Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

[RobertB]

Originally Posted by gand41f

If you shut your eyes when the movie gets to the censored scenes, you get the R rated version.

sorry, couldn't resist
gandalf

LOL thanks for a good laugh

[SS316SRV]

What else could they show on the unrated.

How is the transfer? I picked it up yesturday and I am excited to watch it.

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

What else could they show on the unrated.

I hope this is a rhetorical question. (Me, I'd happily take some more scenes of Nicole Kidman, thank you. ;p)

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

How is the transfer? I picked it up yesturday and I am excited to watch it.

I heard it's a little soft. (NO JOKES PLEASE!!!) Director's intent and all that.

enjoy
gandalf

[bhampton]

Hmm,

I think in the case of Eyes wide shut it will be the first DVD that I don't sell back after getting the Blu Ray.

Just to be able to see the whoe frame from time to time.

I'm a big OAR advocate by the way but in these cases (including the shining)the 4:3 versions look pretty good too.

-Brian

[owa]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Theatrical movies have been widescreen for 50 years now.

You saw Eyes Wide Shut in a theater, you saw it in widescreen.

I didn't see it in the theater, just on DVD. The DVD made it a point to say that the feature was presented in the full aspect ratio of the original camera negative, as Stanley Kubrick intended. So, I was just surprised to find that the hi-def version is different than the SD version in that regard.

[clarkbar]

The other funny thing about this release, is the back cover states selectable between the R-rated and UR versions, but only the UR version plays.

[JayAuritt]

Originally Posted by clarkbar

The other funny thing about this release, is the back cover states selectable between the R-rated and UR versions, but only the UR version plays.

Since I haven't received my copy yet, I can't be positive how the BD is set up to play either the R or UR version, but, as far as I know, there are NO extended scenes or anything different in the UR version EXCEPT that cloaked figures that were added digitally to block the viewing of some explicit sexual activities and attain an R rating when the film was shown theatrically have been removed.

[ProvenFlipper]

I can't wait to pick up these Kubrick classics. I wasn't going to make a purchase, but with the inclusion of PCM, I'm in. Thanks Warner for finally hearing our cries.

[BluFan]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I'm sorry, but I have to chime in here. This is one of the biggest misconceptions around these days with regard to OAR. I'm not against a director's "intent" in any way, but in this particular case, there's something of a problem. Kubrick disliked black bars. Plain and simple. I know it sounds crazy (and it is), but although he was a genius film maker, he either didn't grasp the concept of widescreen in the home or didn't care because the only reason he chose to release his movies in 4:3 only was because he didn't want them letterboxed. Kubrick may have been an amazing director, but his opinions about home theater viewing were nothing short of ridiculous. Up until now, all home video versions of these films have always been presented in 4:3 "open aperture". This means that (and it's exclusively on Kubrick titles that this works) you can simply set your TV to "zoom" mode (cut off the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame until the horizontal dimensions fill your screen) and you have a widescreen presentation. Stupid, I know, but that is the OAR. Case in point: the first aerial shot of the overlook hotel in "The Shining". If you watch the film in 4:3, you can see helicopter rotor blades at the top of the frame. If you zoom this shot (to the dimensions it was composed for), it eliminates the blades from the frame. Kubrick films are riddled with things like this, and it's one of the best evidences that a wider frame was what was actually intended to be seen. The reason this ONLY works on Kubrick titles is because, rather than the composition having a "variable" headroom (ala Super 35), Kubrick's films on home video have always cut off precisely the same information from the bottom of the frame as they have the top. Hence the term "open" aperture. They just opened up the widescreen composition and "took off" the matte in essence. Anyway, I hope this helps answer your question. Both "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" were presented at 1.85:1 in theaters and were shot for that frame. Claims that the films were composed for 4:3 originally do not hold up. In order for a director to do this, he'd have to completely disregard what a theatrical matte would do to his film. At the very least, Kubrick was such a precise visual artist that I can't imagine he was uninvolved with the theatrical framing of his films, if only to make sure heads were in frame, etc. Otherwise, he would have just disregarded height restrictions imposed by the theatrical matte and ended up with heads cut off. If you watch "Eyes Wide Shut" in zoom mode, you'll see that this was obviously carefully avoided. So you have to conclude that he at least took theatrical framing under consideration when filming. And if a director is filming with the theatrical matte in mind, then by definition, he is composing shots for the theater. Period. Kubrick films are supposed to be 1.85:1 - as is any film shot and composed for that ratio theatrically, regardless of a director's "intent" for the home theater rhealm. Does anyone else remember how James Cameron's apparent "preference" for the 4:3 home video presentation of "The Abyss" was mentioned in the liner notes of the original special edition laserdisc release? Now, in all fairness, that film was shot in Super 35 which does allow much more freedom with regard to editing a composition. But then, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not consider 1.33:1 to be the OAR for "The Abyss", even if James Cameron thinks it looks better that way. OAR is "original aspect ratio" for a reason. And, for the record, whether Kubrick liked black bars or not, this is officially the first OAR presentation of these films. I, for one, am ecstatic. I've been waiting for widescreen versions of both "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" for YEARS now. I only wish I had some money so I could buy them because I wanted to cry yesterday. lol

