
  • Location: London, UK
  • Post Count: 1,076

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_K
So um........still no news on these SE's?

Maybe Dec?

07?

2010?

I wonder if Warner Bros have now decided to issue a box set of ALL their Kubrick films next year, rather than doing them in two batches. Might make better sense.
Export to Wiki
#76
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 2:13pm
  • Joined: February 2006
  • Post Count: 211

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Preischl
That's not what Kubrick's storyboard (posted on the previous page) says though. It says "compose for 1.85:1, protect the 1.33:1 area". 2 quite different things.

I don't think we can take those words out of context, though, and draw larger conclusions from this single use of the words "compose" and "protect". To me, those seem like the words of a guy who wanted his remote unit to compose a frame that worked at both ratios, as opposed to having important elements from his design cropped out of the smaller version. Anything more than that is reading too much into the note, in my mind.

I also don't really understand why so many people are eager to conclude that Leon Vitali and others from the Kubrick estate are liars. While I do personally have a lot of questions that I'd love to ask, I also have some confidence that these people know far more about Kubrick's intentions than anyone else ever will.

This is what I was getting at, earlier in the thread, when I pointed out that the theatrical version of Eyes Wide Shut included the reflection of a boom operator. A "theatrical Kubrick purist" should want to see Eyes Wide Shut with the simulated sex, boom op reflection, and Bhagavad Gita section intact. The true purist (ie. those who don't trust Vitali & Co.) should want to see EWS unfinished, the way Kubrick left it when he passed away.

While I'm happy with my Region 1 4:3 disc, I'll also probably buy the upcoming 16:9 release, and I would definitely buy the version that Cruise, Kidman, and Warner execs saw a few days before Kubrick died. (I do understand that the picture edit was locked.)

My DVD Collection:
http://adam-santangelo.dvdaf.com/

Export to Wiki
#77
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 2:50pm
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Location: Georgia, USA
  • Post Count: 7,217

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Eyes Wide Shut's final edit was finished a few days before Kubrick passed away, from what I've read.

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!
Export to Wiki
#78
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 3:07pm
  • Joined: February 2006
  • Post Count: 211

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart
Eyes Wide Shut's final edit was finished a few days before Kubrick passed away, from what I've read.

That's true, but I'm pretty sure I've also read that what remained in post was completed based on Kubrick's notes/intentions.

My DVD Collection:
http://adam-santangelo.dvdaf.com/

Export to Wiki
#79
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 6:34pm
  • Joined: August 2003
  • Location: Sunny California, USA
  • Post Count: 716

Re: New Kubrick SE's

You can protect for a larger format. You can't compose for more than one format. Any cinematographer can tell you that.

Frankly, there are a lot of people here quoting a second hand source that Kubrick didn't compose his films for 1.85. This is utter nonsense. Every paper document (PRIMARY sources) would lead you to believe otherwise. How many people here have seen THE SHINING projected 1.85 in 35mm? How many of them have seen the same film unmatted in 35mm? Do they realize that the telecine on the DVD is zoomed in considerably? How about all of those artifacts such as boom mikes and shadows that you see on an unmatted presentation?

What I'm writing is that there are few consumers that have seen these films to the standards where they can be so bold to make a statement like "Kubrick wanted these films to be seen full-frame... PERIOD!" For the most part, these "armchair historians" have not seen the film projected (or were paying attention if they did), have never gone through Stanley Kubrick's personal effects, and generally never look at the facts, all which would provide evidence to the contrary.

I realize that every time a thread like this comes up that it's going to be the same four people over and over again, but why can't the facts speak for themselves and why can't these people just face facts that for whatever his agenda, Leon Vitali is wrong. I don't know the circumstances of that interview quoted, but it paints Mr. Vitali as really not knowing a thing about what he is talking about, which is something I do on a day-to-day basis. THAT is my gripe.

