The Shining OAR or MAR (1 Viewer)

[Richard Kim]

(b) The infamous helicopter blades shadow is only visible on the full-frame version, not on the matted one.

The blades are still visible in the matted version.

 

[Patrick McCart]

deleted for bad information

 

[Juan C]

Quote:

Okay, let's address that:
Kubrick's intended theatrical aspect ratio for The Shining was wider than Academy. It was shown in theatres worldwide in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, with Kubrick's approval. Note Kubrick followed closely how his movies were projected. He's been known to phone a foreign film distributor because he had heard reports of poor conditions in cinema theatres).
One of the goals of Home Theatre is reproducing the experience of a high-quality cinema. Kubrick may have wanted full frame for home video, but he didn't say what aspect ratio he wanted for home theatre.
I wouldn't want The Killing to be cropped to fit a wide screen, but his later works are a different thing altogether.

 

[Aaron Cohen]

I just e-mailed Stanley and he said to watch the film whatever way you enjoy it in.

Let's face it, the guy's dead. We'll never be able to wait for an interview in the future that asks him what aspect ratio he wants us to watch The Shining in.

If you like watching it full-frame and feel that's that's the way he intended it to be for viewing then good for you. If you don't mind it being cropped for widescreen then good for you as well. As long as you're enjoying the film!

 

[Jeff Adkins]

One of the goals of Home Theatre is reproducing the experience of a high-quality cinema. Kubrick may have wanted full frame for home video, but he didn't say what aspect ratio he wanted for home theatre.

But he did say that he hated 1.85.

Jeff

 

[Juan C]

In that case I must admit to having watched two of his last three movies at the cinema on an aspect ratio he hated.:wink:

Other filmmakers hated widescreen too. Fritz Lang said CinemaScope was only good for filming "snakes and funerals", and Ozu said a wide screen looked to him like a strip of toilet paper.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Kubrick's intended theatrical aspect ratio for The Shining was wider than Academy. It was shown in theatres worldwide in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, with Kubrick's approval. Note Kubrick followed closely how his movies were projected. He's been known to phone a foreign film distributor because he had heard reports of poor conditions in cinema theatres).

One of the goals of Home Theatre is reproducing the experience of a high-quality cinema. Kubrick may have wanted full frame for home video, but he didn't say what aspect ratio he wanted for home theatre.

I think it's likely Kubrick had an idea of what home theater was. It's not like the concept of home theaters happened when DVDs arrived. He had worked with Criterion on approving transfers of Dr. Strangelove and 2001, along with the restoration of Spartacus. I don't know if the other Criterion Kubricks were approved by him or not.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I think it's likely Kubrick had an idea of what home theater was.

In an early story meeting for A.I. in 1982, Kubrick invited Brian Aldiss over to watch Blade Runner on laserdisc (according to Aldiss's introduction to a recent short story collection). Kubrick knew very well what home theater was.
DJ

 

[Juan C]

In an early story meeting for A.I. in 1982, Kubrick invited Brian Aldiss over to watch Blade Runner on laserdisc (according to Aldiss's introduction to a recent short story collection). Kubrick knew very well what home theater was.

That is not possible. The first release of BR was that of Embassy Home Entertainment, which appeared in 1983. To make matters worse, that was a pan-and-scan affair. Not until the Criterion disc in 1987 was there an OAR Laserdisc. So wat Kubrick saw was but a pale image of the potential of home theatre. If you've ever watched Blade Runner in P+S, you know what I mean.
As regards the original, director-approved DVD transfer of Kubrick films, you can read some less-than-favourable reviews on thedigitalbits.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

In an early story meeting for A.I. in 1982, Kubrick invited Brian Aldiss over to watch Blade Runner on laserdisc (according to Aldiss's introduction to a recent short story collection). Kubrick knew very well what home theater was.

Because he had a laserdisc player? I had a laserdisc player hooked up to a 17" TV listening through the TV speakers. Was that the concept of "Home theater" that we're talking about?
I don't remember Blade Runner even being available in WS that far back in the 80's. I don't think a Laserdisc *with analog audio* that's p/s of a 2.35:1 film on a 4x3 NTSC TV is exactly going the demonstrate the point you're trying to make
Oh...and even if It *had* been a THX-certified LBXed laserdisc projected on a 100" screen using a 9" CRT projector and Faroudja scaler...guess what...
Even the BEST 4x3 lbxed laserdisc still looks like "a laserdisc blown up really big" with all that gear and *still* wouldn't have shown Kubrick what today's affordable HT technology is really capable of delivering.
I'll take a DVD in 480P on a $10,000 16x9 HD DLP projector over a laserdisc on a $100,000 system any day.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Juan C:

I don't remember Blade Runner even being available in WS that far back in the 80's. I don't think a Laserdisc *with analog audio* that's p/s of a 2.35:1 film on a 4x3 NTSC TV is exactly going the demonstrate the point you're trying to make

Oh...and even if It *had* been a THX-certified LBXed laserdisc projected on a 100" screen using a 9" CRT projector and Faroudja scaler...guess what...

Even the BEST 4x3 lbxed laserdisc still looks like "a laserdisc blown up really big" with all that gear and *still* wouldn't have shown Kubrick what today's affordable HT technology is really capable of delivering.

I'll take a DVD in 480P on a $10,000 16x9 HD DLP projector over a laserdisc on a $100,000 system any day.

The point that was meant to be demonstrated was that he had the best that was available at that time, so it's not that wild to believe he kept up with changes in home theater technology. Since Kubrick lacked a time travel device to the best of my knowledge, it would've been a little hard for him to get a hold of the equipment you specify at that time, no?

This is like me posting that Kubrick had the newest Jaguar model in 1983, and you respond that he didn't have the 2003 model...

DJ

 

[Geoff_D]

As regards the original, director-approved DVD transfer of Kubrick films, you can read some less-than-favourable reviews on thedigitalbits.

The original Kubrick dvds from Warner were not director approved. That collection just used the aged laserdisc masters that had been approved by the bearded one. I don't recall reading anywhere that Kubrick himself signed off on those dvds. Kubrick knew what he wanted to see on home video, and what he approved was decent enough for it's time. The NTSC Shining laserdisc isn't exactly the worst transfer ever. Granted, I don't know if the new transfers were seen at any point by Kubrick, but as they were handled by long time Kubrick confidant Leon Vitali, I'm happy enough with them. And I'll be messing about with the aspect ratio of the Shining 'till the day I die...

 

[Jon Robertson]

And, once again, Home Theater Forum posters prove that they're only OK with a filmmaker's intentions as long it suits them.

What on earth is all this "Defend OAR!!" crap, if fans start to decide they know the director's intentions better than he did?

All available evidence points to that fact that Kubrick shot the film for 1.85:1 as a commercial concession, but always wanted it to be in the academy ratio. Everything else you can possibly say on the matter is nothing but a personal aesthetic preference.

 

[Patrick McCart]

And, once again, Home Theater Forum posters prove that they're only OK with a filmmaker's intentions as long it suits them.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head, Jon.

 

[Geoff_D]

Jeez, whatever happened to personal choice? It goes against the ethos of this forum to say so but people can watch MAR material if they wish. Out of the 325+ dvds and 70+ laserdiscs that I have, I think 2 films are not in their respective OAR's, so please don't get the impression that I'm an MAR 'enthusiast'. But the Shining (and Kubrick's other full-frame releases) will always remain special cases. To watch them as they were presented theatrically, you can do your own matte work by hitting the 'zoom' button on your widescreen tv. To watch them in Kubrick's preferred home video ratio, leave them as is. And both are as aesthetically pleasing as the other. The cropped version seems more claustrophobic, heightening the growing tension between the characters, while the full-frame version shows off the glorious production design to the full, underpinning the isolation that Jack and co. experience at the Overlook. That's how I see it anyway. Now where's that zoom button...

 

[Juan C]

Fair enough, Jon. But I've been an advocate of OAR regardless of the aspect ratio of my screen.

 

[Juan C]

The Stanley Kubrick Archives, page 452:

Note the faded red marker frame labeled "1-1.85", and the indication top right:

THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1.85
Obviously you compose for that
but protect the full 1-1.33 area.

Kinda gives a new perspective, doesn't it?

 

[Dave Mack]

I kinda thought that for years.....

 

[Felix Martinez]

That is one great pic!!
However, if you look closely, just below where it says, "but protect the full 1.33:1 area," it is quite obvious someone erased the phrase right below it: "for future home video releases." Conspiracy!!!!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I ran The Shining in a new 35mm print a couple of months ago - there was a framing indicator on the countdown leader marked for 1.85, which was how I ran it. Needless to say, it looks fantastic on the theatre screen in its intended format.