Eyes Wide Shut 4K UHD (1999) (Criterion Collection)

[stalepie]

Originally Posted by blakninja

In no way this is definitive or something, but this can give a little bit of hint. Top to bottom: Criterion 4K, 35mm scan, 35mm print photo.

The color looks warmer to me, closer to the middle image, when I view the picture on my TV (with colorspace set to auto which seems to be the same as BT.2020 option)



Left side is photo off my monitor and right side is photo of my TV displaying same image as upper left

[hipsofjw]

Originally Posted by wolfwall

Criterion are not trustworthy and are the worst at letting tinkerers make their movies worse without giving us the originals

If you want to present some evidence against the Criterion color grading of Eyes Wide Shut, I'm all ears. I do recommend you look up the basics of how film preservation and restoration works before you continue to make such wild accusations, but it does seem like you've reached the typical end of the road for people who don't like being shown evidence that contradict their uninformed assumptions.

Edit: typos

[WhiskeyGnome]

Was possibly hoping some people would restore anything cut and maybe tidy up some of the audio and a few shots. Oh well. Cover is something else. Pretty good actually, but I can't really get used to it either as the OG is iconic I think. Really wish Kubrick would have actually finished this thing out himself. Easy buy though. Love the film and the things it hints at within society.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by stalepie

The color looks warmer to me, closer to the middle image, when I view the picture on my TV (with colorspace set to auto which seems to be the same as BT.2020 option)



The photo on the left is off my computer monitor, and the right side is off my TV.

Thank you. This has been a running issue here in recent months that I keep flagging. People look at early caps created various ways from various sources on their uncalibrated computers and then get freaked out about color.

And yet, when we finally see the disc on our actual calibrated monitors/TVs, they usually prove the freak outs to have been completely unnecessary at best, wildly overstated at worst. (See 'Brazil', etc. etc. etc.)

[jmj399]

Originally Posted by Rizor

The colors of the 35mm fan scan are fairly accurate to the 35mm print I saw projected a few weeks ago at the Museum of Moving Image in NYC. Very orange in tone, especially during the party at the beginning, the Bill/Alice bedroom scene, etc. Reddish-orange skin tones.

Just saw a 35mm print in LA a few weeks ago and it looked just like the fan scan. I’ve seen prints a few other times (to be fair it may be the same print) over the years and they all have that warm glow and the highlights blown out. It looks amazing every time I see it. Criterion seems like slight revisionism but maybe the release prints were always incorrect and this is more what it was always supposed to be. Holding out for the disc to see how I feel about it, but so far I do kinda prefer the warmer one I’ve been used to seeing for years.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

Would've been interesting if Criterion were to have gotten Cruise & Kidman in their NY office for a brand new interview looking back at the film!

or even Cate Blanchett discussing her involvement, but there might not have been a huge amount to say on how it all went down.

I'd personally love to hear the stuff they cut out that only Tom, Nicole, and the WB head got to watch.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

I was shocked when I saw the finished film and there was a big- and rather sloppy- jump cut in the middle of the "mirror scene", and it also fades to black rather abruptly on Kidman's face whereas the teaser really lingers on her expressiom. I'm surprised Kubrick made those edits to it, especially that unmatched jump cut in the middle of it.

Chris

There is no way Kubrick was actually done with the film. Nobody has given any actual proof that he was fully done with it. I too think there are some weird cuts in this film. And in reality nobody has any idea what they actually did to the film that only a very few people saw when he presented it to the head. As far as I know it was a rough cut he presented, and he was known to tinker well after these kinds of things.

From what I have heard people worked on the sound and the video and there is very possibly more controversial footage that was cut from the film. Nobody seems to want to talk about it in any interview that I have ever seen. Nicole and Tom would know though. If you ask me Stanley went too deep into the rituals of our corporate oligarchy. The least they could do would be to redo some of the shitty work they obviously did to the film after he died.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by jmj399

Just saw a 35mm print in LA a few weeks ago and it looked just like the fan scan. I’ve seen prints a few other times (to be fair it may be the same print) over the years and they all have that warm glow and the highlights blown out. It looks amazing every time I see it. Criterion seems like slight revisionism but maybe the release prints were always incorrect and this is more what it was always supposed to be. Holding out for the disc to see how I feel about it, but so far I do kinda prefer the warmer one I’ve been used to seeing for years.

IF we're going off memory (of which I'm always suspect), then an interesting note. There was one theater in LA playing the off--the-neg showprint when the film opened, and I think 2 others using release prints. I made a point to see both the show and release prints a couple of times each in the opening week, because I was curious to see the specific differences.

Assuming my memories are correct I remember the show print having slightly more detail in the blown out areas - making that effect feel a little less extreme), slightly more intense contrast, slightly richer/more varied colors, and slightly less notable grain.

Which would make what we're seeing of the Criterion perhaps closer to the original intent.

Edit: To clarify - I don't claim I can now remember these exactly what these differences looked like so many years ago. What I DO remember more clearly is what I said to others - my fellow film geeks, my poor wife who has to listen to my film ramblings, etc. - at the time when discussing the experiment of looking at both versions 2x that opening week.

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Because of the poster design, I keep picturing this as a Digipak with a die-cut opening. Me being me, I had to visualize that, however crude it is. Not entirely sure it works, but posting it anyway lol

That would look really cool if Cruise/Kidman were revealed behind.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by sidetracked1

IF we're going off memory (of which I'm always suspect), then an interesting note. There was one theater in LA playing the off--the-neg showprint when the film opened, and I think 2 others using release prints. I made a point to see both the show and release prints a couple of times each in the opening week, because I was curious to see the specific differences.

