Robert Harris on The Bits-Interview with Columbia's Grover Crisp Official Thread (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Grover Crisp finds ways to restore films. Crispin Glover finds ways to exterminate rats.

 

[Joe Caps]

to Robert Harris - a few years ago Sony found the roadshow version of Nicholas and Alexandra and released that on DVD.
However, it's still missing three things - original black screen Overture, Intermission Music and the original stereo track.
Any possibility of these being addd to a future Nicholas DVD?

 

[Matt Fisher]

Very nice reading, thank you.

 

[Simon Howson]

Cool thanks for the info... if that is the case now I want Warner to release it

 

[Paul_Nyman]

Kudos to Columbia for upgrading Dr. Strangelove to HD. Now my only question is between Blu-Ray hitting the market will there be a Superbit repackage of the just released Dr. Strangelove 2 DVD set?

I wish Mr. Harris had brought this up in the interview with Grover Crisp. I have myself upgrade titles to Superbit. I've seen some titles come to the Superbit package within 6-12 months after the regular dvd is out.

I appreciate the efforts made to get the best product out on many old films.

Thank you again for the feature interview done by Mr. Harris.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The DVD is already a "Superbit Deluxe" since only the film is on disc 1 and the extras are on the 2nd disc. The DTS sound is there, so I think the only re-release you'd see of Dr. Strangelove is the BluRay version.

 

[ArthurMy]

I'm so happy about the aspect ratio discussion - it's what several of us were saying in exactly the same way and I must say being lambasted for holding that view because "Stanley" preferred full-frame or the variable aspect ratio on this title. Our point was, he made those comments and/or decisions in the VHS/laser age, and some of us wanted this film the way it was projected. THAT is the OAR because that's where films are exhibited, in theaters, and in theaters this particular film was shown in 1:85 in the States and 1:66 in the UK.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It is most certainly not what you were saying in the exact same way. My problem with your previous and current arguments was with your assertion that Kubrick made his decisions out of ignorance or lack of foresight. While I do not have any aversion to the films being released on DVD in their theatrical aspect ratios, I also do not have any problem believing that Kubrick liked his films shown open matte, which, by the way, was reportedly done for special theatrical presentations during his lifetime as well as video releases. He died in 1999 having lived in the UK for decades. I'm sure he had no problem wrapping his brain around the concept of 16:9 televisions.

In other words, if someone says "I would like to see Kubrick's films in their matted theatrical aspect ratios", I have no quarrel with them. When someone says that Kubrick simply didn't know any better since he made the decisions in the VHS/laser age, I enter "lambaste" mode.

Regards,

 

[ArthurMy]

They are not only "my" arguments, these views are held by many, including many on the Kubrick newsgroup. I (and others) have never said nor implied that Kubrick "didn't know better" - those are your words, not mine. Nor have I said he made his decisions in ignorance or from lack of foresight. I'm sure foresight never occured to him when he was preparing the laser and VHS releases of these films. I happen to believe that today Mr. Kubrick, at the very least, would allow his films to have both the theatrical ratio and full-frame. Since neither of us knew him or spoke to him, it's all conjecture, just as much on your part as on mine and anyone else's. He made his comments and decisions in the late eighties and early nineties. In 1999, when he passed away, DVD was still in its infancy and widescreen TVs were hardly commonplace.

As for "lambast" mode - I don't believe they approve of such things here. In any case, you're not going to change how you seen things, nor am I, and since "Stanley" isn't around, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Steve...O]

Another very interesting and much appreciated interview from Mr. Hunt & Mr. Harris. Thank you.

Let's hope that Mr. Harris's schedule allows these series of interviews to occur on an occasional basis in the future. Although getting advance information on future projects is quite exciting, I find the backstory behind getting these releases out fascinating.

Steve

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Considering he did not die until 1999 and he lived in the UK, where 16:9 TVs were making non-trivial inroads, this implies lack of knowledge, also known as "ignorance" in some circles.

Regards,

 

[ArthurMy]

Well, he was heavily involved in something at the time and had been for several years, namely the shooting and editing of Eyes Wide Shut. I don't know that he would have had much time for anything else, but, as I keep saying, you've read and believe what you want, and I've read and believe what I want. And the world goes round.

 

[Stefan Andersson]

Anybody want the full screenplay of MAJOR DUNDEE as a CD-ROM extra w/expert commentary on the DVD?

S Andersson
SWEDEN

 

[ToddF]

Widescreen TV's were very common in the UK in the 90's (as Ken rightfully pointed out). Also, it's very well known that Kubrick was very, very much into gadgets which makes any suggestion that he wasn't aware of widescreen sets kind of questionable. Actually, in 1999 most directors (and even PA's) were very aware that home video could allow for choices of OAR or full frame. If Kubrick wasn't aware of the benefits of one or the other with his work then that's something to be worried about. Since we all know that he wasn't an idiot then of course he knew the difference and made his choices accordingly. I'm just attempting to add some basic logic to these endless debates about "if only he were alive now rather than then." 1999 wasn't several decades ago. DVD had already launched and laserdisc were around fpr a long time. Kubrick was aware of his choices (more so than most of us). Also, wouldn't it be funny if he was watching and rewatching his edits of 'Eyes Wide Shut' on a widescreen TV in 4x3....

 

[JPCinema]

Mr Crisp mentioned "MY SISTER EILEEN" . I sure hope that the 1955 version is released soon on DVD, Great Cinemascope with Jack Lemmon , Janet Leigh and Bob Fosse. Amazing choreography too!

 

[Patrick McCart]

One thing to consider about Kubrick's 1.33:1 decisions, though....

Kubrick probably didn't have much faith in DVD as a format to preserve aspect ratios in. All he'd have to do is see how many titles Warner released from 1997-1999 in pan & scan. I think that if he saw how strongly most studios have embraced OAR (as well as consumers) in the last few years, he would have been fine with 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 matted versions of his films on DVD.

After all, the reason why he went for mono sound for The Shining and Full Metal Jacket was because he didn't have faith in theaters presenting the films with stereo mixes properly... but by the time he made Eyes Wide Shut, he saw that most theaters would actually present a stereo soundtrack right... thus, it was released with 5.1 sound.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning w.r.t. how the Warner pan & scan titles, which were a distinct minority of mostly budget line releases, would cause him to "lose faith in DVD as a format to preserve aspect ratios in". How about this idea: he had a preference for the presentation of his films that many of us do not share. This position conveniently fits all available facts and known public statements from the Kubrick camp.

I have no problem with any of his films being released on DVD in their theatrical aspect ratios, and would probably re-buy them if they were ( I already have in the case of "Dr. Strangelove"). The fact that they were shown that way in theaters gives the decision legitimacy and historical interest. I do not however, require any rationalization to convince myself that "Kubrick would have wanted them presented this way" as it a) doesn't fit the public record, b) requires speculation unsupported by evidence, and c) doesn't really matter as long as the open matte versions remain available.

Regards,

 

[Brian McHale]

Is the new presentation the equivalent of matting the old presentation at 1.66:1? I'm not talking quality (I assume the new one is better), just wondering what to make of the difference in aspect ratios.

Since it is claimed that the movie can be safely projected at 1.85:1, could the old DVD be zoomed in (like a non-anamorphic disc) to get something approximating the original theatrical presentation?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I thought the consensus opinion was that 1.85:1 presentations look overcropped vertically. You probably don't want to crop much beyond 1.66:1, so if trying to approximate the theatrical matting on a 16:9 set, you are better off watching the new DVD than zooming the previous DVDs to 1.78:1.

Regards,

 

[Eric Paddon]

The news about "Major Dundee" sounds exciting as I have always found it to be a film that falls apart completely in its second half due to sudden gaps in the narrative that hopefully a restored version (albeit partially) can help fix.