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. John Hodson

    John Hodson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    Robert, I'm aware of that; I'll try again with my post at the top of the page, altered slightly so I'm crystal clear:
     
    Robin9 likes this.
  2. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,135
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I would prefer the two versions two, but it looks like it's not going to happen.
     
  3. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    520
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    I hear Danny Huston is going to reframe Maltese Falcon for a new 1.85 version since the film played that way during reissues. I'm sure he'll honor his fathers vision and that HTF will support his decision. Time to change the HTF mission statement - if a relative of the director does the change to the aspect ratio, then it's OK.
     
    cafink likes this.
  4. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    520
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    But that's not what they are doing.
     
  5. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    The theatrical initial was 1.66 and the Blu-ray is 1.66, so that is what they are doing.
     
  6. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    You guys don't get it. The original theatrical release of this film was 1.66. It was one of the first widescreen presented movies, regardless of the intent when it was shot.

    A 1.66 release thus reflects the initial theatrical presentation format (regardless if the image within is adjusted or not).
     
  7. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,135
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    No reason to be snarky about it. If you disagree with me then state your reasoning moreso then I'll reply in the same respectful manner to your further explanation. Furthermore, this is my personal opinion and has little to do with what is stated in the HTF mission statement.
     
  8. kingofthejungle

    kingofthejungle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    9
    So, if a director's vision is compromised due to a studio's knee-jerk economic concerns (wanting product for that newfangled widescreen that they've been pushing) at the time of it's release, the compromised version should live on into perpetuity and we should all just pretend that it's supposed to be that way?The 1.66 ratio represents fidelity to the Paramount's economic vision, not Stevens' artistic vision. I'm not even a fan of Stevens- he's one of my least favorite directors- but I think this is a profanity. What level of tampering becomes permissible if it's perpetrated by a director's relative? Would you let Stevens Jr. supervise the colorization of Gunga Din as well?
     
    Rob_Ray likes this.
  9. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,135
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Just a question that I don't know the answer to, but perhaps, Stevens Jr. does since he was a production assistant on the film. Is it possible that Stevens Sr. preferred version after filming the movie is the 1.66 ratio? If so, do we discount his preference?






    Crawdaddy
     
  10. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    520
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    But the original 1.66 theatrical showings were not tilt and scanned as this new version is. So we are not seeing it as any audience saw it in 1954. We will be seeing a revision. Twofold revision, actually, since the film was photographed for and intended to be seen in Academy ratio.
     
  11. kingofthejungle

    kingofthejungle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    9
    Do we have any evidence to suggest this, or just wild speculation?One thing is for certain, he couldn't have preferred the version now being prepared for Blu-Ray because he never saw it. I respect that Stevens was a detail oriented guy, and that Stevens Jr. Has access to his father's notes, but what exactly could we expect to be in those notes that would assist in cropping his compositions to ratios he never intended to compose for. Something like this- 'SHOT 615. Low angle. Barroom. I spent weeks picking this angle, but in the event that we have to lose part of the frame, the emphasis should be on Alan Ladd's head and not the effect of receding space created by the lines of the floorboards.'I just don't buy it. If we're going to support a revision of Shane, why don't we don't we go full George Lucas and replace Brandon de Wilde with a less annoying child actor?
     
  12. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    520
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Sorry if you took it personally, not my intention.To be clear, I support reflecting original theatrical presentations whenever possible. However, when the original theatrical presentations were compromised (as is clearly the case with Shane), I feel the artists original intent should be presented. That's why I think this release should feature the 1.37 version as the primary feature, and the 1.66 presented as an option.
     
  13. John Hodson

    John Hodson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    They should go the whole 'On The Waterfront/Touch of Evil' and give us a set featuring all three options; hell, I'd go for that and I'd be prepared to pay a premium price.As it stands - and I'm no 'cut my nose off to spite my face' guy - but they offer just a reframed, tilt and scan 1.66:1 and it's no sale. This is one of my favourite films; but I simply have no interest in such a thing. And it's fundamentally *wrong*.
     
  14. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    If you support Blu-ray, you support revisions of all movies. Unless you buy a time machine or own an actual first run release print, you have no choice but to see a revision. Digital didn't exist back then. The presentation will thus be adjusted to your current display (which didn't exist back then, yet alone 10 years ago), on the current best format of choice and current color reproduction technology, which changes every year.

    The whole point of Blu-ray, DVD, LD etc is/was to adjust the films to the current home-videos displays. Always as been.

    The simple act of going to the negative and going straight to digital alters the presentation (old prints were 4th gen removed from it, in the analog domain).

    Shane was the first widescreen western, so a version on Blu in widescreen is logical and historically adequate if not accurate due to the tilt and scan, which instead of harming the presentation, probably will enhance it.

    The theatrical aspect ratio shouldn't be a bonus, it should be the main feature.
     
  15. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,135
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I'm not speculating on anything, it was a question that I asked which I think none of us here can answer. I respect your opposing opinion. I'm fine with those that won't purchase this BD because of the ratio issue, but what I do with my money and support is my personal business.







    Crawdaddy
     
    ahollis likes this.
  16. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,135
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I agree with you that they should do what Criterion did with On the Waterfront BD.








    Crawdaddy
     
  17. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,135
    Likes Received:
    3,851
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    And I respect that action from you. For myself, I'm going to purchase this BD and compared the framing to the DVD released back in 2000.
     
  18. Rob_Ray

    Rob_Ray Premium
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,779
    Likes Received:
    1,066
    Location:
    Southern California
    Real Name:
    Rob Ray
    To me, Shane is no more a widescreen movie than "Gone With the Wind." It may have played a nationwide theatrical engagement in widescreen in 1953, but so did "Gone With the Wind" in 1954, 1961 and in its now-notorious 1967 2.20:1 release. I couldn't care less how it was seen in 1953. My only desire is to view it as it was intended to be seen, whether it was actually seen that way in theatres or not. To me, Shane is and always has been an Academy ratio film.
     
    Timothy E likes this.
  19. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    520
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    The whole point... Is to allow the home user to see a film as close to the original as possible (actually the whole point is to sell product, but that's another story). Each advancement in technology has gotten us closer to the ideal. And "adjustments" were due to limitations of technology, hence pan-and-scan in the analog days of 240 lines and 4x3 displays. HD and high rez dispays should allow us to see the films as intended without such adjustments.
     
    JSul and John Hodson like this.
  20. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    I don"t want to derail the thread (this is about aspect ratio research) but these olds films were never intended to be seen on either DVD, Blu-ray or HD. So you're watching an interpretation of what they were. Sometimes it's a good one, sometimes a bad one. Even the 1.33 DVD is an interpretation of what Shane would be in academy ratio (and a bad one, as that).

    Unlike Gone With The Wind which had an academy theatrical aspect original release (the widescreen version came much later), the original theatrical aspect ratio of this one is 1.66:1. There's no denying that.

    I wouldn't mind to see the widescreen GWTW as a bonus feature too, thought ;)
     

Share This Page