New Kubrick SE's

Re: New Kubrick SE's

You can also see that in the Kubrick documentary included in the 2001 Kubrick box set from WB. There are out-takes from Vivian Kubrick's behind the scenes footage where you can see the video tap monitor, and while the full-frame is exposed, there are clear markings for 1.85:1, and the area above and below that area is a bit "darker" than the 1.85:1 area. This would indicate that Kubrick was keeping an eye on the full frame, but composing mainly for theatrical 1.85:1.

Vincent

Re: New Kubrick SE's

THAT is really good Paul! I look forward to even more discussion when the discs are finally released!

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I am really looking forward to these special edition discs. It will be nice to have the possibilty of choosing between the theatrical and home video version. I only hope that Warner don't delay it too long...

The only film that bugs me, is Dr. Strangelove. The full frame version is a bit too "untidy" to my taste (boom mikes and in camera mattes), and the 40th anniversary version (1.66:1) seems to have a high framing - but this may of course be "correct". I shall see if I can post some screengrabs to show what I mean...

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Here are some screen grabs from the full frame (special edition) version. The framing on the 40th anniversary version (1.66:1) can be seen in red (roughly):

Radar screen - not in centre.


High framing…


Another example.


Tight at the bottom - on many TV sets, the first word is lost.


Tight again - “commander” is only barely visible.


Another tight one. Note boom mike overhead. Still visible in the 40th anniversary version (barely).


Boom mike. Clearly visible in the 40th anniversary version. Would be outside the 1.66:1 frame if it was in the middle.


Another boom mike. Still visible in the 40th anniversary version (barely).


But as said - maybe this is "correct"...

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I would have move the crop down some of them ,but most of the compostions
look fine,image two is better full frame ,but the matted one looks fine
The last shot is better matted,the second from last is better cropped
but again if it was me ,I move the matte down a little

Re: New Kubrick SE's

way too much head room in much of the cropped shots.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

While I'm curious to see Jack's evidence from Kubrick's personal effects, etc., the above is a good example of what I *don't* consider to be "evidence". The fact in the above paragraph is that Kubrick's video assist monitor diplayed the full frame and was also marked for 1.85:1. The conclusion that "Kubrick was keeping an eye on the full frame, but composing mainly for theatrical 1.85:1" is your own.

I've read my copy of the Archives book cover-to-cover, along with most other stuff written by or about Kubrick, and I don't recall seeing anything more conclusive than Leon Vitali's comments on this subject. I don't really belong to either the 1.85 or 1.37 camps. I'm genuinely curious to know how Kubrick would have preferred the films to be seen in a scenario where both 4:3 and 16:9 options are widely available.

For what it's worth, if I had to take an educated guess, I'd think that Kubrick would have eventually approved 1.78:1 home video transfers to be packaged alongside the 1.37:1 transfers. Regardless of what he preferred, I think it would have frustrated him to know that consumers with widescreen sets might be zooming, stretching, or watching the films with black bars on the sides, just as the idea of letterboxing these same films clearly frustrated him.

Honestly, I suspect that a lot of folks advocate the 16:9 transfers (at least partly) because they have 16:9 displays and are sick of not being able to watch these highly-entertaining films at full screen. That's understandable. I watch my stuff on a native 4:3 projector, so right now I don't have this problem. The reason I think this is a factor is because a lot of the "theatrical aspect ratio" advocates are people who don't seem especially interested in reversing other changes that have been made to Kubrick's work by Vitali & Co. (I'm thinking particularly of Eyes Wide Shut here.)

Here's something else I'm curious about that you guys might know. If I'm not mistaken, Kubrick only approved mono sound mixes for The Shining and Full Metal Jacket because he wasn't confident that multi-track mixes would be presented consistently/reliably in various theater and home theater settings. How does this fit into the whole discussion of presenting the films as Kubrick intended for them to be presented?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

So you think a director as meticulous and visual as Kubrick would merely "protect" the theatrical framings of his movies?


What exactly are you referring to above, i.e. changes to EYES WIDE SHUT? You mean the crew member reflection?

I also have a 4:3 projector, and I'd still like to see the Kubrick films on home video in widescreen. I also have no objection to 4:3 pillar-boxed versions being made available in HD. Hell, release two-disc sets with both versions in HD.


