Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Although I think you're playing devil's advocate Mr Furmanek, my answer would have to be "If that were REALLY the case then WHY recompose and re-frame the BD from that 1.66:1 version that already had his support and blessing?"

PS. I found my dog-eared and well loved copy of your A&C book after all, whew!!

Perhaps because movie theater viewing in 1953 versus home theater viewing in 2013 might be quite different as well as better technical tools today than back in the day for improving the 1.66:1 viewing experience. I'm just guessing here.

 

[John Hodson]

...the point being that would someone as meticulous as George Stevens truly give his blessing to, or be 100% happy with, a widescreen version of his film that 60 years later his son decides could be improved with the odd tweak here and there?

 

[Ruz-El]

It's funny, George Lucas uses new technology to tweak his films and it causing nothing but teeth gnashing. Someone not directly associated with Shane (I don't believe Jr. was on the crew responsible for his dads film, I could be wrong) is using new tech to create a new version of Shane and it's a good call.

I'll never understand us movie nerds.

*And yes, adding CGI effects is different than adjusting framing, but it is in the same ball park.

 

[Robert Crawford]

...the point being that would someone as meticulous as George Stevens truly give his blessing to, or be 100% happy with, a widescreen version of his film that 60 years later his son decides could be improved with the odd tweak here and there?

I would think Stevens Jr. is in a better position than any of us living today that can truly answer that question.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's funny, George Lucas uses new technology to tweak his films and it causing nothing but teeth gnashing. Someone not directly associated with Shane (I don't believe Jr. was on the crew responsible for his dads film, I could be wrong) is using new tech to create a new version of Shane and it's a good call.

I'll never understand us movie nerds.

*And yes, adding CGI effects is different than adjusting framing, but it is in the same ball park.

You are wrong, he was on the crew and was on the set everyday of shooting it. By the way, I don't now if it's a good call until I see the final product. I think most people have stated here that both versions should be on this BD release so I don't know how many people think it's a good call.

 

[John Hodson]

I would think Stevens Jr. is in a better position than any of us living today that can truly answer that question.

Yes he is isn't he? I am, I have to say, all ears...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Indeed he is.


Yes he is isn't he? I am, I have to say, all ears...

Perhaps more from Stevens Jr. will come out during the TCM film festival and closer to the BD release date.

 

[Rob_Ray]

George Stevens, Jr. takes a very proprietary interest in his dad's films and is not afraid to alter them if he feels he's acting in his dad's interests. He decided just a few years ago during a restoration of "The Diary of Anne Frank" that his father never liked the intermission break in that film and had it permanently removed for all new restoration prints and latter-day video releases. Alfred Newman purists still gnash their teeth over the now-missing entr'acte music.

 

[Tom Logan]

The "permanently removed" is the problematic part.

People authorized--by genetics or law--to make post-release changes will do what they want, for a variety of reasons, from aesthetic channeling to childhood-raping.

But they should always make available the originally released version as well. It's really that simple.

 

[DVDvision]

All Leone movies are missing intermissions, no one complains anywhere. It's all about internet awareness, or lack of it.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Boy, this is frustrating. I've uncovered information (including quotes from George Stevens) that will certainly surprise many people, but I don't want to say anything until my research is finished. I hope to have the article on-line by the end of this month.
I can only say this: until you've read my findings, please keep an open mind on this issue...

 

[John Hodson]

I always try to. Interest well and truly piqued...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Although I think you're playing devil's advocate Mr Furmanek, my answer would have to be "If that were REALLY the case then WHY recompose and re-frame the BD from that 1.66:1 version that already had his support and blessing?"

PS. I found my dog-eared and well loved copy of your A&C book after all, whew!!

Glad you found it and I'm happy that you find if useful.

Until our SHANE research is complete, see this article for an overall picture: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Keith Cobby]

I hope the picture quality is worth all this anguish!

 

[ahollis]

Boy, this is frustrating. I've uncovered information (including quotes from George Stevens) that will certainly surprise many people, but I don't want to say anything until my research is finished. I hope to have the article on-line by the end of this month.I can only say this: until you've read my findings, please keep an open mind on this issue...

It is frustrating to wait to the end of the month. But I will

 

[haineshisway]

I would think Stevens Jr. is in a better position than any of us living today that can truly answer that question.

I would agree. And I'm sure what he's done here in the 1.66 presentation is just make sure every shot looks good. Back then, after its initial run, no one would have control over the way it was framed for that ratio in theaters - it might have been too high, too low - I'm sure that Stevens, Jr., knowing his father and his father's visual aesthetics as well as have the Academy version as reference, would just make sure that each shot is framed to be the best it can be at 1.66. And if we're to have that version then I'm glad he did so.

 

[RobHam]

I would agree. And I'm sure what he's done here in the 1.66 presentation is just make sure every shot looks good. Back then, after its initial run, no one would have control over the way it was framed for that ratio in theaters - it might have been too high, too low - I'm sure that Stevens, Jr., knowing his father and his father's visual aesthetics as well as have the Academy version as reference, would just make sure that each shot is framed to be the best it can be at 1.66. And if we're to have that version then I'm glad he did so.

...and therein lies the problem.

Being handed a shitty stick that has had so much care in the presentation and arrangement is still a shitty stick.

If both AR's are offered, I think I'd watch the 1.66 out of curiosity - but not out of preference.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I would agree. And I'm sure what he's done here in the 1.66 presentation is just make sure every shot looks good. Back then, after its initial run, no one would have control over the way it was framed for that ratio in theaters - it might have been too high, too low - I'm sure that Stevens, Jr., knowing his father and his father's visual aesthetics as well as have the Academy version as reference, would just make sure that each shot is framed to be the best it can be at 1.66. And if we're to have that version then I'm glad he did so.

I'm not taking sides here because I understand both sides of this OAR argument, but what you stated here is exactly what I was referring to with an earlier post. That technical improvements can be made today on the original 1.66:1 presentation for home theater viewing, that couldn't be made during its theatrical run in 1953. I'm not going to argue whether that's right or wrong, but I hope Stevens Jr. is doing what his father wanted done to his western classic.

 

[Brandon Conway]

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, non-Anamorphic widescreen films are ALWAYS adjusted on a per-shot basis if necessary for home video. This is standard practice and has been done on literally hundreds of home video releases.

 

[haineshisway]

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, non-Anamorphic widescreen films are ALWAYS adjusted on a per-shot basis if necessary for home video. This is standard practice and has been done on literally hundreds of home video releases.

Including mine own - thank GOODNESS!