The Shining OAR or MAR (2 Viewers)

[Mark_vdH]

Can anyone confirm that the new master also clearly shows the helicopter shadow and rotor blades in the beginning?

The shadow and blades are still there.

 

[Jim FC]

I know it's an old thread but I just found it. My take on the Delbert/Charles Grady thing:

First off, I'm sure everybody's heard this before, and I know all Kubrick's fans will slam me, but Kubrick either didn't understand King's book at all, or chose to write his own story only loosely based on King's idea of a family locked in a creepy hotel... which would be fine, if he'd written a story that made sense. In fact, although this film is scary as all hell and looks great, I think it's terribly overrated... and no, I'm not a huge Stephen King fan. I just know a good movie when I see one. In the book, the Overlook is haunted by the ghosts of all who have died there, and Danny's presence makes it stonger and makes these ghosts more and more real and dangerous. It uses Jack to get Danny, not really interested in Jack at all. The movie focuses mainly on Jack rather than Danny, and uses the character of Danny just to get jack into these scary situations. That's my problem with it - the plot is little more than a succession of creepy stuff all happening to this guy and his kid, really not a plot at all.

Kubrick makes the Overlook a haunted hotel that drives Jack insane. The two different Gradys and the Jack in the picture can be explained, I believe, as an indicator that both men were at the Overlook in the 30s, died there somehow, were reincarnated (or whatever you want to call it) and drawn back to the hotel in their next lives, ultimately to die there again.

My take on the aspect ratio: as many have said, I've read that Kubrick insisted that his video releases of certain films be in a 4:3 ratio. Who knows why, but with all the insistence from widescreen fans (and I am one of them) that we "respect the director's original intentions," I can only assume that if someone as meticulous as Kubrick wanted his films released on video in any other form, he would have allowed it. With the Shining, I think he was so proud of the immense Overlook set and with his steadycam work that he wanted as much of it seen as possible, and if that's what he wanted that's good enough for me.

Empire Strikes Back was filmed at pretty much the same time, right next door to the Shining set. I've read they shared the same snow.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

I have to second JimFC's comments. Kubrick basically jettisoned King's original story and went off on his own -- it bares little resemblance to the heart of the novel and its point, IMHO. King didn't do his SHINING TV mini-series to do a remake just for the sake of doing one, but rather because his original novel was definitely not paid justice to in Kubrick's film (which no matter how you look at the Kubrick version is certainly the case).

I think THE SHINING -- the Kubrick picture -- has some incredible MOMENTS of sheer genius and scenes I'd play over and over, but the simplified story itself -- with Jack going bonkers and running amok -- grew tiresome for me and left me cold. King's original book is far more layered, believable, and satisfying.

 

[David Von Pein]

The shadow and blades are still there.

Where, exactly?

I looked on my disc, and see nothing.

Can you give me the exact time this occurs?

Thanks.

 

[Paul W]

I am grudgingly willing to accept that Kubric matted these movies to 1.85:1 because of theaters' inability to properly project 1.66:1.

I would still however, like to have both aspect ratios on one disc. The reason being, regardless how Kubrick desired these movies to be shown on home video, I want to see the home theater presentation in the theatrical aspect ratio.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Why not then simply soft-matte it (as the projectionists back then likely did)?
Although there's certainly something to be said for a matted presentation with anamorphic enhancement, you're unlikely to see another release of this disc. On the upside, however, the transfer is so very good that it will easily best many of your anamorphically-enhanced discs, as is! So, if you haven't already, then make yourself some mattes. Cheapest, bestest tweak for video I know (especially if using a rear projector).

 

[Jim FC]

Can't give you the exact time of the movie because I don't own it, but in the first arial shots of the Overlook Hotel, you can see the blades at the very top of the screen on at least one of these shots. As I recall you really only see the shadows the rotor blades cast rather than the blades themselves, but if you look at the sky at the top of the screen you'll see it. You can also see the shadow of the chopper itself in an earlier shot, as the camera follows the car up the canyon. All this is within the first 5 or 6 mitnues of the film.

As a side note, I live very close to Estes Park, Colorado, home of the Stanley Hotel. It is this hotel that King stayed at and inspired him to write the book. It is also the hotel used for the TV miniseries, but it is not featured in the Kubrick film at all, although Kubrick's main lobby set resembles the Stanley's lobby somewhat. Anybody who's a fan of the film or the book should visit the Stanley if they find themselves in northern Colorado. They even have a little exhibit there with some of the props from the miniseries.

 

[Paul W]

Why not then simply soft-matte it

Because I'm too damn lazy. I've been meaning to make mattes for viewing 2.35:1 movies. Hasn't happened yet.
I would be happy to see a 16x9 transfer of the matted version, but at this point I'm willing to wait a few years and hope for HD-DVD reelases of these.

