-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66?

Warner Paramount

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

#361 of 420 lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter

  • 1,139 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted April 26 2013 - 12:26 PM

History and documentation has already shown that "Shane" was produced and photographed in Academy Ratio 1.37:1...1.66:1 was a commercial concession by Stevens Sr. to Paramount after they sat on the film for 2 years...creator's intent is sancrosact in this example and is being properly honored by the new blu-ray, IMHO...


  • WadeM and Cremildo like this

#362 of 420 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,357 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 26 2013 - 12:28 PM

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS was shot for 1.85:1.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#363 of 420 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,221 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted April 26 2013 - 04:43 PM

Although pan and scan always annoys me, I personally don't mind open mat for films released in widescreen and shot by ordinary directors.  As an example, I prefer the open mat version of A Christmas Story.  One thing I really enjoy about the film is looking at the sets and the various Christmas decorations, and I prefer to see more of that rather than less.  Sometimes, in such cases, I think what is gained more than makes up for what is lost.

 

"Ordinary directors"?  What the wocka does THAT mean???


Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#364 of 420 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

  • 954 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted April 26 2013 - 10:46 PM

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is in superscope (about 2.00:1) on Blu. Thought I would appreciate the high def 1.85:1 version, it represents the theatrical ratio of the film, as any Blu-ray should first and foremost. 

 

I'm not against the academy Shane... It's just that it should come with the theatrical ratio and not replace it.



#365 of 420 lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter

  • 1,139 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted April 26 2013 - 10:50 PM

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is in superscope (about 2.00:1) on Blu. Thought I would appreciate the high def 1.85:1 version, it represents the theatrical ratio of the film, as any Blu-ray should first and foremost. 

 

I'm not against the academy Shane... It's just that it should come with the theatrical ratio and not replace it.

George Stevens, Jr. makes it clear in his interview that it was Warner and not him that chose to release the "Shane" blu-ray with only the Academy Ratio presentation...price-point considerations for them make your alternative economically unfeasible, which is why we're at this impasse!!!


Edited by lukejosephchung, April 26 2013 - 10:53 PM.


#366 of 420 WadeM

WadeM

    Supporting Actor

  • 894 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 11 2006

Posted April 27 2013 - 05:10 AM

 

This will not be done here, hence it's a triumph for the Pan&Scan brigade. The people who prefer movies not to be seen in their Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

 

That the original intended ratio is the one we're going to get it irrelevant. It's still not the original Theatrical Aspect Ratio.

 

Since Pan & Scan compromises the aspect ratio that the film was composed in, your argument could easily fall back on yourself, and IMO, would be more accurate. Pan & Scan has nothing to do with anyone not wanting to see a film in its theatrical ratio, but instead has to do with people not wanting to see black bars and/or not being happy with a picture that's smaller than their TV screen.  And it has nothing to do with people wanting to see square or "boxy" images. The "Pan & Scan brigade" that you refer to are the same ones who want a 1.78:1 aspect ration on their widescreen TVs, regardless of the ratio that a film was composed in--yes, they want a wide picture instead of a square. Those of us who support the 1.37:1 ratio that Shane was composed in are fighting against compromising that composition. Period. The same reason we fight against Pan & Scan and what you call the "Pan & Scan brigade".

 

It's the Pan & Scan brigade who prefer the 1.66:1 because it will fill up more of their widescreen TV screen. The people I know who used to like Pan & Scan on their old TVs, now stretch the image on their new widescreen TVs. That's why AMC is stretching the image on their broadcast. As the NY Post article stated: Stevens hopes the 1:66 version will at least used to replace the widescreen version of "Shane'' he says is currently being shown on AMC. "Instead of cropping the top and the bottom, they've stretched the picture the picture so it looks like Jack Palace's horse is 12 feet long,'' he says. "I know my father would prefer my 1:66 version to that.''

Read more: George Stevens Jr. speaks out on the 'Shane' controversy http://www.nypost.co...N#ixzz2RfSokl8E

 

 

Look, I know you don't like Pan & Scan, but, really, your recent arguments go too far.

 

One can argue that the final, theatrical ratio was intended in the end. By the director himself. Here, we have protection of an early intent.

 

It's a bit like championing the Star Wars SE versions over the theatrical (only it's not about the format for SW, but content). George (I mean Lucas) do says the final versions are what he always "intended".

 

Does their only availability makes him right?

 

In essence, my feeling is that if the widescreen version does not appear on Blu, we have transformed George Stevens into George Lucas. Lucas does protect his early intent with his changes, but that doesn't make them being the only versions available right.

 

I believe George Stevens Jr. was earlier going for the widescreen version, because that would be the main presentation his father would have chosen today, with the academy being the second choice, for buffs.

 

You can argue it, but I don't buy it.


Edited by WadeM, April 27 2013 - 05:14 AM.