Simple- the mono mixes should be preserved and offered as a viewing option at home. The previous "digitally remastered" Kubrick DVDs made a big mistake by only offering the remixed soundtracks. If the HD-DVD of FULL METAL JACKET only offers the remix, that too is wrong, and should re rectified, hopefully in a future re-release that also corrects the widely-reported visual deficiencies of the FULL METAL JACKET HD-DVD.

Vincent

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Well, how about I turn that around? So you think a director as meticulous and visual as Kubrick would merely "protect" the home video framings of his movies (ie. the versions that, as far as he was concerned at the time, would be watched for many more years than the theatrical versions)?

My whole point is that, unlike you, I don't know the answer to this question. I do know that Kubrick cared deeply about the presentation of his films, which might be a reason why he "future-proofed" them not only for 1.85:1 and 1.37:1, but for 1.66:1 (did The Shining and FMJ screen at that ratio in any European theaters?) and now 1.78:1.


I'm referring to the deleted crew member reflection, the addition of cloaked figures, and the replacement of the Bhagavad Gita passage. Even beyond that, I'm referring to the completion of the film. I am almost 100% sure that Kubrick had completed the film's edit when he passed away, but that he had not completed all the remaining stages of post-production.

I'm not saying that I necessarily have a problem with any or all of these things, but I don't distrust Kubrick's surviving relatives and staff the way some others do.


I'd also really like to have those things. With any luck, maybe these releases aren't available yet because someone somewhere is considering how Kubrick might have approached these issues that we're discussing.


What you just described would be satisfactory for me, but why do I have a feeling that some of the people who want 16:9, on the grounds that it's Kubrick's intended ratio, are also quite happy with their 5.1 soundtracks? I guess that's what I was getting at with my question.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Fair enough, and since I actually do think THE SHINING works very well full-frame, I guess I'd have to capitulate and agree- Kubrick was keeping an eye on both framings.

HOWEVER, I take issue with folks who claim to have seen Kubrick's later three films in 1.85:1 and that they "look wrong" in that ratio. I've seen both THE SHINING and EYES WIDE SHUT projected multiple times in 1.85:1, and the framing and composition worked perfectly for both of those. Would you also agree to take issue with folks who claim that those films look wrong projected at 1.85:1?


I wouldn't say I distrust folks like Vitali, but I do think he's misinformed somewhat when it comes to technical issues. A good example is an interview he did with I believe DVD File circa the release of the remastered Kubrick DVDs back in 2001, where Vitali didn't seem to understand that anamorphic video was a different beast than anamorphic lenses. The interviewer asked Vitali why the letterboxed flat-widescreen Kubrick DVDs (A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, BARRY LYNDON) weren't anamorphically enhanced, and Vitali answered giving an anecdote about Kubrick disagreeing with the DP of THE KILLING re: what lens to use in a scene. It was pretty clear that Vitali didn't understand the technical aspects of the question, and as such I have to take with a grain of salt some of what he says re: technical issues with these films. I don't doubt that he has the best intentions in mind re: Kubrick's works, but I also don't put much faith in his decisions when it comes to technical issues like this.


I don't doubt that either regarding some folks. I really hope that WB issues the mono soundtracks on the upcoming Kubrick HD releases along with the remixes, and to end this debate once and for all, I really do think pillar-boxed HD versions of THE SHINING, FULL METAL JACKET, and EYES WIDE SHUT should be made available along with the widescreen editions. Having just checked the back of the FULL METAL JACKET HD-DVD at Best Buy, I see that it only offers the remixed soundtrack- hopefully somebody from WB is reading this and they'll offer the original mixes on upcoming releases (uncompressed mono perhaps?).

Vincent

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I'm hoping the special editions include both the mono and 5.1 remixes. The remixes are excellent, but it's good to have both.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Vincent -

I think we agree on just about everything. I can't speak for people's subjective preferences, but I think it's wrong for anyone to suggest that Kubrick didn't have the 1.85:1 frame in mind when composing his shots.

I also agree re. Vitali. This may or may not be related, but I suppose we'll eventually get to a point (we may already be there) where consumer technology is at a level that Kubrick just hadn't anticipated. I've also been thinking about how ultimately, unlike some other classics, the films in question are too valuable to Warner as mass market entertainment for them to be forever restricted to 4:3 transfers and/or mono soundtracks.

