New Kubrick SE's - Page 11

Re: New Kubrick SE's

You did miss it because I clarified more than once that the changes to EWS were purely cosmetic in nature, not narrative, so they amount to an utterly negative change in the context of the story's subject matter, rather than contributing to an alternate storytelling perspective (a la the various versions of BLADE RUNNER). Let's center your defense on this one issue: do you seriously believe there is enough of a potential audience for the Americanized EWS, in light of the new availability of the international cut, who also somehow, some way do not have access to any previous R1 EWS DVD, to warrant the continued financial investment on Warner Bros. behalf in making it available? If so, please provide your reasoning and/or evidence.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I'm still missing it, because this, while true, has nothing to do with any of the points I've brought up. It is a strawman argument. I have never claimed that the R-rated version of Eyes Wide Shut is fundamentally different than the unrated version.


The previously-released DVD does not contain the widescreen version of the film, so its continued availability does not fill the need that the new DVD was expected to fill per press announcements and the labeling on its package: that of a widescreen version of the R-rated cut.

Many existing DVDs include multiple cuts of their respective films, some using additional discs, some using seamless branching. Considering how straightforward the differences between the two versions of Eyes Wide Shut are, and how brief their duration is, including the R-rated version on the DVD in addition to the unrated one via seamless branching would have required minimal effort from Warner, who have shown themselves to be quite unafraid of putting a lot of effort into their DVD releases (and who were apparently planning to include it in the first place!).

You mentioned their upcoming release of Blade Runner, the deluxe edition of which includes no fewer than five different version of the film. You rightly point out that there are narrative differences between various versions of the film, but I don't believe that's the case for all of them. The American and international theatrical versions, for example, differ only in a small number of brief shots of explicit violence, as I understand it (please correct me if I am mistaken, as I am not as familiar with Blade Runner as I am with Eyes Wide Shut). As with Eyes Wide Shut, it's difficult to imagine anyone watching the edited version when an uncut version with no narrative differences is present on the same disc. Yet Warner somehow still thought it fit for inclusion on the DVD, and for that I applaud them.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Hhahahah are you two are still going on about this? I thought it would be over by Sunday. :-P

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Not that I expected it or have any good reason to complain, but that European edit might actually be the single biggest omission from these new discs. I'd love to have an R1 copy of that thing! (I know the R2's readily available, but multi-region viewing's still a pain in the @ss for my DVD and Mac devices.)

The way I see it, these new discs seem to mark Kubrick's transition from living iconoclast to "film history" -- with his idiosyncratic ideas about presentation being disregarded in favour of audio commentaries, supplements, re-designed packaging, theatrical aspect ratios, 5.1, etc. -- so this unadvertised difference between The Shining's U.S. and U.K. cuts seems like a strange one of Kubrick's wishes to bother honoring.

Maybe they should have split each 2-disc set with Disc 1 being "what Kubrick wanted you to see", and Disc 2 including "all the stuff Kubrick never would have included on the home video releases of his films".

I'm a pretty diehard Kubrick fan/collector, but I haven't yet been able to justify buying this new box. I'm not HD-ready just yet and will probably wait until I can make that larger upgrade.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Then what in the name of sweet Jesus are you arguing here?!?! You just made my case! By the way, let's not be so glib about Warner's minimal investment--they would have to make a new widescreen American-edit high-def master for inclusion, and that DOES cost money, not to mention the potential cost incurred for either a) pressing an extra disc for its inclusion or b) potential errors they'd have to retroactively address if anything went wrong with a single-disc branching option. Warners quite rightly would look at the cost-to-demand ratio and figure it would be much more money and effort than the marketplace for the American edit would warrant (slap 'em on the hand for coming to that conclusion after printing the wrong info on their packaging, if you must). If you won't concede that one point, then your pride has the better of you.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I consider the US theatrical version to be no different than a print / master released with blurs and errors on the negative. I would gladly pay extra for a version (of any great film) that includes alternate cuts with even less than a minute of extra / removed shots or narrative diversions, but this equals none of those things. It was a pragmatic commercial concession, which was justified artistically post-facto. While Kubrick himself took this issue less seriously than his admirers, I believe if the marketplace hadn't demanded it, the international cut would have been the last word, and so now it is.

