The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Probably remastered.

I have the feeling it won't be. Audio and subtitle options for the BD included are the same as the old BD. No mention of a standalone BD release, either, as with 2001.

If so, studios are being really cheap and stupid. If they want more people to buy the 4K disc, the only thing they have to do is to include the remastered BD as an exclusive (Unforgiven). I was prepared to buy the 4K of 2001 if Warner hadn't released the remastered BD separately.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by JackForrester

I'm betting all my money in: this is an error from WB and we're getting the US theatrical version with the updated WB logo in the beginning.

I hope not. It does seem more likely though.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

I get releasing the original ending after it’s been missing for so many years. But Kubrick wisely cut it. It’s so unnecessary and it IMO sounds like it’ll ruin the ending. Not sure if I’ll buy this now.

Warner makes so many baffling decisions.

According to the producers, Kubrick actually liked the scene, but agreed to cut it at the behest of the studio after poor critical reception in an effort to make the movie less confusing.

https://ew.com/movies/2017/03/30/shi...ing-explained/

The second outtake was a two-minute hospital scene that was placed after Jack froze to death and before the final shot of the ballroom photograph. In the scene (read the script pages), the hotel manager, Ullman (Barry Nelson), visits Wendy and Danny after their ordeal and explains that no supernatural evidence was found to support their claims of what transpired. Just when the audience begins to question everything they’ve seen, Ullman ominously gives Danny the same ball that was rolled to him from an unseen force outside Room 237.

Johnson: In other words: All of this really happened, and the magic events were actual. It was just a little twist. It was easy to jettison.

The hospital scene was included in the film’s preview screening for critics in New York and Los Angeles. Johnson has previously said Kubrick liked the scene because it reassured the audience that Wendy and Danny were okay. But Ullman giving Danny the ball ramped up audience confusion. So in a unusual move, Kubrick ordered it removed from prints distributed around the country.

Harlan: The tennis ball is the same thing as the photograph — it’s unexplainable. It makes Ullman now another ghost element. Was he the ghost from the very beginning? The film is complex enough because nothing is explained. That non-explaining is what was bad for the film initially. It was not a huge success. Now everybody thinks it’s the best horror film ever or whatever. But when it came out the audience expected a horror film with a resolution, with an explanation. Who is the baddie? What was going on? And they were disappointed — many of them, anyway. The fact they were left puzzled was exactly what Stanley Kubrick wanted. And when the film [screened for critics] and wasn’t well received, Warners quite rightly suggested, “It’s enough, just take [the hospital scene] out.” So Stanley did it. He’s not stubborn, especially since this is a film mainly to entertain people. But Stanley was actually very sad that he misread the audience, that he trusted the audience to live with puzzles and no answers, and that they didn’t like it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Per the North America BD thread, the Cannes site changed the listing to 143min.

So is WB wrong? TIFF wrong? Cannes wrong? We’ll know soon enough.

Considering that Warners missed an editorial element in the 2001 remaster that has been there for 50 years I wouldn't be surprised at all if the stated running time for this Shinning do-over is simply an error.

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

That's what the upcoming Criterion release is for:

No 2.76 Ultra Panavision version, no sale

[JEDGAR1000]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

That's what the upcoming Criterion release is for:
• Restored 16k digital transfers of the European (119 mins), domestic (144 mins), and long-unseen premiere (146 mins) cuts of the film, approved by Stanley Kubrick's ghost
• Presented in 1.33:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, and Snapchat filter, to satisfy the most anal of Blu-ray.com enthusiasts

No 3D no buy

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by JEDGAR1000

No 3D no buy

No reversible cover, no buy.

[Dailyan]

No Video CD, no buy.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

That's what the upcoming Criterion release is for:
• Restored 16k digital transfers of the European (119 mins), domestic (144 mins), and long-unseen premiere (146 mins) cuts of the film, approved by Stanley Kubrick's ghost
• Presented in 1.33:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, and Snapchat filter, to satisfy the most anal of Blu-ray.com enthusiasts
• Brand new audio commentary by Stephen King in which he slags off both Stanley Kubrick and a certain President
• Exclusive extended version of the polarising documentary Room 237, now running at 237 mins approx
• Exclusive extended version of Shelley Duvall's interview with Dr. Phil
• PLUS: Bonus DVD of Stephen King's The Shining, the much-derided 1997 mini-series

This ...

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by JEDGAR1000

No 3D no buy

No booklet, no buy.

[persuazion]

Is this only available from the Warner site? I don’t see it listed on Amazon.

[Kyle15]

No Special Edition Oujia set to summon Kubrick's ghost so he can end all arguments about aspect ratios forever that some fans will still doubt and say it's even MORE LIKELY they are correct and he himself is wrong, no buy.

[handcraftedbits]

I find it funny that the same people who are stoked about the possibility of the original ending being reinserted are the same ones who will argue endlessly about which aspect ratio Kubrick deemed to be correct. Um hello? Kubrick cut that ending out for a reason. You’re not supposed to see it because he declared it to be so! Respect the aspect ratio, respect the ending.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by handcraftedbits

I find it funny that the same people who are stoked about the possibility of the original ending being reinserted are the same ones who will argue endlessly about which aspect ratio Kubrick deemed to be correct. Um hello? Kubrick cut that ending out for a reason. You’re not supposed to see it because he declared it to be so! Respect the aspect ratio, respect the ending.

See my post above.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by handcraftedbits

I find it funny that the same people who are stoked about the possibility of the original ending being reinserted are the same ones who will argue endlessly about which aspect ratio Kubrick deemed to be correct. Um hello? Kubrick cut that ending out for a reason. You’re not supposed to see it because he declared it to be so! Respect the aspect ratio, respect the ending.

By that logic though, we should all only watch the European cut, since he made all those cuts for a reason too (which is fine by me, since I prefer it).

He cut the end scene and then made the further 25 mins of cuts both in response to outside pressure. Neither cut was an artistic choice he made in a vacuum. This new cut sounds like it will be the cut he intended, before people criticized the film so much that he threw up his hands and decided to give them what they wanted - something simpler.

It's a little bit like The New World, which also had an original cut screened to critics in NY and LA, a shorter cut created in response to initial bad reviews that was given a wide release, and then a third cut. At least in that case, Malick is alive to tell us he prefers the third cut (though I personally prefer the original cut).

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Talal86

I'm only interested if Nolan is involved, the same goes for A Clockwork Orange.

[bigbadwoppet]

The two minutes were cut before the film went on general release. Instructions were sent to cinemas to cut the scene and send it back to Warners.

It may well be that the actual negative of the film has never been cut and that's the reason why the 4K features the 146-minute cut (that is, if it's not a typo).

[Boland]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

The two minutes were cut before the film went on general release. Instructions were sent to cinemas to cut the scene and send it back to Warners.

It may well be that the actual negative of the film has never been cut and that's the reason why the 4K features the 146-minute cut (that is, if it's not a typo).

This is quite possible.

Because there are two widely available cuts (US and International), all of these extra edits would have been done on the IPs anyway.

The OCN may well still contain the hospital scene.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Per the North America BD thread, the Cannes site changed the listing to 143min.

So is WB wrong? TIFF wrong? Cannes wrong? We’ll know soon enough.

Its still marked 146 on another page

https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/p...lassics-2019-1



I think it's an error. All will be revealed in the early hours, tomorrow night.

[chas speed]

I could be wrong, but weren't there some screenings of The Shining 4K at the Alamo theaters recently? It seems like that would answer the question about what version it is.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by chas speed

I could be wrong, but weren't there some screenings of The Shining 4K at the Alamo theaters recently? It seems like that would answer the question about what version it is.

The premiere of the 4K is at Cannes.