Peter Apruzzese

Producer
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,159
Reaction score
2,149
Points
4,110
Website
Www.bigscreenclassics.com
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese
But weren't Kubrick's last "stated preferences" to show "Shining" 1.33:1? If you're gonna make "honoring Stan's wishes" the argument, then it should still be 1.33:1, right?
Yes, if watching in standard definition. ;)

Absent direct filmmaker involvement, the home video releases should honor, within reason, the theatrical presentations. Since Warner does virtually all 1.85 as 1.78 for home viewing, this is what I would expect for this title as well.
 

Josh Steinberg

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,442
Reaction score
22,863
Points
9,110
Age
37
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
But weren't Kubrick's last "stated preferences" to show "Shining" 1.33:1? If you're gonna make "honoring Stan's wishes" the argument, then it should still be 1.33:1, right?
That’s a misinterpretation of his quote, as I mentioned above. Kubrick’s preference was for his spherically shot films to be shown open matte on home video so that no part of the television would be filled with black bars. He didn’t prefer 1.33:1. He just felt it was less distracting for you to be viewing extra height in the shot than black bars when the shape of the television didn’t match the shape of the theater. In 1980, that meant 1.33:1. In 2019, that means 1.78:1.
 

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,774
Reaction score
3,508
Points
9,110
That’s a misinterpretation of his quote, as I mentioned above. Kubrick’s preference was for his spherically shot films to be shown open matte on home video so that no part of the television would be filled with black bars. He didn’t prefer 1.33:1. He just felt it was less distracting for you to be viewing extra height in the shot than black bars when the shape of the television didn’t match the shape of the theater. In 1980, that meant 1.33:1. In 2019, that means 1.78:1.
My point remains that we have no idea what Kubrick would want in 2019 so evocations of Stan's "stated preferences" become irrelevant.

Besides, just because a filmmaker decides he prefers a film to be presented some way for video doesn't make it right. People here have gone ballistic about alterations of colors for video, even though the directors espoused those changes...
 

Josh Steinberg

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,442
Reaction score
22,863
Points
9,110
Age
37
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Having been the Kubrick Archive in London and personally examined his papers, I believe what I’ve stated — which corresponds with the decisions Leon Vitali has advocated for on behalf of the Kubrick Estate — I believe the framing choice for The Shining 4K remaster represents what Kubrick’s wishes were and what he would have approved were he alive today.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,277
Reaction score
1,504
Points
9,110
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
 

PMF

Producer
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
4,208
Reaction score
4,777
Points
4,110
Real Name
Philip
[...]I believe the framing choice for The Shining 4K remaster represents what Kubrick’s wishes were and what he would have approved were he alive today.
If alive, today, I believe that Kubrick would've gone for Univisium.;)
But seriously, though, this 4K/UHD of "The Shining" looks fantastic;
and is far superior to what we've ever had; which was pretty darned good to begin with.:thumbs-up-smiley:
 
Last edited:

ArnoldLayne

Stunt Coordinator
Premium
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
206
Reaction score
125
Points
110
Website
www.blu-ray.com
Real Name
Chris
Someone who doesn't give a good god-damn about what a director wanted for his movies should probably not appear so pedantic and cocksure, regardless of technological changes in the interim.
 

dpippel

HTF Premium Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
5,836
Points
9,110
Location
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Real Name
Doug
Someone who doesn't give a good god-damn about what a director wanted for his movies should probably not appear so pedantic and cocksure, regardless of technological changes in the interim.
Quoting whomever you're referring to would be a big help. As it is, your post has no context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tino and PMF

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,774
Reaction score
3,508
Points
9,110
Quoting whomever you're referring to would be a big help. As it is, your post has no context.
Probably means me. If so, I don't recall saying I don't care what directors want as an absolute - just that "stated preferences" based on 1990s TV technology are meaningless in 2019...
 

PMF

Producer
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
4,208
Reaction score
4,777
Points
4,110
Real Name
Philip
Probably means me. If so, I don't recall saying I don't care what directors want as an absolute - just that "stated preferences" based on 1990s TV technology are meaningless in 2019...
Strong opinions from all sides are rooted from our shared and mutual interests.:thumbs-up-smiley:
 
Last edited:

moviebuff75

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
846
Reaction score
452
Points
610
Age
44
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Real Name
Eric Scott Richard
And what would Kubrick have thought about the stereo remix, which includes several mistakes?
 