-J. Theakston

Export to Wiki
#80
Rating: 0
8/26/06 at 10:12pm
  • Joined: February 2006
  • Post Count: 211

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Fair enough, Jack. I would never make a statement like "Kubrick wanted these films to be seen full-frame... PERIOD!" I also wouldn't argue with the paper documents and objects from Kubrick's personal effects to which you're referring; although I would rate Leon Vitali highly as a secondary source, he's certainly not Stanley Kubrick.

Which paper documents and objects from Kubrick's personal effects are you referencing as your primary sources? You've got me really curious now, being that I'm fairly obsessive about Kubrick. (I'm a relative newcomer to the forum, so I apologize if you've already gone into detail about these insider documents in another thread.)

My DVD Collection:
http://adam-santangelo.dvdaf.com/

Export to Wiki
#81
Rating: 0
8/27/06 at 9:59am
  • Joined: January 2002
  • Post Count: 4,609

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Wow! VHS actually came out in 1976?!?!?!
We got our Betamax, ($1,000 back then!) back in 1980 and our family knew maybe one or two people who had beta or VHS. Most people wouldn't spend that kind of dough.
Was a great machine though...

http://www.myspace.com/franbro
Export to Wiki
#82
Rating: 0
8/27/06 at 1:49pm
  • Joined: August 2003
  • Location: Sunny California, USA
  • Post Count: 716

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Adam,

You'll have to give me time to dig through my collection, but right off the top of my head, all of the storyboards that I've seen (such as above) are obviously marked for 1.85. I've seen some on-set photos from THE SHINING with a video assist monitor very CLEARLY marked off for 1.85. I'm sure if you do a flip-through of the new Kubrick book that you'll find others, but I'll post them here as I find them.

I wasn't actually referring to you in my last post, just in general to some of those rabid fans out there who foam at the mouth when this stuff comes up, no matter what evidence you present to them that proves otherwise.

-J. Theakston

Export to Wiki
#83
Rating: 0
8/27/06 at 2:32pm
  • Joined: January 2002
  • Post Count: 4,609

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I for one, want to see the films the way I saw them back in the theater. Not the way they looked on HBO the following year.
but what do I know...

http://www.myspace.com/franbro
Export to Wiki
#84
Rating: 0
8/28/06 at 10:34am
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Post Count: 320

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Been away for a while... I thought these sets where due in Sept 06... anyone got an update on when we are likely to see these?
Export to Wiki
#85
Rating: 0
8/28/06 at 11:08am
  • Joined: March 2005
  • Post Count: 356

Re: New Kubrick SE's

You can protect for a larger format. You can't compose for more than one format. Any cinematographer can tell you that.
Export to Wiki
#86
Rating: 0
8/28/06 at 11:23am
  • Joined: March 2005
  • Post Count: 356

Re: New Kubrick SE's

"You can protect for a larger format. You can't compose for more than one format. Any cinematographer can tell you that"

I don't belive this! Maybe thats why there are so many poorly designed
films out there,This sould be something the Director decides on ,not
the Cinematographer,I am Sure Leone films are so well composed because
The Director choose to design the frame his way,and didn't worry about
1:33,Much like Welles the camera angles have everything to do with
making the compositions work.
When I compared the 1:85:1 to the 1:66 Clockwork Orange I found,the
185:1 had just a little bit of information add to the sides,and a little taken
from the top,I Thought both looked well composed because of Kubricks
style,The One shot which looked like the sides could have been cropped
off a tad (in The 1:85 Version) is the when they are standing by a book
rack,But comparing this shot in the 1:66 version the side looks better
cropped a little,But it isn't a improvement because the added space at the
top of the frame is too much,This is really nit picking,If it was shown
Originally in 1:66:1 I would want the dvd to be 1:66:1 ,But 1:85:1 is
fine with me
The Shining looks ok without the matte,but better in 1:85:1
Export to Wiki
#87
Rating: 0
8/28/06 at 1:56pm
  • Joined: April 2000
  • Post Count: 3,999

