Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I find the notion that Warner accidentally pulled the 1.66:1 version for bluray as a bit preposterous. They more than likely were trying to recreate the 1953 premiere experience on home video, so chose that version for that reason. That the original premiere was a crop simply confuses the matter. This isnt a clear cut case, no matter the spin one way or the other. Both AR's have a legit claim to their "correctness" for different reasons. I can see the decision to go 1.66:1 as one being made with less breadth of understanding of why the Premiere AR may not be the best choice, but I just dont see it as being a blatant error.

To get this thread back onto its subject matter which is Shane, I have to agree with you that I'm having diffculty believing the wrong version was pulled especially with Stevens Jr. pulling out of the TCM Film Festival that is showing Shane. IMO, something is not right.

 

[PaulaJ]

I'm having diffculty believing the wrong version was pulled especially with Stevens Jr. pulling out of the TCM Film Festival that is showing Shane. IMO, something is not right.

Wait -- Stevens has pulled out of the festival himself? But they're still showing Shane?

I'm not going to the TCM festival this year (first time I am skipping it) but I was looking forward to reports about the screening.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Wait -- Stevens has pulled out of the festival himself? But they're still showing Shane?

I'm not going to the TCM festival this year (first time I am skipping it) but I was looking forward to reports about the screening.

TCM originally announced that George Stevens Jr. would present for the "Shane'' screening as well as the premiere of new restoration of his father's "Giant'' a week from Saturday at its Film Festival. A spokeswoman now says he "had a conflict and won't attend.''

Read more: DVD Extra Extra: 'Shane' Blu-ray now going out at 1:37 http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dvd_extra_extra_shane_blu_ray_now_rRRLlr9Ts3GDyA5zhGErQP#ixzz2R8fMU7MI

A conflict could be the reason, but the cynic in me, keeps telling me something else is up.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

To get this thread back onto its subject matter which is Shane, I have to agree with you that I'm having diffculty believing the wrong version was pulled especially with Stevens Jr. pulling out of the TCM Film Festival that is showing Shane. IMO, something is not right.

It could be. It does seem odd that he would suddenly have a conflict.

In any event, I'm thrilled that the 1.37 version is coming out. They can put 1.66, 2.35, and 2.67 versions on there too for all I care. As long as I can watch it 1.37, I'm happy.

 

[Professor Echo]

To get this thread back onto its subject matter which is Shane,

To each his own, but I never mind it so much when a thread takes some detours as long it's somewhat relevant to the topic and has good, solid information. And that's coming from someone with OCD, so you would think I would be a strict adherent to staying on topic, but to me it can be just as enjoyable and informative when people explore tangential comments and opinions. I was fascinated to read HainesHisWay comments about TOPAZ and didn't care that it wasn't in a thread of its own. But now I'm being OT again., Oh the humanity.

In any case, now that there is apparent resolution to the SHANE debate, this thread is kind of playing itself out, imo.

 

[Robert Crawford]

To each his own, but I never mind it so much when a thread takes some detours as long it's somewhat relevant to the topic and has good, solid information. And that's coming from someone with OCD, so you would think I would be a strict adherent to staying on topic, but to me it can be just as enjoyable and informative when people explore tangential comments and opinions. I was fascinated to read HainesHisWay comments about TOPAZ and didn't care that it wasn't in a thread of its own. But now I'm being OT again., Oh the humanity.

In any case, now that there is apparent resolution to the SHANE debate, this thread is kind of playing itself out, imo.

Hopefully, that means you won't sidetrack it anymore then.

However, I expect this debate to continue on especially once the BD does get released.

 

[Professor Echo]

I wasn't the one to bring up TOPAZ, but I would suggest if you want a thread to follow a strictly formal path you state such at the outset and use your moderator position to forbid anyone from discussing anything other than the subject at hand. Once that happens you will be rid of me on these forums for good. End of sidetrack.

EDIT TO ADD: I responded with the above before you added the winking smiley. So now I added one of my own. Come back, Shane!

 

[Robert Crawford]

It could be. It does seem odd that he would suddenly have a conflict.

In any event, I'm thrilled that the 1.37 version is coming out. They can put 1.66, 2.35, and 2.67 versions on there too for all I care. As long as I can watch it 1.37, I'm happy.

