1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by PaulaJ, Mar 22, 2013.

  1. PaulaJ

    PaulaJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2000
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    42
    Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood-Elsewhere.com posted a column during the HTF hiatus stating that he had talked with George Stevens, Jr., who had told him that SHANE will be released on Blu-ray -- in 1:66.

    Surely SHANE should be seen in 1:37, even though it was shown theatrically in widescreen when finally released in 1953, two years after it was actually shot?

    (Yes, I know Wells has some odd ideas about aspect ratios but I think he's right on this one.)

    http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2013/03/shane-aspect-ratio-conflict/
     
  2. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,640
    Likes Received:
    4,065
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    There is a bit more going on here than meets the eye.

    While I would love to also see the film in 1.37, the 1.66 has been formatted on a shot by shot basis, as opposed to locking in at a 1.66 center and running.

    George Stevens, Jr., whom I trust implicitly, has approved. He was not only on set for the shoot in 1951, but also, rumor has it, knew the director reasonably well.

    Hopefully, a dual format release can occur, as the data would have been completed both ways.

    RAH
     
  3. Matt Hough

    Matt Hough Well-Known Member
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    13,658
    Likes Received:
    2,392
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Real Name:
    Matt Hough
    I just can't wait to get a quality release. I watched the DVD a week or two ago and wasn't pleased with what I saw on my newest equipment. I hadn't watched it in awhile (at least two TVs ago), but what I remembered being fine before now looked kind of soft and washed put in places.
     
  4. PaulaJ

    PaulaJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2000
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    42
    While I would love to also see the film in 1.37, the 1.66 has been formatted on a shot by shot basis, as opposed to locking in at a 1.66 center and running.

    Sometimes rumors are true! ;)
    While I'm glad they made a pain-staking effort to do a "good" 1:66 version, I still think 1:37 is correct for SHANE... if ever there was a candidate for a dual-version Blu-ray, this is it. I hope WB does not disappoint.
     
  5. Joe Bernardi

    Joe Bernardi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Sarasota, Florida
    Real Name:
    Joe Bernardi
    Shane is one of my top ten favorites. Definite Blu-ray purchase for me.
     
  6. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,477
    Likes Received:
    4,156
    Edit

    Article coming soon...
     
    Jon Lidolt likes this.
  7. Frank Ha

    Frank Ha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Land of mole, tlayudas and chapulines
    Real Name:
    Frank Harrison
    I certainly hope that dual ratios can be provided. I'm looking forward to getting this movie when it comes out (if I'm in the States at the time). I want to see it at 1:37, but will will make do with the other ratio if necessary. Based on Robert's info and observations above, I think the 1:66 ratio will work, at least for me.
     
  8. Frank Ha

    Frank Ha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Land of mole, tlayudas and chapulines
    Real Name:
    Frank Harrison
    Bob, thanks for pointing us to your aspect ratio research thread. Very interesting discussion going on over there.
     
  9. Russell G

    Russell G Fake Shemp
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,841
    Likes Received:
    486
    Location:
    Deadmonton
    Real Name:
    Russell
    I've never seen Shane so this will be my intro to the film. I just hope it's done right regardless! As Criterion has shown with On The Waterfront, it sounds like this one should be a dual release.
     
  10. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,165
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I'm with RAH on this issue as I believe Stevens wouldn't endorse this release if it compromised one of his father's masterpieces. Protecting his father's legacy would be foremost in this regard.
     
  11. Adam_S

    Adam_S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    102
    Real Name:
    Adam_S
    This is exciting! I hope George Stevens Jr can give us his carefully considered, shot by shot corrected 1.66:1 pan-and-scan versions of The Diary of Anne Frank and Greatest Story Ever Told, next!

    I don't know why we're constantly forced to see such wide images just because the director composed them that way in the camera, just like we shouldn't be forced to see the taller version of Shane just because the director composed it that way in the camera.

    ;)
     
  12. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    As mentioned in the aspect ratio thread, Shane WAS shown in 1.66:1 on initial theatrical release. So it makes sense to present it in the theatrical aspect ratio.

    I saw that there was a cut 90mn german version released, as someone listed it on IMDB. Anyone knows if this version still exists?
     
  13. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    I don't think George Stevens intended his film to be seen on Blu-ray either. Sightly different framing (when the theatrical aspect ratio is the case) always has been part and parcel of remastering films for the Home-Video Format. As I mentioned, director's adjusts shots framings all the time when a new transfer is redone.

    If it was released in theaters botched and savagely reframed (I assume by zooming to 1.66 and adjusting to the top of the frame to prevent looped heads), then there's no point in reproducing this on Blu-ray. (You can probably do this by zooming your DVD and adjusting up, to see the results).

    That a choice was made to adjust shot by shot (or in some shots) shows effort was made to make the framing natural and not noticeable by current audiences. It can be only good because you get the theatrical aspect ratio, looking the best it can be on home-video.

    Remember, it was the first widescreen shown western (unless I'm mistaken)

    Would this release have warranted an extra 1.37:1 version? By all means, since the film was shot in one intended ratio, and shown in another.

    Do the new 1.66 violates the film format history? I don't think so. With the involvement of the son of the director, it will probably constitute a definitive, archival version of the theatrical format of the film. It's not like the film will be mastered in varying aspect ratios (IMAX style). They have chosen to preserve the theatrical 1.66:1 format.

    What they put within this framing, should be what looks best to the compositions of the film. That's the choice of the guy in charge of the new transfer, and you can't dispute it anymore than you can dispute a director adjusting some shots in new transfers. Their aim is to put out a best presentation, not ruin the movie. Quite the opposite.

    Think of it as cosmetic changes. It's not at all like they are putting Jabba the Hut back in. They just want the best version possible in whatever format the film was initially shown theatrically.
     
  14. John Hodson

    John Hodson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    I respect your view, but I (almost) completely and utterly disagree.
     
    Jon Lidolt likes this.
  15. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,165
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    So you're against the reported BD release because it will be 1.66 ratio?
     
  16. John Hodson

    John Hodson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    No; please re read my post at the top of the page; that's my opinion, I'm afraid.
     
  17. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,165
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    You don't think George Jr. will have his father's notes as goes through this BD release frame by frame? His father was known to be very detailed which is why it took him so long to complete his films for release and with his father's notes and by being there during filming, I'm very confident this BD release will be true to his father's vision.
     
  18. John Hodson

    John Hodson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    I'm sure they'll do a bang up job. But we'll still come back to the core truth that George Stevens and Loyal Griggs vision as they shot the film was wholly in 1.37:1.

    I'm not in favour of effectively relegating the film as shot - or as released - to the dustbin of history.
     
  19. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    Well it's not the case here. We will have the 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio. I'm not shocked anymore than I was shocked of COF being frame adjusted for the DVD release. It was all about making the film look good. The only issue I see is that the film history is one of being shot for one ratio, but shown in another.

    That would have been a great opportunity to release both a 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 version in one package. But then this would be a marketing decision, not artistic.

    Paramount chose to release only one aspect ratio, that of the theatrical. That's fine, that doesn't make this release a violation of the original. A violation would be like framing it in 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 or even 1.77:1.
     
  20. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,165
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    It was shot in 1.37:1, but released in 1.66:1

    Anyhow, I'm all over this release as I can't see George Jr., not perserving his father's vision on such an important film of his father's legacy.
     
    JohnRa likes this.

Share This Page