The Shining (1980) 4K (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

https://twitter.com/StanleyKubrick/status/1128714159737192450

Best Buy has an exclusive steelbook release available for preorder already:

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/the-sh...y-only--best-buy-1980/6350604.p?skuId=6350604

Man, Best Buy is making some profit margin off these exclusive steelbook releases. Not for me though, as I can't justify spending that extra $5 for some cheap metal.

 

[Paul_Warren]

Having Leon Vitali involved is good enough for me. He ensured 2001 was done properly so I have no doubt Leon & the Kubrick estate will ensure The Shining is about as good as it can be on 4K

 

[Will*B]

This is great news - can't wait to see the results.

I very much hope both cuts are on this release. Alternatively of course, I'll just have to buy the US and UK releases separately, just as I did with the BD!

 

[Matt Hough]

I do think that the cover art is very imaginative and gripping, capturing the tone of the movie wonderfully and bringing back some vivid memories. I'll be looking forward to reviews of this before I consider buying, however.

 

[English Patient]

The Warner press release makes it sound like the new version will include the 'lost' 2-minute hospital scene that was cut from the film in the few days following its initial premiere (the US home video release has always been 144 minutes):

The 4K remastering is of Kubrick’s original 146 minute version of the film which premiered in the United States on May 23rd, 1980.

If this is really accurate, I'm surprised Warner's isn't making the inclusion of the lost footage more prominent, with words like "rarely seen lost ending," "new footage," or something similar.

 

[Paul Rossen]

The Warner press release makes it sound like the new version will include the 'lost' 2-minute hospital scene that was cut from the film in the few days following its initial premiere (the US home video release has always been 144 minutes):

The 4K remastering is of Kubrick’s original 146 minute version of the film which premiered in the United States on May 23rd, 1980.

If this is really accurate, I'm surprised Warner's isn't making the inclusion of the lost footage more prominent, with words like "rarely seen lost ending," "new footage," or something similar.

I've never heard that the original ending was 'lost'. It was deleted by Kubrick and WB a day or two after the opening of the film. I saw it twice and it didn't leave any lasting impression. It would be 'great' if the new release had all three versions...but if it is going to be the one version then let it be the original release.

 

[EnricoE]

God Dammit Warner: ADD THE ORIGINAL MONO!!!!

No Mono = No Buy!!!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I sincerely doubt they would reinstate the hospital scene. The hard rule with Kubrick films is they are not to be altered from how he left them. Until there is nobody left around to uphold that rule I don't think they will stray from it.

 

[PMF]

As with Barry Lyndon, I am confident that through Mr. Vitali we will "receive satisfaction".

 

[Paul Rossen]

As with Barry Lyndon, I am confident that through Mr. Vitali we will receive a disc of satisfaction.

And through Mr. Vitali we will be getting the version that Stanley Kubrick would have given us.

 

[Vincent_P]

I sincerely doubt they would reinstate the hospital scene. The hard rule with Kubrick films is they are not to be altered from how he left them. Until there is nobody left around to uphold that rule I don't think they will stray from it.

The listed running time and press release would indicate that it WILL include the coda, though. Why else point out the 146-minute running time and specifically say it's the "premiere" version otherwise? The Kubrick powers-that-be have changed their minds before, from first claiming that Kubrick wanted his "flat" films all presented in open-matte 1.33:1, to insisting that 1.77:1 was the proper aspect ratio for BARRY LYNDON for a time.

Vincent

 

[owen35]

The listed running time and press release would indicate that it WILL include the coda, though. Why else point out the 146-minute running time and specifically say it's the "premiere" version otherwise? The Kubrick powers-that-be have changed their minds before, from first claiming that Kubrick wanted his "flat" films all presented in open-matte 1.33:1, to insisting that 1.77:1 was the proper aspect ratio for BARRY LYNDON for a time.

Vincent

Yeah, I'm very much confused by this. It seems to me, given what Kubrick has said about that ending, that it would never been shown because he specifically removed it and never approved a release with it. This would go against his wishes. While I'm very excited to see it again (I saw the film opening night), I'm disappointed that they are not respecting his wishes--especially Spielberg who you would think would not support such a clear disrespect of the filmmaker's wishes.

 

[AcesHighStudios]

Yeah, I'm very much confused by this. It seems to me, given what Kubrick has said about that ending, that it would never been shown because he specifically removed it and never approved a release with it. This would go against his wishes. While I'm very excited to see it again (I saw the film opening night), I'm disappointed that they are not respecting his wishes--especially Spielberg who you would think would not support such a clear disrespect of the filmmaker's wishes.

