Have there been any non-OAR blu-rays yet? - Page 2

Re: Have there been any non-OAR blu-rays yet?

See, these kinds of discussions confuse me, i'm certain that I read, either here or elsewhere, in years past that Kubrick wanted 1.33:1 for The Shining.

Re: Have there been any non-OAR blu-rays yet?

Kubrick had apparently requested that The Shining and a couple of his other soft-matte films be released on video in the open-matte format, with an aspect ratio of 1.33:1.

The first DVD release of these films occured shortly after his death, and featured the Kubrick-approved open-matte transfers. This was kind of controversial, because it wasn't completely clear whether Kubrick truly preferred the 1.33:1 ratio, viewing the theatrical 1.85:1 ratio as a compromise, or whether he compositionally preferred the 1.85:1 ratio but simply had some aversion to letterboxing on home video.

The image to which I linked in my previous post is taken from the book The Stanley Kubrick Archives. It was released just last year and finally offers definitive proof that Kubrick composed The Shining for the 1.85:1 ratio and was simply protecting the open-matte version. I won't presume to know his reasoning, but he obviously considered the open-matte version merely the best compromise for home video (which would typically have meant a 1:33:1 screen at the time), as opposed to the ideal representation of the film. I think it's probably reasonable to assume that the same applies to Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.

Kubrick died in 1999, just as DVD was really starting to become successful. Given the ubiquity of 16:9 displays today, as compared to 1999, and the fact that Blu-ray is a native 16:9 format, and that even DVD supports 16:9 video with full resolution (via "anamorphic" enhancement), I believe it's safe to say that Kubrick's preferred framing can be viewed on home video with no compromise whatsoever, and that his previous views on open-matte transfers are now obsolete.

It is my hope that Matt and Trey offer a similarly definitive statement about the aspect ratio of the first half of South Park's Season 12. It'd be nice if they discuss the issue in one of the commentaries.

Apparently, the Echo Bridge version of The Lookout was cropped from 2.35:1 to 178:1. I've also read that Equilibrium received the same treatment.
The Disney/Miramax version of The Lookout appears to be correct.
Edited by Robert Kilbride - 3/22/12 at 5:54pm

Paramount is about to release a full frame BR of HONDO. It was photographed for widescreen and this is documented in studio memos between John Wayne and Jack Warner.

There are several Canadian releases that are cropped to 1.78:1 and appear to be taken from HD masters for broadcast. Someone mentioned Se7en, but Blade is another example.

And pray tell, how do you know it's going to be "full-frame" which in this case you mean 1.37:1, when Paramount has not released any information at all on the specs yet?

Please, stop. What Mr. Kubrick wanted is clearly shown in the Kubrick Archives book. You must know this. It cannot be refuted, it's in his handwriting. He was a filmmaker, not a TV show maker - he knew very well how his films would be exhibited in motion picture theaters. You can take any stance you like, of course, and those who know can disagree with you just to keep the record straight.

My memory is a bit fuzzy but weren't there some issues regarding both "Dr. Strangelove" and "Woodstock" because they originally had a variable oar, but have been reformatted to one standard oar for blu-ray?

I kept the old Shining DVD around for a while, thinking how "interesting" it would be to compare it side by side with the Blu-ray one of these days, and wouldn't others find it fascinating, too.  Took one look at the fabulous Blu-ray, instantly realized I'd never spend a minute of my life watching that DVD again, and out it went.

Here's one I've meant to ask about, or maybe I asked somewhere and have totally forgotten what I learned:  The Bad Seed.  I was disappointed in the Blu-ray (shocked, actually) for a couple of reasons, but didn't they wrongly crop the 1.37 to 1.85?  It looks utterly cramped throughout.

U.S. release of Tornatore's Baaria and Triage with Colin Farrell come to mind.

Nope, look at the year of release. Absolutely 1.85 - the full frame DVD has way too much headroom.

Legend has announced Blu-ray's of PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE and LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS. Both films were shot for widescreen, probably 1.85.

Good answer. The widescreen era ushered in quickly, with movies composed for the Academy frame (1.37:1) dying out very quickly. By 1956 there were very few non-widescreen movies released. From Here to Eternity was the last Best Picture Oscar Winner composed for 1.37:1. On the Waterfront and Marty were both composed for widescreen even though they've only been released open-matte on video

Most studios began composing for widescreen in March/April of 1953.

Bob

Okay, I'll watch it again with those words in mind.  I did wonder about the year, and checked IMDb which didn't indicate 1.85 -- though maybe they aren't as accurate with that particular kind of info as I'd thought.

There's a LOT of wrong AR information on that site, particularly with the early non-anamorphic widescreen titles.

Bob

I don't know about Woodstock, but Dr. Strangelove simply was shot with some scenes open matted, and some hard matted in 1.66:1. On the first DVD release, the scene with Major Kong riding the bomb at the end (I'm sure I'm not spoiling anything for anyone here ) has the background plate with black bars on the top and bottom, while the actor on the prop go in front of the matting. There's no doubt that this movie was made in 1.66:1, just like the movies Kubrick made before Dr. Strangelove.