#367 of 420 Paul Penna

Paul Penna

    Supporting Actor

  • 519 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 22 2002

Posted April 27 2013 - 06:57 AM

Back in the olden days of home video/theater when concern over what TV-screen formatting was doing to feature film images started becoming an issue for significant numbers of people, "theatrical aspect ratio" was the term most often used to refer to that kind of TV formatting not happening. There wasn't anything magical or doctrinaire about the word "theatrical" per se. All people meant by "theatrical aspect ratio" was they didn't want feature films chopped and sliced just so they'd fill a 4x3 TV screen. There was little if any awareness of the complication the widescreen transitional period brought to the relatively small number of films affected, such as Shane. Nobody was really considering a distinction between theatrical and intended as the term became common parlance. So I don't think history supports the idea that a literal interpretation of "theatrical aspect ratio" was always the sacred goal of the original framers.


  • Pete York likes this

#368 of 420 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 9,708 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted April 28 2013 - 06:59 AM

.price-point considerations for them make your alternative economically unfeasible, which is why we're at this impasse!!!

 yeah, the extra buck or two it would cost in manufacturing will bankrupt the studio.

 

The only reason for Warner's to not include both versions at this point is to price gouge the fans by releasing it separately. 



#369 of 420 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,357 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 28 2013 - 12:00 PM

I've just updated the article with two trailers for SHANE: standard ratio and widescreen.

 

http://www.3dfilmarc...n-documentation


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#370 of 420 Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter

  • 1,806 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted April 28 2013 - 01:11 PM

I've just updated the article with two trailers for SHANE: standard ratio and widescreen.

 

http://www.3dfilmarc...n-documentation

 

I can play the standard ratio trailer but the widescreen one says "The uploader has not made this video available in your country" :(



#371 of 420 Tom Logan

Tom Logan

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 111 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2003

Posted April 28 2013 - 01:24 PM

I've just updated the article with two trailers for SHANE: standard ratio and widescreen.

 

http://www.3dfilmarc...n-documentation

Very instructive:  You know cropping is bad when the diminutive Mr. Ladd gets the top of his head lopped off.  We also lose many of the Tetons' nipples.



#372 of 420 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,357 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 28 2013 - 01:36 PM

Oh, sorry about that Doug. The widescreen trailer was uploaded by Paramount. I have no way to change their settings!


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#373 of 420 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,221 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted May 03 2013 - 10:23 AM

*
POPULAR

Just got this e-mail:

 

"The street date for the George Stevens production of SHANE in Blu-ray™ has been moved to from June 4, 2013 to August 13, 2013 in order to complete remastering in the original 1:37 aspect ratio"


  • lukejosephchung, Cremildo and Brenty like this
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#374 of 420 Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter

  • 2,199 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted May 22 2013 - 08:50 PM

Amazon now has a back cover image. Aspect ratio 1.37 and audio is DTS-HD Master Audio: English 2S (whatever that means?)

91P99JXoxpL._SL1500_.jpg


Edited by Mark-P, May 22 2013 - 08:50 PM.


#375 of 420 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,134 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted May 22 2013 - 10:23 PM

Amazon now has a back cover image. Aspect ratio 1.37 and audio is DTS-HD Master Audio: English 2S (whatever that means?)

 

2S is 2.0 Stereo L/R.


"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


#376 of 420 Lromero1396

Lromero1396

    Supporting Actor

  • 640 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 2012

Posted June 03 2013 - 12:15 PM

2S is 2.0 Stereo L/R.

Didn't Shane have a 3-track stereo mix created during post-production?



#377 of 420 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,134 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted June 03 2013 - 12:25 PM

To quote Bob Furmanek from earlier in the thread:

 

The three channel stereo track for SHANE was finished in May in time for the May 27 midwest premiere in Chicago at the State-Lake Theatre. From that point forward, most openings in major cities were in widescreen with stereophonic sound.

 

....

 

Sadly, to the best of our knowledge, none survive.


"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


#378 of 420 PaulaJ

PaulaJ

    Supporting Actor

  • 578 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2000

Posted June 03 2013 - 02:42 PM

Er, that pic of an obviously older Alan Ladd in the embroidered vest -- what movie is that from?  Because it's sure not from Shane.


PaulaJ

#379 of 420 Cremildo

Cremildo

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 207 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 12 2013
  • Real Name:Gustavo H. Razera
  • LocationBrazil

Posted June 03 2013 - 03:40 PM

Er, that pic of an obviously older Alan Ladd in the embroidered vest -- what movie is that from?  Because it's sure not from Shane.

 

 

It sure is! :)



#380 of 420 PaulaJ

PaulaJ

    Supporting Actor

  • 578 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2000

Posted June 03 2013 - 04:27 PM

Um.....no.
PaulaJ





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Warner, Paramount

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users