haineshisway
Senior HTF Member
Running time corrected to 144 minutes
And there you have it. Hopefully that will stall any further speculation. There was no way they were putting that scene back IN the film, no possible way.
Running time corrected to 144 minutes
Running time corrected to 144 minutes
And yet it still says "the version that premiered on May 23, 1980"! It's like they're trying to torture us
Vincent
I mostly agree about the softness, but I think that's just down to the lighting choices, lenses and film stock of the time.4k presentation last night of The Shining of TIFF Lightbox was a bit of a let-down. The PQ upgrade was most noticeable in the close ups, starting with Jack Nicholson's close up during his job interview, which had perfect clarity and lovely film grain. The medium and wider shots, however, (helicopter opening shots, shots of 4 characters touring the hotel) looked softer/hazier by comparison, which is kind of disappointing in that the Overlook is another character of the film who should get "close ups" with the same vivid quality as the human actors. Or is the hazy-ness an artistic choice to make things the hotel look "ghostly"? Or does this come down to 4k laying bare the lens quality of the production, with the close up lenses being the best in the camera department's package? Also The Shining isn't 65mm sourced like the 2001 4k release so this could never be the stunning revelation that release was. And I assume that Lightbox's projector isn't HDR capable so I'm curious how the reds, browns and golds of the ballroom and Jack's jacket will look on the October disc release. The impact of the scary music in surround was a highlight of this presentation.
Was the hospital scene cut before the film opened nationally?
That is too bad.4k presentation last night of The Shining of TIFF Lightbox was a bit of a let-down. The PQ upgrade was most noticeable in the close ups, starting with Jack Nicholson's close up during his job interview, which had perfect clarity and lovely film grain. The medium and wider shots, however, (helicopter opening shots, shots of 4 characters touring the hotel) looked softer/hazier by comparison, which is kind of disappointing in that the Overlook is another character of the film who should get "close ups" with the same vivid quality as the human actors. Or is the hazy-ness an artistic choice to make things the hotel look "ghostly"? Or does this come down to 4k laying bare the lens quality of the production, with the close up lenses being the best in the camera department's package? Also The Shining isn't 65mm sourced like the 2001 4k release so this could never be the stunning revelation that release was. And I assume that Lightbox's projector isn't HDR capable so I'm curious how the reds, browns and golds of the ballroom and Jack's jacket will look on the October disc release. The impact of the scary music in surround was a highlight of this presentation.
But surround? I didn't hear any surround or stereo separation. It sounded good -and loud - but everything was coming from the front. Sounded like the original mono mix to me.
The fidelity of the scary music sounded like a remix to my ears -- like they went back to the original music elements/recordings rather than just use the 1980 mix. I wonder if there's an article about the audio restoration out there.
Did the audio need restoration?
I'm more confused than ever. We know the film didn't premiere at 144 minutes. It was 146 minutes with the ending changed a few days into the initial limited run, correct?The latest from WB.
Official word is that the film did, in fact, premiere on 23 May 80, at 144 minutes.
No cuts.
The 4k will present the original 144 minute premiere version, as it opened in NY and LA.
The latest from WB.
Official word is that the film did, in fact, premiere on 23 May 80, at 144 minutes.
No cuts.
The 4k will present the original 144 minute premiere version, as it opened in NY and LA.
I'm more confused than ever. We know the film didn't premiere at 144 minutes. It was 146 minutes with the ending changed a few days into the initial limited run, correct?
I never really believed we'd be getting the initial version, but saying that the 144 minute version is uncut and how it premiered is just not true.
Is WB publicity really that clueless or am I another victim of the trademarked RAH penchant for sarcasm?
MY BRAIN HURTS
I interviewed Gordon Stainforth right before the 5.1 mix first appeared on DVD, and I recall he said the assembly of the music cues included needledrops. While i guess it is possible to go back to original tape masters, there was so much work that Stainforth did with the music cues (including layering elements of different Penderecki compositions), that I would be just happy to hear the orig mono and existing 5.1 mix (which I understand used the stems) in hi-res TrueHD or DTS Master.Did the audio need restoration?
I was confused by your post that said, "No cuts." Thanks for clarifying.WB did not say the film is un-cut.