Like you and Patrick are saying, it would be nice to have the "Kubrick-approved" versions - whatever that means and for whatever it's worth - included on future home video releases.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Any updates?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Nope.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I recall an incident in the cutting rooms with Stanley on "The Shining". He and Ray, the editor, invited me to watch a freshly cut scene on the steenbeck. The scene was Jack sitting at the bar. On the steenbeck screen, which was 4x3, were the markings for 1.85.
I complained about the fact that Jack's hands were moving position from shot to shot, but were below the bottom 1.85 matte line. Stanley immediately rediculed my remark by saying that it would never be seen. Now this was okay for the theatrical, but got the impression from him, in this particular case, that he didn't necessarily anticipate - or was concerned - that the continuity errors that were visible in full-frame only might be seen one day. This is by no means a criticism of Stanley. I had the highest admiration for him.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

So, is there any new info on these Special Editions? I'm very much looking forward to this boxset, since it contains my four favorite Kubrick movies and really, the only ones that I'd like to own out of his filmography. 2001 and The Shining are two of my all-time favorites and I like Eyes Wide Shut quite a bit and think that Clockwork Orange is pretty good, even if it is pretty dated. So, any new info?

*Crosses fingers*

Re: New Kubrick SE's

That's really interesting, Steve. Somehow I missed this post until today. Thanks for sharing. I would love to hear about any other experiences you had working with Kubrick. Must have been amazing...

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I dunno if this has been reported, yet, but Amazon UK has a Clockwork Orange: Special Edition pre-ordering for June 1, 2007. Hopefully that's an official date and the other SEs aren't far behind.

I'm especially looking forward to adding Eyes Wide Shut to my collection, finally. I've been waiting for an uncensored version and no doubt Warner is going to give us a great disc!

Re: New Kubrick SE's

i just traded in my old copies of 2001, clockwork orange, and the shining in preparation for the SE's. hopefully lolita is included too.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

any updates now?

seriously, what do we know about R1 SEs? 2-3 titles are being re-mastered or are we talking about a whole new Kubrick collection?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Kubricks my favorite director, but I wont be buying these again until theyre released on HD.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I'm surprised there've been no posts to this thread since Warner's comment about the Kubrick SEs not being out until (roughly) Christmas '07.

Personally, I'm happy to wait. In terms of content, I'm perfectly happy with my existing discs. If waiting means that I'm more likely to get well-considered specs (ie. the 16:9/4:3 issue should be addressed) and high-quality bonus content (since Kubrick was, for the most part, a believer in letting the films speak for themselves), then I'm thrilled to be waiting.

Even on the HD side - especially since I have yet to adopt either HD DVD or Blu-Ray - I'm glad the formats will have time to mature slightly before these titles see the light of day. No sense having a repeat of the big SD double-dip.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I wonder if and when MGM is going to re-release its Kubrick films on DVD. I just gave Paths of Glory a spin last night, and was surprised at all the digital noise and enhancment in the image.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

They ought to put out a 3-disc set to coincide with Warner's with new transfers (and some supplements). Paths of Glory was restored a few years ago by UCLA, so a new DVD could look fantastic. Although, according to UCLA, it was hard-matted to 1.66:1 and is supposed to be shown at 1.85:1.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Actually, I zoomed in the fullscreen DVD of PoG to a 16:9 AR, and I must say the framing looked pretty good.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I just saw the UCLA restored print of Paths of Glory 2 weeks ago at the Cinematheque Ontario (who ALWAYS screen their films in the proper AR) and it was most definitely not 1.85:1 nor was it 1.66:1.

It was good old 1.37:1 and it looked terrific!!

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Yeah, I'm sure all those hard matted shots really helped, too!

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Anyone know anything about a Full Metal Jacket re-release on 5/15/07? There is a listing on Amazon that claims it to be Widescreen (1.66:1), which I won't believe until I see it for myself.

See here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/B000P0J09C

Any thoughts?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

dvdempire lists the same release as being 1.33:1. i imagine a ws release would have garnered more attention on the forums, so i would assume the amazon listing is incorrect. despite the numerous protests about kubrick's preferences, the hd-dvd is displayed in ws. so i guess his preference for full screen applies only to sd-dvd's.

http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...earchID=194931