Shane (1953)

[NoirFan]

What is the point of creating both 1:37 and 1:66 masters if you're not going to include both of them on the BD?

[ewsjr]

I've always loved this film and will be buying it but it's interesting that one of it's main attractions, the Oscar-winning cinematography, is a source of a small controversy.
"Shane was the first film to be projected in a "flat" widescreen, a format that Paramount invented in order to offer audiences something that Television could not—a panoramic screen.[6] Paramount, in conjunction with the management of Radio City Music Hall, installed a screen measuring 50 feet wide by 30 feet high,[7] replacing the Hall's previous screen, which was 34 feet wide by 25 feet high.[8] Although the film's image was shot using the standard 1.37:1 Academy ratio, Paramount picked Shane to debut their new wide-screen system because it was composed largely of long and medium shots that would not be compromised by cropping the image. Using a newly cut aperture plate in the movie projector, as well as a wider-angle lens, the film was exhibited in its first-run venues at an aspect ratio of 1.66:1."
So basically they mutilated the film by cutting off the top and bottom to take advantage of the new wide screen projection. Wonder if the film will be presented in it's original aspect ratio?
And if you are interested in the history oe widescreen cinema this is one excellent site to check out:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by NoirFan

What is the point of creating both 1:37 and 1:66 masters if you're not going to include both of them on the BD?

Because Paramount, and George Steves Jr. screwed up.

There should've never been a 1.66:1 version created in the first place, but they thought they could pull one over on the unsuspecting public. Thankfully, people in the know - Like RH, Jeff Wells, Bob Furmanek, etc - called them out, and they corrected their mistake.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Because Warner, and George Steves Jr. screwed up.

There should've never been a 1.66:1 version created in the first place, but they thought they could pull one over on the unsuspecting public. Thankfully, people in the know - Like RH, Jeff Wells, Bob Furmanek, etc - called them out, and they corrected their mistake.

Corrected their mistake? I'm confused. What did they do to mitigate the 1.66 screw-up?

[widegambler2012]

So Is there officially a delay on the release date now??

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by bluknight1

Corrected their mistake? I'm confused. What did they do to mitigate the 1.66 screw-up?

What did they do? Shane was always a 1.37:1 film. When it came time for the restoration, they decided — along with the director's son, George Stevens, Jr — to crop the 1.37:1 to 1:66 (presumably so it would "fit" better on HDVTs). (Sorry, I wrote Warner above, but it should've said Paramount. But Warner is releasing the blu-ray.)

I assume the film was restored at 1:37:1 — Paramount isn't that stupid — but initially they 1:37 version wasn't going to be released at all. Preserving OAR is a big deal, and in certain instances I don't mind if 2 aspect ratios are offered, as long as the OAR is present. But there's no doubt this film was shot 1:37:1, so to crop it was a huge mistake from the start.

Luckily, people in the know petitioned Paramount, now Paramount corrected their mistake by saying they will issue Shane only in OAR of 1.37:1, and delayed the disc so they could fix a problem that never should've happened in the first place.

Whatever HDVision said above about the DVD not being a "proper Academy presentation" or whatever was false misinformation.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by widegambler2012

So Is there officially a delay on the release date now??

Originally Posted by bluknight1

Corrected their mistake? I'm confused. What did they do to mitigate the 1.66 screw-up?

See Akijama's post from 4/17.

[widegambler2012]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

See Akijama's post from 4/17.

I have read this thread I guess It was a poor choice of words on my part. what I was asking refers to the update located at the bottom of the page

April 18 update: A Warner rep adds: "We may not be able to release the BD as planned in June. We are waiting word from mastering as to when we will have things ready on the new version and then will officially reschedule the release date.''

My question is weather or not the blu-ray release date has actually been changed or is there still a chance that they can still make the June 4th Street Date?

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by Akijama

Read more: DVD Extra Extra: 'Shane' Blu-ray now going out at 1:37 http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies...#ixzz2Qm3s1q31

YEEEEEAAHH BABY! Warner listened to us! Take a lesson from this one, Universal, Paramount, and Fox!
I don't care if we have to wait longer! If it means getting the OAR, then I'm happy!

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by bluknight1

YEEEEEAAHH BABY! Warner listened to us! Take a lesson from this one, Universal, Paramount, and Fox!
I don't care if we have to wait longer! If it means getting the OAR, then I'm happy!

Um...

It is a Paramount film and for all Warner distributed Paramount films, Paramount is providing the elements and supplementary materials. Warner is simply handling distribution.

In English: Paramount gave Warner the 1.37:1 version of the film. Warner had no say in the matter.

[bluskies]

They showed the restored Shane at the TCM Film Festival on Saturday night, and it looked gorgeous!!!!!

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Originally Posted by bluskies

They showed the restored Shane at the TCM Film Festival on Saturday night, and it looked gorgeous!!!!!

I was there and it looked incredible. It was my first time seeing it.

[frankieboy]

Shaneeeee, come back Shane, we love you Shane, Mom loves you Shane, Comeeeee Backkkkk.

[BarnDoor]

So it's definitely going to be delayed then?

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

What did they do? Shane was always a 1.37:1 film. When it came time for the restoration, they decided — along with the director's son, George Stevens, Jr — to crop the 1.37:1 to 1:66 (presumably so it would "fit" better on HDVTs). (Sorry, I wrote Warner above, but it should've said Paramount. But Warner is releasing the blu-ray.)

I assume the film was restored at 1:37:1 — Paramount isn't that stupid — but initially they 1:37 version wasn't going to be released at all. Preserving OAR is a big deal, and in certain instances I don't mind if 2 aspect ratios are offered, as long as the OAR is present. But there's no doubt this film was shot 1:37:1, so to crop it was a huge mistake from the start.

Luckily, people in the know petitioned Paramount, now Paramount corrected their mistake by saying they will issue Shane only in OAR of 1.37:1, and delayed the disc so they could fix a problem that never should've happened in the first place.

Whatever HDVision said above about the DVD not being a "proper Academy presentation" or whatever was false misinformation.

It was shot 1.37:1, but it was Premiered and marketed 1.66:1 in most of the country when it was released theatrically in 1953. 1.66:1 is a part of the film's history. Therefore it makes fine sense to create a 1.66:1 version of the film today to recreate that theatrical experience if they so desired to do that.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Um...

It is a Paramount film and for all Warner distributed Paramount films, Paramount is providing the elements and supplementary materials. Warner is simply handling distribution.

In English: Paramount gave Warner the 1.37:1 version of the film. Warner had no say in the matter.

Oh I just was refering to Warner's decision to use the 1.37 version and potentially delay the release to create a superior product. What the second part was implying is that Warner and Paramount listened to external input regarding the potential 1.66 BD release. Other studios (Paramount has been guilty of this before) just release what they planned (DNR mess, wrong version, etc) or leave a poor release on the market and don't appear to listen to input about it. My point is that Warner and Paramount listened and actually cared this time, and that's good.

[bluskies]

The version shown at the festival was 1:37:1 and THAT is the way it should be. Director George Steven took so much time in how he did every single shot, including waiting until the sky was just right. To alter that aspect ratio - even if it got released later like that - is a mistake of massive proportions. This film's cinematography is a work of art.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by bluskies

The version shown at the festival was 1:37:1 and THAT is the way it should be. Director George Steven took so much time in how he did every single shot, including waiting until the sky was just right. To alter that aspect ratio - even if it got released later like that - is a mistake of massive proportions. This film's cinematography is a work of art.

I don't disagree that 1.37:1 is the preferred AR as shot. All I am saying is that the 1.66:1 version of Shane has a unique history and is a valid representation of how most people would have seen the film in 1953. Chances are that when the members of the Academy voted it the Oscar for Cinematography it was from seeing it 1.66:1.

[prack_2011]

Yeeehaw. Can't wait for this. My favourite Western of all time. Saw this movie like 8 years back not seen it since. Hope along with GREAT A/V it's loaded with Special Features.

[NoirFan]

Wasn't Shane planned for one of those Centennial Collection releases that were shelved once the DVD bubble burst, like Sorry Wrong Number? If so, perhaps there were extras created that can be included.