Boogie Nights (1997) 4K UHD

[whiteberry]

[EinCB128]

Where is this image from? Thank you.

[sanjuro78]

Was really, really, REALLY hoping a boutique label would get this. Since its WB we know it'll be HDR 10 only and NO new special features. There's a good chance some if not all previous special features will be dropped too.

[nicwood]

Originally Posted by sanjuro78

Was really, really, REALLY hoping a boutique label would get this. Since its WB we know it'll be HDR 10 only and NO new special features. There's a good chance some if not all previous special features will be dropped too.

It could ideally be a WAC title with FiM encoding and all the bells and whistles that come with it, if it even comes from Warner and if the above picture is legit.

We already have a thread for the film in the wishlist section.

[Hellboy]

Originally Posted by sanjuro78

Was really, really, REALLY hoping a boutique label would get this. Since its WB we know it'll be HDR 10 only and NO new special features. There's a good chance some if not all previous special features will be dropped too.

No reason they couldn’t farm it out to Arrow like they did with Demolition Man. This list just says the titles are coming, doesn’t say they’ll specifically be released by WB themselves. That said the Anniversary Editions likely will be WB if I had to guess.

[JoelGoodsen]

Eyes Wide Shut has to be with Criterion. Warner overlooked the anniversary of Risky Business exactly the same, so that makes sense.

[sheri1983]

Originally Posted by JoelGoodsen

Eyes Wide Shut has to be with Criterion. Warner overlooked the anniversary of Risky Business exactly the same, so that makes sense.

[Starman22]

Great news and so don't know if it true.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Starman22

Great news and so don't know if it true.

Yeah…seems a bit too good to be true.

[Dubliner1]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

Yeah…seems a bit too good to be true.

...sadly Boogie Nights is the only title with TBC, 'To Be Confirmed', after it in the first post above

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by JoelGoodsen

Eyes Wide Shut has to be with Criterion. Warner overlooked the anniversary of Risky Business exactly the same, so that makes sense.

I really want Eyes Wide Shut with more work done to it. Epstein and all that stuff is out, so I would also like any controversial scenes to be put back in as well. They need to do some work on the sound.

That stuff really bugs the hell out of me, including during the scene with the pop hit when they are getting sexy. That whole thing seems poorly edited and weird, as do a few other shots here and there.

Really makes me angry this film was not allowed to be what it could have been. They were obviously a bit afraid of it. But it deserves at the very least another pass with editing and sound I think.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

I really want Eyes Wide Shut with more work done to it. Epstein and all that stuff is out, so I would also like any controversial scenes to be put back in as well. They need to do some work on the sound.

That stuff really bugs the hell out of me, including during the scene with the pop hit when they are getting sexy. That whole thing seems poorly edited and weird, as do a few other shots here and there.

Really makes me angry this film was not allowed to be what it could have been. They were obviously a bit afraid of it. But it deserves at the very least another pass with editing and sound I think.

1. What does Epstein have to do with EWS? Granted I've only seen it once, and most of my knowledge comes from looking up the many cuts and piecing the true director's cut together in written form, but I definitely don't remember him being involved with this film at all.

2. The only edits done to knock it down from an NC-17 to an R were obscuring some sexual content with CGI inserts. The total edits from Kubrick's DC to the many released cuts around the world are at most 1% difference. It's nowhere near an Ambersons-style recut.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

1. What does Epstein have to do with EWS?

Rearrange the letters in "Stanley Kubrick" and you get "Jeffrey Epstein."

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Rearrange the letters in "Stanley Kubrick" and you get:

Anagrams of "Stanley Kubrick"
Baku strickenly
Barkley unstick
Buckley Kristan
buckers Kaitlyn
buckets Karylin
buckskin lyrate
buckskin realty
bulkiest cranky
bulky crankiest
bunkers tackily
cabinetry skulk
Kentucky libras
kicker unstably
kickers tunably
kicky subaltern
kicky unstabler
kinky scrutable
Treblinka yucks

https://ingesanagram.com/

"Kinky Scrutable"

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by shane rollins

1. What does epstein have to do with ews? Granted i've only seen it once, and most of my knowledge comes from looking up the many cuts and piecing the true director's cut together in written form, but i definitely don't remember him being involved with this film at all.

2. The only edits done to knock it down from an nc-17 to an r were obscuring some sexual content with cgi inserts. The total edits from kubrick's dc to the many released cuts around the world are at most 1% difference. It's nowhere near an ambersons-style recut.

lol

[ilenewoodsfan99]

Where did you find the image, whiteberry?

[exzachary]

Originally Posted by ilenewoodsfan99

Where did you find the image, whiteberry?

Someone posted them on the Home Theater Forum

[Mike Flynn]

Can't come soon enough.

But I'm not giving up my original Blu, which Burt Reynolds signed a few years before his passing.

[BobSimms]

I resent being made to wait until July at the earliest for this!

[Torgon]

While people question IndyMLVC, Whiteberry and others, they have been posting ‘leaks’ for a long time and are usually correct. Also, a lot of the stuff in these photos has already been rumored (like Boogie Nights, James Bond, and Green Lantern). Hopefully this is accurate and maybe not even complete.