The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Ah, the Euro vs US cut argument. It's the 'Ned Ryerson' of The Shining thread.

[Kaiju no Kami]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

It was edited by Kubrick himself. It's the best version, in my opinion.

Doesn't matter, it's an edited version. Like I said, the movie is already missing a ton of stuff as is, taking more out would be ridiculous and disrupt the flow of it.

If they want to include it as a bonus feature the next time they release the movie, sure, but I don't see any reason to release a shorter version of a masterpiece.

[Nicolawicz]

Why can't a masterpiece be even better with some editing? I've always found the skeleton scene beneath Kubrick, for instance. The American cut is also an "edited version," by the way.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by Amano

"They" was Mr. Kubrick. And "there" was where he lived (London). And no, it was not forced upon him, he was always known to be in control of every little detail and the different European cut was not questioned by him until his death decades after its premiere.

So trying to kill off his European cut for easier distribution of the movie is a hideous assault on his legacy.

I have been saying this since the 4K release was announced and it became clear that we would not be getting the shorter version in 4K. What I find terrible is the lack of respect for Kubrck's vision not only from the label but also some here on this site who claim to be film fans.

I would feel as aggrieved if it had been the other way around and the US fans had been shortchanged as we have and I don't even like the US version.

[Zombie Dude]

Originally Posted by philthehip

I have been saying this since the 4K release was announced and it became clear that we would not be getting the shorter version in 4K. What I find terrible is the lack of respect for Kubrck's vision not only from the label but also some here on this site who claim to be film fans.

I would feel as aggrieved if it had been the other way around and the US fans had been shortchanged as we have and I don't even like the US version.

Thank you! That's exactly right. If the US cut was the one missing all these people shitting on us for liking the international cut would be furious.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Kaiju no Kami

Doesn't matter, it's an edited version. Like I said, the movie is already missing a ton of stuff as is, taking more out would be ridiculous and disrupt the flow of it.

If they want to include it as a bonus feature the next time they release the movie, sure, but I don't see any reason to release a shorter version of a masterpiece.

I mean, the US version is also an "edited" version, since Kubrick cut out the final hospital scene after it showed in various places. If that's your straw argument, you'll always lose, since EVERY film is edited and has scenes deleted.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by Zombie Dude

Thank you! That's exactly right. If the US cut was the one missing all these people shitting on us for liking the international cut would be furious.

Usually people are mad when movies are heavily cut and removing 20 minutes from a movie (that have been there in the US for 40 years) and making that the only available version would certainly suck.

This is the US thread, it makes sense that people in the US would prefer the version they grew up with.

[Zombie Dude]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

Usually people are mad when movies are heavily cut and removing 20 minutes from a movie (that have been there in the US for 40 years) and making that the only available version would certainly suck.

This is the US thread, it makes sense that people in the US would prefer the version they grew up with.

Usually cuts mean gore or nudity is removed or that a studio has meddled with it for time reasons etc. The Shining was re-cut by Kubrick himself and remains faithful to his vision. It's just less bloated. Making it the only version available certainly sucks for the international market which is likely more familiar with the shorter version.

This may be the US thread but the 4k disc is the same version everywhere. And no ones saying those people who grew up with the longer cut can't enjoy it, but they certainly like to tell us that like and grew up with the shorter version that we are wrong. So it's a bit hypocritical.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Nah, that's the aspect ratio debate.

Both.

[raptors661]

Is there anywhere currently selling this special edition that will ship to the US?

[andyk69]

Oh dear, well ... I just came here to ask if this new special edition from the UK is the new
remastered bluray from the new 4k restoration and is the Euro cut,

thanks so much,

by the way, I prefer the the Euro cut much much better.

[Kaiju no Kami]

Originally Posted by Zombie Dude

Usually cuts mean gore or nudity is removed or that a studio has meddled with it for time reasons etc. The Shining was re-cut by Kubrick himself and remains faithful to his vision. It's just less bloated. Making it the only version available certainly sucks for the international market which is likely more familiar with the shorter version.

This may be the US thread but the 4k disc is the same version everywhere. And no ones saying those people who grew up with the longer cut can't enjoy it, but they certainly like to tell us that like and grew up with the shorter version that we are wrong. So it's a bit hypocritical.

But WHY would you want a shorter version? That's like saying you don't want the extended versions of Lord of the Rings, Touch of Evil, Aliens, Gladiator or the Final Cut to Blade Runner.

Anyway, you are right about if that is what you want, that is what you want. I just personally don't see the point.

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by Kaiju no Kami

But WHY would you want a shorter version? That's like saying you don't want the extended versions of Lord of the Rings, Touch of Evil, Aliens, Gladiator or the Final Cut to Blade Runner.

Anyway, you are right about if that is what you want, that is what you want. I just personally don't see the point.

Some people just have short attention spans. The shorter cut of The Shining is a fast-paced movie by 1980 standards, despite not containing much in the way of action. It's supposed to be an epic horror movie, but chopping out the slow-burn robs it of that quality.

[Zombie Dude]

Originally Posted by Kaiju no Kami

But WHY would you want a shorter version? That's like saying you don't want the extended versions of Lord of the Rings, Touch of Evil, Aliens, Gladiator or the Final Cut to Blade Runner.

Anyway, you are right about if that is what you want, that is what you want. I just personally don't see the point.

Because longer doesn't always equal better and it's the version I'm more familiar with. Aliens is another where I think the shorter cut works better and is more mysterious without seeing the colony at the beginning.

Originally Posted by Alister_M

Some people just have short attention spans. The shorter cut of The Shining is a fast-paced movie by 1980 standards, despite not containing much in the way of action. It's supposed to be an epic horror movie, but chopping out the slow-burn robs it of that quality.

It's not about short attention spans. I love long movies that flesh out the story, I just don't think the extra stuff in the US cut is needed, and neither did Kubrick. The international cut definitely doesn't feel short either, nor does it rob the movie of it's horror epic quality as you seem to think.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by Kaiju no Kami

the extended versions of Lord of the Rings,

Ugh.

[HotTastyChili]

Originally Posted by Kaiju no Kami

But WHY would you want a shorter version? That's like saying you don't want the extended versions of Lord of the Rings, Touch of Evil, Aliens, Gladiator or the Final Cut to Blade Runner.

Peter Jackson even prefers the theatrical cuts, and says the extended versions of LOTR are for super fans only. Sometimes the shorter version is better, but all should be available no matter what.

I don't think Kubrick ever definitively proclaimed which cut he preferred, and the fact that both versions were released on home video in their respective territories says a lot. Since Kubrick was such a stickler for his home video releases, if he strongly preferred one version you'd think he'd campaign to make that the only one available.

It's funny that U.S. audiences got a longer version, when our reputation abroad is that our populace consists of uncultured morons with zero attention span. Unlike the refined tastes of European audiences who are obviously all much more enlightened.

I'm curious. If the U.S. had received the shorter version, and Europe had gotten the long cut, would more people prefer the long version and say the abridged U.S. version was watered down for American audiences? How much is familiarity, how much is cultural bias, and how much is preference based on the technical differences between the two versions? Not saying anyone's wrong for liking one over the other though.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kaiju no Kami

But WHY would you want a shorter version? That's like saying you don't want the extended versions of Lord of the Rings, Touch of Evil, Aliens, Gladiator or the Final Cut to Blade Runner.

Anyway, you are right about if that is what you want, that is what you want. I just personally don't see the point.

Umm....but I don't want the extended versions of Aliens or Gladiator, and the LOTR EEs are great for spending a bit more time in Middle-earth but I'd always want the award-winning theatricals to still be made available. (And people wonder why George Lucas is so reticent to put out the OG versions of the Star Wars movies, all he has to do is look at places like this where some people wouldn't piss on the theatrical cut of a film if it was on fire, but when it comes to his films it's the complete opposite. Different film is different but even so, that'd piss me off if I were him.)

As for The Shinning, I grew up watching the shorter cut and so it's taken me a while to warm to the longer version, but warm to it I have. Not that I'd want the euro cut erased from history tho

[KubrickKurasawa]

Joker / Joker Kills Murray Scene (You Get What You Deserve) - YouTube

[orac1971]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Umm....but I don't want the extended versions of Aliens or Gladiator, and the LOTR EEs are great for spending a bit more time in Middle-earth but I'd always want the award-winning theatricals to still be made available. (And people wonder why George Lucas is so reticent to put out the OG versions of the Star Wars movies, all he has to do is look at places like this where some people wouldn't piss on the theatrical cut of a film if it was on fire, but when it comes to his films it's the complete opposite. Different film is different but even so, that'd piss me off if I were him.)

I think its different as Aliens, Gladiator, LOTR, The Hobbit etc. are longer versions made at the same time or shortly after the theatrical release. The original Star Wars Trilogy have been changed by Lucas years later with CGI effects which were not available in 1977, 1980 and 1983.

I totally agree with you both (or sometimes multiple) versions of films should always be available and this is where Lucas has not played ball and has also done the same with THX-1138. Coppola generally provides multiple versions, but one particular film; The Outsiders is not the case and I really want the original theatrical version with soundtrack (by his Dad).

Back to The Shining, I am the same as you and now warm to the US longer version. The odd thing with this is, I can find no record of which version Kubrick preferred.

The latest UHD release should have had both versions though.

[Geoff D]

That's a very fair point about the other movies getting done early on and giving people way more time to get used to the altered/extended editions but even so, we live in a world where the SEs have now spent a longer time as the 'default' version of Star Wars than the originals did