What is Spielberg's connection to this release?

 

[Alan Tully]

Yeah, I'm very much confused by this. It seems to me, given what Kubrick has said about that ending, that it would never been shown because he specifically removed it and never approved a release with it. This would go against his wishes. While I'm very excited to see it again (I saw the film opening night), I'm disappointed that they are not respecting his wishes--especially Spielberg who you would think would not support such a clear disrespect of the filmmaker's wishes.

Yes, but that hospital scene was in his original cut, I don't know why he removed it after the film had opened, maybe the audience reaction was not what he thought it would be. I'd think his wife, Christiane Kubrick & assistant, Leon Vitali would know. Saying that, I'd be surprised to see it back in. I'm looking forward to seeing the longer US version, as I've only seen the shorter UK cut.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It was removed after the first day in most locations (it was supposed to be removed prior to that, but WB couldn't get to every location). The chief projectionist at a theater I worked at (a few years later) that premiered it with the scene the first day told me that WB sent an editor opening night after the late show and he physically spliced out the scene and took the footage with him. A replacement reel without the splice arrived a few days later.

 

[dpippel]

It was removed after the first day in most locations (it was supposed to be removed prior to that, but WB couldn't get to every location). The chief projectionist at a theater I worked at (a few years later) that premiered it with the scene the first day told me that WB sent an editor opening night after the late show and he physically spliced out the scene and took the footage with him. A replacement reel without the splice arrived a few days later.

Sounds like a quintessential Kubrick decision! I'd love to see the scene included as an extra, but if he didn't want it in the finished film I have no interest in seeing it tacked on in this release.

 

[Vincent_P]

The Cannes website now lists the running time for their screening at 143-minutes, not the previously reported premiere-length of 146-minutes. I guess we'll know for sure after it screens tomorrow:

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/festival/films/the-shining

Vincent

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I genuinely believe the when Warner says it’s the premiere version, what they’re actually trying to convey is that it’s the longer US cut and not the shorter UK cut. But I can completely understand the confusion.

Much like the 20 minutes trimmed from “2001” after its premiere, I don’t expect to see this footage on disc either. I really wish we could get them as bonus features but it’s not a dealbreaker for me.

My hope is also that Warner will upgrade the BD version as well with the new master, as they also did for 2001.

 

[English Patient]

I've never heard that the original ending was 'lost'. It was deleted by Kubrick and WB a day or two after the opening of the film. I saw it twice and it didn't leave any lasting impression. It would be 'great' if the new release had all three versions...but if it is going to be the one version then let it be the original release.

'Lost' isn't the correct word - 'rarely seen' would be more accurate. But the overall point is that Warner seems to be indicating that this will be 2 minutes longer than all the existing US home video releases... but if it does indeed have footage that's never before been available in a US home video release, it seems odd that they wouldn't trumpet that fact. At least include words like "never before seen on home video" or something to that effect. For most movies, the addition of newly reinstated footage wouldn't be that big of a deal, but Kubrick seems to be in a rarefied class where this would be a huge deal. Even if the scene is ultimately pretty forgettable, its mere inclusion would be an excellent marketing hook.

I tend to think this is just a marketing mix-up - I agree with the people on this forum that Kubrick was pretty clear about what versions he wanted in the public domain, so it would surprise me if the hospital scene is included. I work in a company where sometimes the marketing department and the content department aren't on the same page, so it isn't unusual for press releases to be inaccurate.

 

[owen35]

Yes, but that hospital scene was in his original cut, I don't know why he removed it after the film had opened, maybe the audience reaction was not what he thought it would be. I'd think his wife, Christiane Kubrick & assistant, Leon Vitali would know. Saying that, I'd be surprised to see it back in. I'm looking forward to seeing the longer US version, as I've only seen the shorter UK cut.

I seem to recall Kubrick's daughter speaking about it on a podcast recently. The decision to remove was because Kubrick felt the ending muddied up the film, adding an additional layer of supernatural (Danny's ball rolling into the hospital room) that took away from the film's overall meaning. I also do recall that in the original cut, we went from Jack frozen in the snow, then transitioned into the hospital room for that scene, and then finally dissolved to the photo on the wall. Adding the hospital scene greatly diminished the impact of the photo's immediate connection to Jack; another reason for the excising of that scene. Granted, I'm going off of very old memories, but it was the correct decision to make.