The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

So, again, I never once said or meant to imply that King's novel was considered a classic immediately upon its release. That's a total non sequitur to my point and I don't know why it keeps coming up. King's novel, at some point in time, became a classic (for not an inconsiderable amount of people, the definitive one) of the genre; that's all that matters to my point. In terms of being flummoxed "that the wider public and critics would harbour a grudge just because SK bent the source material to his will", have you seriously never heard the (in my experience, exceedingly common) lamentation that movies are never as good as the novels upon which they're based? And have you never witnessed the common rage of the unwashed masses when a movie based on a beloved work takes liberties with it? But Kubrick was a rare master who built a career out of taking other people's highly regarded written creations and "bending them to his will" so that they sometimes only retained tangential fidelity to the original stories and yet, nearly each time out, they were considered classics in their own right, rather than bastardizations of the source.

See my further edit: Kubrick was the thing, not the source material. How faithful or not the film was was itself utterly tangential to film fans.

But people keep quoting "classic" back at you because you said the following: "especially source material considered by most to be a crowning classic of the genre". You didn't say it about The Shinning but we never said you did, what you don't do is make it clear just what works of his you're referring to as contemporaneous "crowning classics of the genre" so it's no wonder people interpreted your comment as they have done.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

See my further edit: Kubrick was the thing, not the source material. How faithful or not the film was was itself utterly tangential to film fans.

Eh, as mammoth of a talent as Kubrick is, let’s not oversell his name caché here. Movies like THE KILLING, BARRY LYNDON and EYES WIDE SHUT are typically considered classics only by the Kubrick faithful, whereas THE SHINING is considered a defining genre great by the masses at large, which aren’t driven into theater seats by the Kubrick name.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But people keep quoting "classic" back at you because you said the following: "especially source material considered by most to be a crowning classic of the genre". You didn't say it about The Shinning but we never said you did, what you don't do is make it clear just what works of his you're referring to as contemporaneous "crowning classics of the genre" so it's no wonder people interpreted your comment as they have done.

No, in that comment, since the conversation was SHINING focused at that point, I was referring to that single novel, but again, when it became considered a classic book of the genre by the masses is completely immaterial to my discussion. The fact is, in the common lamentation that films are never as good as books, a film taking as many liberties with the original source as THE SHINING does is usually a formula for disaster and public dissention. The fact the the film went on to be as important to horror films as the book was for horror literature is damn near unprecedented.

[Geoff D]

The masses at large didn't turn out for the sequel to The Shining though, did they? As for the Kubrick name that's why I referenced "film fans" and not the wider public, his movies rarely took a lot of money but the man was pretty much a god in the industry and everything he did was hotly anticipated amongst cineastes at the time, in the same way that they were waiting with bated breath for Terry Malick to do a new film after Days of Heaven.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The masses at large didn't turn out for the sequel to The Shining though, did they? As for the Kubrick name that's why I referenced "film fans" and not the wider public, his movies rarely took a lot of money but the man was pretty much a god in the industry and everything he did was hotly anticipated amongst cineastes at the time, in the same way that they were waiting with bated breath for Terry Malick to do a new film after Days of Heaven.

Clearly you can’t compare a 1980 audience to a 2019 one. In any case, I think the molehill-not-a-mountain that scottishguy was going for has been made clear.

[Scottishguy]

So Scottishguy's comment still doesn't make much sense to me, that the wider public and critics would harbour a grudge just because SK bent the source material to his will. Some of the authors certainly did, but that's not the same thing: people and critics want a good movie first and foremost and with Kubrick you were guaran-goddamn-teed to get one.

To try yet again to explain my point. Film's adapted from books or graphic novels are often considered inferior to their orginal source.

Kubrick continually matched or exceeded the source material, by the majority of critical and general opinon.

You are such a pedant Geoff

[Geoff D]

Pedant, sure, but I literally didn't understand your point. Which is why I responded as such.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Pedant, sure, but I literally didn't understand your point. Which is why I responded as such.

For that I apologise. But can't complain with the quality of debate that it's resulted in.

[Scottishguy]

Also, Days Of Heaven in Dolby Vision....

[GeoffOliver]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Don't see many CRTs round this country anymore. Not even in the houses of older people.

My parents are still using a 1980 Hitachi in their bedroom. My mom even upgraded it to a Bose sound system (which required a special adaptor). I keep telling her that they can get a much, much nicer TV for relatively little money at this point, but she refuses to replace it because she’s content with how it looks. She uses her “poor eyesight” as an excuse (BTW, she’s 59 and has normal vision for someone her age). It’s a miracle that it’s still working, but I’m reminded of how inferior CRTs were when I look at it. To make things worse, almost everything on cable is 16:9 now, so almost everything is in letterbox or windowbox on that thing now.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

My parents are still using a 1980 Hitachi in their bedroom. My mom even upgraded it to a Bose sound system (which required a special adaptor). I keep telling her that they can get a much, much nicer TV for relatively little money at this point, but she refuses to replace it because she’s content with how it looks. She uses her “poor eyesight” as an excuse (BTW, she’s 59 and has normal vision for someone her age). It’s a miracle that it’s still working, but I’m reminded of how inferior CRTs were when I look at it. To make things worse, almost everything on cable is 16:9 now, so almost everything is in letterbox or windowbox on that thing now.

How many hours has it got on it?

[Xenofin]

Anyone here owning scandinavian print of 4K? I could not find information in this thread. Bluray.com states that aspect ratio is 2.40:1. If this true I wonder who was the idiot deciding to release this version. I own it but have not yet opened it and back side also tells 2.4:1, ouch! I am sure my heart skipped few beats when I saw that.

[israels]

Originally Posted by Xenofin

Anyone here owning scandinavian print of 4K? I could not find information in this thread. Bluray.com states that aspect ratio is 2.40:1. If this true I wonder who was the idiot deciding to release this version. I own it but have not yet opened it and back side also tells 2.4:1, ouch! I am sure my heart skipped few beats when I saw that.

Just checked mine, and it’s just a typo.
The disc is 1.78:1 just like the other ones.

[Cvalda]

Saw a beat up 35mm print of this last week and there was no Saul Bass logo. I remember people saying this was originally released with one, but this looked like a release print and it was just the familiar logo with clouds in the background. FWIW. Maybe it could have been a print struck later for a rerelease?

[Fjodor2000]

Just watched this 4K UHD Blu-ray on my LG C7 OLED 55".

I really have to say it was an amazing experience! I've watched it before on lesser quality sources and displays, and on two occasions I even fell asleep! But this time it was something completely different. Felt like I was watching it as intended, almost as watching it on my private 35mm screening.

This movie is really a piece of art. Super exciting from start to finish. Great acting, story, and details throughout. The way it is produced totally screams Kubrick - there are very few directors that reach this level. And 4K UHD quality is the only way to watch it in. Just get it - you will not regret it!

Also, some reviews rated the DTS MA 5.1 audio quality somewhat low, complaining about the dynamics. But this was not something I noticed. In fact I have to say the audio was excellent, and better than on many other catalogue titles. Especially the clarity was super good.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Cvalda

Saw a beat up 35mm print of this last week and there was no Saul Bass logo. I remember people saying this was originally released with one, but this looked like a release print and it was just the familiar logo with clouds in the background. FWIW. Maybe it could have been a print struck later for a rerelease?

Later release. Prints from release and all home video releases up to a point had the Saul Bass logo.

[pinballmaster]

Am I the only one who noticed the helicopter blades in the opening scene?

[Geoff D]

They've always been there.

[Alister_M]

Yeah, I always saw them in the mountain road flyovers, but this was the first time I'd noticed them flickering at the top of the frame during the establishing shot of the Overlook.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Just watched this 4K UHD Blu-ray on my LG C7 OLED 55".

I really have to say it was an amazing experience! I've watched it before on lesser quality sources and displays, and on two occasions I even fell asleep! But this time it was something completely different. Felt like I was watching it as intended, almost as watching it on my private 35mm screening.

This movie is really a piece of art. Super exciting from start to finish. Great acting, story, and details throughout. The way it is produced totally screams Kubrick - there are very few directors that reach this level. And 4K UHD quality is the only way to watch it in. Just get it - you will not regret it!

Also, some reviews rated the DTS MA 5.1 audio quality somewhat low, complaining about the dynamics. But this was not something I noticed. In fact I have to say the audio was excellent, and better than on many other catalogue titles. Especially the clarity was super good.

I loved your review. It's so true about many 4K discs. I bought The Shining 4K disc and it didn't do anything for me. I sold it, but I don't blame the disc. I figure if I ever get a great TV I will buy it again and probably love it.

[KubrickKurasawa]

From 1980.

Stephen King - "I was warped as a child" | The Dick Cavett Show - YouTube