Assuming my memories are correct I remember the show print having slightly more detail in the blown out areas - making that effect feel a little less extreme), slightly better contrast, slightly richer/more varied colors, and slightly less notable grain.

Which would make what we're seeing of the Criterion perhaps closer to the original intent.

When working from the negative one really gets a chance in there to hone-in on nuance and finer details than working from a print or specifically aiming to replicate it completely. Which if one filmmaker wants to do so then sure, but if your target reference material is an archival show print with the nuance of an OG neg source, then great! I wouldn't put that into a vast smearing of the work other restorations have gotten. (Ritrovata! shiver!)

[hipsofjw]

Originally Posted by wolfwall

I am informed thank you very much. How about all the people who have seen 35mm prints projected and say it looks like the same fan scan you discredited with no evidence?

I've provided plenty of evidence why custom fan grades are typically unreliable. You have not provided any compelling evidence that this particular one is derived from any knowledge about how the film was originally theatrically exhibited. You've just fallen into ad hominem attacks against Criterion and Larry Smith.

As for people's personal experience of seeing prints, I don't think anyone is claiming that their memories are definite proof that the Criterion is incorrect. Theatrical prints come in various quality and often have wide variations even upon release. Add in decay and potential storage issues and you have an incredibly wide range permutations out in the wild.

Maybe something turns up that lends credence to these anecdotes lining up with the original theatrical intention. Maybe not. Maybe once people with recent theatrical viewings see the new master in HDR, it won't appear that different from their memories.

I imagine we'll learn more about the restoration and mastering process once we get closer to release date.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

There is no way Kubrick was actually done with the film. Nobody has given any actual proof that he was fully done with it.

I was there when Stanley presented his cut of the film. It was four hours long and there was an entire other act where the daughter gets kidnapped by the elite and Bill's like, "Be gone, Illuminati!" and then he blows them up with a bazooka and Alice is like, "My hero!" and it repairs their marriage. It was really cool.

[philthehip]

Eyes Wide Shut is announced and some things were of course guaranteed to happen.

1. This site starts comparing random images from any random place and making definite claims about a new transfer none of us have seen.

2. The flat earthers come out of their grandmoma's basements to shout at the moon about Kubrick's moon landing, Shelley Duval (I think the story now is that he killed her) and how Kubrick did not direct the version of EWS we saw.

3. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio.

Seriously folks, chill.

And come on CC, add in the Bhagavad Vita chant by accident.

[kwisatzhaderach]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I was there when Stanley presented his cut of the film. It was four hours long and there was an entire other act where the daughter gets kidnapped by the elite and Bill's like, "Be gone, Illuminati!" and then he blows them up with a bazooka and Alice is like, "My hero!" and it repairs their marriage. It was really cool.

True Lies Wide Shut

[philthehip]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

From what I have heard people worked on the sound and the video and there is very possibly more controversial footage that was cut from the film. Nobody seems to want to talk about it in any interview that I have ever seen. Nicole and Tom would know though. If you ask me Stanley went too deep into the rituals of our corporate oligarchy. The least they could do would be to redo some of the shitty work they obviously did to the film after he died.

the flat earthers are among us!

He's seen things you people wouldn't believe..... because it didn't happen.

[FatherDude]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

From what I have heard people worked on the sound and the video and there is very possibly more controversial footage that was cut from the film. Nobody seems to want to talk about it in any interview that I have ever seen. Nicole and Tom would know though.

It's weird to indict people for not "wanting" to talk about footage that you acknowledge exists only in the realm of hearsay. If it doesn't exist, why would they talk about it?

The stars would of course be aware of footage that was deleted that they were on set for, but there was no significant footage, of a controversial nature or otherwise, that was deleted from the cut screened four days before Kubrick's death, and the director shared no other cut before that.

[FindOneInEveryCar]

Originally Posted by philthehip

3. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio. Aspect ratio.

To be fair, we haven't seen a lot of Aspect Ratio discussion and I'd be perfectly happy to leave it that way.

[Maryona]

This takes the cake for the best cover.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

There is no way Kubrick was actually done with the film. Nobody has given any actual proof that he was fully done with it. I too think there are some weird cuts in this film. And in reality nobody has any idea what they actually did to the film that only a very few people saw when he presented it to the head. As far as I know it was a rough cut he presented, and he was known to tinker well after these kinds of things.

From what I have heard people worked on the sound and the video and there is very possibly more controversial footage that was cut from the film. Nobody seems to want to talk about it in any interview that I have ever seen. Nicole and Tom would know though. If you ask me Stanley went too deep into the rituals of our corporate oligarchy. The least they could do would be to redo some of the shitty work they obviously did to the film after he died.

As far as I can remember, the official story since its release was that it was essentially finished before Kubrick's death but further alterations were made by the studio in order to polish or "finish" off the film in accordance with Kubrick's notes. Of course there's been plenty of rumors, speculation and theories about the film since its release, including from people involved in the industry who seem to think certain things were "missing" from the final cut.

I know myself that certain things don't quite seem "right" when I'm watching the film while taking the rest of Kubrick's oeuvre into consideration. Had Kubrick lived long enough to see the film, then I wouldn't have been surprised in the slightest had he delivered a different cut or removed certain parts a la 2001 and The Shining.

[Cvalda]

Some people really need to take their meds and stop listening to podcasts.