Posted April 20 2013 - 07:29 PM
This thread has been taking odd twists and turns.
Shane was designed and produced as a 1.37 production.
Its release was delayed, and in the interim, the studios, which were up against a new competitor, and a free one at that, created the concept of wider and larger screens, in the hope of warding off TV.
Both wider and larger screens had existed before, but this was a new marketing push.
Shane, an extraordinary film, happened to be either in the right or wrong place at the time. It was an unfortunate test case, that was cropped to fit a new aspect ratio. What needs to be understood, is that Shane not only survived, and won kudos, not because of the wider aspect ratio, but rather, in a testament to the film's quality -- in spite of it.
Paramount has supported some superb work on Shane, from a 4k scan, to a new digital recombine and color.
The original scans were cropped to the proper aspect ratio, which is 1.37. Concurrent with that data, a crop was also performed to 1.66.
The purpose of that crop, which was performed with the greatest respect toward the original, was to allow the film to be seen by the largest possible audience, while helping to pay for the restorative efforts, which come with a hefty price tag.
As I understand the situation, the 1.66 master was created and dedicated toward broadcast, while the 1.37 was destined for DCP and home video.
Why a 1.66 master was delivered for Blu-ray is an interesting question. I choose to think of it as an possible delivery error.
When the 1.66 information initially came to light, no entity stood their ground, or was unwilling to discuss the situation. Wheels were moving to try and solve the problem. There were no wagons being formed into a circle.
Mr. Wells and Hollywood Elsewhere, came to the defense of the film, and created huge public awareness. After that, things moved very quickly to correct the situation.
The bottom line, as I now understand it, is that there was never an actual planned intent to release a Blu-ray in any other ratio than 1.37.
Was the incorrect master shipped? Was there a communication failure?
I have no idea. All that is known, as absolutes, is that two masters were prepared, for two different purposes, and somehow, things went off track. While it would have been interesting to see the film, lovingly maneuvered, shot by shot at 1.66, which was not as released in 1953, I'm thrilled that we'll receive a proper 1.37, as envisioned by the filmmakers in 1951.
Will I tune in when the film finds its way to broadcast? Absolutely. I'm interested in seeing something close to the widescreen release, and how it has been handled.
As to the missing dialogue, I've also received confirmation of a fix during re-records for the preservation project, based upon the DME.
Moe Dickstein, John Hodson, Robin9 and 5 others like this
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence