Matt Hough submitted a new blog post
The Shining (1980) UHD Review
Continue reading the Original Blog Post.
The Shining (1980) UHD Review
Continue reading the Original Blog Post.
Thank you for your review. I'm not sure if I'll buy the disc or the 4K digital. It depends on the pricing between now and Black Friday sales.
I saw that earlier this morning and ordered "The Shining" along with two other 4K titles. As to Gremlins, my HD digital that I bought for $4.99 on iTunes has already upgraded to 4K so I'm passing on the disc.Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free
most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast
Whenever I read somebody griping about 1.78 vs 1.85 ratio, I just shrugged my shoulders and sigh.It's "incorrect" if you're being pedantic - the disc is opened up very slightly to 1.78 from the theatrical 1.85 ratio. But there's far more variation than that in theatrical projection, especially in 35mm, and I defy anyone to show how the composition is somehow compromised by that added sliver of picture.
Whenever I read somebody griping about 1.78 vs 1.85 ratio, I just shrugged my shoulders and sigh.
On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?
Thanks for mentioning this. I just ordered The Shining, Apocalypse Now and Avengers: Endgame through the deal. It works out to a little over $18 per UHD title. I wanted to order John Wick 3 in UHD, but it wasn't available for some reason, so I settled for the $5 higher priced Avengers film.Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free
most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast
Yeah, that's petty - on both sides. It's also stupid of the studios to make the minor alteration in OAR in the first place.
On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?
You could also use that same argument not to put those tiny lines on.
I know sometimes Warner just does that in general, but it may have been at Vitali’s direction to honor Kubrick’s wishes.
Kubrick did not like the appearance of black bars on a TV screen. There’s documentation which I’ve viewed at the Kubrick archive which confirms this. He shot his later films which spherical lenses not because he hated widescreen, as some have erroneously reported in past years, but rather, so that he had the option to present his films open matte. He felt it was better to have extra height on the image, even if it wasn’t carrying essential information, vs the appearance of black bars on what (in his lifetime) were small TV screens.
While I don’t think there’s a significant difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 (as was noted in an above post, theatrical exhibition is far less precise than that variance), I think this could simply be a matter of honoring the spirit of Kubrick’s request, that when picture information is available, that he’d prefer to open up the matte a little rather than having the television viewer observe dead space on their screen.
It’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that if he had lived up see 60” widescreen televisions become the norm that his views may have changed. But since it doesn’t harm the film to present it at 1.78:1, and since doing so honors both the spirit and the letter of his stated preferences, I don’t see a problem.
No, but since it’s a 50/50 shot in the first place as to whether the releasing studio automatically does 1.78:1 for 1.85:1 films, since the studios/filmmakers already consider that a valid presentation, I don’t see the harm in putting out The Shining in that format which does represent both the intended framing and honors Kubrick’s stated preferences.