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

[John Hodson]

It was shot in 1.37:1, but released in 1.66:1

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:

What perturbs me is that reframing Shane on a shot by shot basis means that what we're going to get on BD is a version that we've never seen and that neither the director, nor cinematographer intended to be seen.

What we should be getting is the film framed as Loyal Griggs shot it in Academy, and also the film framed as released in 1.66:1, the one that won an Oscar for cinematography and which paved the way for the widescreen revolution. In an ideal world...

 

[Robert Crawford]

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:

I would prefer the two versions two, but it looks like it's not going to happen.

 

[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.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

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.

But that's not what they are doing.

 

[DVDvision]

The theatrical initial was 1.66 and the Blu-ray is 1.66, so that is what they are doing.

 

[DVDvision]

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).

 

[Robert Crawford]

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.

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.

 

[kingofthejungle]

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).

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?

 

[Robert Crawford]

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?

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

 

[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.

 

[kingofthejungle]

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

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?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

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.

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.

 

[John Hodson]

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.

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*.

 

[DVDvision]

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.

 

[Robert Crawford]

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?

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

 

[Robert Crawford]

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.

I agree with you that they should do what Criterion did with On the Waterfront BD.








Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

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*.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

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

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.

 

[DVDvision]

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