The Shining (1980)

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by winoni71

I just received the BD today (I already own the European version, I never watched the original) and in the back cover you can read the following "NOT AUTHORIZED FOR SALE OR RENTAL OUTSIDE THE USA AND CANADA. This copyrighted product is authorized for sale or rental for private home use in the USA and Canada ONLY." I ordered it on Amazon US from Italy.

I also checked a few other US BDs that I own and I didn't find this warning.

I have that on several blus but do not remember which ones as I do not always read the fine print on all of my disc covers.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by TheZoof

Dilemma...

I own both cuts of the movie. Halloween party is less then a month away. Which version should be watched? Which one is 'scarier'.

I personally can't decide. I like the slow pace of the US cut as it really builds the suspense.

I like the length of the short cut and it moves a lot better in pacing.




Anyone find one scarier? I just don't want to show one version and have them not like it when they might have liked the other version more !

I really dislike the hospital scene so I am leaning towards shorter cut... but a lot of the edits showing off the hotel and stuff really hurt hte suspense.

Only watch the short cut if you don't have enough time to watch the longer cut. The longer cut is better in every way. Like you said, it builds the suspense.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by winoni71

I just received the BD today (I already own the European version, I never watched the original) and in the back cover you can read the following "NOT AUTHORIZED FOR SALE OR RENTAL OUTSIDE THE USA AND CANADA. This copyrighted product is authorized for sale or rental for private home use in the USA and Canada ONLY." I ordered it on Amazon US from Italy.

I also checked a few other US BDs that I own and I didn't find this warning.

Every BD and DVD from Warner Home Video has that warning on the back, it's totally standard.

[returnofthemack]

anyone hear about or see the doc. room 237 thats coming out? after reading the article in empire i want to see it. i was never a super huge fan of the shining but i love some 2001, FMJ and a clockwork orange. the last time i even owned a copy of the shining was on VHS but after reading about room 237 i had to order the shining on blu. i thought maybe i was watching the shining in the wrong light and it deserves another look. its a feeling that ive had with blade runner many times. i know there is somthing that alot of people love about blade runner and i think that if i just watch it again i might understand lol.

[sukraj]

Iv'e seen this film numerous times and its still good as the first time i watched it.

[Doomnaut]

I was browsing Stanley Kubrick's IMDB page and was I absolutely dumbfounded by what I saw.

Stanley Kubrick was nominated for a Razzie for Worst Directing: The Shining

:conf used:

[The Mhael]

Originally Posted by returnofthemack

anyone hear about or see the doc. Room 237 thats coming out? after reading the article in empire i want to see it. i was never a super huge fan of the shining but i love some 2001, FMJ and a clockwork orange. the last time i even owned a copy of the shining was on VHS but after reading about room 237 i had to order the shining on blu. i thought maybe i was watching the shining in the wrong light and it deserves another look. its a feeling that ive had with blade runner many times. i know there is somthing that alot of people love about blade runner and i think that if i just watch it again i might understand lol.

I've seen it an am going to post a review for it soon.

It's a great DOC, but some of the theories it offers are just crazy.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Doomnaut

I was browsing Stanley Kubrick's IMDB page and was I absolutely dumbfounded by what I saw.

Stanley Kubrick was nominated for a Razzie for Worst Directing: The Shining

:conf used:

Explanation: http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-shi...topic4532.html

Shelley Duvall was nominated as Worst Actress for her screechy/one-note performance, and Kubrick was nominated as Worst Director. Our voting membership that first year was far smaller than it is now (it was about 50 people) many of whom had read and admired Stephen King's novel THE SHINING, and were understandably disappointed with the near total re-write Kubrick and his screenplay represented. As a novel, SHINING was intensely visual and cinematic, yet many of the most visually memorable sequences (among them a scene where topiary animals come to life and chase the Nicholson character) were simply left out or re-worked. I must admit that, among our 30 years of nominations, the one for Kubrick is one of the most often carped about.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Doomnaut

I was browsing Stanley Kubrick's IMDB page and was I absolutely dumbfounded by what I saw.

Stanley Kubrick was nominated for a Razzie for Worst Directing: The Shining

:conf used:

This is due to when it came out at the time. The movie from what I recall wasn't highly regarded at the time but over time with repeat viewings this movie is not even close to be worthy of that nomination.

[PFrank]

I freaking love the book. I try to get any and everyone to read it. It's just soo good!

[Doomnaut]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Explanation: http://www.razzies.com/forum/the-shi...topic4532.html

Thanks for the informative post.

[gilapimp]

The Shining looks amazing on blu-ray. Now I'm going to listen to the audiobook (unabridged).

[BladeRunner2007]

Does anyone else prefer to watch this film in 1,33:1 instead of 1,85:1 ?

This is why I imported the US version on DVD. I'd love to own it on Blu-ray, but the 1,85:1 ration really hurts the film imo. Having said that, I've never seen the longer US version before and I'm really excited. I love slow paced films. I love how they take their time and slowly build up the tension.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Does anyone else prefer to watch this film in 1,33:1 instead of 1,85:1 ?

This is why I imported the US version on DVD. I'd love to own it on Blu-ray, but the 1,85:1 ration really hurts the film imo. Having said that, I've never seen the longer US version before and I'm really excited. I love slow paced films. I love how they take their time and slowly build up the tension.

Kubrick intended The Shining to be projected in theaters in the 1.66:1 ratio but that probably only happened mostly in Europe. So yes the film looks best in 1.66:1 rather than 1.85:1. From some frames I've seen, there's a little too much headroom in the full frame ratio (1.37:1.).

[Steve Lilley]

Originally Posted by yellowcakeuf6

Kubrick intended The Shining to be projected in theaters in the 1.66:1 ratio but that probably only happened mostly in Europe. So yes the film looks best in 1.66:1 rather than 1.85:1.

That's incorrect. It was always designed to be projected at 1.85:1. Only the home video releases were shown in "full screen" (let's just call it that for the sake of discussion) for a really long time because of Kubrick's wishes.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Does anyone else prefer to watch this film in 1,33:1 instead of 1,85:1 ?

This is why I imported the US version on DVD. I'd love to own it on Blu-ray, but the 1,85:1 ration really hurts the film imo. Having said that, I've never seen the longer US version before and I'm really excited. I love slow paced films. I love how they take their time and slowly build up the tension.

To me the longer USA version is the standard version. Its the only version in my eyes. All those websites dedicated to analyzing the hidden narratives and subtext and clues all default to, and exclusively use, the longer usa version. Until last year, I never knew there was a shorter version.

Trust me; once you watch the USA version, the other shorter version will make a b-line to your trash bin.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

To me the longer USA version is the standard version. Its the only version in my eyes. All those websites dedicated to analyzing the hidden narratives and subtext and clues all default to, and exclusively use, the longer usa version. Until last year, I never knew there was a shorter version.

Trust me; once you watch the USA version, the other shorter version will make a b-line to your trash bin.

I always felt the shorter version moves along too quick. Like you don't really get to feel the boredom in the big hotel and the isolation kicks in too quickly. Jacks seems to snap from one second to another. Which always bothered me. The US version seems to be much better in that regard.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

That's incorrect. It was always designed to be projected at 1.85:1. Only the home video releases were shown in "full screen" (let's just call it that for the sake of discussion) for a really long time because of Kubrick's wishes.

Cinematograher David Mullen ASC:

"whenever "The Shining" was shown at film festivals, Kubrick specifically ask that it be projected with a matte (usually 1.66) and not 1.37 Academy, which was a possibility in those venues."

I'll take his word for it.

[Steve Lilley]

You can do that, that's fine. For your own reference, here's more of his quote, though:

"It's a bit confusing as a topic, but first of all, Kubrick did not primarily compose "The Shining" for 4x3 TV broadcast first and the matted widescreen theatrical release second.

Second, whenever there is a possibility of two different aspect ratios, you generally compose for the more cropped ratio and protect for the less-cropped ratio because if you composed for the less-cropped ratio, then important information can be left out of the more cropped ratio.

Third, whenever "The Shining" was shown at film festivals, Kubrick specifically ask that it be projected with a matte (usually 1.66) and not 1.37 Academy, which was a possibility in those venues.

Fourth, the movie, as does "Full Metal Jacket", clearly frames with the widescreen matting in consideration, which I defacto say means that it was composed for that ratio. You can see the excess headroom in the 4x3 versions of these two movies that is typical of an unmatted widescreen "flat" movie."

His entire post, where he talks at length about the issue, can be found here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=35701

------


This is a quote from Gordon Stainforth, who worked on THE SHINING:

"Although The Shining was shot with the full academy aperture, it was designed and composed entirely for the 1.85:1 ratio, and that is the only way it should be projected in the theatre."

I'll take his word for it.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by Steve Lilley

You can do that, that's fine.

Third, whenever "The Shining" was shown at film festivals, Kubrick specifically ask that it be projected with a matte (usually 1.66) and not 1.37 Academy, which was a possibility in those venues.

Fourth, the movie, as does "Full Metal Jacket", clearly frames with the widescreen matting in consideration, which I defacto say means that it was composed for that ratio. You can see the excess headroom in the 4x3 versions of these two movies that is typical of an unmatted widescreen "flat" movie."


This is a quote from Gordon Stainforth, who worked on THE SHINING

I'll take his word for it.

That's fine you can do that but: "Kubrick specifically ask that it be projected with a matte (usually 1.66)"

I think that trumps Stainforth.

I'll take Kubricks word for it.