Is it possible to reproduce the original look of Eyes Wide Shut on Blu? (1 Viewer)

[JoshZ]

The IMDb "Goofs" page for Eyes Wide Shut has a long list of flubs and continuity errors beyond that one camera reflection. Even if he'd lived to fine-tune the edit further, Kubrick could not have fixed all of these in post. Many of them would have required reshoots, and we already know how notorious this production was for its protracted shooting schedule. In fact, it was probably Kubrick's insistence on doing endless takes and reshoots to get the performances exactly how he wanted them that caused most of these continuity problems in the first place.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - Goofs - IMDb

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - Goofs on IMDb - bloopers, mistakes, errors in continuity, plot holes, anachronisms, spoilers and more.

www.imdb.com

 

[Dee Zee]

Similar reflection as a door opens in Zhivago.

Doesn’t Kubrick have a cameo in all his films like Hitchcock?

 

[haineshisway]

The IMDb "Goofs" page for Eyes Wide Shut has a long list of flubs and continuity errors beyond that one camera reflection. Even if he'd lived to fine-tune the edit further, Kubrick could not have fixed all of these in post. Many of them would have required reshoots, and we already know how notorious this production was for its protracted shooting schedule. In fact, it was probably Kubrick's insistence on doing endless takes and reshoots to get the performances exactly how he wanted them that caused most of these continuity problems in the first place.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - Goofs - IMDb

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - Goofs on IMDb - bloopers, mistakes, errors in continuity, plot holes, anachronisms, spoilers and more.

www.imdb.com

Sorry, these are incredibly idiotic even by imdb standards There are continuity errors like most of this minor crap they're going on about in every movie ever made. Not so much now because they CGI every little moment to death. But thanks for reminding me why I rarely visit the imdb

 

[lark144]

Sorry, these are incredibly idiotic even by imdb standards There are continuity errors like most of this minor crap they're going on about in every movie ever made. Not so much now because they CGI every little moment to death. But thanks for reminding me why I rarely visit the imdb

Yes, all movies prior to digital have continuity errors, because it was done analogue in real time. And no matter how generous the budget, one didn't have the time or money to go back and reshoot everything. Dr. Strangelove, for instance, is filled with continuity errors. I can't tell you how many times I saw a mic boom pop into the frame in big budget Hollywood films. But audiences were used to this, and ignored it. Most people were following the story and didn't even notice it, like those moments in Stephen Spielberg films where the camera set up crosses the 180 degree line and characters jump from one side of the frame to the other. It's only now, with the advent of home video, that people watch the film frame by frame and post the errors on line, which seems to me a waste of time. I'd rather enjoy the movie.

 

[Worth]

Watch Excalibur closely - there's hardly a shot where you can't see the camera crew reflected in the armour.

 

[lark144]

Watch Excalibur closely - there's hardly a shot where you can't see the camera crew reflected in the armour.

I don't know if it's in every shot. It was there intermittently when I saw it in a theater, but the dye-transfer prints softed it considerably. With digital, it would be hard not to notice. Then again, I'm there for the characters and the story and the mise en scene and the imagery, not the reflection of the camera crew, which I ignore. Or I guess you could take it as a bit of self-reflexive cinema. No doubt some graduate student right now is writing a thesis about how those reflections of the crew on the armor in "Excalibur" is Boorman's method of inscribing the camera's eye and a contemporary perspective into the Arthurian legends.

 

[JoshZ]

Sorry, these are incredibly idiotic even by imdb standards There are continuity errors like most of this minor crap they're going on about in every movie ever made. Not so much now because they CGI every little moment to death. But thanks for reminding me why I rarely visit the imdb

The point is that the myth of Stanley Kubrick would have many viewers believe he was an absolute perfectionist who would not allow even the tiniest fault in any frame. That was definitely not the case in reality.

You yourself posted earlier:

Kubrick would never have released the film that way - minimally he would have removed the mirror reflection of he and his crew - where is the justification for that remaining in the film?

I'm not sure that's true. Perhaps Kubrick would have noticed the flub and demand it be removed, or perhaps not. He allowed similar errors to remain in his other films.

 

[Tom Logan]

... Mr. Kubrick, I believe, never even fine cut the film, otherwise he most certainly would not have left in the shot of he and the crew completely visible in a mirror - a shot subsequently fixed for the home video releases.

OMG thank you for verifying that this happened. I remembered seeing this in the theatre, and then never saw it again on any home release. Thought it 'twas faulty memory.

 

[haineshisway]

The point is that the myth of Stanley Kubrick would have many viewers believe he was an absolute perfectionist who would not allow even the tiniest fault in any frame. That was definitely not the case in reality.

You yourself posted earlier:



I'm not sure that's true. Perhaps Kubrick would have noticed the flub and demand it be removed, or perhaps not. He allowed similar errors to remain in his other films.

Sorry, you're arguing just to argue. There is nothing in ANY Kubrick film like that reflection in the mirror - anyone who thinks he would have allowed that to go out to the public knows nothing about him or his films, sorry. I had dinner with Vitali at a mutual friends - he confirmed to me that Kubrick had not finished the fine cutting of the film and that its release would never have had that reflection, which is why Vitali had it removed.

 

[JoshZ]

Sorry, you're arguing just to argue. There is nothing in ANY Kubrick film like that reflection in the mirror - anyone who thinks he would have allowed that to go out to the public knows nothing about him or his films, sorry.

From this very thread not one page ago:

I had dinner with Vitali at a mutual friends - he confirmed to me that Kubrick had not finished the fine cutting of the film and that its release would never have had that reflection, which is why Vitali had it removed.

I mean no offense if he's a personal acquaintance, but Mr. Vitali has not been a particularly reliable source of information over the years about the technical details of Kubrick's films or his intentions. For how many years did he insist that Kubrick absolutely intended all of his films (save for 2001 and Spartacus) to be presented at 1.33:1? And then for how long did he insist that Kubrick was 100% adamant that those same films should be 1.77:1 (which isn't even a real theatrical aspect ratio) - even when confronted with projection instructions Kubrick wrote explicitly stating that 1.66:1 was his intended ratio for Barry Lyndon, and storyboards with handwritten notes from Kubrick specifying a 1.85:1 ratio for that film?

I would take anything Mr. Vitali said in this regard with a pretty big grain of salt.

 

[haineshisway]

From this very thread not one page ago:





I mean no offense if he's a personal acquaintance, but Mr. Vitali has not been a particularly reliable source of information over the years about the technical details of Kubrick's films or his intentions. For how many years did he insist that Kubrick absolutely intended all of his films (save for 2001 and Spartacus) to be presented at 1.33:1? And then for how long did he insist that Kubrick was 100% adamant that those same films should be 1.77:1 (which isn't even a real theatrical aspect ratio) - even when confronted with projection instructions Kubrick wrote explicitly stating that 1.66:1 was his intended ratio for Barry Lyndon, and storyboards with handwritten notes from Kubrick specifying a 1.85:1 ratio for that film?

I would take anything Mr. Vitali said in this regard with a pretty big grain of salt.

You're on your own, I give up. Believe what you will, and I'll believe what's real. The fact that you equate barely-seen rotor blades to seeing a full reflection of the director, the camera and the crew says all I need to know.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Before my HD-DVD of Eyes Wide Shut rotted, I remember the movie had the grain cleaned up while the trailer looked as it should have.

 

[JoshZ]

even when confronted with projection instructions Kubrick wrote explicitly stating that 1.66:1 was his intended ratio for Barry Lyndon, and storyboards with handwritten notes from Kubrick specifying a 1.85:1 ratio for that film?

Cannot edit my post. 1.66:1 is for Barry Lyndon. The 1.85:1 storyboards were for The Shining.

 

[JoshZ]

You're on your own, I give up. Believe what you will, and I'll believe what's real. The fact that you equate barely-seen rotor blades to seeing a full reflection of the director, the camera and the crew says all I need to know.

I'm going to bite my tongue regarding your choice of tone and simply point out that those helicopter rotors are an obvious error perfectly visible in all copies of The Shining. It was not beyond Stanley Kubrick to make mistakes, or to choose to live with them if there was something else about the take he valued more.

 

[Peter McM]

Last I knew, EWS was rumored to be getting a fresh restoration and release on The Criterion Collection. Anyone heard anything lately?

 

[haineshisway]

I'm going to bite my tongue regarding your choice of tone and simply point out that those helicopter rotors are an obvious error perfectly visible in all copies of The Shining. It was not beyond Stanley Kubrick to make mistakes, or to choose to live with them if there was something else about the take he valued more.

And I'll bite my tongue so there'll be a lot of bitten tongues. Again, if you're comparing barely seen rotor blades to a reflection of the director and his camera and his crew in a mirror I don't know what to tell you. Well, I can tell you that rotor blades barely seen in 1.85 is not a mistake and a director, camera, and crew clearly visible in a mirror is and would have been removed had he lived and fine-tuned his film.

 

[PMF]

The point is that the myth of Stanley Kubrick would have many viewers believe he was an absolute perfectionist who would not allow even the tiniest fault in any frame. That was definitely not the case in reality.
[...]

It is not myth.

NOTE: The pursuit of perfection does not negate an imperfection from occurring.

 

[lark144]

And I'll bite my tongue so there'll be a lot of bitten tongues. Again, if you're comparing barely seen rotor blades to a reflection of the director and his camera and his crew in a mirror I don't know what to tell you. Well, I can tell you that rotor blades barely seen in 1.85 is not a mistake and a director, camera, and crew clearly visible in a mirror is and would have been removed had he lived and fine-tuned his film.

Yes, the two are not in any way comparable. That shot with the barley seen rotor blades was out of Kubrick's control, as it was done on commission by a US crew in Oregon, and Kubrick probably didn't see the film at all until much later, and redoing it would probably have been cost-prohibitive. Also, it's the credits, which are held to less rigorous standards. It almost looks like it's done on purpose, that you're being moved from our contemporary reality into another world. The reflection of the crew, however, is too blatant to be kept in.

 

[Robert Harris]

Last I knew, EWS was rumored to be getting a fresh restoration and release on The Criterion Collection. Anyone heard anything lately?

EWS is not in need of restoration.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

No, but you know any label putting it out on disc would call a new 4K scan a “restoration” for marketing sizzle!