The Shining (1980)

[JediFonger]

er... i feel the film is rushed already... if you cut more... it'll kill the pace imho. the point is the boredom of going insane in a huge hotel. if you cut it shorter... that boredom won't be felt.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

That is not supported by any evidence. Though Kubrick did edit the film (to its extreme detriment, I'd have to disagree with you) for international release after the longer version of the film hit U.S. theatres, he okayed the master used for THE SHINING's subsequent domestic VHS and LaserDisc releases and had the perfect opportunity then to formalize the shorter version as his preferred director's cut, but he did not. All evidence points to Kubrick seeing worth in both cuts, and he never made any official claims that one edit should supercede the other. For me, in a million years, I could never hope to understand someone preferring the shorter version of THE SHINING to the original edit...

Except that "when the film was first released on Home Video in the United States, in 1981, Kubrick endorsed the 113 minute version as the 'official version' of the film, not the 144 minute version."

Either way, I think shorter is better. The 144 minute version drags. The European cut - where Kubrick lived and made sure got the best representation of his films - is much tighter, faster, and suspenseful.

[Scooby Blu]

Originally Posted by retablo

Except that "when the film was first released on Home Video in the United States, in 1981, Kubrick endorsed the 113 minute version as the 'official version' of the film, not the 144 minute version."

Either way, I think shorter is better. The 144 minute version drags. The European cut - where Kubrick lived and made sure got the best representation of his films - is much tighter, faster, and suspenseful.

I love the creepy drag in this film. For the stoners out there think about Kubrick embracing the three hour mark like The Lord of the Rings did.

[MrEggMan]

Where can one get the 113 minute cut in the States?

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by retablo

Except that "when the film was first released on Home Video in the United States, in 1981, Kubrick endorsed the 113 minute version as the 'official version' of the film, not the 144 minute version."

a) show me a domestic VHS of this movie with the UK edit and I'll eat my shoe (or was it a Discovision release? If so, he may have used the shorter cut due to data storage limitations)

b) if that's true, then it further supports my case because it means he changed his mind for subsequent domestic releases and reinstated the longer cut as his apparently preferred cut

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

a) show me a domestic VHS of this movie with the UK edit and I'll eat my shoe (or was it a Discovision release? If so, he may have used the shorter cut due to data storage limitations)

b) if that's true, then it further supports my case because it means he changed his mind for subsequent domestic releases and reinstated the longer cut as his apparently preferred cut

There was a laserdisc version released as I had it at one time and it was the longer version as it came on three sides. It was not on Discovision as Discovision was strictly MCA/Universal.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

It was not on Discovision as Discovision was strictly MCA/Universal.

There must have been another format similar to Discovision because I had a friend who had a player with Paramount titles like STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. I don't recall any WB titles on a format other than VHS and LaserDisc one way or another, though. Just continues to support my assertion that a 1981 U.S. home video appearance of the shorter UK cut of THE SHINING is bullsheet.

[Scooby Blu]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

There must have been another format similar to Discovision because I had a friend who had a player with Paramount titles like STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. I don't recall any WB titles on a format other than VHS and LaserDisc one way or another, though. Just continues to support my assertion that a 1981 U.S. home video appearance of the shorter UK cut of THE SHINING is bullsheet.

Well, stated mate! It is BS! As I stated before, there is NO need for a shorter rendition of this classic film! PERIOD!

[retablo]

Funny stuff. I guess the fact remains that after the U.S. release, he cut 30 minutes and that became his preferred cut. He probably didn't have the right to cut the US edition since it had already been released. He didn't cut it for censors or under pressure, he cut it fdown because he felt it was too long and had too many slow moments. And he was correct.

[Sabotage]

Man I haven't seen this flick in almost 10 years. I might go pick it up some day and rewatch it.

[Scooby Blu]

Originally Posted by Sabotage

Man I haven't seen this flick in almost 10 years. I might go pick it up some day and rewatch it.

Might? Some day? Man this movie is a CLASSIC! Get it and have some fun!

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

If the studio still has the original elements used to create the soundtrack (music, dialogue effects) (effectively, the "multitracks") a new true stereophonic or surround mix could be created. (Also if a movie had a Dolby Surround soundtrack, it had a 4.0 mix before encoding into Dolby, and this still may exist in discrete channel form , etc.)

Exactly my point. The studios like to label everything 5.1 now, even if is just run through a processor of any kind to create a fake effect. I truly believe that the studios owe it to the consumer to label these things.

Paramount took mono films like Up in Smoke, American Gigolo, Airplane, On a Clear Day you can See Forever and many others and in releasing them on DVD used the original separate elements to create new 5.1 remixes that were true stereo. But I really can't stand it when they release a disc that says 5.1 and it's simulated from a mono source without telling us so on the package (like High Anxiety, Young Frankenstein and History of the World in the Mel Brooks set). What's sad about that is that these movies have the isolated music scores on the Blu-rays, so they had the materials, but did not want to spend the money. Same with Planet of the Apes and Omen films.

My idea would be all discs should have one or more of these labels based on what is on the disc:

1. Original mono track
2. 5.1 stereo processed from original mono track
3. 5.1 remix using original STEREO source material
4. Original 5.1 (or 4.0 or whatever) theatrical stereo mix

So my question remains, which one does The Shining have?

[kubrick]

This is an awesome transfer, nearly as good as 2001.

Just to put in there my opinion about the two versions, regardless of which is the official vesrsion, I far enjoyed the shorter cut. I felt the longer cut gave to much away, and pointed everything out for you quite clearly, it felt far more mechanical.

I imported the American cut when it came out as we had to wait a little while longer for the kubrick discs in the UK. As a result i have since bought the UK version for the shorter cut.

At the end of the day, whichever you watch or prefer, your still watching one of the greatest films ever mad imo, by undoubtedly the best director of our times.

[JediFonger]

obviously a bit biased right kubrick?

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by MrEggMan

Where can one get the 113 minute cut in the States?

Order the Blu-ray from Amazon.co.uk. Yes it's region free, yes everything will work on a US player etc. etc.

[#Darren]

We will probably get BOTH cuts on a future release. But I got a buzz out of seeing the US version as I had only previously seen the international version. I think each cut has it's strong and weak points.

Originally Posted by retablo

Well, Kubrick thought the U.S. cut played too long and dragged in spots, so he himself cut the shorter "international" version that played in Europe and other territories. And he's right -- it does drag in wayyy too many places. The shorter version is his preferred cut.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by retablo

Funny stuff. I guess the fact remains that after the U.S. release, he cut 30 minutes and that became his preferred cut. He probably didn't have the right to cut the US edition since it had already been released.

Where is it formally stated he preferred the shorter cut? A director of Kubrick's caliber at any time between 1980 and 1999 could have persuaded Warner Bros. to release a "director's cut" for the U.S. home video market. You like the shorter cut, great (I think you're miles out of your gourd but, again, that's your call), but kindly quit asserting that the UK edit is some kind of director-sanctioned "final director's cut" until you find me an authoritative quote from him or the studio to back up the claim.

[Beaner666]

Originally Posted by mntwister

My idea would be all discs should have one or more of these labels based on what is on the disc:

1. Original mono track
2. 5.1 stereo processed from original mono track
3. 5.1 remix using original STEREO source material
4. Original 5.1 (or 4.0 or whatever) theatrical stereo mix

So my question remains, which one does The Shining have?

It contains two English 5.1 tracks, one lossless and one lossy: Uncompressed PCM & Dolby Digital. It does not contain the original mono track. The movie was originally mono, so I'm assuming that the 5.1 stereo mix is processed from original mono track, but I don't know that as a fact.

Given the age of the movie and the fact that it was originally mono I thought the 5.1 mix sounded fine. Yes it was a little “front heavy” but that is to be expected on any film that was originally mono.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Where is it formally stated he preferred the shorter cut? A director of Kubrick's caliber at any time between 1980 and 1999 could have persuaded Warner Bros. to release a "director's cut" for the U.S. home video market. You like the shorter cut, great (I think you're miles out of your gourd but, again, that's your call), but kindly quit asserting that the UK edit is some kind of director-sanctioned "final director's cut" until you find me an authoritative quote from him or the studio to back up the claim.

hahaha, maybe if you weren't so snide and presumptuous, people might take you seriously. because right now, its not happening.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by retablo

hahaha, maybe if you weren't so snide and presumptuous, people might take you seriously. because right now, its not happening.

Snide? I'm not the one who keeps posting things like "funny stuff" and "hahaha" to everything my detractor posts. Presumptuous? You're the one claiming the UK edit of THE SHINING is a formal director's cut without any supporting evidence. Do you want to step up now or just continue to play the role of hypocrite?