Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo

New Kubrick SE's


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
396 replies to this topic

#41 of 397 OFFLINE   jim.vaccaro

jim.vaccaro

    Second Unit



  • 425 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2005

Posted August 16 2006 - 11:29 AM

Robert, can you or someone esle link me to that chatlog? I've looked around the site and haven't found it. Thanks.

#42 of 397 OFFLINE   seanOhara

seanOhara

    Supporting Actor



  • 820 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 09 2005

Posted August 16 2006 - 05:23 PM

And probably not coincidentally, one of the working titles for the film was How the Solar System was Won.
My Blog
Les Miserables Volume 1 with my reading of "Four and Four"
Librivox Short Story Collection 34 with my reading of Jack London's "War"

#43 of 397 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer



  • 3,219 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2001

Posted August 16 2006 - 08:11 PM

Restore it. Kubrick intended it as a Brechtian Alienation Effect.

#44 of 397 OFFLINE   Jon Robertson

Jon Robertson

    Screenwriter



  • 1,568 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2001

Posted August 16 2006 - 08:48 PM

Jacques Tati did with Playtime though, but admittedly that's the only instance I can think of.

#45 of 397 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer



  • 6,136 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted August 17 2006 - 12:37 AM

I suppose if you wanted a multi-channel stereo soundtrack, it would give you much better results than a 35mm blow-up. The negative area of a 65mm frame cropped on the sides for a 1.85:1 aspect ratio is almost identical to the negative area of a VistaVision frame cropped at the top and bottom to 1.85:1. Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

#46 of 397 OFFLINE   Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter



  • 1,798 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted August 18 2006 - 12:06 PM

I guess the difference is you wouldn't neccessarily need to do an optical conversion if you simply added a hard-matte to the sides of the 65mm frame during shooting in order to achieve a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and thus would have a better-quality print. If you shoot in ViataVision, you have to optically convert it- either reduction print to 35mm, or blow-up to 70mm release print. Vincent

#47 of 397 OFFLINE   Haden

Haden

    Supporting Actor



  • 782 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 2001

Posted August 23 2006 - 03:44 PM

So I'm guessing these have been delayed given that the original rumored release date of 9/5 is in less than 2 weeks and we haven't even seen an official press release on these SEs yet. Is there any new rumors about when we'll get these? I was really looking forward to them in September. Hope its not pushed back to sometime in 2007. Posted Image

#48 of 397 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg



  • 7,699 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted August 23 2006 - 06:53 PM

I'm not at all surprised considering the literally dozens of classic film releases by Warner this Fall. They've barely begun announcing December releases, so you never know....

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#49 of 397 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted August 24 2006 - 09:53 AM


Sorry, but he did say that. It took some digging, but here is the exact quote from Leon Vitali:

"That is because at the time (of The Shining) 1.85:1 was becoming an industry norm in the United States, so what he did was, he shot his original negative, then he made the interpositive, then for theatrical release he would mask the interpositive, which meant he still had the original negative in full frame. This was also very important to Stanley. He was very conscious of the fact that you lose I think 27% of your picture when it is matted to 1.85:1. He hated it, he didn't find it satisfactory. He liked height. (laughs)"


and from another interview, some other interesting quotes.

"Leon Vitali: The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted.

Bill Hunt: Was there ever talk about doing alternate anamorphic widescreen versions of the later films - the ones that were shown theatrically at 1.85? So you could have both versions on DVD?

Leon Vitali: Yes, it was discussed. But Stanley just wasn't interested."

#50 of 397 OFFLINE   Richard Kim

Richard Kim

    Producer



  • 4,389 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 2001

Posted August 24 2006 - 10:59 AM

And yet anamorphic DVDs of Kubrick's flat AR films have already been released and will be released in the near future.

#51 of 397 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted August 24 2006 - 06:45 PM

Wasn't there pretty much no home video market back in 1980? (The Shining era) Who was gonna watch them "on video"...? 100 people? We were one of the first people we knew to get a $1000 betamax around 1981. It seems odd that a famous and revered film director would care more about how a very small audience back then would watch his film most likely on a 25" or smaller TV set rather than in a proper cinema.

#52 of 397 OFFLINE   Christian Preischl

Christian Preischl

    Screenwriter



  • 1,376 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2001

Posted August 24 2006 - 08:29 PM

Guess it is time once again to post the following. From the "Kubrick Archives" book, this is a storyboard from "The Shining". See the text in the upper right:

Posted Image

#53 of 397 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer



  • 6,136 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted August 25 2006 - 01:06 AM

...and Stanley is even less interested. The theatrical ratios are legitimate since that is how they were originally presented and like it or not, that was the ratio for which SK and his DPs had to compose. I have no problem resolving this in my mind with believing his preference for home and special presentations was the unmatted full exposed frame. Both formats have legitimacy, and, finally, both are going to be available in quality presentations. Everybody wins. Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

#54 of 397 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted August 25 2006 - 04:53 AM

Very well said, Ken.

Posted Image

How come I can never be all rational like that?

#55 of 397 OFFLINE   Rich Malloy

Rich Malloy

    Producer



  • 3,999 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 09 2000

Posted August 25 2006 - 05:11 AM

Ken (or anyone), do we know with any degree of certainty that there will be two transfers for the films in question, one in Academy ratio and the other in 1.78:1/1:85:1? Having seen EWS, FMJ, and The Shining in both presentations, I find that I prefer EWS and FMJ in Academy ratio and The Shining in widescreen... I'd love to be able to view each in my preferred format!
"Only one is a wanderer;
Two together are always going somewhere."

#56 of 397 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer



  • 6,136 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted August 25 2006 - 06:04 AM

The FMJ HD-DVD is widescreen only. I presume the upcoming HD-DVDs will be the same. I doubt the SE DVDs will have 4:3 transfers either since it would likely involve having an additional disc for just the movie. If you want the 4:3 version, you'll have to hold on to your previous DVDs (and grin and bear your censored Eyes Wide Shut). Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

#57 of 397 OFFLINE   Dave Mack

Dave Mack

    Producer



  • 4,665 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2002

Posted August 25 2006 - 06:32 AM

I have the Japanese R2 uncensored Eyes wide shut in NTSC. region free is the only way to go...

#58 of 397 OFFLINE   Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter



  • 1,950 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted August 25 2006 - 06:48 AM

Rather more than that surely. VHS came out in 1976.

#59 of 397 OFFLINE   DeeF

DeeF

    Screenwriter



  • 1,679 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2002

Posted August 25 2006 - 06:51 AM

The correct aspect ratio of Kubrick's films doesn't have anything to do with projected movies vs. vhs home theater versions. It has to do with art. There should be one composition ratio that works best for each of these movies. And if anybody would know which one that was, it would be Kubrick.

#60 of 397 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer



  • 6,136 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted August 25 2006 - 07:42 AM

This is nice and all, but I still think both ratios are legit. He composed for 1.85:1 in production and approved their wide release in that format. Even if he subsequently preferred them unmatted, he authorized their initial theatrical release that way, and we will now have DVDs that represent the result of that. Again, other than the EWS censorship issue, everybody wins. Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users