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Apruzzese
So you're saying that they didn't "work" for you when they were released theatrically (since they only played in 1.85), but better on video?
Peter, sorry for taking so long in responding (let a weekend go by and I'm left in the dust of this thread!). "EWS" I saw twice projected at approximately 1.85:1, and then later saw an HD broadcast at 1.78:1. I've seen the 1.33:1 framing many times on my R1 Warner's DVD and more recently on my R3 uncensored Warner DVD. I was extremely disappointed with the framing of the projected image, and I recall hashing all that out here (or on DVD TALK) and finding much agreement. I've seen "FMJ" broadcast twice in HD at 1.78:1, and finally caught "The Shining" broadcast in HD at 1.78:1 about two weeks ago.

I have no opinion as to Kubrick's intentions and am sorely tired of all the attempts at divining them. As I said above, I only know that neither "EWS" nor "FMJ" look right to me at approximately 1.78:1. In fact, I greatly prefer Academy ratio for both. On the other hand, I was satisfied with the 1.78:1 framing for "The Shining", and might even prefer it in this ratio.

My disappointment is that, once again, only one transfer will be provided and obviously the HD transfer will render the SD one otherwise obsolete. If I've learned anything from participating in these discussions over the past half-decade or so, it's that there is no simple answer regardless of which competing quote or storyboard is brought in support of one side or the other. I mean, just look back through this thread: it's the same ol' stuff, dredged up here yet again. And still no consensus? What a surprise!

Given that there's so much conflicting information regarding Kubrick's "preferences" on these matters, it seems to me that the optimal solution would to present the three films subject to this controversy (and there are only three) in both formats: one flat Academy ratio, the other more-or-less as it was cropped for theatrical presentation which may as well be the more home-video friendly 1.78:1, given overscan on monitors on the one hand, and the lack of consistency regarding theatrical projection on the other. Doesn't Kubrick deserve at least this much?

\"Only one is a wanderer;
Two together are always going somewhere.\"
Export to Wiki
#88
Rating: 0
8/28/06 at 2:09pm
  • Joined: December 1999
  • Post Count: 2,127

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Interesting, Rich. The framing marks on the 35mm film leaders of The Shining and FMJ were both clearly marked for 1.85 (and I ran them both that way, as well as running a couple of reels of them at 1.37 as a test - they look wrong at 1.37). EWS had no specific markings, but the credit blocks, etc., were clearly composed for 1.85, so that was certainly its intended theatrical ratio. I saw it three times theatrically - all 1.85 - and didn't like the DVD image (I think it's zoomed in, so it doesn't frame zoomed to to 1.78 very well). I wish I could compare a film frame of it to the DVD image.

Movies the way they were meant to be seen: Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre

Export to Wiki
#89
Rating: 0
8/28/06 at 2:39pm
  • Joined: June 2002
  • Post Count: 1,619

Re: New Kubrick SE's

the three films subject to this controversy (and there are only three)


I thought the entire controversy was started by Dr. Strangelove. Though originally released in 1.85:1, Kubrick later said he preferred 1.37:1, and there are various photos of the "war room" to illustrate what he had in mind -- you can see the entire ceiling of that room when watching the film in 4:3.

P.S. I must admit -- I'm happy to see both versions, and judge for myself. Ken's advice is appropriate.
Export to Wiki
#90
Rating: 0
8/28/06 at 3:22pm
  • Joined: July 2002
  • Post Count: 6,078

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil_Duffy
Been away for a while... I thought these sets where due in Sept 06... anyone got an update on when we are likely to see these?

Neil, a Kubrick thread is really the wrong place to ask about something like release dates. I think they are generally reserved for endless discussions on aspect ratios.



I'm a bit bummed we haven't gotten any more these myself. I was looking forward to the High def versions, but it doesn't look like anything is due out soon (hell, we're getting release dates for titles in December now- these probably won't show up till next year at this rate).
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread