1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kubrick Special Editions Due

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by the_pauley, Apr 2, 2005.

  1. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    In a recent web-chat, Warner Brothers have announced that a special 2 disc edition of "2001: A Space Odyssey" will be released in 2006, along with special editions of other Kubrick titles owned by Warner. Hopefully we will be able to see as a bonus feature the footage Kubrick trimmed from the film after its New York release.

    At last this director's catalogue will get the DVD treatment it deserves, and not before time.

    :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  2. dsw182

    dsw182
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    755
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +9
    The Warners releases of his films have been somewhat shoddy so far.

    The Shining was particularly poor. (4:3, mono)

    I'd also like a decent 4-disc set of 2001 & 2010.
     
  3. DeadKenny

    DeadKenny
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    662
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +33
    Hardly. They've all been remastered very well, and in 5.1 (including The Shining). The only thing missing are extras and Stanley was never keen on presenting much other than the film itself (so much so that he had all outcut material burnt!).

    4:3 is as the director intended.

    An interesting read on this matter and the last batch of DVDs...

    http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

    2010 has nothing to do with Kubrick. It's also in MGM's catalogue, and Sony own MGM now (Warner I believe had some rights to MGM's back-catalogue which is why they've got 2001).


    No chance. Stanley burnt it!

    From the above interview...

    :(
     
  4. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    Cool idea :smashin: Do you think we could convince Paul W.S. Anderson to do the same... and that guy who directed Van Helsing.
     
  5. lovemunkey187

    lovemunkey187
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,509
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Notts/Sth. Yorks border
    Ratings:
    +29
    A possibilty of Full Metal Jacket with documentries and stuff then?
     
  6. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I might be in a minority here but personally i think Kubricks best film is Spartacus and thats the one he disowned because its really Kirk Douglases cut of the movie up there on the screen.

    The Criterion edition of the above film is excellent although i would love to read a few reviews regarding the asian ntsc DTS versions which are out there.

    The newly mastered version of Dr Strangelove provoked certain critiscm from fans because they chose to reframe it for dvd to its original theatrical ratio and Kubrick loved 4:3 but times change and i see no harm in releasing it in its original cinema ratio despite what the director wanted, Kubrick was a stubborn man who didn't direct enough for my liking, 3 films in 20 years isn't much but i guess he was particular to certain material.

    The new version of Dr Strangelove corrects the exposure of the print too and now everything is slightly darker which means things you could see before are not visible, people complain about this but its how it would have looked in the cinema and Kubrick probably would have stopped an original theatrical ratio version being released ( which is wrong and in some respects he had too much power and say )
     
  7. pjclark1

    pjclark1
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,411
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Thailand
    Ratings:
    +271
    Drove the van loaded with film reels to an incinerator!
    Has that driver never heard of ebay?
     
  8. lovemunkey187

    lovemunkey187
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,509
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Notts/Sth. Yorks border
    Ratings:
    +29
    :D :rotfl: :rotfl:
     
  9. dsw182

    dsw182
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    755
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +9
    1. The current DVD of The Shining is not in 5.1. It has a mono soundtrack. As for the picture quality, it isn't any better than a VHS copy.

    2. I realise 2010 has nothing to do with Kubrick. All I said was I'd like to see a boxset of the two. Warner Home Video own the rights to both 2001 & 2010 for DVD releases.
     
  10. Tejstar

    Tejstar
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    22,741
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +1,075
    My DVD copy of the Shining is 5.1 although the annying thing is that it is around 30 minutes less than the US theatrical release :thumbsdow
     
  11. DeadKenny

    DeadKenny
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    662
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +33
    You must have the old (and very poor) R1. They have long since been replaced. The remastered R2 and later R1s (including the longer cut) are definitely 5.1 and far better transfers ;). So good in fact that it makes me wonder what they can improve on with new releases other than by adding extras, and I hope they don't add gimmicky stuff.

    Read the interview I posted above about the 5.1 versions. They are very well done and retain the mono basis with just a hint of surround. Pretty much as close to what Kubrick was thinking about for the next DVDs before he died.


    I'm not so sure. The new DVD loses a huge amount of shadow detail. Although it reduces highlights, as you say Kubrick was very picky about how things were shown at the cinema and from what I've understood the lighter blown highlight version was what he preferred.

    I'm no fan of getting as close to the theatrical release as possible. I prefer to get what the director intended and it's well established that Stanley was frustrated at having to have his films cropped to 1.85:1, but he accepted it was the only way they'd get shown. As mentioned in Leon Vitali's interview above, Stanley shot his later films with a 'safe area' for film which is opposite to what other directors do (shoot a safe area for TV), but he preferred 4:3 or 1.66:1 where possible.

    Take a look at the comparisons though and judge for yourself. Personally I feel the new version sacrifices too much in both shadow detail and in cropping...

    http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/drstrangelove5.htm


    It's very similar to the MGM remastering of Robocop, which whilst glossy and clean, I feel destroys a lot of the detail and crops far too much. Again, Verhoeven preferred a 1.66:1 ratio, not the 1.85:1 crop as the film was forced to be shown theatrically. There's too much obsession with glossy remastering these days (Star Wars: Episode IV is another which is far too saturated in my opinion).
     
  12. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    The lights now look like lights instead of big blobs of white, and Robert Harris has restored many fine films so i'm inclined to trust him on this matter although i do like the brighter images on some of the prints i dislike intensely those blobs where no detail can be made out in many of the scenes of the old versions, you are right though it does look much darker but if this is how it looked at the cinema then i can't complain.

    You aren't losing anything as Robert Harris explained in a digital bits interview the film now looks how its supposed to look and those background details you say you are losing aren't even supposed to be seen.

    I guess its a matter of personal taste but i think the new version of Dr Strangelove corrects many problems with past prints.
     
  13. girliedrinker

    girliedrinker
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    78
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +0
    Any further news on this? Very recently I've had a strong urge to see 2001 again and while I've borrowed the admittedly very well remastered DVD from a friend, I'd love to have some sort of definitive release with analysis and commentaries, which is just what the film deserves. The Channel 4 documentary from 2001 would also make a good extra.
     
  14. G a f f e r

    G a f f e r
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    U.K.
    Ratings:
    +617
    Is everyone sure re:the shining only ever going to be 4:3?

    One of my fave films, so i rushed out and bought the first "run" of UK pal discs.......only to take it home and realise that it was in sh*tey 4:3.

    what the fudge?

    Going to HMV a couple of weeks ago, I found that they're still 4:3
    Ditto Virgin megastore


    ...So, is there any plan to bring out a "definitive" anamorphic transfer with Good PQ (my copy of the shining is also VHS quality) and maybe as a 2 DVD version with loadsa extra's??????

    (I'm still awaiting the "Extra Special Supah Doopah multidvd boxset (inc DirCut + Final Cut + US cut + international cut + extra's)" version of Bladerunner ?due this year)
     
  15. Ger

    Ger
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +83
    DVDCompare says the following:

    So it sounds a bit controversial :confused:
     
  16. Pincho Paxton

    Pincho Paxton
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    14,122
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +634
    Well 1.66:1 is better than 4:3 anyhow. The Shining is one of my favourite films, and I want to see it errr... bigger than 4:3.
     
  17. DeadKenny

    DeadKenny
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    662
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +33
    The HD releases as far as I know will be cropped to 1.85:1. I won't be buying them. Any DVD release will be the same.

    Against the wishes of Stanley, but his wishes don't count now, they're aiming to satisfy the consumer by filling a typical widescreen TV.

    The argument goes though that Stanley *might* have agreed now that widescreen TVs are prevalent and bearing in mind 1.85:1 was the theatrical ratio, however Stanley was a photographer at heart and was always frustrated by the limitations of ratios imposed by the projection rules at the cinema. Then again it's also argued he just went with the open matte 4:3 on the DVDs to suit the majority of TVs at the time as he wasn't keen on letterboxing on 4:3 TVs.

    There is a lot of argument and most of it is driven by a desire to fill the TV frame rather than Kubricks wishes :(

    Personally I go with Leon Vitali (Kubrick's PA)...

    "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

    More here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html


    Personally I don't mind if they release 1.85:1 versions, but I am very annoyed that they're going to stop releasing the 4:3 versions which were the last to be approved by Stanley himself. All other releases are pure speculation as to whether he would have liked them (including the stereo/surround versions taken from mono tracks, and radically adjusted highlights in films like Strangelove).

    Just provide both and then there's no argument. You get the theatrical release plus the version as Stanley shot it (or if you don't agree with that then think of it as at least the version Stanley approved for TV;)).
     
  18. PoochJD

    PoochJD
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2000
    Messages:
    10,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +1,861
    Hi,

    Okay, here's what I know on "The Shining":

    There are two versions in existance - the UK version, running to approximately 118 minutes, and the US version, running to approximately 148 minutes.

    Now, both are only ever shown or released in 4:3, as per Kubrick's request. And, in addition to this, when the film was shown in cinemas, the film is hard-matted to 1.85:1, which means you are actually loosing picture, rather than gaining anything! :lesson:

    The UK version gets aired on BBC2 regularly, and was on just a few months ago, around October 2006 (which I have on DVD). The longer version, which I personally think is superior (though Kubrick himself didn't!) is shown all the time on TCM, here in the UK. (Again, I have this on disc!)

    Both the current UK and US releases on DVD, have the film in 4:3, DD 5.1 sound, and with the interesting 40-minute documentary filmed whilst "The Shining" was being made, by Kubrick's own daughter. This is in 1.77:1, and is worth a watch, just to show what a complete b*st*rd Kubrick was towards lead actress Shelley Duvall!


    Pooch
     
  19. girliedrinker

    girliedrinker
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    78
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is well established but when watching the film it's plain to see that the framing is for 1.85:1, especially when taking into account the 'controversial' helicopter shadow and rotor blades at the beginning of the film. Then again, maybe one of the reasons I've always liked the film so much is because there's so much space in the images, more landscape and environment than we'd otherwise expect. But from a personal point of view, if Kubrick was shooting with the intention of projecting 4:3, then he wouldn't have framed it the way he did.
     
  20. PoochJD

    PoochJD
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2000
    Messages:
    10,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +1,861
    Hi GirlieDrinker,

    It may be controversial, but Kubrick deliberately left etraneous space at the top and bottom of most shots, so that when the film was hard-matted in cinemas, nothing "essential" was removed from the image. And, as you say, the extra space when the film airs in 4:3, actually gives the film a certain spookier feel to it! :)

    Also, filsm like "Barry Lyndon" have been shown in all manner of film-formats, from 4:3, through 1.66:1, via 1.85:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1 to the shocking 2.40:1 ratio. For some reason, this is one of those Kubrick films that doesn't seem to have a "preferred" ratio in which it should be shown.

    Ultimately, I guess that I'd go only for a release of any film, that shows the film the way the director wanted it, and not what maybe preferable to film-fans, current AV equipment preferences, or even myself. For the most part, I do prefer Widescreen formatted images/films/shows, but only if that was how it was intended to be seen. I guess only Kubrick's family can now tell-us what they would prefer to happen with each new release of any of his works.


    Pooch
     
  21. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    If 4:3 was Kubrick's prefered ratio he would have had them released like that in the cinemas - he certainly had enough clout and control over his work to make that happen. He was worried about how his films would appear on small TV screens, hence his stipulation for 4:3 on home video releases, but this was before the spread of widescreen TV and home cinemas.

    I've no problem at all with these movies being released in their original cinema aspect ratios, indeed I'm looking forward to them immensely.

    And roll on 2001 in HD and with unseen footage and extras. :thumbsup:

    With that and Blade Runner coming this year, 2007 looks like a bumper year for fans of grown up Science Fiction.
     
  22. Grubert

    Grubert
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    601
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +72
    The correct aspect ratio for The Shining is 1.85:1.