PMF

Producer
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
4,208
Reaction score
4,777
Points
4,110
Real Name
Philip
Even in the working days and months; among his cast and crew;
came the often asked question, "What is it that you want, Stanley?".
Alas, a genius can only be studied, questioned and observed;
but never captured, codified nor pinned down.
 
Last edited:

Josh Steinberg

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,442
Reaction score
22,863
Points
9,110
Age
37
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
And what would Kubrick have thought about the stereo remix, which includes several mistakes?
You’d have to be more specific about the mistakes.

In general, there is another misconception that Kubrick disliked stereo sound. Having handled Kubrick’s personal and professional correspondence in addition to having read previously published interviews with Kubrick and those who worked with him, I can say that the truth is far more nuanced. Here’s what I gathered from my research on this topic:

Kubrick cared deeply about consistency in presentation. He didn’t want to make a stereo sound mix that sounded great in a handful of theaters but that sounded poor in the majority of theaters, which in the 70s and 80s were still monaural, or as was often the case, were originally built as mono rooms and then poorly retrofitted to stereo. He didn’t want to experience of viewing the film to depend on technology that wasn’t available to the majority of people who would see the film.

In 2019, that problem has basically been solved. Quality 5.1 is easily achievable and standard in theatrical environments and can be gotten for the home as well. And the processors used to deliver sound now are so much better that it’s no longer an issue for a home viewer with only a mono or stereo system to have their equipment mix down a 5.1 track without losing details.

Many of Kubrick’s preferences which on the surface seem to reject advancements in presentation aren’t in actuality total rejections of the concept. Rather, he didn’t want his audiences to endure inconsistent experiences that were detrimental to the film.
 

ArnoldLayne

Stunt Coordinator
Premium
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
206
Reaction score
125
Points
110
Website
www.blu-ray.com
Real Name
Chris
"My point remains that we have no idea what Kubrick would want in 2019 so evocations of Stan's "stated preferences" become irrelevant."
I find that statement incredibly ahistorical and self-serving. "irrelevant" are Kubrick's own words, but the wishes of someone having nothing to do with any of his films carries weight. Just incredible.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,819
Reaction score
16,541
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
My point remains that we have no idea what Kubrick would want in 2019 so evocations of Stan's "stated preferences" become irrelevant.

Besides, just because a filmmaker decides he prefers a film to be presented some way for video doesn't make it right. People here have gone ballistic about alterations of colors for video, even though the directors espoused those changes...
I believe that as an extremely technically literate filmmaker, he would go with 1.85 today, just as he preferred to fill earlier 1.33 screens when they were all we had. To the point of exposing multiple camera mattes.

He wanted widescreen films presented as widescreen, even in 1989.

I’m not seeing a problem here.
 

dpippel

HTF Premium Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
5,836
Points
9,110
Location
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Real Name
Doug
"My point remains that we have no idea what Kubrick would want in 2019 so evocations of Stan's "stated preferences" become irrelevant."
I find that statement incredibly ahistorical and self-serving. "irrelevant" are Kubrick's own words, but the wishes of someone having nothing to do with any of his films carries weight. Just incredible.
We still don't know who you're quoting without reading back up through the previous posts in the thread and mining for it. Try using the "Reply" button in the lower right corner of the post you want to quote:

upload_2019-10-10_15-28-8.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF and Tino

Colin Jacobson

Lead Actor
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,774
Reaction score
3,508
Points
9,110
I believe that as an extremely technically literate filmmaker, he would go with 1.85 today, just as he preferred to fill earlier 1.33 screens when they were all we had. To the point of exposing multiple camera mattes.

He wanted widescreen films presented as widescreen, even in 1989.

I’m not seeing a problem here.
I think Kubrick would espouse 1.85:1 for current sets as well.

I just get annoyed by proclamations of the need to adhere to Kubrick's wishes when he made those wishes in a different era technologically.

If James Cameron died in 1994, would we still view the 1.33:1 "Abyss" as his preferred way to present the movie?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TravisR

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
343,760
Messages
4,689,059
Members
141,029
Latest member
Montelereplay