It could be and I hope there isn't any bad blood between Stevens Jr. and Warner.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I wasn't the one to bring up TOPAZ, but I would suggest if you want a thread to follow a strictly formal path you state such at the outset and use your moderator position to forbid anyone from discussing anything other than the subject at hand. Once that happens you will be rid of me on these forums for good. End of sidetrack.

EDIT TO ADD: I responded with the above before you added the winking smiley. So now I added one of my own. Come back, Shane!

Sorry you feel that way about leaving us as I prefer to keep the discussion on Shane, but "forbid" is a little strong here. It's only a film discussion thread.

 

[Professor Echo]

Well, this is kind of off/on topic, but for what it's worth, I highly recommend the original novel on which SHANE is based, written by Jack Schaefer. I first read it when I was 14 and have read it maybe eight or nine times since. It's a beautiful novel and the film does not do justice to it, especially since to me it seemed as though Stevens was being very condescending to westerns fans by self-consciously making HIS western a WORK OF ART. In any case, the novel is wonderful and I can't imagine anyone not liking it, regardless of how you feel about the movie. One thing I will say about the movie, they cast it brilliantly; everyone fits their parts as written, including Alan Ladd since Shane in the book is described as being rather short.

 

[Keith Cobby]

This discussion has at least created a lot of 'buzz' about the title which will hopefully generate sales. Some of the recently released catalogue titles have generated very few posts probably meaning they have had disappointing sales. I just hope now the picture quality is up to expectation.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/george_stevens_jr_speaks_out_on_eYV1jnxnoOs92gpzodhqEN#axzz2RPu1AQEE

 

[John Hodson]

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/george_stevens_jr_speaks_out_on_eYV1jnxnoOs92gpzodhqEN#axzz2RPu1AQEE

'Political correctness brigade'? I confess, I'm quite puzzled, and not a little disappointed, by that comment...

 

[Rob_Ray]

The most important bit of information I took from the article is this:

For the 1:66, he reviewed the framing shot by shot -- "you can frame it so the Tetons remain. It's quite a beautiful version as a result. Though my preference remains for the (1:37) version my father framed."

That, to me, says it all. While the 1:66 version is definitely a curio to be viewed and enjoyed for its historical significance, when viewing the film on its own terms, the 1:37 version is, to me, the "official" one. And it's the one I'm happily purchasing.

 

[Ruz-El]

The most important bit of information I took from the article is this:

For the 1:66, he reviewed the framing shot by shot -- "you can frame it so the Tetons remain. It's quite a beautiful version as a result. Though my preference remains for the (1:37) version my father framed."

That, to me, says it all. While the 1:66 version is definitely a curio to be viewed and enjoyed for its historical significance, when viewing the film on its own terms, the 1:37 version is, to me, the "official" one. And it's the one I'm happily purchasing.

I agree with you completely. Hopefully they will include the 1:66 in this release as a curio, much like Criterion did with the much more debatable "On The Waterfront", but if not, I don;t see myself buying the 1:66 separate, I doubt I'd bother to watch it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/george_stevens_jr_speaks_out_on_eYV1jnxnoOs92gpzodhqEN#axzz2RPu1AQEE

Great job Lou, without the unnecessary noise, I don't care to hear about.

Well, that straightens out what Stevens Sr. intention was aspect-wise and what Stevens Jr. prefers to protect his father's legacy.

 

[Robert Crawford]

'Political correctness brigade'? I confess, I'm quite puzzled, and not a little disappointed, by that comment...

John,

I don't think Stevens Jr. likes Mr. Wells tactics and at his age, he can dislike whomever he pleases and doesn't have to be polite about it.

 

[Mark-P]

Here's a comment from Mr. Stevens that I found especially interesting:

"When we made 'Giant,' my father chose the 1:66 aspect ratio because he liked tight framing,'' says Stevens, who was a producer on the film.

Notice the word "chose." So apparently some directors and cinematographers did have a choice back then and weren't slaves to studio edicts!

 

[KMR]

Notice the word "chose." So apparently some directors and cinematographers did have a choice back then and weren't slaves to studio edicts!

I've a hunch that the choice here was between specific widescreen ratios (or whether to shoot anamorphic or not), not between widescreen and academy. I really doubt he would have had the latter choice.

 

[Mark-P]

I've a hunch that the choice here was between specific widescreen ratios (or whether to shoot anamorphic or not), not between widescreen and academy. I really doubt he would have had the latter choice.

I mean that he chose 1.66:1 over the Warner Brothers Studio mandate of 1.85:1