What's new

Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (1 Viewer)

Which of the three options below would you choose to purchase "Shane" on Bluray?

  • Shane with 1.66:1 Aspect Ratio Only

    Votes: 13 8.2%
  • Shane with 1.37:1 Aspect Ratio Only

    Votes: 32 20.1%
  • Shane with both, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 Aspect Ratios

    Votes: 114 71.7%

  • Total voters
    159

EddieLarkin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
991
Location
Yorkshire
Real Name
Nick
I might double dip for the nicer package, additional extras and booklet, but it'd be for the later 1 disc edition. The second disc is completely useless to me.
 

John Hodson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
4,627
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
Real Name
John
Robert Crawford said:
If you don't mind me asking, why?

There are lots of things we know about SHANE; that it's a truly marvellous western - a truly great film - is top of the list, that it was shot for projection in Academy, that George Stevens spent months cutting and honing it, and then, after an executive decision to screen it 'on the panoramic screen' he cut it again, doing his best to limit the damage. We know that the film - screened wide - won an Oscar for cinematographer Loyal Griggs, we know that it was the first film to be projected in 'flat' widescreen, and obviously the first western.


I have absolutely no interest in George Stevens Jr's digital jiggery pokery (it's the worst of both worlds), and I've attempted to see the film wide myself (via zoom); it wasn't pretty. But I'm intrigued to see the film properly presented pretty much as audiences in 1953 would have seen it, as those that gave it an Oscar for those truly gorgeous vistas. It's an important film in the history of widescreen cinema and I'm pleased as punch that we have a package here that presents the whole SHANE story; including a stereo soundtrack option! BTW, if Stevens recut his film to suit 1.66:1 then there's an argument that we'll never actually see the Academy cut that Stevens would have preferred.


Whatever; here's the film, beautifully presented in Academy as it should be, and surely everyone's first choice watch. And here's the film as seen 62 years ago, giving newcomers the chance to compare and contrast, with a fine selection of supplemental features - the story of SHANE.


And that is why I'm double-dipping.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,599
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
John Hodson said:
There are lots of things we know about SHANE; that it's a truly marvellous western - a truly great film - is top of the list, that it was shot for projection in Academy, that George Stevens spent months cutting and honing it, and then, after an executive decision to screen it 'on the panoramic screen' he cut it again, doing his best to limit the damage. We know that the film - screened wide - won an Oscar for cinematographer Loyal Griggs, we know that it was the first film to be projected in 'flat' widescreen, and obviously the first western.


I have absolutely no interest in George Stevens Jr's digital jiggery pokery (it's the worst of both worlds), and I've attempted to see the film wide myself (via zoom); it wasn't pretty. But I'm intrigued to see the film properly presented pretty much as audiences in 1953 would have seen it, as those that gave it an Oscar for those truly gorgeous vistas. It's an important film in the history of widescreen cinema and I'm pleased as punch that we have a package here that presents the whole SHANE story; including a stereo soundtrack option! BTW, if Stevens recut his film to suit 1.66:1 then there's an argument that we'll never actually see the Academy cut that Stevens would have preferred.


Whatever; here's the film, beautifully presented in Academy as it should be, and surely everyone's first choice watch. And here's the film as seen 62 years ago, giving newcomers the chance to compare and contrast, with a fine selection of supplemental features - the story of SHANE.


And that is why I'm double-dipping.
John,


Thanks for your explanation and you know what, I'm going to double-dip too.:) You made some good points! Besides, this is a personal favorite film of mine.
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
For what it's worth, the US Warner disc is the stereo option. It's the mono option that is missing. This is a modern rechanneling as the stereo tracks from 1953 are lost.
 

John Hodson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
4,627
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
Real Name
John
Mark-P said:
For what it's worth, the US Warner disc is the stereo option. It's the mono option that is missing. This is a modern rechanneling as the stereo tracks from 1953 are lost.

D'oh! I'd clearly forgotten that Mark and assumed (never assume) that Eureka had somehow turned up the original stereo. Wrong; still, mono...
 

Brent Reid

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
813
Location
Nottingham, UK
Real Name
Brent
Cool. The UK BD pees all over the US one; it's like The African Queen all over again! :P


I'm with John though: don't want or need the second disc. Pretty crappy that we have to wait for the 2-BD set to sell out first before we get to the proper release. Have often wondered where and when that new widescreen transfer was going to rear its ugly head. Always figured that having paid for it, Warners were never going to just let it gather dust. Silly Eureka!
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,599
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Brent Reid said:
Cool. The UK BD pees all over the US one; it's like The African Queen all over again! :P


I'm with John though: don't want or need the second disc. Pretty crappy that we have to wait for the 2-BD set to sell out first before we get to the proper release. Have often wondered where and when that new widescreen transfer was going to rear its ugly head. Always figured that having paid for it, Warners were never going to just let it gather dust. Silly Eureka!
I don't get this reference either since Eureka is only selling 2000 copies, not exactly a windfall for Paramount since Warner is only the distributor here in the US.
 

Brent Reid

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
813
Location
Nottingham, UK
Real Name
Brent
The point of the reference is that I've been waiting a long time to pick up the US Shane BD in the UK for a cheap enough price, then along comes our own version which will obviously be much cheaper - and with far better specs to boot! The overwhelming majority of my collection consists of superior or otherwise unavailable US imports. Nice on the rare occasions when ours is actually best, that's all. Happy.
 

Bob Furmanek

Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
6,708
Real Name
Bob
When SHANE premiered at Radio City Music Hall, they were not getting the kind of audience reaction they were hoping for. Don't forget, the Music Hall had been running newsreels on a larger screen since 1951 so this wasn't an entirely new concept in projection at the Showplace of the Nation.


A few days into the run, management tried something different with SHANE and pulled a Cinerama: they projected the opening titles in 1.37:1 and when the action started, the curtains and masking opened to reveal the 1.66:1 image. The audience began applauding the widescreen image.


The art of showmanship!
 

DVDvision

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
1,235
Location
Paris, France
Real Name
David
At last! I wonder how they recreated the original presentation. I hope they didn't just zoomed in the 1.37:1 master it doesn't work.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,599
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Brent Reid said:
The point of the reference is that I've been waiting a long time to pick up the US Shane BD in the UK for a cheap enough price, then along comes our own version which will obviously be much cheaper - and with far better specs to boot! The overwhelming majority of my collection consists of superior or otherwise unavailable US imports. Nice on the rare occasions when ours is actually best, that's all. Happy.
Great for you!
 

John Hodson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
4,627
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
Real Name
John
Brent Reid said:
I'm with John though: don't want or need the second disc. Pretty crappy that we have to wait for the 2-BD set to sell out first before we get to the proper release. Have often wondered where and when that new widescreen transfer was going to rear its ugly head. Always figured that having paid for it, Warners were never going to just let it gather dust. Silly Eureka!

But you're not with me; I most certainly do want the second disc for reasons I've clearly outlined?
 

EddieLarkin

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
991
Location
Yorkshire
Real Name
Nick
Brent Reid said:
The point of the reference is that I've been waiting a long time to pick up the US Shane BD in the UK for a cheap enough price, then along comes our own version which will obviously be much cheaper - and with far better specs to boot! The overwhelming majority of my collection consists of superior or otherwise unavailable US imports. Nice on the rare occasions when ours is actually best, that's all. Happy.

Actually, the US disc of African Queen is superior where it counts most:


http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x=521&y=72&d1=2573&d2=2572&s1=23671&s2=23679&l=0&i=3&go=1
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,571
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top