Thanks for the knowledge, but holy moly that is one big wall of text.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by gand41f

I heard it's a little soft. (NO JOKES PLEASE!!!)

I haven't had a chance to personally verify that.........I'm so sorry Gandalf

[thebluemax]

Originally Posted by Grisle

Best Buy told me they needed an ad and that they had to call to check if it was in stock to give me a price match...how did they price match for a website?

My Best But simply looked up Target on their computer for the price of $19.95 and matched,

[thebluemax]

I read from another poster that just the UR version is on disc

[kaliraver]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

I read from another poster that just the UR version is on disc

That is all good with me if that is the case, I wouldn't care for the original theatrical cut but wouldn't mind having it.

[sonicbox]

The marketing guys blew it again I think. The standard def DVD release, which is a 2-disc "Special Edition", doesn't seem to have the awful CGI censored U.S. release either.

[Kremin]

I'd also like to chime in on the Kubrick aspect ratio issue, which has been driving fans like me crazy over more than 20 years of home video releases! Wikipedia actually has a very thorough examination of the issue, and I'm gonna be a jerk and just past the whole section into the post, for those interested in aspect ratio arcana!

"There has been a longstanding debate regarding the DVD releases of Kubrick's films; specifically, the aspect ratio of many of the films. The primary point of contention relates to his final five films, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. All five films were projected theatrically with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The DVD for A Clockwork Orange has an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 as does Barry Lyndon; the remaining three films are 1.33:1 ("fullscreen").
Kubrick was very upset about television screenings of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Because the film was shot for Cinerama, it was one of the few times Kubrick used a widescreen ratio (originally 2.2:1 [70mm], modified to 2.35:1 [35mm]); for television, the distributor created a pan-and-scan transfer at 1.33:1, compromising many of the images Kubrick had meticulously created. Following this, he decided to shoot all of his films open-matte (the full 1.33:1 frame is exposed on the actual film, but, when projected, this image is matted to 1.85:1). Kubrick never approved a 1.85:1 video transfer of any of his films; when he died in 1999, DVD was only beginning to catch on strongly in the U.S., and most people were still used to seeing movies fill their television screen. Warner Home Video chose to release these films with the transfers which Kubrick had explicitly approved. Subsequent to that, some evidence has been brought out which suggests that Kubrick (along with his directors of photography) did, in fact, compose shots for 1.85:1 (though the evidence is strongest for The Shining, people extrapolate and apply it to all of them). The most recent special edition versions (released on October 23, 2007) of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut are in the original 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and A Clockwork Orange has a new, digitally remastered anamorphic transfer with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. The previous HD DVD and Blu-ray versions of Full Metal Jacket are presented in 1.78:1.
There is a secondary concern related to aspect ratio. During the days of laserdisc, The Criterion Collection released six Kubrick films. Spartacus and 2001 were both widescreen (2.35:1 and 2.2:1, respectively) at the same ratio as their subsequent DVD releases, and The Killing and Paths of Glory were both fullscreen (1.33:1), as these films were released when projectors could still show 1.33:1 (although they were also projected in 1.66:1). Dr. Strangelove and Lolita, though, were given very atypical aspect ratios, in transfers personally overseen by Kubrick. For unspecified reasons, Kubrick chose to give both films an alternating aspect ratio; at times, the image is 1.33:1, while at other times, the image is 1.66:1. This is sometimes falsely attributed to the use of stock footage in Strangelove (another, similar claim is that the transfer was done at 1.33:1, but some shots had already been "hard-matted" to 1.66:1 -- that is, shot in a 1.33:1 ratio with a matte covering a portion of the lens, permanently matting the film to that ratio). The initial DVD releases of Strangelove maintained this approved transfer, but for the most recent two-disc special edition, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment replaced it with a new, digitally remastered anamorphic transfer with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. All DVD releases of Lolita to date have been at a uniform 1.66:1 aspect ratio, and the expectation is that future releases will retain this aspect ratio.
Also of note, laserdisc releases of 2001 were in a slightly flawed aspect ratio. The film was shot for 70mm, with an approximate ratio of 2.2:1, but many theaters could only show it in 35mm, which is 2.35:1. Thus, the picture was slightly modified for the 35mm prints. The laserdisc releases maintained the 2.2:1 ratio, but applied it to a 35mm print; thus, the edges were slightly cropped, and the top and bottom of the image slightly opened up. This seems to have finally been corrected with the most recent DVD release, which was newly remastered from a 70mm print.
In debates over Kubrick's original intent, he is frequently quoted as saying that he likes/prefers height to width. However, without context, it is unclear whether he made this statement regarding 1.85:1 vs. 1.33:1 or 2.35:1 vs. 1.85:1. The latter would certainly be possible, given that many filmmakers contemporary to Kubrick used 2.35:1 as a default aspect ratio, whereas Kubrick only used it once, at the studio's insistence on Spartacus (though coming very close on 2001)."

Hope this is interesting to others; I personally am ecstatic to see so many of these films in an aspecting ration more closely resembling the theatrical experiences that I so fondly remember!

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I'm sorry, but I have to chime in here. This is one of the biggest misconceptions around these days with regard to OAR. I'm not against a director's "intent" in any way, but in this particular case, there's something of a problem. Kubrick disliked black bars. Plain and simple. I know it sounds crazy (and it is), but although he was a genius film maker, he either didn't grasp the concept of widescreen in the home or didn't care because the only reason he chose to release his movies in 4:3 only was because he didn't want them letterboxed. Kubrick may have been an amazing director, but his opinions about home theater viewing were nothing short of ridiculous. Up until now, all home video versions of these films have always been presented in 4:3 "open aperture". This means that (and it's exclusively on Kubrick titles that this works) you can simply set your TV to "zoom" mode (cut off the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame until the horizontal dimensions fill your screen) and you have a widescreen presentation. Stupid, I know, but that is the OAR. Case in point: the first aerial shot of the overlook hotel in "The Shining". If you watch the film in 4:3, you can see helicopter rotor blades at the top of the frame. If you zoom this shot (to the dimensions it was composed for), it eliminates the blades from the frame. Kubrick films are riddled with things like this, and it's one of the best evidences that a wider frame was what was actually intended to be seen. The reason this ONLY works on Kubrick titles is because, rather than the composition having a "variable" headroom (ala Super 35), Kubrick's films on home video have always cut off precisely the same information from the bottom of the frame as they have the top. Hence the term "open" aperture. They just opened up the widescreen composition and "took off" the matte in essence. Anyway, I hope this helps answer your question. Both "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" were presented at 1.85:1 in theaters and were shot for that frame. Claims that the films were composed for 4:3 originally do not hold up. In order for a director to do this, he'd have to completely disregard what a theatrical matte would do to his film. At the very least, Kubrick was such a precise visual artist that I can't imagine he was uninvolved with the theatrical framing of his films, if only to make sure heads were in frame, etc. Otherwise, he would have just disregarded height restrictions imposed by the theatrical matte and ended up with heads cut off. If you watch "Eyes Wide Shut" in zoom mode, you'll see that this was obviously carefully avoided. So you have to conclude that he at least took theatrical framing under consideration when filming. And if a director is filming with the theatrical matte in mind, then by definition, he is composing shots for the theater. Period. Kubrick films are supposed to be 1.85:1 - as is any film shot and composed for that ratio theatrically, regardless of a director's "intent" for the home theater rhealm. Does anyone else remember how James Cameron's apparent "preference" for the 4:3 home video presentation of "The Abyss" was mentioned in the liner notes of the original special edition laserdisc release? Now, in all fairness, that film was shot in Super 35 which does allow much more freedom with regard to editing a composition. But then, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not consider 1.33:1 to be the OAR for "The Abyss", even if James Cameron thinks it looks better that way. OAR is "original aspect ratio" for a reason. And, for the record, whether Kubrick liked black bars or not, this is officially the first OAR presentation of these films. I, for one, am ecstatic. I've been waiting for widescreen versions of both "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" for YEARS now. I only wish I had some money so I could buy them because I wanted to cry yesterday. lol

I thank you for this information. This was something I did not know. I am glad to see Kubrick's work finally in widescreen. The helicopter blades really bothered me and now I know they were not opposed to (as Doc/Danny says in The Shining) be in there...

[ibeetle]

Originally Posted by sonicbox

The marketing guys blew it again I think. The standard def DVD release, which is a 2-disc "Special Edition"...

I was wondering the same thing as the original poster of this thread. The box text clearly states both versions. The box art clearly shows the MPAA "R" rating. So, where is the "R" rated US version?
When I opened the shipping box from Amazon and saw the R for Restricted logo my heart sank and my stomach went cold. However, having owned a Asian video import of the film I went to the offending scencs and saw... quite clearly that, no matter what the box art and text said this was quite graphically the unrated NC-17 rating.

I checked Amazons website and they no longer list it as having both versions of the movie. NC-17 rating only.

You know I was thinking about two things. First, If the film is bears the MPAA "R" rating, but is in fact NC-17 rating I wonder if the MPAA is going to cause a stink and sue... this would be great. Publicity would cause sales to skyrocket.

Secound, If it is listed as "R", maybe some one not in the know will catalog it as a Restricted moive, instead of the more proper NC-17. If is cataloged as "R" then the film will easly show up on the shelfs of Blockbuster and Wal-mart. Two retalers that have a no NC-17 rated film policy. Oooohhhh. Maybe that is why Waners "accidentally" miss-labeled the film.

[meyerste]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

The disc claims to have both the R rated and Unrated versions, but there is no selectable tab to select which version to play

Warner has issued a statement regarding the missing theatrical version on its new Eyes Wide Shut discs. Here's what they have to say...

"On October 23, 2007, WHV released the Special Edition of Eyes Wide Shut on standard definition DVD, and on HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc, and as part of the 6-Title Stanley Kubrick Collection. It may be that some members of the press were inadvertently informed that the Special Edition release of Eyes Wide Shut included both the rated and unrated versions of the film and/or only the rated version of the film. In addition, some initially shipped product also was inadvertently labeled as containing both the rated and unrated versions of the film. The Special Edition release of Eyes Wide Shut contains only the unrated version of the film. WHV has taken steps to correct any possible misunderstanding in the marketplace by affixing to the packaging stickers stating "This package contains ONLY the Unrated Version of Eyes Wide Shut." and "Not Rated: Includes Unrated Version Only.""

Many Thanks to Bill Hunt from The Digital Bits in posting this information.
Website where the above was found.
10/26 DAILY COLUMN: WHV's Eyes Wide Shut statement & shipping delay follow-up

-------------------------------------------
Sony-KDS-R60XBR2- 60" Full HD 1080p
Sony-BDP-S1
Blu-ray Collection-202
Pioneer-VSX-516-K - A/V Receiver
HDMI HD Digital Cable TV DVR @1080i Output
HDMI HD Dish Network DVR @1080i Output
Yamaha - Speakers
Acoustic Research 6' HDMI Digital A/V Cable

[bhampton]

If you look up the differences online you will see it's mostly just a little cover up of some of the party scenes. The two versions were almost the same just a little cover up of some of the graphic action at the party.

Look it up and you will see the censor-ed or rated cut never really had a reason to exist apart from getting a R rating in the movie theaters so that they could distribute the film to more theaters in the US.

-Brian

[ibeetle]

@meyerste

So our packages are simply mislabeled. You know what that means? We have a collectable. Yoohoo! Lets sell'em on eBay for hundreds of dollars {*Rolls eyes}

My conspiracy theory, about WHV doing this deliberately so Wal-mart and Blockbuster will carry the movies sounds a lot better than the truth. Damn fact... always get in the way. I bet my conspiracy theory will have a longer shelf life on the interweb than your press release.

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
--The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance