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

[PMF]

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

FILE UNDER: Wet-Gates Wide Shut.

 

[Tom St Jones]

EWS is not in need of restoration.

No doubt there are many films "not in need of restoration" but that doesn't stop them from getting them anyway, or keep studios/ labels (not including Criterion) from claiming a "new restoration" where there isn't one.

 

[Worth]

No doubt there are many films "not in need of restoration" but that doesn't stop them from getting them anyway, or keep studios/ labels (not including Criterion) from claiming a "new restoration" where there isn't one.

Why give Criterion a pass? On that front, they're as bad as everyone else.

 

[JamesSmith]

Who is the actress who's to (our) left of Tom Cruise in the capshot above?

--jthree

 

[Peter McM]

Restoration, remaster...call it what you will--but the video quality on the studio blu was very mediocre, even by pre-4K standards. It's obvious work needs to be done for it to be Criterion (or Arrow, or Kino) worthy.

 

[JoshZ]

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.

He could have optically blown-up the shot to crop out the rotors.

 

[B-ROLL]

Restoration, remaster...call it what you will--but the video quality on the studio blu was very mediocre, even by pre-4K standards. It's obvious work needs to be done for it to be Criterion (or Arrow, or Kino) worthy.

I'm sure they'ld get much better sales from an Eyes Wide Shut FUNKO-POP!

 

[lark144]

He could have optically blown-up the shot to crop out the rotors.

And it would have looked like total crap, because you're using dupes already.

And you would then say, "well, look at all that yellow grain..and blurry resolution. And Kubrick is supposed to be a perfectionist?"

Once again, you're equating two things that have nothing to do with each other.

I don't have a problem with those rotor blades in the credits of "The Shining" , for all the reasons I detailed above, and apparently Stanley Kubrick didn't either. I don't see leaving that shot in as "imperfect" or "an error" in any way. In fact, Kubrick may have even intended the shot to be that way, and I have already explained above how that might have been the case. It doesn't take me out of the film, but instead, pulls me in.

The reflection of the crew, however, is another matter entirely. If Kubrick hadn't died, he would have taken that out. He would also have trimmed those incredibly long shots of Tom Cruise wandering about the West Village as well as that long scene at the end with Sidney Pollock. But I can understand why Mr. Vitali left those in, as they're beautiful to watch (the walking shots) & brilliantly acted and compelling (the scene between Cruise & Pollock), even though the pace of the film slows down to a crawl because of them. But the reflection of the crew is an error, and Mr. Vitali was correct taking it out.

Josh, I understand that you think the hardly seen rotor blades over the credits and the reflection of the crew in the middle of an intense emotional scene is the same thing. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[titch]

Restoration, remaster...call it what you will--but the video quality on the studio blu was very mediocre, even by pre-4K standards. It's obvious work needs to be done for it to be Criterion (or Arrow, or Kino) worthy.

It doesn't need to go to Criterion. Warner Bros' Kubrick releases on 4K discs have been stunning. I'm hoping that they will continue with Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut. And Barry Lyndon.

 

[Worth]

He could have optically blown-up the shot to crop out the rotors.

I also find it hard to believe that in what was undoubtedly hours of helicopter footage, there wasn't a ten second stretch in which they weren't visible, but whatever...

 

[PMF]

We don’t need for Stanley Kubrick to be alive to answer or defend this alleged imperfection of the rotor blades shot; as there are a battery of living and masterful DP’s from the American Society of Cinematographers who voted upon “The Shining” as one of the Top 100 films of their established century.

The ASC also selected Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove”, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “A Clockwork Orange” and “Barry Lyndon”; so with a century and an enormity of films to be considered, these technically well-versed practitioners of their trade were clearly not concerned about this shadow or matter.

BTW, “The Shining” looks magnificent in the 4K/UHD format.

 

[Worth]

Kubrick was a great filmmaker and a personal favourite, but he wasn't a god. He made mistakes.

 

[owen35]

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

It has been rumored for years that he is a patron at the jazz club, but if you look at those frames closely, it is clearly NOT him. Given that he had never done that before, logic dictates that he wasn't going to start doing cameos in this last film. Plus, something tells me he would prefer to focus on what is happening during the shot then being in the shot. (One should note however that he didn't have a problem with family members and close associates appearing in his films as background extras.)

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I think the only Kubrick cameo is in Full Metal Jacket, he‘s the replying voice on the radio when the squad is requesting artillery backup.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If you count the sound of breathing, that’s him doubling for the astronauts on their spacewalks in 2001.

 

[JoshZ]

And it would have looked like total crap, because you're using dupes already.

Didn't you just argue that "it's the credits, which are held to less rigorous standards"?

I don't have a problem with those rotor blades in the credits of "The Shining" , for all the reasons I detailed above, and apparently Stanley Kubrick didn't either. I don't see leaving that shot in as "imperfect" or "an error" in any way. In fact, Kubrick may have even intended the shot to be that way, and I have already explained above how that might have been the case. It doesn't take me out of the film, but instead, pulls me in.

There is no logical reason in the scene why Kubrick would want to draw attention to the helicopter. And if he had, why aren't the rotors or other parts of the helicopter more visible in the frame? No, you are trying to rationalize away something that is clearly an error.

