New Kubrick SE's (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

This is the old (2000) release of the film, still available as a single. The new "Deluxe Edition" (as it's labeled) is only available as part of the new Kubrick set. You can still buy the old 4x3 version on its own (as the link above shows), but the new anamorphic version can only be found in the set. Who knows why?

Considering you can get the set for about $55, and that Clockwork Orange and 2001 together are going to cost you about $40, buying the set probably costs as much as buying Clockwork, 2001, and FMJ would if FMJ was available on its own. If you don't want the other films, I'm sure there are people over on the "for sale/trade" section of the HTF that would be interested in the titles you don't want.

And, as a sidenote, for what it's worth: when the set was announced, it was mentioned that Barry Lyndon and Lolita would not be in this set, and that the single re-releases of the titles would be identical to the 2000 remastered editions. Considering that this was announced well in advance, that they came in identical packaging (only in amarays instead of snappers), and that nowhere on the package did it indicate the films as being anamorphic, if anyone rebought them expecting something different, it's not Warner's fault here. Yes, I wish they would have redone them too, but they didn't, and that's a separate issue. The non-anamorphic transfers don't look bad, and if they weren't able to create any bonus material of real value, it's probably for the best that they didn't do a half-assed job of it.

 

[RoyM]

With all due respect, it was NEVER formally announced that the re-releases of BL and Lolita would be identical to the old ones, only that they were not going to be part of the box set and wouldn't get the same SE treatment. Hence, everyone wondering right up until yesterday whether they would in fact be new transfers.

In fact, the vagueness or outright lack of specs for these two re-releases for all of these months amounts to a clever bit of deception on Warner's part IMO, especially since the previous (identical) releases also remain in print. What else was one to conclude except that the newer releases would be better in some way?

 

[John_Walker]

...and the picture quality on the new "2001 A Space Odessey" standard 2 disc set is unchanged from the earlier release? ? ?

John

 

[Patrick McCart]

No, it's an improvement. The DVNR and mild edge enhancement on the '01 disc are gone.

 

[JPCinema]

Very sad that one of the most beautifully shot films ever made BARRY LYNDON is not anamorphic and will most likely never be seen in HD clarity:-(
Bad decision on WB part.
LOLITA should have had an anamorphic transfer as well.

 

[TravisR]

"...most likely never be seen in HD clarity"? Just because it didn't come out in this set doesn't mean that it won't ever come out or be released solo. Plus, there's always the next time they release the Kubrick movies again in 4 or so years.

 

[Brian Little]

I suspect we'll see "Barry Lyndon" given an SE treatment within the next year. I'd rather wait a little bit and have it done RIGHT than to have Warner rush it. Yeah I'd love to have "Barry Lyndon" on HD-DVD right now but honestly the 2001 SD-DVD remaster is still very watchable for the time being.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Although it would have been nice to have an anamorphic Lolita & Barry Lyndon, if they weren't going to do anything new with them, I'm actually glad that they were left out of the new box set.

I (and many others, I'm sure) have the '01 box, and each of the titles in the new box (except for A Life In Pictures) features something of an upgrade, which makes a purchase worthwhile. I would have been a little disappointed with two more discs identical to ones that I already have upping the price of the box. That, at least, was a decent decision on Warner's part, I think.

Too bad about the software error, though. I hope it gets sorted out soon.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

With continued respect, Warner made it clear in their chat about a year ago that they had no plans to redo BL and Lolita. In their press release, they announced that they were issuing a box set with remastered titles, and listed the releases in that box set. Nowhere on the press release does it specify that BL or Lolita would be remastered...and since they specified all of the other titles would be, I think it's a no-brainer. Discussion on this very forum prior to release date made it pretty clear these two weren't being redone. The press release did say "Separate from this Collection, other Kubrick titles available from WHV include Barry Lyndon and Lolita." Nothing about new additional features or transfers or remastering, just mentioning that they own the rights to other Kubrick movies that are out on DVD. The cover art on all of the special editions is different; the art for BL and Lolita is exactly the same. The excellent DVD Times website elaborated by adding the text "these will be repackaged version of the old remastered editions". Digital Bits essentially offered the same information. It was discussed in this thread.

It was clear to me and most others on this very forum that BL and Lolita were not being redone this time around. I'm sorry you didn't feel it was stated clearly enough, but this is one time where it seems obvious that the studio wasn't trying to trick anyone into rebuying something they already had. Now, do I wish they had been redone? Absolutely! Sometimes, when a studio announces a new box set of special editions, gives specs for all of the special features and details of new transfers, gives new artwork, but doesn't do any of that for other titles, it can be reasonably surmised that the excluded titles weren't being redone. It was immediately clear to me upon reading the initial press release that 2001, ACO, The Shining, FMJ, and EWS were being remastered with new transfers and special features, and that BL and Lolita weren't.

And frankly, as some others have stated on here, I'm glad that they didn't bother doing sub-par new editions just for the sake of doing them. The current ones are certainly watchable, and all we can do is hope that somewhere down the line, WB will choose to revisit those titles. But instead of complaining about the two that didn't get the new treatment, from hereon in I'm going to enjoy what we did get, which was a whole hell of a lot for not a lot of money.

 

[Douglas R]

That's exactly as I remembered it. People have simply been making assumptions about these two titles. No doubt they will be re-mastered in due course.

 

[rich_d]

Hmm ... earlier someone posted that they had FMJ in their hands and it was not anamorphic ... can anyone confirm one way or the other?

 

[Patrick McCart]

The separate disc or the one in the box set?

 

[Joe Fisher]

The Full Metal Jacket included in the box set IS ANAMORPHIC.

Also it is only included in the box set and isn't available as a seperate release. Any version seen on the shleves is the older release from 2001.

Hope that helps.

 

[RoyM]

Again, withstanding whatever Warner might have said in an online chat, it was not made abundantly clear that the new BL and Lolita releases would simply be re-issues. You need only look back through this very thread, not to mention nearly every online discussion regarding the Kubrick re-releases, to see that there was not even a remote consensus on what these two re-releases would be. Believe me, I know because I searched high and low across every online discussion of this subject to find some definitive answer. The only consensus that these would simply be re-releases was equally speculative - ie "they're not part of the box set, so they must just be the same ones, but no one knows for sure"

Warner's own press-release only says that they would not be included in the boxset. And even including mention of these two additional films (with plot summaries) in the press release for the Kubrick box amounts to some caginess on Warner's part, if not outright disingenuousness.

Granted, the presumption that they were just re-packages turned out to be a good one, but it was not such a cut-and-dried presumption by any means either. And still a crappy move on Warner's part, in my opinion.

 

[Bo_Darville]

WTB: deluxe ed. WS FMJ from boxset. please pm offers to sell. thanks.

 

[John CW]

I'm confused... why are the Bits reporting that people will be let down by the lack of Theatrical Cut for Eyes Wide Shut? It's my (possibly mistaken) understanding that the only difference were changes made to the film (the insertion of CG "actors") against the director's wishes.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Ray H]

Yes, but the original press release stated that the new 2-disc set of EWS would include both cuts.

 

[cafink]

I am disappointed that the new DVD release of Eyes Wide Shut does not contain the American theatrical version. Given that the DVD contains only one version of the film, I am of course glad that it's the uncensored international version, but I would also like to have the American version, which was promised in Warner's promotions and is even listed on the back of the package!

John, it's not exactly the case that the changes were done against the director's wishes. Kubrick had already finished his final cut of the film when he died (though he was notorious for making changes to his films right up until the last minute, so it's likely that it might have changed further had he lived to see it released), but it had not yet been rated by the MPAA. When the MPAA gave it an "NC-17," Warner inserted the digital figures to obscure the more explicit sexual scenes. While Kubrick was no longer around to approve the final product, he did realize that the film was likely to get an "NC-17," and as he was contractually obligated to deliver an "R"-rated film, he had already discussed the idea of obscuring the action in this way.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I have yet to see one person effectively support why the American theatrical version should be desired. I mean, really, who gives a flying flip if it isn't there? With the unaltered international release now available, who in their right mind would ever bother with the American release again?

 

[rich_d]

As I see it, why would I want a censored version rather than the one the filmmaker wanted to release? So, we agree.

However, to each his own. Some have a preference to seeing a film as they first saw it. Call it nostalgic, call it reliving that same experience, call it what you will. If Kubrick was okay with releasing a different version, to my mind it's flat out okay for someone to prefer that release.

I think what muddies the water for me is the censorship part. That I'm dead against. But artists do things against preference that is not censorship per se ... like a producer telling them what to do. Or even a filmmaker watching/listening to a test screening audience and deciding to make some changes on his own. Another example, people do prefer the voice-over in Blade Runner to Ridley Scott's preferred version without voice-over. It's also the way many first saw the film.