I'll hold onto my old discs just as one sits through the "love conquers all" version of Brazil - with morbid amusement. But I don't want it sullying the new disc.

Pretty bad mistake with the packaging, though.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I was very disappointed to find that the individual cases within the boxset did not feature the same covers/artwork as the new single versions of 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, and Clockwork. Instead we get crappy looking covers that are mostly black and empty except for centered airbrushed clip art from the film, like a mask on Eyes Wide Shut or HAL on 2001. They look truly terrible and if you're breaking the titles out for your shelf as opposed to keeping them in the box, they look bad on their own.
Who the hell designed these?

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I completely disagree with this. I like that they are simple and find them to be more graphically interesting than what one normally gets when cover layout artists turn away from original movie poster art on catalog titles. Other than the non-matching spine text on "The Shining", I am very happy with these covers.

Regards,

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Right with you, Ken. I just wish "The Shining" matched the others, both in the spine text, and also using the Redrum door graphic that appears on the set cover. But it's a minor quibble. I also really liked some of the slipcovers for the individual releases, it would have been cool to include those as well, but obviously not a big deal. As much as I try to own every version of "2001" I can get my hands on, I think I can live without having the Starchild cover on the stand-alone version. With the exception of The Shining, I think the packaging here is a real winner.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

It didn't take much imagination to come up with the new cover art.

Stanley Kubrick was never arbitrary about how his films should be promoted. He did not leave promotion entirely up to the studios. He gave a lot of thought to it, and applied the same discipline and artistry to poster art and title fonts that he applied to film making. James Calley at Warner Brothers attributed the overwhelming success of A Clockwork Orange, especially in the U.K., to the promotional campaign that Stanley Kubrick designed. By the time a pressbook, poster, and lobby cards were sent to theater owners and newspapers, Kubrick's fingerprints were all over it. When you opened a newspaper to find out what was playing, and saw the advertising for A Clockwork Orange (or any other Kubrick film), you are seeing what Stanley Kubrick wanted you to see. At first the cartoonish orange letters over white surfaces with images of distorted faces may seem like nothing special, but take a closer look. Kubrick is making a statement in the promotional art that leaves a specific impression on the mind. Promotional art is very important to how a film is perceived, and received, by the public. If anyone takes the time to really study how the films of Stanley Kubrick are presented, they will have to conclude that he was as brilliant at promotion as at film making.

The new cover art for the box-set and the single-disc releases might suffice for any other generic Hollywood movie, but it changes the face of the most iconic and recognizable promotional art in cinematic history. Also, it's not as good. Kubrick was better at it than the new kids on the block at WB realize.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I do not disagree with the gist of your post, but this particular line seems to be a bit of an overstatement, particularly if it is supposed to apply to all of the titles in the box. In any case, other than 2001 and FMJ, the slipcovers (not included in the box set) pretty much just repurpose the same one sheet art that was used on multiple previous DVD releases. I like the 2001 cover better than the contemporaneous poster art that awkwardly overlayed the star child with the space station, but not as much as the poster art that was used for the previous DVD. The new FMJ slipcase cover is the worst of the bunch since it looks like every other war movie. I dislike when a slipcase cover does nothing but reproduce the same art as the hard case insert, and I liked the approach they took choosing single iconic images from the films.

Regards,

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Ken_McAlinden,

"Repurpose" is not in my vocabulary. Neither is "reimaging." Taking bits and pieces out of Stanley Kubrick's promotional art is like taking one sentence out of the context of a larger statement so that it says something else, like a dangling participle or an uncompleted thought. The earlier covers weren't quite right either, but closer to right than what's been done now. Warner Home Video should adhere to the specific and exact details of the director's designs. Remember that Kubrick obsessed over how his films should be promoted, and he worked hard at designing the art so that it makes the statement that best represents his film. Financially and creatively, he always arrived at a proper and successful design.

The new stuff is just somebody thoughtlessly slapping something together.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

An additional thought; the original pressbooks for Kubrick's films should have been turned into an insert booklet for the special edition DVD's. You can see his hand in the details of these pressbooks. His original designs should be a part of the entire presentation.

I commend Warner Home Video for being conscientious with the digital remastering, criticize them for mishandling Barry Lyndon and Lolita, and take them to task for not respecting Kubrick's carefully considered promotional designs. He made it so easy for them, and they screwed up anyhow.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

If artwork is designed for a poster or lobby card and then later incorporated into a DVD cover, it is by definition "repurposed". I did not say anything about "re-imagined".

Regards,

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I, for one, am glad that the new set features different artwork from the previous releases. I have all of the older ones, I have the movie posters for most, and it's nice to get a slightly different spin on it. I think the "Clockwork" DVD has the best of the bunch, just a truly iconic image that looks right at home on the cover. Same for all of the others, really. HAL 9000 might not be what everyone thinks of when they think of 2001, but there's no denying that it's another iconic image, one that's intriguing if you haven't seen the film, and one that brings back a lot of memories if you have. And yet, they're all reproduced at a relatively small size, taking up only a portion of the cover, which gives it a very subtle, tasteful look. No one image screams louder than another (with the possible exception of The Shining; it's inexplicable why they didn't have that conform with the rest of the set, and my lone criticism of the packaging design); instead, they all look right at home, side by side. Each one of those films is an incredible journey, a strange, often bizarre, trip into another world, and to me, those covers are an invitation to that journey. Certainly the packaging isn't trying to entice anyone to buy it; I'm frankly surprised that WB went to the trouble of creating different art for within the set, and very pleased with what they came up with.

If I were designing the package, there would have been very little I changed. The Shining should have matched all of the others, using the Redrum door image that's on the box set itself. I might have thrown in the slipcases from the individual releases; I think it would be cool to have those nice shiny designs, with each iconic piece of artwork revealed underneath. And if not, I would have used thinpacks to save myself some shelf space. But those are all minor quibbles. This is a very nicely designed, very elegant set, one that I'll be proud to display on my shelf at home for a long time to come.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Don't worry, I know the facts you're talking about. John Calley is the guy you have in mind. I wasn't trying to make a qualitative comparison of the new covers vs. old; I'm just saying that if Warner was going to bring out all the DVD bells & whistles that Kubrick wouldn't have endorsed while he was alive, they should've also put that UK cut of The Shining on there.

The new cover art looks cool to me. In general, though, I wish these new editions included everything I needed to replace my existing Kubrick DVDs (including some representation of the old Kubrick-approved packages and/or original poster art). If they did, I'd own a set right now.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

While I generally understand, I also think that the Warner brass may have simply thought that Kubrick's publicity had decades to sink in and create millions of impressions before changing the presentation of these films for disc. And considering that double-dipping is a common occurance and no DVD set can be considered definitive because of this, we're just looking at a campaign that will be seen by far, far fewer people than Kubrick's own images.

And let's not forget: the only things that matter in the end are the films themselves, and Warner made a strong effort to make these highly inaccessable movies accessable for a new generation of film buffs to discover. And you cannot fairly say that the covers misrepresent the films inside.

Besides, those of us who have already seen these films shouldn't care about the packaging and advertising: we've seen the films, we know the score. I'm going to spend about 5 seconds of my life looking at the cover art, and many, many hours watching Kubrick films in the best possible presentation. I don't feel gyped.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Brilliantly put. My sentiments exactly.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

The set is fantastic. The commentaries and extras are first-rate. Damn. I've been avoiding reasons to plunge into HD software. This reason may be too hard to ignore.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Well, for me the advertisement and poster art is part of the whole moviegoing experience. The movie advert page in the newspapers is part of what intrigued me about the films I grew up with, especially for those films I was too young to even see at the time. I would've loved to have seen the original black & yellow Saul Bass art used for the Shining DVD cover, but the Nicholson image is a Hell of a lot better than the Redrum door. The Clockwork Orange poster art is brilliant which thankfully was used for the stand-alone edition...and since most of my DVDs are usually left sitting out near my TV set for weeks I do look at them longer than 5 minutes. I'm just glad I found out about the inferior cover designs in the box set (not to mention the R-rated version of Eyes Wide Shut) before I opened it up. I'm sending it back and sticking with the individuals.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Interesting coming from someone whose avatar features the Vertigo poster art

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I agreed with a poster who was prioritizing the FILM over the advertising materials, and didn't feel "gyped" by Warner for not using the original poster art on the DVD covers. I stand by that sentiment, as I consider the film to be vastly more important that the materials used to promote it, and by association I'm much more interested in the contents of a DVD disc versus whatever cover the studio decides to put on it. It doesn't mean I don't value (even LOVE) film posters, lobby cards, magazine ads, and any other related promotional materials. It should also be mentioned that Warner's earlier Kubrick releases DO feature the original poster art, so I for one am happy they tried something different this time. Christ, if you (or anyone else) feels the need to look at the original poster art for a film before you watch it on DVD, do an image search on Google and browse to your heart's content.

With regards to the avatar, Vertigo is my favorite film. I have the poster in question hanging in my office at home, along with several other 11x17 alternate Vertigo posters alongside it.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Or just mischievous?
You know very well that nobody suggested the poster should be prioritized over the film itself. Nobody suggested, implied, hinted or stated any such thing.
When consumers go to the store to shop for DVD's, they should see the promotional designs that Stanley Kubrick worked so hard on for the reasons that I described. His promotional campaigns are proven, established, and familiar, if not as unique as the films themselves. It is important how promotional art represents a Kubrick film, which is not the same thing as oogling over souvenirs or memorabilia.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

After the movie The Shawshank Redemption, the word 'obtuse' becomes a bit more dangerous.

I went to DVD Profiler to see what all the fuss is about. Those covers ... they are very weak.

Having said that, Craig has a point. I mean, in the future, if movies were electronically send me and they looked great, I have no real concerns. But, if they are going to do packaging, why not make it look great?

I seriously doubt most people would prefer the box set art version of 2001 or A Clockwork Orange compared to the HD versions. I don't even think it would be close.

Moving to the positive, with the news that Full Metal Jacket is a new, anamorphic version, the boxset then becomes better than what I originally wrote about it.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

As one who has bumped heads with Richard--W before, I have to say I am in complete agreement with him re: the poster art. If you were around at the time of the release of A Clockwork Orange, as I was, it seems inexorably associated with the film. No, the poster art does not outweigh a beautifully remastered version of the film; but it should have been an obvious slam-dunk to include the original poster art for this release. It is not a deal-breaker that they did not include it, but it is a serious lapse on someone's part that they underestimated its importance.

To suggest that he was implying that the lack of the original art negated the re-mastering is blatant fanboyism, IMO.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Has there been any threads on the missing commentaries of the Eyes Wide Shut discs of this special edition.?? Just read on Digital Bits, from last week (23rd) of these missing pieces. Is this to be another 'Superman' fiasco such as what happened last year at this time when Warners ( again ) screwed up, and then decided to reship the corrected Discs??

So I was looking to see if any of this has been mentioned here at HTF ..

??

Re: New Kubrick SE's

WB released updated specs about a month before the box set came out taking the commentary off of the list of special features. I have no idea if they never actually got around to recording it, or if they didn't like the results, but it's not "missing" the way that the Superman 3 bonus features were in the Superman set -- a decision was made not to include it. The only mistake on the EWS packaging is that it claims to have both the "R" and "Unrated" versions on the disc, when in fact the disc only has the unrated version. Future repressings of the title will have the cover art amended to reflect this.

For what it's worth, I thought Warners handled the Superman problem with a lot of care and effort. They announced there was an issue before it even came out rather than leaving it as a surprise for fans to discover, and had a disc replacement program set up the day the set came out -- I had new discs within a few weeks I think. Sure, it's a mistake that shouldn't have happened, but for all of the outstanding material on the set in the first place, I wouldn't have gotten around to the extras on Superman 3 until long after I got my replacement anyway.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

As someone who actually likes the new cover art on the individual cases in this set, I wonder if Warner will make available the same style cover inserts for The Shining and A Life In Pictures that were supposed to be used according to this promotional shot. It seems like it would be fairly easy to facilitate this on their end...

Re: New Kubrick SE's

My box set actually has the cover with the new artwork for The Shining, but not for A Life in Pictures. I bought it at Futureshop in Canada so this may be specific only to the Canadian release.

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I just followed the DVDTalk link to see the boxset covers...wow, those covers are terrible.

They look simplistic to the point of being child-like.

I have an unopened boxset coming to me for Christmas, but now I know why people were talking about buying the individual releases (I though they just wanted slipcovers).