UHD Review The Shining (1980) UHD Review (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[Sergio]

Two words, Awesome release!!!

Regards,

 

[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]

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]

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]

 

[PMF]

[...]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.

 

[Sega]

Hears Johnny!

 

[ArnoldLayne]

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]

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.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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]

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.

 

[moviebuff75]

And what would Kubrick have thought about the stereo remix, which includes several mistakes?

 

[PMF]

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.

 

[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]

"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]

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]

"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:

 

[Bryan^H]

I would have hoped to have the original mono track, but doggone if this isn't an amazing looking disc.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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?