New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Kubrick SE's - Page 12

post #331 of 397
11/3/07 at 5:53am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Enough with the pissing contest between the minimalists and maximalists! As a formalist artist, my guess is that Kubrick would have liked the boxed set covers--who knows? I like 'em, but I guess that puts me in the minimalist camp, so who gives a rat's? I just wish those griping about the covers would quit acting like the Warners marketing team was on crack, or utterly lacking in imagination--they chose a perfectly viable, quite creative in its own manner, minimalist approach and it just ain't your thing. Boo-hoo...I hate cluttered floating head movie posters, but they must do the trick for some segment of the audience...build a bridge and get over it.
Reply
post #332 of 397
11/3/07 at 6:44am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Brashear
Enough with the pissing contest between the minimalists and maximalists! As a formalist artist, my guess is that Kubrick would have liked the boxed set covers--who knows? I like 'em, but I guess that puts me in the minimalist camp, so who gives a rat's? I just wish those griping about the covers would quit acting like the Warners marketing team was on crack, or utterly lacking in imagination--they chose a perfectly viable, quite creative in its own manner, minimalist approach and it just ain't your thing. Boo-hoo...I hate cluttered floating head movie posters, but they must do the trick for some segment of the audience...build a bridge and get over it.

And what exactly does your post do but add to the pissing contest?

What we are doing is stating opinions and clearly these covers have struck a nerve with some people here. But, please don't serve yourself up as an artist and expect anyone to give a rat's ass about that credential. I sweat to God that I was at the Tate Modern with people studying a large round bin and a vacuum cleaner before the janitor came back into the room to get them.

To each his own, but I note that Warner sure as hell didn't use these covers for the ones that people actually SEE when buying them. Nope, they kept these babies for the ones unseen (at purchase) in a boxset. Wonder why?
Reply
post #333 of 397
11/3/07 at 7:44am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
And what exactly does your post do but add to the pissing contest?
What we are doing is stating opinions and clearly these covers have struck a nerve with some people here.

So it's all right to state an opinion that you don't like the covers but it's not all right to say you like them?

Personally I think they are very stylish. To suggest, for example, that they are childish and that Warner Bros gave little thought to them is just silly.
Reply
post #334 of 397
11/3/07 at 8:23am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
And what exactly does your post do but add to the pissing contest?

What we are doing is stating opinions and clearly these covers have struck a nerve with some people here. But, please don't serve yourself up as an artist and expect anyone to give a rat's ass about that credential.

I flat-out told you in my post what my opinion was, but that it didn't matter, none of them do and "who gives a rat's?" Reading only parts of the whole isn't conducive to my frustration level or your intellectual one. The only germane point I wanted people to start considering was that, whether you like the covers or not, they are not lacking increativity or validity. If you don't like them, you just apparently don't enjoy minimalist art. I wish people would simply grant that and move on, rather than dramatically and pathetically lament on and on about how brain dead the marketers at Warner Bros. are.
Reply
post #335 of 397
11/3/07 at 8:34am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R
So it's all right to state an opinion that you don't like the covers but it's not all right to say you like them?

Try actually reading the posts. What I said is that I don't (at all) like someone implying some quasi-expertise when stating their opinion. Like if that makes their opinion somehow better than someone else's.

Quote:
Personally I think they are very stylish. To suggest, for example, that they are childish and that Warner Bros gave little thought to them is just silly.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, other than you inability to just state your own case but instead having to put down other opinions as "silly." Unlike you, I haven't put anyone else's opinion of the art down, but just made my own points.

Myself, I don't think that taking some image and putting in some shadowing and softening the edges with some air brushing and putting them on a black background makes it appear as if WHV gave much thought to them.

I guess I'm just being silly.

Reply
post #336 of 397
11/3/07 at 9:19am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Post Deleted.
Reply
post #337 of 397
11/3/07 at 9:22am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
Myself, I don't think that taking some image and putting in some shadowing and softening the edges with some air brushing and putting them on a black background makes it appear as if WHV gave much thought to them.