I don't disagree with you that the crew reflection is a bigger error than the helicopter rotors. However, I do disagree with the assertion that Kubrick never made mistakes and would absolutely have altered or replaced that shot in EWS. The fact is, we don't know what changes Kubrick would have made had he lived to finish his edit. Maybe he would have changed that shot, or maybe he maybe he would have missed the problem entirely (after all, he did leave it in the film the first time). It's also quite possible that he may have just shrugged it off and decided that the performances in the scene were more important than that gaffe.

 

[haineshisway]

Didn't you just argue that "it's the credits, which are held to less rigorous standards"?



There is no logical reason in the scene why Kubrick would want to draw attention to the helicopter. And if he had, why aren't the rotors or other parts of the helicopter more visible in the frame? No, you are trying to rationalize away something that is clearly an error.

I don't disagree with you that the crew reflection is a bigger error than the helicopter rotors. However, I do disagree with the assertion that Kubrick never made mistakes and would absolutely have altered or replaced that shot in EWS. The fact is, we don't know what changes Kubrick would have made had he lived to finish his edit. Maybe he would have changed that shot, or maybe he maybe he would have missed the problem entirely (after all, he did leave it in the film the first time). It's also quite possible that he may have just shrugged it off and decided that the performances in the scene were more important than that gaffe.

Jeez, already. It's not a question of it being a bigger error, it's a question of it being AMATEUR and something he knew he would remove in post and had he lived he would have. Why do I have the feeling that in days of old you were probably one of the "but Stanley preferred Academy ratio, in the old days when every Kubrick FANatic toed that party line until it was proven how ridiculous that line was. NOW they all point to the Shining 1.85 drawing conveniently forgetting the years of misinformation they were peddling. The blades are barely visible and have NOTHING to do with amateurism as they are not the point of that shot and in 1.85 are not even noticeable except to folks actively looking for them, freezing the film, blowing up the image - if you think a single person sitting in a theater when the film came out noticed that I don't know what to tell you and as I said many, many posts ago, you are arguing just to argue. The mirror shot would have been fixed, just as it WAS fixed - he couldn't do it because he died. No professional filmmaker would have left the mirror shot in a released version and it has ZERO to do with performances in that scene - go watch the shot, watch where it ends. This is silly at this point, seriously.

 

[JoshZ]

I'm the one arguing just to argue? Well, hello there, Mr. Pot.

I feel confident in saying that you cannot speak to the dead. As such, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. Thank you.

Why do I have the feeling that in days of old you were probably one of the "but Stanley preferred Academy ratio, in the old days when every Kubrick FANatic toed that party line until it was proven how ridiculous that line was. NOW they all point to the Shining 1.85 drawing conveniently forgetting the years of misinformation they were peddling.

First off, it was your pal Leon Vitali who created and perpetuated that myth about Kubrick preferring his films in open-matte full frame.

Quite the contrary to your accusation, I was an outspoken critic against those full frame DVDs when they were released. I wrote for DVDFile at the time, under that site's original ownership while it was a relevant voice in the home theater community. I had nothing nice to say about those discs and took quite a bit of heat from those Kubrick fanboys you mention.

The mirror shot would have been fixed, just as it WAS fixed - he couldn't do it because he died. No professional filmmaker would have left the mirror shot in a released version and it has ZERO to do with performances in that scene - go watch the shot, watch where it ends.

Kubrick famously, in Eyes Wide Shut perhaps more than any other film, drove his cast and crew to exhaustion doing take after take after take after take of every shot until the got them "right." Yet that reflection still remained in his cut. Is it your contention that Kubrick saw the reflection and decided not to do another take? Is that in any way consistent with his known behavior?

Or is it possible that, because he was a human being and thus not infallible, he may have missed the reflection? Even for as much as you think it's a glaring error that no professional filmmaker would allow (which is ludicrous, as many other professional filmmakers have left similar mistakes in their movies), perhaps Kubrick was focused on something else in the shot and the reflection escaped his attention, even during editing.

I'm not saying he wouldn't have removed it if it was pointed out to him. But I'm also not arrogant enough to speak for the dead about what he did or didn't see while completing the movie.

This is silly at this point, seriously.

Finally, one statement we can agree on.

 

[haineshisway]

It is my contention that he knew he could fix the shot, but, he died. This isn't brain surgery. He didn't need to do another take for that simple reason. Warners corrected the error. Why'd they do that? For fun?
He never fine cut the film and finished it. And I feel just as confident as you that YOU cannot speak for the dead. And for the record, my experience with the Kubrick fanboys is that not a one of them owns up to the fact that they ever said anything about the full frame transfers. They've erased that history - sadly, for them, if one knows how to use the Internet one can remind them of their pre-revisionist past

 

[JoshZ]

It is my contention that he knew he could fix the shot, but, he died. This isn't brain surgery. He didn't need to do another take for that simple reason.

Did Stanley Kubrick really strike you as a "We'll just fix it in post" kind of director?

And for the record, my experience with the Kubrick fanboys is that not a one of them owns up to the fact that they ever said anything about the full frame transfers. They've erased that history - sadly, for them, if one knows how to use the Internet one can remind them of their pre-revisionist past

If you're trying to accuse me of something here, please go ahead and dig up this quote you're imagining. I think you'll find that I was very strongly opposed to those full-frame transfers and the man responsible for them.