 

[TheoGB]

I soft matted by 'zooming' on my 16:9 telly. Worked very well...

 

[Patrick McCart]

deleted

 

[Brian W.]

Why not then simply soft-matte it (as the projectionists back then likely did)?

Well, you could. But why not just do the same with Snow Dogs or any other number of full frame only releases?

 

[Eugene Esterly]

The IMDB technical page for The Shining which is located at http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0081505 has 2 aspect ratios listed which are:
1.37:1 (negative ratio)
1.66:1 (intended ratio)
What that means is that The Shining was filmed in Academy Ratio but was shown in the theaters using an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 .
So basically, 1.33:1 (aka 1.37:1) is the OAR for The Shining.

 

[Rob Lutter]

but was shown in the theaters using an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 .

Not many commercial theatres are capabable of doing 1.66:1... so it was mostly projected at 1.85:1 during its theatrical run (which it looks fine in).

 

[Patrick McCart]

But 2.21:1 was not the ORIGINAL theatrical aspect ratio of Gone With the Wind. However, 1.85 WAS the original US theatrical aspect ratio of "The Shining," and Kubrick certainly knew it would be projected at 1.85 in theaters. The assistant editor of the film says that the monitors were taped off to 1.85 in the editing room -- they couldn't even see outside the 1.85 area when editing the film. I honestly think Kubrick's view on the presentation of his films dates from pre-widescreen television days, or at least before they were popular.

That's not the point.

Kubrick preferred for his films to be shown without matting on video.

It's the same kind of idea of showing a painting with the frame or not. Perhaps the frame is needed in a museum for show, but on posters at home, it doesn't need a frame.

 

[JonBoriss]

we should just stop with all of this "kubrick wanted this, no he wanted this" arguments, every month or so another one just pops up. Then it spawns a huge debate. We will never know the true answer because he died, and that's that, there is no point in arguing and arguing, the dvd's are what they are, just let it go.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Amen JonBoriss!!!
Give me a break...we just finished about a zillion pages on another thread for the same topic (Kubrick wanting to alter the aspect ratio from the theater for home-video).
PLEEEAAASE, everyone who feels the need to talk about this or thinks they just discovered something new that no one has brought up before...just search *that* thread, read the belabored arguments from all points of view, and decide how you feel. We don't need yet another thread!
(appeal to moderators...please designate one of the dozens of previous threads as the "Official Kubrick alters aspect ratio for DVD discussion" threads and lock all other. If we can do that for Lord of the Rings discussion or ET discussion...we can do it for this too...)
dave :frowning:

 

[Sean Patrick]

i zoom this dvd into 1.78:1 on my tv (with a panasonic rp91) and the picture looks PHENOMENAL - better than most anamorphic dvd's i own.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Quote:

Jeff

 

[Juan C]

Hi - long-time lurker, first-time poster. Hence I hope you will excuse me for flogging a dead horse.
IMO that point made by Kubrick has been taken out of context, just as James Cameron's regarding the full-frame transfer of Abyss. At that time, it could be reasonable, but it is obvious that he framed for widescreen.
The facts:
1. On the documentary "Stanley Kubrick: a Life in Pictures", you can see Kubrick's monitor is matted to 1.85:1
2. Garrett Brown, Steadicam inventor and Steadicam operator in The Shining, has said that he was framing for 1.85:1 and only protecting for full frame.
3. The helicopter shots were shot for 1.85:1:
(a) Terry Rawlings, editor of Blade Runner (where outtakes from The Shining were used for the original theatrical ending), has gone on record saying that the aspect ratio of Kubrick's film was 1.85:1 (whereas BR was 2.35:1), and that thanks to that he could crop the Volkswagen out of the picture;
(b) The infamous helicopter blades shadow is only visible on the full-frame version, not on the matted one.
4. If you watch the DVD in full-frame and zoomed to widescreen side-to-side, it is obvious that the wider composition is the best. Kubrick was a master photographer and he framed each shot carefully (Spielberg has emphasized the perfection of each of Kubrick's compositions). As opposed to that, the films that he shot in Academy ratio have compositions that work only in full-frame, not cropped. For reference look at this Spanish review of The Shining with screenshots and a nifty aspect ratio comparison.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

To me, the film is - and only is, a 1.37:1 film. On DVD, the 1.33:1 presentation represents Kubrick's intended compositions.

There are shots in the ballroom at the start - when the Torrences are being shown around, and there are shots where beautiful chandeliers are at the top of the frame... I wouldn't want to see those cropped away, no sir. Other shots in the film would suffer less, but there are many other shots where 1.78:1 or more would omit non-vital, but interesting detail(s).

That's my last work on this seemingly never-ending topic.

Gordy