The Shining (1980)

[joenostalgia23]

I feel like this forum has been debating what AR Kubrick would want for over a decade now.

Is true that he wanted 4:3 for Home video. But that is because there were no 16:9 TVs until very late into his lifetime. He simply preferred to not see “black bars” if possible, and composing images to fill the frame in both ratios was a solution to that.

Still, the theatrical presentation was to him the definitive version of the film. If VHS didn’t exist, Kubrick would still be making movies after all.

Today with 4K HDR TVs with 16:9 aspect ratio, we can bring the theatrical experience home with very little compromise.

The letterbox bars on a 1.85:1 film or even a 1.66:1 film shot by Kubrick would hardly be noticeable on a new TV. I think we can now have all his films in their original aspect ratio.

I do wonder how he’d feel about his films reformatted to 1.78 though. Scorsese seemed to have no problem at all with that being done for Goodfellas. But I would only accept it if they opened the image up more, and not cropped if like with the WB Barry Lyndon. My personal preference is original AR because there’s no good reason not to.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

But if one was a perfectionist, one would utilize, to the best of their ability, the different ratios of each format (theatrical and home video).

Think about releasing an album on vinyl, cassette, itunes, and CD. For vinyl and cassette you have to think of a split point (side one/A and two/B). That's not ideal, but you do it. You're preference is obviously listening to em all straight through. But knowing there are two ways, you make two "official" ways.

100% wrong. COMPOSITION within the frame is what's important to him, photography paintings, etc. If you change the shape of the frame, you change the original intended composition. It's so funny people still don't even understand what composition is, and think you can just change aspect ratio at will without changing the entire intent of the art. People need to take some art classes and learn about the creation of art, then maybe they'd actually understand what they are watching. It's funny you don't see the Mona Lisa in different frame shapes in different museums — oh yeah, that's because it was created one way and you don't change that just because it "fits" better on Instagram.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

He simply preferred to not see “black bars” if possible, and composing images to fill the frame in both ratios was a solution to that.

I don't even know if the "black bars" part is officially stated or has just become accepted as fact. I've never seen him address that part. Other than Woody Allen insisting on "Manhattan" only showing in widescreen, which resulted in a greatly reduced number of television showings, the "black bars" were not an option (and technically Manhattan used gray bars, not black ones), the movie was going to be shown in fullscreen on television. I don't know whether Kubrick would've objected to black bars retaining the aspect ratio, but he knew that television stations wouldn't show them because television viewers didn't like them that way at the time.

There is no way to argue that both the Kubrick's composition is important and considered and carefully constructed *and* that he composed shots for multiple aspect ratios. You can't have it both ways. It won't change the lighting or the primary focus of the shot, but please explain to me how you can change the aspect ratio blanketly for an entire movie without effecting how much of the background is visible or how much headroom the subject of the picture has in individual shots. It simply makes no sense, to me at least.

[EDIT: I can believe that he would've been more meticulous and obsessive than most other filmmakers about keeping the area "safe" while shooting, but once he was in the edit bay I don't think he cared nearly as much (as evidenced by the infamous helicopter blades).]

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

100% wrong. COMPOSITION within the frame is what's important to him, photography paintings, etc. If you change the shape of the frame, you change the original intended composition. It's so funny people still don't even understand what composition is, and think you can just change aspect ratio at will without changing the entire intent of the art. People need to take some art classes and learn about the creation of art, then maybe they'd actually understand what they are watching. It's funny you don't see the Mona Lisa in different frame shapes in different museums — oh yeah, that's because it was created one way and you don't change that just because it "fits" better on Instagram.

Oh yeah.
I hope you're not thinking I don't understand this, especially being an artist literally my entire life...etc

But you're quoting me, but perhaps not understanding.

It's called settling. Stanley Kubrick settled. That goes for any filmmaker who was alive during the VHS era, aka, the 4 by 3 ratio error.

You had no choice but to settle and format your ratio two ways:
1. Your theatrical presentation. "This is how I created it, and how I intend for you to see it"
2. Your '80s home video/VHS/4 by 3 ratio presentation. "Ok. Now I gotta freakin' crop the sides out to make it look the best possible in this crappy home video scenario"

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I don't know whether Kubrick would've objected to black bars retaining the aspect ratio, but he knew that television stations wouldn't show them because television viewers didn't like them that way at the time.

He certainly didn't object to the black bars on the widescreen transfers of 2001 and Spartacus as he signed off on both of those.

[thatguamguy]

Good point, thanks, I wasn't even thinking about counter-examples. And "2001" being shown in fullscreen on TV is supposedly the main reason that he decided to stop shooting movies in wide formats, so that they wouldn't have to pan-and-scan them on TV.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

Is true that he wanted 4:3 for Home video. But that is because there were no 16:9 TVs until very late into his lifetime. He simply preferred to not see “black bars” if possible, and composing images to fill the frame in both ratios was a solution to that.

Still, the theatrical presentation was to him the definitive version of the film.

I agree with the last part of quote, but is it that Kubrick didn't want black bars or he was wary of studios cropping his widescreen compositions to fit the 4:3 frames of TV? As I understand he gave them the option of a protected 4:3 so that they could screen the film on TVs then without cropping, while his focus would be on a matted widescreen theatrical presentation.

[pmil]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I feel like this forum has been debating what AR Kubrick would want for over a decade now.

Is true that he wanted 4:3 for Home video. But that is because there were no 16:9 TVs until very late into his lifetime. He simply preferred to not see “black bars” if possible, and composing images to fill the frame in both ratios was a solution to that.

Still, the theatrical presentation was to him the definitive version of the film. If VHS didn’t exist, Kubrick would still be making movies after all.

Today with 4K HDR TVs with 16:9 aspect ratio, we can bring the theatrical experience home with very little compromise.

The letterbox bars on a 1.85:1 film or even a 1.66:1 film shot by Kubrick would hardly be noticeable on a new TV. I think we can now have all his films in their original aspect ratio.

I do wonder how he’d feel about his films reformatted to 1.78 though. Scorsese seemed to have no problem at all with that being done for Goodfellas. But I would only accept it if they opened the image up more, and not cropped if like with the WB Barry Lyndon. My personal preference is original AR because there’s no good reason not to.

Unfortunately even having a movie formatted to what it should be doesn't guarantee a significant amount of cropping isn't taking place. Heck, you could have a 1.78 version showing more of the movie than a 1.85 version. Just another example of the lousy work that goes into lousy transfers.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I feel like this forum has been debating what AR Kubrick would want for over a decade now.

Is true that he wanted 4:3 for Home video. But that is because there were no 16:9 TVs until very late into his lifetime. He simply preferred to not see “black bars” if possible, and composing images to fill the frame in both ratios was a solution to that.

Still, the theatrical presentation was to him the definitive version of the film. If VHS didn’t exist, Kubrick would still be making movies after all.

Today with 4K HDR TVs with 16:9 aspect ratio, we can bring the theatrical experience home with very little compromise.

The letterbox bars on a 1.85:1 film or even a 1.66:1 film shot by Kubrick would hardly be noticeable on a new TV. I think we can now have all his films in their original aspect ratio.

I do wonder how he’d feel about his films reformatted to 1.78 though. Scorsese seemed to have no problem at all with that being done for Goodfellas. But I would only accept it if they opened the image up more, and not cropped if like with the WB Barry Lyndon. My personal preference is original AR because there’s no good reason not to.

Yes, I really don’t understand why 1.85 movies are opened up to 1.78. I understand there’s barely a difference, but in my opinion that gives even more of a reason to not mess with them since it’s barely anything. Is the reason really because the average consumer doesn’t want to see tiny black bars on the top and bottom of their screens? If that were really true, then they’d never release movies in 2.39:1. So I have yet to understand why 1.85 movies are opened up to 1.78. A lot of DVDs that were released as 1.85 are now 1.78 for their Blu-ray releases.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

He certainly didn't object to the black bars on the widescreen transfers of 2001 and Spartacus as he signed off on both of those.

But those films are much wider than 1.85 and I believe they were shot anamorphic. Is it really possible to open up the frame on an anamorphic movie? I thought they used the entire frame. Anyway, all of this sounds like Kubrick was okay with opening up the image on his movies but not cropping anything out.

[Eye Candy]

In Spielberg's latest offering "Ready Player One," the sub-plot focuses on many cultural icons from the 80's, brief as their appearances may be in the film. And in that focus on 80's iconic touchstones, the spotlight' screen time is never more filled than Spielberg's homage to Kubrick's "The Shining."

BUT, of all the parts of "The Shining" that Spielberg could have chosen to highlight, and bring to CGI life, he chose to highlight the decaying woman in Room 237, probably the visually Grossest scene in the entire movie. That's his artistic right, of course.

But what I'm trying to say... is in all of the thread discussions about "The Shining," I do not recall seeing any consensus on any number of fans ever crying out or imagining: "if there had just been more of the decaying woman to feast on...."

Spielberg's taste for what was to be THE highlight from "The Shining" on the big screen, in the way he did it, is not appealing, to me. I guess I can figure that that's how he, as a Kubrick fan, likes to remember him most by.

I suspect it was a calculated decision by Spielberg, as a Producer of the movie, over purely artistic considerations, for the consideration of what would most give the general public viewing sales the most jolt from that novelty.

[Bronson13]

I don't know if any of you guys have seen this video yet but it pretty much shows how the movie was gonna play out with the deleted ending.

The Shining : Original Ending (1980) - YouTube

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

In Spielberg's latest offering "Ready Player One," the sub-plot focuses on many cultural icons from the 80's, brief as their appearances may be in the film. And in that focus on 80's iconic touchstones, the spotlight' screen time is never more filled than Spielberg's homage to Kubrick's "The Shining."

BUT, of all the parts of "The Shining" that Spielberg could have chosen to highlight, and bring to CGI life, he chose to highlight the decaying woman in Room 237, probably the visually Grossest scene in the entire movie. That's his artistic right, of course.

But what I'm trying to say... is in all of the thread discussions about "The Shining," I do not recall seeing any consensus on any number of fans ever crying out or imagining: "if there had just been more of the decaying woman to feast on...."

Spielberg's taste for what was to be THE highlight from "The Shining" on the big screen, in the way he did it, is not appealing, to me. I guess I can figure that that's how he, as a Kubrick fan, likes to remember him most by.

I suspect it was a calculated decision by Spielberg, as a Producer of the movie, over purely artistic considerations, for the consideration of what would most give the general public viewing sales the most jolt from that novelty.

There's not a whole lot else they could have shown - they needed to depict something threatening from the movie but it would have been too expensive to licence Nicholson's likeness.

[hYPE]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

I don't know if any of you guys have seen this video yet but it pretty much shows how the movie was gonna play out with the deleted ending.

The Shining : Original Ending (1980) - YouTube

[hYPE]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

There's not a whole lot else they could have shown - they needed to depict something threatening from the movie but it would have been too expensive to licence Nicholson's likeness.

I can only imagine that would have cost a shit load of money!

There was a quick second I thought he was going to show up but I was so happy with what we saw. One of my favorite scenes from any movies in a long time!

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by Bronson13

I don't know if any of you guys have seen this video yet but it pretty much shows how the movie was gonna play out with the deleted ending.

The Shining : Original Ending (1980) - YouTube

Very interesting. I think the film plays better without the hospital scene.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

But those films are much wider than 1.85 and I believe they were shot anamorphic. Is it really possible to open up the frame on an anamorphic movie? I thought they used the entire frame. Anyway, all of this sounds like Kubrick was okay with opening up the image on his movies but not cropping anything out.

2001 wasn't anamorphic but you're correct, they couldn't embiggen the image because 5-perf 65mm has a 2.20 aspect once the mag striping is laid onto the prints in Todd-AO.

Spartacus was anamorphic, shot 8-perf 35mm with a 1.5x squeeze. Roughly 2.25 unsqueezed which became 2.20 for the 70mm 'Super Technirama 70' prints. Again: no embiggening without cropping.

[Luke B.]

Watched my copy of the blu yesterday and it looks and sounds great.
I remember when I watch the film for the first time, a couple years ago, and hated it. When I read the novel I was like ''oh, why Kubrick f*cked the story up and made that film? but hey, I want give it another try'' and liked it. Watching yesterday I realized how great the film is, even tho I don't find it to be terrifying. For sure I'll watch it again a couple of times this year.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

There's not a whole lot else they could have shown - they needed to depict something threatening from the movie but it would have been too expensive to licence Nicholson's likeness.

I just had a thought... What with author Stephen King's reputed hatred of Kubrick's Shining, I think it would have been hilarious if Spielberg had CGI'ed King as Jack being threatening, with the axe, to try and destroy that Shining scene with mayhem.

[bobbyh64]

I noticed that some of Kubrick's films that were originally released in mono have been released with 5.1 tracks. Did Kubrick ever make any stipulations that his sound mixes couldn't be altered? I find it strange that his estate would allow the mixes to be altered but are vehemently against showing alternate footage.