    [​IMG]

     
  23. DeadKenny

    DeadKenny
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    662
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +33
    I've said it before and I'll say it again about that storyboard from the (excellent) Kubrick Archives book...

    All it shows is he's instructing his location unit guy that he needs to ensure it will compose right for cinema, but also work for TV.

    It only refers to that scene where Stanley wouldn't/couldn't go out there himself as he was firmly UK based at that point, and is showing how particular he is about ensuring they get it right.

    It does highlight that composition must work for cinema, but it doesn't show at all that this is his preferred ratio. Interviews with his PA Vitali on the other hand have often been very clear about how Stanley felt about ratios, and yes to the extent that he was unhappy with not being able to control how cinemas projected his films. He did try and have very strict rules but still it was pretty much impossible to get any to actually show the film if he said it has to be shown 1.33:1 or 1.66:1, so he faced facts, simple as that.


    Regardless though the argument will go on and being that widescreen sets are in the majority now (in the UK especially), most will argue that 1.85:1 is right and use the above shot as proof, but as I say I'm not bothered if they want to release in 1.85:1 anamorphic. However I am very unhappy that they won't release HD versions in unmatted 4:3 also.

    Surely given that Stanley is not here to say what he really wants then his wishes prior to death must be observed (i.e. release in 4:3), even if the studio wants to also release 1.85:1 versions as well.

    It's bad enough not releasing the mono tracks :( (something Stanley was also passionate about given his disgust at the way 2001 sounded at the cinema).
     
  24. Pincho Paxton

    Pincho Paxton
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    14,122
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +634
    This is a strange AV OAR situation right here. My Black bar arguments have always come under OAR attack, yet here we have some strange debate going on not to have OAR. Nobody seems to want 1:85 saying that 4:3 is the OAR. argument goes.. "I am not watching the 1:85 version only the 4:3 version." Well ... 1:66 is the OAR so 4:3 is no good either, you can watch 1:85 because you aren't watching OAR anyway.

    Edited.
     
  25. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    OAP? :confused:
     
  26. Pincho Paxton

    Pincho Paxton
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    14,122
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +634
    OAR..:D Well, it's not something I think much about... I just watch what looks good. Jeez this got scrolled right off.. I hope they find somewhere to put Movie talk that is not mixed with movies. I had to search for this, and it's only a few hours old.
     
  27. DeadKenny

    DeadKenny
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    662
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Woking
    Ratings:
    +33
    I've been finding most people are now arguing for 1.85:1 for The Shining (and Full Metal Jacket which is already 1.85:1 on HD formats, and similar for Eyes Wide Shut). This has switched from the early days when everyone was correcting those who complained about the 4:3 DVDs, stating 4:3 was Kubrick's wish. I think it's mainly because HD owners all have widescreen TVs and aren't happy with black bars on 4:3.

    Problem with OAR is it's not necessarily what the director would really have preferred. Whilst composition is done for the cinema, the director's real desires are another matter.

    A similar thing happened with Robocop. Theatrical version is 1.85:1 so that's the OAR, but Criterion released it with a 1.66:1 ratio approved by the director. Supposedly Verhoeven would have preferred a 1.66:1 theatrical release. Frankly in this case looking at the theatrical version it's far too tight a crop.

    In the case of The Shining I find the corridor scenes in the hotel especially effective and creepy in 4:3. It does look to me like it should be in 4:3. I'm not a 4:3 fan, but I'm not obsessed about films fitting the confines of my widescreen TV frame either.

    As I say, I've no objection to releasing OAR... but not also releasing a director approved version is an outrage. Why not just do a Directors Cut with the Theatrical Cut included? In the case of The Shining, also include both the longer US and the shorter European cuts on the same disc (or set).

    The latter issue is also odd though. Stanley was apparently behind the decision to release the shorter cut in Europe. Supposedly he preferred it, but why did he then only release the longer cut in the US :confused:. Personally I prefer the longer cut and whilst that's just my opinion I do feel we should have all released versions of films available to the public (each cut, ratios, etc).

    Who really knows what Stanley really wanted. His was a strange mind. Makes him all the more intriguing though :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...