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

[ahollis]

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!

Still today In the movie exhibition industry Widescreen is used as a reference for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio and Scope is a reference for 2.35:1 ratio. Something's just don't change and this reference is used for format identifications of digital presentations.

 

[JSul]

Both for me.

 

[haineshisway]

I would like both. And, as I've said before, we don't really know WHAT we're getting because there has been no official announcement. I can guarantee you that the disc has been authored so whatever it is it is - but I'm just patiently waiting to get the official word.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

I voted both.

The main feature would be 1.37:1.

The widescreen version, which seems to be a compromise of Loyal Griggs' and George Stevens' original artistic intent (and won't even be the same widescreen framing shown theatrically in the fifties and beyond), should be included to appease consumers who dislike big black bars. It could be added as a bonus.

It must be said I'm still awaiting Mr. Furmanek's final report on his research, though. I wonder if there will be any surprising new info.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Yes, there will...

 

[haineshisway]

I voted both.

The main feature would be 1.37:1.

The widescreen version, which seems to be a compromise of Loyal Griggs' and George Stevens' original artistic intent (and won't even be the same widescreen framing shown theatrically in the fifties and beyond), should be included to appease consumers who dislike big black bars. It could be added as a bonus.

It must be said I'm still awaiting Mr. Furmanek's final report on his research, though. I wonder if there will be any surprising new info.

This isn't about "customers who dislike big black bars." This is about how this film was shown on its original engagement. I'm for both versions and will be watching both happily if given the opportunity. Whatever Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done, I'm sure it's minor tweaks up and down, just like every home video transfer in any widescreen ratio forever.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

This isn't about "customers who dislike big black bars." This is about how this film was shown on its original engagement. I'm for both versions and will be watching both happily if given the opportunity. Whatever Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done, I'm sure it's minor tweaks up and down, just like every home video transfer in any widescreen ratio forever.

Yes, it is.

For lots of people it is.

Regular folk just want their expensive 16x9 screen totally filled with image. General audiences don't know and don't care about film history, about aspect ratios, about the artists' original intentions. They want entertainment that looks great on their TV. I don't want to sound patronising; it's just reality.

This is a very particular subject which is important for hardcore cinephiles, film historians, film critics, collectors and such. Just because this particular web forum is paying utmost attention to the debate doesn't mean buyers out there are obsessing about it, too.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Warner has shown that they are not shy about releasing 1.37:1 content properly on Blu-ray if a film was presented that way in its initial theatrical run. They have a whole box set of such films coming out in May in the Gangster Collection. I think this particular decision has little to do with the "fill up the screen" mentality. If that was the case it would be 1.78:1, not 1.66:1.

 

[haineshisway]

Yes, it is.

For lots of people it is.

Regular folk just want their expensive 16x9 screen totally filled with image. General audiences don't know and don't care about film history, about aspect ratios, about the artists' original intentions. They want entertainment that looks great on their TV. I don't want to sound patronising; it's just reality.

This is a very particular subject which is important for hardcore cinephiles, film historians, film critics, collectors and such. Just because this particular web forum is paying utmost attention to the debate doesn't mean buyers out there are obsessing about it, too.

No it is not - not THIS specific discussion about THIS specific film on THIS specific forum. You'd be hard-pressed to show me anyone here who is like what you're describing. That is the POINT of here.

 

[Malcolm Bmoor]

Having just read that IMDB has managed to escape being sued for $1M for revealing an actress's age this is a very small matter. It lists SHANE as being in mono but GREENBRIAR (a marvellous site if you don't know of it)

http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.co.uk/

- are currently showing an original release poster that as well as proclaiming a huge wide screen also describes stereo-phonic (!) sound. So I'm confused and wonder what the Blu-ray sound will be.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Details on SHANE's stereo release can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

 

[Cinescott]

Slightly off-topic, but for those interested, this is what the "Shane" cabin looked like as of a few years ago. During a trip to Grand Teton National Park, I asked a ranger if there was anything left of the shooting location, and he guided me here.

​

 

[Richard--W]

Thanks for the location photos, Cinescott. I'm always interested in location photos. If I didn't know better I'd think that was an authentic century cabin. It's built the same way. Instead of using facade materials like in so many films, the producers of SHANE used the real materials and built the sets in the real way. This attention to authenticity is partly what makes SHANE a very special western.

 

[Professor Echo]

Great pics, Cinescott! Thanks for posting.

(OT: I miss the old HTF where everyone had to post at least their first name, whether true or not. It at least seemed like a friendlier place).

 

[Jeff Adkins]

This isn't about "customers who dislike big black bars." This is about how this film was shown on its original engagement. I'm for both versions and will be watching both happily if given the opportunity. Whatever Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done, I'm sure it's minor tweaks up and down, just like every home video transfer in any widescreen ratio forever.

I voted both as well, since it never hurts to have options. But I believe it was stated in the other thread that Shane sat on the shelf a year before it was released. If it had been released when it was originally scheduled, it would have been 1.37. The only reason it exhibited at 1.66 was because of that year delay.

The 1.66 version being presented on the upcoming Blu-Ray will not be "how the film was shown on its original engagement" since it has been re-framed on a shot-by-shot basis.

The Blu-Ray version will be neither the original composition, nor the originally exhibited composition. I'm going to pass on this one.

 

[haineshisway]

I voted both as well, since it never hurts to have options. But I believe it was stated in the other thread that Shane sat on the shelf a year before it was released. If it had been released when it was originally scheduled, it would have been 1.37. The only reason it exhibited at 1.66 was because of that year delay.

The 1.66 version being presented on the upcoming Blu-Ray will not be "how the film was shown on its original engagement" since it has been re-framed on a shot-by-shot basis.

The Blu-Ray version will be neither the original composition, nor the originally exhibited composition. I'm going to pass on this one.

Then you may as well skip every Blu-ray ever made because every transfer has reframing - it's been said here over and over and over again. First of all, I don't think anyone here would know how it was framed in its original release, save for perhaps Mr. Stevens, Jr. Second of all, I'm sure what he's done is just tweak the shots as is done in every home video transfer. Tweaking is what would have happened in any theater back then, because no one had any control over how the projectionists were centering the frame on a 1.66 film. There would have been differences in every theater.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I love how nearly to a man people are asking for an inferior framing on the 1.66 version... Seems that those of us who have been able to do such frame tweaks are the ones that get it though.

 

[lukejosephchung]

I love how nearly to a man people are asking for an inferior framing on the 1.66 version... Seems that those of us who have been able to do such frame tweaks are the ones that get it though.

I find it insulting to the aesthetic judgments of the Forum's membership that you are automatically dismissing the theatrical OAR as "inferior" without so much as even looking at the final results, since it isn't even available for visual inspection yet!!!

 

[Robert Crawford]

I find it insulting to the aesthetic judgments of the Forum's membership that you are automatically dismissing the theatrical OAR as "inferior" without so much as even looking at the final results, since it isn't even available for visual inspection yet!!!

To be fair, few if any of us have seen the theatrical OAR either. The only thing most of us have viewed is the 1.37:1 presentation on some movie theater showings, TV broadcasts and previous video format releases.

 

[lukejosephchung]

To be fair, few if any of us have seen the theatrical OAR either. The only thing most of us have viewed is the 1.37:1 presentation on some movie theater showings, TV broadcasts and previous video format releases.

Agreed, Crawdaddy...I'm just finding some of the needlessly pre-emptive comments being made in the heat of the moment to be a more than a little off-putting...I'm withholding judgment myself until I see the results on my screen when the title reaches my possession...since this is the only game in town as far as getting "Shane" in HD-BD, I've already pre-ordered this from Amazon...