I guess I'm just being silly.

To a degree, yes, you are. I don't mean to question your intelligence, but you are now routinely avoiding the point that we are dealing with artisitic minimalism, not apathetic simplicity or a childish lack of creativity. I don't care that you don't like the covers any more than you care that I do; we're both entitled to our subjective preferences--the more critical point is, if you are not willing to concede that minimalism is a valid form of artisitic expression, and that it is thematically in line with Kubrick's formalist aesthetic, then yes, I'd say "being silly" would be the correct description. Add "prideful" and "obstinate" while you're at it.

As a side point, it's ironic that you sampled A CLOCKWORK ORANGE's cover--it's the only one I'm a little unimpressed with. I'd have preferred (and found it to be more thematically aligned with the others) a glass of milk to the eye.
Reply
post #338 of 397
11/3/07 at 1:27pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Brashear
To a degree, yes, you are. I don't mean to question your intelligence, but you are now routinely avoiding the point that we are dealing with artisitic minimalism, not apathetic simplicity or a childish lack of creativity. I don't care that you don't like the covers any more than you care that I do; we're both entitled to our subjective preferences--the more critical point is, if you are not willing to concede that minimalism is a valid form of artisitic expression, and that it is thematically in line with Kubrick's formalist aesthetic, then yes, I'd say "being silly" would be the correct description. Add "prideful" and "obstinate" while you're at it.

Name-calling? You cut me to the quick. Obviously since you resort to that, you must be right.

Oh, I see. Minimalism is what I need to concede about? Funny, I thought we were sharing opinions on the artwork of the Kubrick SEs. Silly me, yet again, I must have stumbled into the art forum by mistake. And somehow, there is no good art or bad art but we need to concentrate on what you define as "minimalism" ... because that thematically lines up with what you say is Kubrick's "formalist aesthetic" because ... you say it does.

Got it.
Reply
post #339 of 397
11/3/07 at 2:31pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Wow. Just...wow. Do you hate scientists this much when they dare to impress upon you that the Earth is round? I mean, how dare it be so just because they say it is...
Reply
post #340 of 397
11/3/07 at 3:37pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_d
Try actually reading the posts. What I said is that I don't (at all) like someone implying some quasi-expertise when stating their opinion. Like if that makes their opinion somehow better than someone else's.

Someone with expertise is usually making an informed opinion which carries more weight than someone who's opinion is based on prejudice and/or ignorance.
Reply
post #341 of 397
11/3/07 at 5:45pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R
Someone with expertise is usually making an informed opinion which carries more weight than someone who's opinion is based on prejudice and/or ignorance.

Nicely stated, and if you are defending me (or at least my assertions), then I appreciate the courtesy. To beat rich_d to the lackluster punch, though, I'm sure he'll argue that he accused me of being a quasi-expert, not an actual one, therefore my arguments have all the weight of vapor with him. Funny, though, because the weight of one's alleged expertise should be measurable by the saliency of one's facts, and here I am arguing with someone who's brand of retort consists of vacuous statements like "Silly me, yet again, I must have stumbled into the art forum by mistake" when the very issue we are debating is...brace yourselves...art work.
Reply
post #342 of 397
11/3/07 at 5:58pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Hmmm. Smells like piss in here.
Reply
post #343 of 397
11/3/07 at 7:00pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Beam
Hmmm. Smells like piss in here.

... that it does; touché! I'm afraid you'll have to blame the asparagus undertone on me...
Reply
post #344 of 397
11/4/07 at 8:09pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Sorry to move us off the topic, but
Quote:
I would've loved to have seen the original black & yellow Saul Bass art used for the Shining DVD cover
What is this you're talking about?

And does anyone have any links to pictures of the controversial artwork? (I tried looking at the DVD Talk link, but that didn't work - for some reason the picture wouldn't load.)
Reply
post #345 of 397
11/4/07 at 9:33pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Reply
post #346 of 397
11/5/07 at 3:32am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Now that you show me, I do remember having seen that poster over the years. I had no idea Saul Bass did the art - but I'm not surprised. It has that precise capture of the film that Bass was so great at.
Reply
post #347 of 397
11/5/07 at 8:53am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I, too, recall that original Saul Bass artwork, and seeing it again reminds me how wonderful, evocative, and effective that simple piece of art is. It's stunning.

I would swap out my current "The Shining" DVD cover (from the new set) to that Bass one in a heartbeat.
Reply
post #348 of 397
11/5/07 at 1:29pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

I've always liked the Saul Bass poster but desperately wished it was white or red. Yellow in no manner evokes any part of this icy horror film for me.
Reply
post #349 of 397
11/6/07 at 9:45am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Yellow was a strange choice. Don't eat the snow!

In my 2001 Blu-Ray, there was a sheet of upcoming BD releases that included the "Kubrick Collection" logo. I haven't heard anything official about an HD release of the boxed set though.
Reply
post #350 of 397
11/7/07 at 10:33pm

Different Movie on EWS Disc 1!

I finally get this today and play Eyes Wide Shut Disc 1 when the animated menu seems different, more upbeat, more jazzy. Then a red airplane swishes across the screen and Ocean's Twelve appears! Huh? Now I have to return the entire box via Media Mail to Amazon's return center from Hawai'i which will take about three weeks, then another 7 to 14 days to process the return.

I wish I could just mail the EWS discs to Warner but I have to attempt to return it to the retailer first.
Reply
post #351 of 397
11/8/07 at 6:45am

Re: Different Movie on EWS Disc 1!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith I
I finally get this today and play Eyes Wide Shut Disc 1 when the animated menu seems different, more upbeat, more jazzy. Then a red airplane swishes across the screen and Ocean's Twelve appears! Huh? Now I have to return the entire box via Media Mail to Amazon's return center from Hawai'i which will take about three weeks, then another 7 to 14 days to process the return.

I wish I could just mail the EWS discs to Warner but I have to attempt to return it to the retailer first.

Too bad, perhaps WHV eyes are wide shut.

Another option, would be to just return it and wait for the DDD 20 percent off sale that will be here pretty soon.
Reply
post #352 of 397
11/9/07 at 4:57am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Jan Harlan discusses the Kubrick set here -

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/30/073219.php

and here:

http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/833/833528p1.html

He's hopeful that LOLITA and BARRY LYNDON will appear soon and confirms the long-awaited Taschen book on NAPOLEON.
Reply
post #353 of 397
11/9/07 at 6:23am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Neilson
Jan Harlan discusses the Kubrick set here -

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/30/073219.php

and here:

http://uk.dvd.ign.com/articles/833/833528p1.html

He's hopeful that LOLITA and BARRY LYNDON will appear soon and confirms the long-awaited Taschen book on NAPOLEON.

Quote:
IGN: Formatting Kubrick's films for video and DVD has always been a subject of debate for his fans. How did you decide for each film (especially Full Metal Jacket, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut) what would be the format (aspect ratio, etc.) and why?

HARLAN: The tendency to wider formats started years ago with multiplex cinemas and wider TV sets. Stanley Kubrick didn't particularly like this trend but had to go along.

This answer doesn't really make much sense. Excluding the experimentation in the early early 1900s and again in the early 1930s, Widescreen became popular in the mid 1950s - well before multiplexes. In fact some multiplexes have quite narrow screens meaning the image isn't actually projected properly.

As with the whole anamorphic transfer debate regarding the last set of Kubrick DVDs, again someone associated closely with the Kubrick estate doesn't seem to have a complete knowledge of how Kubrick's films were original presented theatrically, and how best to convert that experience to video.
Reply
post #354 of 397
11/9/07 at 6:54am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson
As with the whole anamorphic transfer debate regarding the last set of Kubrick DVDs, again someone associated closely with the Kubrick estate doesn't seem to have a complete knowledge of how Kubrick's films were original presented theatrically, and how best to convert that experience to video.
Actually, the lack of complete knowledge is more about the history of widescreen cinema than how the films were presented in theaters. He covered the latter by saying Kubrick "had to go along". In any case, the controversy has always been due to claims from SK and close associates that he preferred the films presented at a different aspect ratio on video than in their theatrical runs. Folks on either side of the argument now have decent video presentations to choose from on standard DVD for EWS, FMJ, and The Shining, so happiness abounds, right?

Regards,
Reply
post #355 of 397
11/9/07 at 7:21am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden
Folks on either side of the argument now have decent video presentations to choose from on standard DVD for EWS, FMJ, and The Shining, so happiness abounds, right?

One would hope.

However, a more cynical view is that true happiness comes from not only being right but your opponent being wrong and knowing it.

It's like a scene in the film Annie Hall, where Alvy Singer pulls Marshall McLuhan out from the crowd to settle a disagreement with a self-described expert on McLuhan's work. McLuhan just doesn't tell the man that he's incorrect but tells him that he knows nothing of his work crushing him like a grape. IIRC, Alvy looks at the screen and says something like 'if only life were that simple.'
Reply
post #356 of 397
11/9/07 at 7:42am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden
Actually, the lack of complete knowledge is more about the history of widescreen cinema than how the films were presented in theaters. He covered the latter by saying Kubrick "had to go along".

Do you think Harlan was trying to say that Kubrick liked the Academy format, but disliked having to compose for matted widescreen in the widescreen era? His connection of the widescreen era and megaplexes is so way off as to be completely confusing.

But I guess I should've been clearer, in my previous post I was referring to the last set of Kubrick DVDs where in a few interviews Leon Vitali didn't seem to understand the difference between a film photographed with anamorphic lenses, and a DVD matted to 1.66:1 and encoded in anamorphic widescreen.
Reply
post #357 of 397
11/9/07 at 8:34am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson
Do you think Harlan was trying to say that Kubrick liked the Academy format, but disliked having to compose for matted widescreen in the widescreen era? His connection of the widescreen era and megaplexes is so way off as to be completely confusing.

But I guess I should've been clearer, in my previous post I was referring to the last set of Kubrick DVDs where in a few interviews Leon Vitali didn't seem to understand the difference between a film photographed with anamorphic lenses, and a DVD matted to 1.66:1 and encoded in anamorphic widescreen.
Vitali was discussing lenses of different focal lengths being used for shots with the camera placed at different distances. The analogy with 16:9 enhancement was equally incorrect, but not grounds for completely dismissing the rest of his statements on other topics any more than Simon's mis-rembering of it as having to do with anamorphic lenses would be grounds for dismissing other points that he makes, which are almost always well informed and reasonable (with a better batting average than mine, I bet ).

Regards,
Reply
post #358 of 397
11/9/07 at 11:38am

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Just purchased the sets and not having seen this discussion I was not aware of the "special covers" chosen for this box set. I was REALLY let down. Warner should have made the buyer aware of this more overtly.

Looking them over I agree they are somewhat minimalist and I suppose they work. However, the one cardinal sin here is that The Shining shuns this approach and uses what I believe is the general release cover completely nullifying the unified look to this set. Warner really blew it on this one. The Art Director and Product Manager were asleep at the wheel here.

I for one would have preferred Bob McCall's original artwork for this 2001: a Space Odyssey re-release. The "Star Child" revisioning used in the general release is ok but I prefer the former.
Reply
post #359 of 397
11/9/07 at 12:19pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles_Y
Warner should have made the buyer aware of this more overtly.
Should there be a warning? It's just a cover.
Reply
post #360 of 397
11/9/07 at 1:27pm

Re: New Kubrick SE's

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
Should there be a warning? It's just a cover.

Yeah, maybe they should include it as part of the ratings system. "Rated R for Adult themes, violence, and minimalist cover art."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD