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
* * * * * 3 votes

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

Paramount

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

Poll: Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (144 member(s) have cast votes)

Which of the three options below would you choose to purchase "Shane" on Bluray?

  1. Shane with 1.66:1 Aspect Ratio Only (10 votes [6.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.94%

  2. Shane with 1.37:1 Aspect Ratio Only (28 votes [19.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.44%

  3. Shane with both, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 Aspect Ratios (106 votes [73.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.61%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#261 of 317 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,316 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted April 25 2013 - 03:00 AM

I think the poll in this thread shows clearly what the majority wanted - and did not get - thanks to Mr Wells. So the majority who voted on this topic are definitely not being led anywhere by Mr Wells and his attention-seeking antics.

 

I think he said he'd be happy with both, so was in agreement with the poll. 

 

It certainly appears that JW's efforts managed to garner support from both Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, and this may well have been at least part of the reason for the change of heart.

 

I don't agree with all of his comments, but this sort of 'attention seeking' should be supported.  Without it we may not have had Shane on Blu-ray in the originally intended ratio.

 

You may say that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but it would seem churlish to criticise a malfunctioning timepiece even on those two chronologically serendipitous occasions.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#262 of 317 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted April 25 2013 - 03:19 AM

All in all, it's interesting that for this release, the theatrical aspect ratio have been decided wrong (damn history, let's restore the "original intent") to wide, sorry, boxy acclaim, whereas if George Lucas did it, there would be hell to pay.

 

It's not like the filmmaker was fleeced and the film was taken out of his hands. 

 

There should be both versions on the release.



#263 of 317 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,316 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted April 25 2013 - 03:35 AM

All in all, it's interesting that for this release, the theatrical aspect ratio have been decided wrong (damn history, let's restore the "original intent") to wide, sorry, boxy acclaim, whereas if George Lucas did it, there would be hell to pay.

 

It's not like the filmmaker was fleeced and the film was taken out of his hands. 

 

There should be both versions on the release.

 

David, I think your comments about the re-framing of most films for video release are both interesting and refreshing.

 

I don't find it helpful to regularly allude to JW's 'boxy us beautiful' mantra (either in agreement or disagreement) - surely all aspect ratios can be beautiful - and I don't think that wanting Shane primarily in 1.37:1 makes anyone a Wells disciple.

 

I don't have the same experience of film-to-video transfer as yourself or RAH, but everything I've seen of both original elements and their eventual Blu-ray Disc releases suggests to me that most 1.37:1 Blu-ray Disc releases conform fairly closely to the safe projected area of a 35mm frame.

 

I think we probably agree that what was seen in the cinemas has its own historical worth, but a director's intention must remain paramount.  I doubt very much that the eventual Blu-ray Disc release of Shane will be very far from the image George Stevens would have expected and intended audiences to see when he shot the film, and closer than the 1.66:1 version which was prepared.  But I await the results, and your informed comments, with interest.

 

Steve W


Edited by Yorkshire, April 25 2013 - 03:37 AM.

Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#264 of 317 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted April 25 2013 - 03:42 AM

The 1.66:1 was the director's intention too, it's a bit like doing a director's cut, then shortening it because the market demands it right before release.

 

If the director's cut reappears later, great, but the original should still remain available on home video.

 

That's why I champion a release with both formats, and probably why in the poll most agree. Both are valid, one for historical accuracy, the other for the original intent. If one or the other is released, we all lose. We need them both.



#265 of 317 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,316 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted April 25 2013 - 03:50 AM

The 1.66:1 was the director's intention too, it's a bit like doing a director's cut, then shortening it because the market demands it right before release.

 

If the director's cut reappears later, great, but the original should still remain available on home video.

 

That's why I champion a release with both formats, and probably why in the poll most agree. Both are valid, one for historical accuracy, the other for the original intent. If one or the other is released, we all lose. We need them both.

 

I wonder why both versions are not being included.

 

It's a 2 hour film (almost to the minute).  Bonnie & Clyde is almost two hours long and only takes up around 17gb.  It looks great, too!  I would have thought that you could fit a great-looking Shane on to a 50gb Blu-ray Disc twice.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#266 of 317 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,076 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 25 2013 - 05:11 AM

I wonder why both versions are not being included.

 

It's a 2 hour film (almost to the minute).  Bonnie & Clyde is almost two hours long and only takes up around 17gb.  It looks great, too!  I would have thought that you could fit a great-looking Shane on to a 50gb Blu-ray Disc twice.

 

Steve W

I'm pretty sure it has to come down to cost and how much they charge us.  Right now, the SRP is 19.98, you include two versions of film like Laura with Fox then you're looking at 24.98.  Criterion with the 3 different versions of OTW is more expensive than their usual BD releases.


  • Cremildo likes this

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#267 of 317 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,076 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 25 2013 - 06:59 AM

Yes, there will...

Bob,

 

Are you still posting your article?


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#268 of 317 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,076 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 25 2013 - 08:04 AM

Looks like I was right about Stevens Jr barb being meant for Jeffrey Wells.

 

http://www.hollywood...theres-amnesia/


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#269 of 317 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,667 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 25 2013 - 08:41 AM

Bob,

 

Are you still posting your article?

 

Yes, the article is going to document the widescreen release of SHANE in 1953. There's a lot of research involved and I'm still working on it.

 

In my discussions with Mr. Stevens, he was always very cordial. He gave me permission to quote him before the recent New York Post interview. That's why I put up the preview page on our website. In fact, Mr. Stevens gave me a nice quote on the widescreen article which is now at the top of that page.

 

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


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#270 of 317 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,667 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 25 2013 - 08:56 AM

It certainly appears that JW's efforts managed to garner support from both Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, and this may well have been at least part of the reason for the change of heart.

 

Scorsese replied to Wells?
 

Did I miss something?


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#271 of 317 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,076 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 25 2013 - 09:04 AM

Yes, the article is going to document the widescreen release of SHANE in 1953. There's a lot of research involved and I'm still working on it.

 

In my discussions with Mr. Stevens, he was always very cordial. He gave me permission to quote him before the recent New York Post interview. That's why I put up the preview page on our website. In fact, Mr. Stevens gave me a nice quote on the widescreen article which is now at the top of that page.

 

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

Thanks Bob, I am really looking forward to reading the completed article.


  • JohnRa likes this

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#272 of 317 OFFLINE   John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer



  • 4,464 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted April 25 2013 - 09:46 AM

*
POPULAR

Scorsese replied to Wells?
 

Did I miss something?

 

Possibly a restraining order...


  • Peter Apruzzese, Bob Furmanek, JohnRa and 1 other like this
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#273 of 317 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,368 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted April 25 2013 - 12:48 PM

I think the reason Warner is choosing not to release both versions on a single disc, is because that would require dual-layer which would add to the cost and they had already priced the disc based on producing a single layer disc.



#274 of 317 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter



  • 2,372 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 25 2013 - 01:02 PM

Scorsese replied to Wells?
 

Did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss anything.  I think Steve from Yorkshire likes to just post things, but Scorsese never responded to Wells yea or nay. :)


Edited by haineshisway, April 25 2013 - 01:02 PM.


#275 of 317 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,667 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 25 2013 - 01:58 PM

Thanks, I didn't think he had gotten a response!


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#276 of 317 OFFLINE   Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter



  • 1,316 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted April 26 2013 - 12:38 AM

No, you didn't miss anything.  I think Steve from Yorkshire likes to just post things, but Scorsese never responded to Wells yea or nay. :)

 

Apologies, I saw Scorsese mentioned in that article and presumed he must have.

 

But no, I don't 'like to just post things'.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#277 of 317 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,076 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 26 2013 - 02:06 AM

I think the reason Warner is choosing not to release both versions on a single disc, is because that would require dual-layer which would add to the cost and they had already priced the disc based on producing a single layer disc.

No question about it that cost is the main reason we're getting just the 1.37 version.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#278 of 317 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



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

Posted April 26 2013 - 05:21 AM

I think we should contact Warner and ask for authorisation to put up a Kickstarter fund, to get the 1.66:1 version.



#279 of 317 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker



  • 3,149 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted April 26 2013 - 11:17 AM

Great, they can use the leftover Veronica Mars money for it.
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#280 of 317 OFFLINE   Jeffrey Nelson

Jeffrey Nelson

    Screenwriter



  • 1,066 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 04 2003
  • Real Name:Jeffrey Nelson
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted April 28 2013 - 11:27 AM

The 1.66:1 was the director's intention too, it's a bit like doing a director's cut, then shortening it because the market demands it right before release.

 

If the director's cut reappears later, great, but the original should still remain available on home video.

 

That's why I champion a release with both formats, and probably why in the poll most agree. Both are valid, one for historical accuracy, the other for the original intent. If one or the other is released, we all lose. We need them both.

 

1.66:1 was NOT the director's intention.  He had to reframe it because it was going out that way whether he liked it or not.  You're incorrect.  Granted, it'd be cool to have it included for those who don't mind visually compromised presentations of films, but if there's going to be only one version represented, the Academy Ratio version is the correct choice.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Paramount

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users