Eyes Wide Shut 4K UHD (1999) (Criterion Collection)

[jowlygentleman]

Originally Posted by Teen_Archer

Kubrick shot full frame to allow himself maximal latitude to adjust and recompose shots.

Unwittingly this in part explains why the full frame looks better.

[soulreaper313]

preordered!!! i just watched this film for the first this morning and you can definitely tell its a Kubrick film, like many of his films feel like they're made to stay with you long after the credits. Cruise and Kidman were phenomenal and the tension throughout the entire film left quite the impression. i'm seeing they have different cuts of the film and i'm unsure which one i was watching but i really enjoyed it. its now solidified as my 2nd favorite film of all time.

[eXtofer]

Originally Posted by jowlygentleman

Unwittingly this in part explains why the full frame looks better.

I need a lobotomy.

[Juan de Internet]

Originally Posted by eXtofer

I need a lobotomy.

Your avatar is not only full-frame but square and yet your forehead is still cut off. Seems no matter what the framing, you still want a lobotomy.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by Teen_Archer

Kubrick shot full frame to allow himself maximal latitude to adjust and recompose shots.

Was that something Gault said?

I mean, unless I'm totally misremembering, generally almost no one hard-matted 1:85 in the camera, you generally shot full frame to protect for TV and other uses. That was standard. And I assumed that Kubrick did the same.

Plus, by this time he was clearly very aware that a 4:3 TV frame was where many would end up seeing the film. Since by all accounts he hated letterboxing on a 4:3 TV, I assumed that would rule out hard-matting, even if he was the rare director who had the power to demand it if he wanted it.

[mikesncc1701]

I just revisited the announcement for this and man, reading that list of features has me wanting to plan an entire night dedicated to watching all of it. Unless something absolutely incredible is released in the near future, this is 100% going to be the release of the year for me (with Saló a very close second).

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Teen_Archer

Nigel Galt has stated that when they were editing EWS on the Avid, they were using a 1.85.1 mask. How is the theatrical compromised? Kubrick shot full frame to allow himself maximal latitude to adjust and recompose shots.

It's not.

You've also got to scratch your head re: the "people are ignored when they simply point out that Kubrick composed for both scenarios" comment. If those people are being ignored, then isn't it because those same people are seemingly choosing to ignore or misunderstand evidence proving that Kubrick's later films were composed for 1.85:1, and merely protected for a 4:3 ratio?

People can have their preferences all they want, but it gets pretty old having to read though all this cope and these logical fallacies/unsound arguments. It seriously seems some just can't admit that they may like seeing a film in a different format from how it was originally intended to be seen.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by Teen_Archer

Nigel Galt has stated that when they were editing EWS on the Avid, they were using a 1.85.1 mask. How is the theatrical compromised? Kubrick shot full frame to allow himself maximal latitude to adjust and recompose shots.

I've never heard of Kubrick "recomposing" shots in his films. That would necessitate going to optical dupes and those shots would stand out. What's your source?

Chris

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

I've never heard of Kubrick "recomposing" shots in his films. That would necessitate going to optical dupes and those shots would stand out. What's your source?

Chris

I think David Fincher made a comment about reframing in post for Se7en, although that may have been regarding video transfers. The 35mm prints and all home video releases have different framing.

Re: Kubrick, I hadn't heard that either, but assumed the poster was perhaps talking about having plenty of leeway to produce the 4:3 video master. I've honestly stopped looking too much into these things because even specific technical terms seem to get misused/misattributed/conflated with other things on here all the time. I find attempts to get clarification will usually muddy the waters even more; a big reason behind why I think I'm done sharing detailed posts based on experience or even demonstrative evidence.

[sidetracked1]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

a big reason behind why think I'm done sharing detailed posts based on experience or even demonstrable evidence.

Well, just personally I hope you don't stop sharing. While there is - of course - a large amount of silly, uninformed conversation one can get pulled into here, there are also those of us who really appreciate the things you and others with actual knowledge share. Even after a lifetime in film, I love that at least once a day I learn something new here.

[En Ex]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

I just revisited the announcement for this and man, reading that list of features has me wanting to plan an entire night dedicated to watching all of it. Unless something absolutely incredible is released in the near future, this is 100% going to be the release of the year for me (with Saló a very close second).

Right now, the bonus features whose running time is public add up to 2h 35m. The new and archival interviews will no doubt push that to (or over) the three-hour mark. I'm as excited as you are to dig into everything!

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I think David Fincher made a comment about reframing in post for Se7en, although that may have been regarding video transfers. The 35mm prints and all home video releases have different framing.

Re: Kubrick, I hadn't heard that either, but assumed the poster was perhaps talking about having plenty of leeway to produce the 4:3 video master. I've honestly stopped looking too much into these things because even specific technical terms seem to get misused/misattributed/conflated with other things on here all the time. I find attempts to get clarification will usually muddy the waters even more; a big reason behind why I think I'm done sharing detailed posts based on experience or even demonstrative evidence.

Your contributes are valued and appreciated, don't let the same tired arguments push you away.

[Mattiemax]

Anyone know if criterion are planning to release this in the UK?

[Homegrove]

Originally Posted by Mattiemax

Anyone know if criterion are planning to release this in the UK?

Someone e-mailed them and the answer is no. The post is somewhere in this thread.

[koberulz]

Criterion's answer to that question is always no. They've previously denied having plans to release a title less than a week before it was announced.

[Piriven]

Originally Posted by soulreaper313

preordered!!! i just watched this film for the first this morning and you can definitely tell its a Kubrick film, like many of his films feel like they're made to stay with you long after the credits. Cruise and Kidman were phenomenal and the tension throughout the entire film left quite the impression. i'm seeing they have different cuts of the film and i'm unsure which one i was watching but i really enjoyed it. its now solidified as my 2nd favorite film of all time.

Wow that’s pretty amazing that you’ve just seen the film and it’s shot straight to your 2nd favourite of all time.

Glad to hear it, I’ve always loved EWS and it gets better every time I watch it, it has mysteries that draw you back in. Kubrick is often praised for being a visionary, but he was also a hypnotic storyteller.

As with most Kubricks it was met with critical… confusion on release, and audiences didn’t know if they liked it. I watched it well after the hype had died down and found it to be a wonderfully engrossing erotic thriller.

I’m intrigued to see how it comes out in 4K. I’ve come to like the soft, hazy glow of the blu-ray image, but I imagine on UHD it’ll have some crispness, and the colours will be ultra rich and deep. I expect Red Cloak will pop out of the screen.