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

[Robert Crawford]

I know some have already acknowledged their intentions. However, based on the poll so far, my next poll will be on who's buying this 1.66:1 ratio BD on June 4th?

 

[Joe Bernardi]

I voted for both; don't know why having a choice wouldn't make most people happy.

However, I have preordered Shane Blu-ray on Amazon.com.

 

[Adam_S]

Since the film isn't that great, I wouldn't spend much on the title, so if it were more expensive because it were two disc or had both ratios, I wouldn't buy that. If I had to choose between the two, I'd buy the widescreen presentation, which represents the original theatrical release of a film that was a cornerstone of the widescreen revolution, and a film whose widescreen version hasn't been properly presented on home video ever.

 

[JSul]

I vote for Academy....but in order to get it, will accept the widescreen version too.

 

[David_B_K]

I voted for both. Release of the 1.66:1 version alone is my least favored option.

 

[Professor Echo]

One of my all time favorite novels, I've read it multiple times, but one of my least favorite western films and directors, though it's beautifully cast. So I won't be buying any version, but just for academic sake, I voted for both. I think that SHOULD please casual and dedicated fans while appeasing the marketing department at Warners who are no doubt hoping and praying that the coveted demographic of 18-34 will somehow mistake this as a new video game.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I voted both, but I will be buying the 1.66:1 only release. More options is always a plus, but I'm OK with purchasing a disc with just the premiere theatrical AR being the only version on the disc. The only version of the title I would not purchase is 1.33:1 only.

 

[Vegas 1]

I voted for both, I would imagine most of if not all already have the SDDVD of Shane, so as someone mentioned above who will pickup the BR. I know I will so I can have both ratios.

 

[Mark-P]

While I voted for "both", if my only choice were 1.37:1 or 1.66:1, I'd go for 1.66:1.

 

[WadeM]

1.37:1 is what was intended and is all that matters in my book. I remember seeing a film sometime in the last few years that was projected in the wrong aspect ratio in my local theater, but that doesn't make me want that on the blu-ray.

 

[ahollis]

I voted for both for I think both are historically accurate. Even though there can be anargument that the 1.66 is not what was seen at its release.

 

[Jack Theakston]

I voted for both, so long as the 1.37-1 version is available.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I voted for both, but I'll buy the widescreen version if it's the only version that comes out.

While a set with both versions would be ideal, it's not the worst thing in the world to be able to see Shane in HD the way it was first presented theatrically.

 

[Charles Smith]

This is off topic, but I wonder why I keep getting this thread showing up in bold, meaning "new response(s)", but seeing the same last response over and over. This has been happening ever since the first two replies.

Oh -- got it. I think. It's reflecting an additional vote, if not an actual response.

 

[dana martin]

voted for both, but would pefer 1:37:1 as originaly intended, i understand WB and Paramount's decision, as trying to release it as it was shown in theaters, well with WB doing the distribution, does that mean that we might see Hondo in 3D some time soon?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Gentlemen, you can tell me I'm wrong but what I meant by 'proper' widescreen is that it isn't 1.85 or 2.35, 2.55, 2.76 etc. I do not think of 1.66 as widescreen - just a personal view!

I think you forgot 2.20:1. Or is Todd AO/ Super Panavision 70 not a proper aspect ratio?

Doug

 

[Keith Cobby]

Doug, my list wasn't meant to be comprehensive which is why I suffixed it with 'etc'. My point was really that I don't consider 1.66 to be widescreen.

 

[Persianimmortal]

If it's wider than a 1950's TV screen, it's widescreen. That was, after all, the intention of widescreen. Obviously the term's taken on different connotations since then with the plethora of ever-wider aspect ratios.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Doug, my list wasn't meant to be comprehensive which is why I suffixed it with 'etc'. My point was really that I don't consider 1.66 to be widescreen.

Sorry I didn't see the ...etc.

Doug

 

[Stephen_J_H]

My reason for voting both is for comparison and curiosity. i want to be able to see the impact of 1.66:1 on the overall picture.