The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

No it isn't. Kubrick was clear.

On what exactly?

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

On what exactly?

oh right right. I forgot it wouldn't be a Kubrick thread without such a conversation.

carry on and amuse yourself.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

oh right right. I forgot it wouldn't be a Kubrick thread without such a conversation.

carry on and amuse yourself.

I'm not arguing I thought we were discussing?

Everyone is so touchy

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Cvalda

Saw what might have been this new restoration a couple months ago with Leon Vitali in attendance. It looked terrific, certainly better than the old Blu-ray master, which I've also seen projected several times. Though interestingly there were some white specks here and there.

Negative density dirt doesn't always gets cleaned up thoroughly, not even on brand new DI-finished movies.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

No it isn't. Kubrick was clear.

Yup. Kubrick's own notes. Case closed.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

Unless someone finds a wandering reel of it somewhere. Of some theater head actually kept it for himself and didn’t send it back. That’s probably the only way.

There's at least one independent theater who has their hands on it. They attempted to screen it a few years ago but the Kubrick estate (or WB, memory's fuzzy) got wind and ordered the screening halt. Maybe one day it'll end up in other hands who screen it by "surprise."

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by reanimator

Yup. Kubrick's own notes. Case closed.

Folks will still look right at this and stare you dead in the eye and say "...but actually"

The entire thing is a hoot

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You might be thinking of Lyndon. Shining, FMJ and EWS were all framed up for 1.85 but protected at full height.

The Shining was 1.66:1 in Europe, at least for the initial theatrical screenings.

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

The Shining was 1.66:1 in Europe, at least for the initial theatrical screenings.

Well that's debatable (like everything Kubrick). I remember reading a letter from a projectonist in a late fifties issue of the magazine Films & Filming, stating that his cinema could only show 1:85 & 'scope & that was it. I'd think that by 1980 not that many cinemas were showing 1:66.

[jerclay]

So, like, already 12 pages on OAR. I’m impressed. This is gonna be even better than Nolan’s yellow corridor of 2001

[Member-167298]

Originally Posted by jerclay

So, like, already 12 pages on OAR. I’m impressed. This is gonna be even better than Nolan’s yellow corridor of 2001

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

Well that's debatable (like everything Kubrick). I remember reading a letter from a projectonist in a late fifties issue of the magazine Films & Filming, stating that his cinema could only show 1:85 & 'scope & that was it. I'd think that by 1980 not that many cinemas were showing 1:66.

Yep, and several film historians aren't altogether convinced that 1.66 was really a thing in British cinema. Kubrick did like 1.66 but he wasn't daft, he knew that being able to actually project in 1.66 was a rarity (hence him allowing Lyndon to go out to 1.75 if need be in that projectionist's letter) and by the time the '80s rolled around there was no point even in composing for it.

Again: we've got a hand-written instruction from SK himself that Shining be composed for 1.85

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, and several film historians aren't altogether convinced that 1.66 was really a thing in British cinema. Kubrick did like 1.66 but he wasn't daft, he knew that being able to actually project in 1.66 was a rarity (hence him allowing Lyndon to go out to 1.75 if need be in that projectionist's letter) and by the time the '80s rolled around there was no point even in composing for it.

Again: we've got a hand-written instruction from SK himself that Shining be composed for 1.85

gets kind of boring after a while doesn't it? but as mentioned above, some people genuinely say "but..."

and repeat

[RustinCohle]

Originally Posted by jerclay

So, like, already 12 pages on OAR. I’m impressed. This is gonna be even better than Nolan’s yellow corridor of 2001

I'm just here for the slipcover.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

gets kind of boring after a while doesn't it? but as mentioned above, some people genuinely say "but..."

and repeat

Yep. Stanley wanted the snow to look a certain way in his same notes But these guys...LOL!

Anyway that's why I'm excited to see it with the added detail of 4K. His sets were impeccable for detail. (Barry Lyndon and The Shining more so for his entire catalog imho) And this one is a psychological horror film @ heart with tons of foreshadowing, but the details are mysterious at first glance and help foreshadow. The fun of this movie is in the re-watching and piercing it all together. All the clues, all the foreshadowing, all the irregularities. They're all important. Why do we watch Jodie Foster in Silence of The lambs 1992, and Anthony Hopkins? Why do we watch the entire cast in Zodiac 2007? Dial M for Murder? Or Nolans Insomnia. It's fun to connect the dots. But none of those movies today or before it can even wish compete with his set design today. Impressive. But there you go he cares about every snowflake LOL!

Anyway the AR WCG+HDR, and 4K detail are going to make this an amazing must own for even the most basic home theater horror film aficionados.

This release just like 2001 on the 4K Ultra format is going to increase the films popularity with the new blood.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

gets kind of boring after a while doesn't it? but as mentioned above, some people genuinely say "but..."

and repeat

This really is the way of it though when it comes to Kubrick. Call it 'SK's Law'; that any discussion related to his movies will inevitably turn to aspect ratios at some point. And I'm genuinely surprised it took as long as it did in this thread!

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This really is the way of it though when it comes to Kubrick. Call it 'SK's Law'; that any discussion related to his movies will inevitably turn to aspect ratios at some point. And I'm genuinely surprised it took as long as it did in this thread!

True. I was silly to think that posting that page from the SK Archives would do the trick. Still. I tried.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

The longer cut is better anyway. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Yeah I have only ever seen the longer cut and have *absolutely zero* interest in seeing a shorter cut just for the sake of “better pacing”. I think pacing is a grossly overused term by film snobs with short attention spans. And I know that’s going to get me flamed, but so be it. The Shining is a long film, and it should be. Cutting it down to two hours just...no. There’s not one sequence I would want to lose for the sake of “getting on with it”. Part of what I love about The Shining is how maddeningly slow it can feel. That’s part of the horror! I can’t imagine watching the shorter cut and thinking “boy, I’m sure glad those sequences are gone”, no matter how much better one scene “flows” into the next. The entire film is brilliant, and there’s not one shot or scene that is expendable to me. But I hope both cuts are released for those who want the shorter one. If it’s included, I may watch it once as a curiosity, but I guarantee it’ll be only once.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Yeah I have only ever seen the longer cut and have *absolutely zero* interest in seeing a shorter cut just for the sake of “better pacing”. I think pacing is a grossly overused term by film snobs with short attention spans. And I know that’s going to get me flamed, but so be it. The Shining is a long film, and it should be. Cutting it down to two hours just...no. There’s not one sequence I would want to lose for the sake of “getting on with it”. Part of what I love about The Shining is how maddeningly slow it can feel. That’s part of the horror! I can’t imagine watching the shorter cut and thinking “boy, I’m sure glad those sequences are gone”, no matter how much better one scene “flows” into the next. The entire film is brilliant, and there’s not one shot or scene that is expendable to me. But I hope both cuts are released for those who want the shorter one. If it’s included, I may watch it once as a curiosity, but I guarantee it’ll be only once.

Kind of asking for a fight with language like that (not that I really want one; I have plenty of civil discussions with my GF over which edit is better). I enjoy many glacially paced long films and in fact tend to prefer films that take their time so this is not an 'attention span' issue for me. Hell, Barry Lyndon's one of the Kubrick films I go back to most often and it's both longer than and arguably slower than the American cut of The Shining. But I do think the Euro cut succeeds better as a horror film and it would seem that mattered to Kubrick quite a bit since he supposedly cut it down after not being happy with the response in America.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Yeah I have only ever seen the longer cut and have *absolutely zero* interest in seeing a shorter cut just for the sake of “better pacing”. I think pacing is a grossly overused term by film snobs with short attention spans. And I know that’s going to get me flamed, but so be it. The Shining is a long film, and it should be. Cutting it down to two hours just...no. There’s not one sequence I would want to lose for the sake of “getting on with it”. Part of what I love about The Shining is how maddeningly slow it can feel. That’s part of the horror! I can’t imagine watching the shorter cut and thinking “boy, I’m sure glad those sequences are gone”, no matter how much better one scene “flows” into the next. The entire film is brilliant, and there’s not one shot or scene that is expendable to me. But I hope both cuts are released for those who want the shorter one. If it’s included, I may watch it once as a curiosity, but I guarantee it’ll be only once.

How about you actually watch both valid versions before completely shitting on the one you haven't seen? You'd know more on the subject. im not doing fighting talk. im just talking sense. I mean it wasn't cut down by just any old so and so.

I appreciate both versions.