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

[lukejosephchung]

History and documentation has already shown that "Shane" was produced and photographed in Academy Ratio 1.37:1...1.66:1 was a commercial concession by Stevens Sr. to Paramount after they sat on the film for 2 years...creator's intent is sancrosact in this example and is being properly honored by the new blu-ray, IMHO...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS was shot for 1.85:1.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Although pan and scan always annoys me, I personally don't mind open mat for films released in widescreen and shot by ordinary directors. As an example, I prefer the open mat version of A Christmas Story. One thing I really enjoy about the film is looking at the sets and the various Christmas decorations, and I prefer to see more of that rather than less. Sometimes, in such cases, I think what is gained more than makes up for what is lost.

"Ordinary directors"? What the wocka does THAT mean???

 

[DVDvision]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is in superscope (about 2.00:1) on Blu. Thought I would appreciate the high def 1.85:1 version, it represents the theatrical ratio of the film, as any Blu-ray should first and foremost.

I'm not against the academy Shane... It's just that it should come with the theatrical ratio and not replace it.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is in superscope (about 2.00:1) on Blu. Thought I would appreciate the high def 1.85:1 version, it represents the theatrical ratio of the film, as any Blu-ray should first and foremost.

I'm not against the academy Shane... It's just that it should come with the theatrical ratio and not replace it.

George Stevens, Jr. makes it clear in his interview that it was Warner and not him that chose to release the "Shane" blu-ray with only the Academy Ratio presentation...price-point considerations for them make your alternative economically unfeasible, which is why we're at this impasse!!!

 

[WadeM]

This will not be done here, hence it's a triumph for the Pan&Scan brigade. The people who prefer movies not to be seen in their Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

That the original intended ratio is the one we're going to get it irrelevant. It's still not the original Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

Since Pan & Scan compromises the aspect ratio that the film was composed in, your argument could easily fall back on yourself, and IMO, would be more accurate. Pan & Scan has nothing to do with anyone not wanting to see a film in its theatrical ratio, but instead has to do with people not wanting to see black bars and/or not being happy with a picture that's smaller than their TV screen. And it has nothing to do with people wanting to see square or "boxy" images. The "Pan & Scan brigade" that you refer to are the same ones who want a 1.78:1 aspect ration on their widescreen TVs, regardless of the ratio that a film was composed in--yes, they want a wide picture instead of a square. Those of us who support the 1.37:1 ratio that Shane was composed in are fighting against compromising that composition. Period. The same reason we fight against Pan & Scan and what you call the "Pan & Scan brigade".

It's the Pan & Scan brigade who prefer the 1.66:1 because it will fill up more of their widescreen TV screen. The people I know who used to like Pan & Scan on their old TVs, now stretch the image on their new widescreen TVs. That's why AMC is stretching the image on their broadcast. As the NY Post article stated: Stevens hopes the 1:66 version will at least used to replace the widescreen version of "Shane'' he says is currently being shown on AMC. "Instead of cropping the top and the bottom, they've stretched the picture the picture so it looks like Jack Palace's horse is 12 feet long,'' he says. "I know my father would prefer my 1:66 version to that.''
Read more: George Stevens Jr. speaks out on the 'Shane' controversy http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/george_stevens_jr_speaks_out_on_eYV1jnxnoOs92gpzodhqEN#ixzz2RfSokl8E


Look, I know you don't like Pan & Scan, but, really, your recent arguments go too far.

One can argue that the final, theatrical ratio was intended in the end. By the director himself. Here, we have protection of an early intent.

It's a bit like championing the Star Wars SE versions over the theatrical (only it's not about the format for SW, but content). George (I mean Lucas) do says the final versions are what he always "intended".

Does their only availability makes him right?

In essence, my feeling is that if the widescreen version does not appear on Blu, we have transformed George Stevens into George Lucas. Lucas does protect his early intent with his changes, but that doesn't make them being the only versions available right.

I believe George Stevens Jr. was earlier going for the widescreen version, because that would be the main presentation his father would have chosen today, with the academy being the second choice, for buffs.

You can argue it, but I don't buy it.

 

[Paul Penna]

Back in the olden days of home video/theater when concern over what TV-screen formatting was doing to feature film images started becoming an issue for significant numbers of people, "theatrical aspect ratio" was the term most often used to refer to that kind of TV formatting not happening. There wasn't anything magical or doctrinaire about the word "theatrical" per se. All people meant by "theatrical aspect ratio" was they didn't want feature films chopped and sliced just so they'd fill a 4x3 TV screen. There was little if any awareness of the complication the widescreen transitional period brought to the relatively small number of films affected, such as Shane. Nobody was really considering a distinction between theatrical and intended as the term became common parlance. So I don't think history supports the idea that a literal interpretation of "theatrical aspect ratio" was always the sacred goal of the original framers.

 

[Ruz-El]

.price-point considerations for them make your alternative economically unfeasible, which is why we're at this impasse!!!

yeah, the extra buck or two it would cost in manufacturing will bankrupt the studio.

The only reason for Warner's to not include both versions at this point is to price gouge the fans by releasing it separately.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I've just updated the article with two trailers for SHANE: standard ratio and widescreen.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Douglas R]

I've just updated the article with two trailers for SHANE: standard ratio and widescreen.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

I can play the standard ratio trailer but the widescreen one says "The uploader has not made this video available in your country"

 

[Tom Logan]

I've just updated the article with two trailers for SHANE: standard ratio and widescreen.

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

Very instructive: You know cropping is bad when the diminutive Mr. Ladd gets the top of his head lopped off. We also lose many of the Tetons' nipples.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Oh, sorry about that Doug. The widescreen trailer was uploaded by Paramount. I have no way to change their settings!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Just got this e-mail:

"The street date for the George Stevens production of SHANE in Blu-ray™ has been moved to from June 4, 2013 to August 13, 2013 in order to complete remastering in the original 1:37 aspect ratio"

 

[Mark-P]

Amazon now has a back cover image. Aspect ratio 1.37 and audio is DTS-HD Master Audio: English 2S (whatever that means?)

 

[Brandon Conway]

Amazon now has a back cover image. Aspect ratio 1.37 and audio is DTS-HD Master Audio: English 2S (whatever that means?)

2S is 2.0 Stereo L/R.

 

[Lromero1396]

2S is 2.0 Stereo L/R.

Didn't Shane have a 3-track stereo mix created during post-production?

 

[Brandon Conway]

To quote Bob Furmanek from earlier in the thread:

The three channel stereo track for SHANE was finished in May in time for the May 27 midwest premiere in Chicago at the State-Lake Theatre. From that point forward, most openings in major cities were in widescreen with stereophonic sound.

....

Sadly, to the best of our knowledge, none survive.

 

[PaulaJ]

Er, that pic of an obviously older Alan Ladd in the embroidered vest -- what movie is that from? Because it's sure not from Shane.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

Er, that pic of an obviously older Alan Ladd in the embroidered vest -- what movie is that from? Because it's sure not from Shane.

It sure is!

 

[PaulaJ]

Um.....no.