The Shining (1980)

[Riddhi2011]

Kubrick hated 1.85:1, and wanted 1.33:1 for TV and 1.66:1 for theatres for almost all his films except 2001 of course. The only reason he chose 1.85:1 for thetrical is because most screens were either 1.85 or 2.35, and all of them would crop his larger framed movies to widescreen ratio. He had no control over each and every theatres and their projection decisions, hence. Here's an interview that settles that once and for all -

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Kubrick hated 1.85:1, and wanted 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 for almost all his films except 2001 of course. Here's an interview that settles that once and for all -

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

Thanks to j9young from myspleen.org for providing a link in his comment on the page for the Shining open matte dvd.

In the audio commentary with the cinematographer for The Shining he says it was composed for 1.66:1, so it baffles me why people still argue about it.

[Bob Kramer]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Kubrick hated 1.85:1, and wanted 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 for almost all his films except 2001 of course. Here's an interview that settles that once and for all -

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

Yeah, sorry, but Vitali and Jan Harlan have proven themselves inept, self-serving, contradictory and outright damaging in preserving Kubrick's "intentions".

[blurayfriend]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Kubrick hated 1.85:1, and wanted 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 for almost all his films except 2001 of course. Here's an interview that settles that once and for all -

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

Thanks to j9young from myspleen.org for providing a link in his comment on the page for the Shining open matte dvd.

Why did you resurrect all threads on The Shining to post the same thing? I'm not knocking you, but I think this is where the "rules" that we can't start any new threads around here gets wonky- I would've rather you started your own new thread than see The Shining pop up three different times and search in each for some new development.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Kubrick hated 1.85:1, and wanted 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 for almost all his films except 2001 of course. Here's an interview that settles that once and for all -

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

Thanks to j9young from myspleen.org for providing a link in his comment on the page for the Shining open matte dvd.

Posting crap

Here's a shot from the Kubrick archives, with notes by THE MAN HIMSELF. See what it says ?



1.85:1

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by sjconstable

In the audio commentary with the cinematographer for The Shining he says it was composed for 1.66:1, so it baffles me why people still argue about it.

It was composed for 1.85:1. see my above post.

[AlexIlDottore]

The Kubrick archives is essential reading. Obviously, fans of Kubrick need to read it, at least to stop stupid discussions like the one on the previous page.

[PLG1962]

Off topic in a way for those that have read and loved the book do you like or hate the Kubrick film?

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Kubrick hated 1.85:1, and wanted 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 for almost all his films except 2001 of course. Here's an interview that settles that once and for all -

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

Misinformation

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Posting crap

Here's a shot from the Kubrick archives, with notes by THE MAN HIMSELF. See what it says ?



1.85:1

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

Off topic in a way for those that have read and loved the book do you like or hate the Kubrick film?

Kubrick is my favourite director, so...

[AlexIlDottore]

The Kubrick archives is essential reading. Obviously, fans of Kubrick need to read it, at least to stop posts like the one from Riddhi2011.

[PLG1962]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Kubrick is my favourite director, so...

but have you read the book I dont like the silly changes he made im not saying I hate it as the film is very atmospheric but its a damn shame it wasnt closer to the book as much as i hate remakes this is one film i wouldnt mind being remade

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

but have you read the book I dont like the silly changes he made im not saying I hate it as the film is very atmospheric but its a damn shame it wasnt closer to the book as much as i hate remakes this is one film i wouldnt mind being remade

Ooh. You me the King book (I thought you were talking about the SK Archives ) Yes, I read it a few times when I was a teen. I love the King book and the Kubrick film. I think it's a great adaptation. Do I like the changes or not ? Honestly, the changes aren't a big deal to me, as the film is so perfect. Maybe I find it hard to objective...

I saw the mini-series that is closer to the book, which King apparently prefers. That was sh!te.

[samuel1976]

A lot of people seem to find it impossible to grasp the fact that often what works in a book will not work in a film and vice versa. The best film adaptation of a book would be one that knows what parts to include and what parts to exclude. The Shining is a perfect example.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Kubrick hated 1.85:1, and wanted 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 for almost all his films except 2001 of course. Here's an interview that settles that once and for all -

http://www.dvdtalk.com/leonvitaliinterview.html

You must have ignored is part:

After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn't shot that way. He had no control. He couldn't go around every cinema and say "You show this film in 1.66" as you could with Clockwork Orange, because then the projectors had 1.66 mask. With multi-plexes things are different and so they only show a film in 1.85 or in 2.21, the Cinemascope. You know? You cannot put a mask in 1.66 as it should be for Clockwork Orange. You can't put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon and that's what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards. He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it. Stanley realized that masking for 1.85 would far outweigh having 1.66 projected at 1.85. We did a re-release of Clockwork in the U.K. and it's 1.66. It's composed for 1.66. It's shot in 1.66, and the whole shebang. Well, you know, they had to screen it in 1.85. I can't tell you how much it hurt that film.

That must have been awful.

It's horrible. It's horrible. It's heartbreaking. I mean, it's heartbreaking. You realize that when we got to The Shining, this was after the release of Barry Lyndon, this is how it was all being done. He realized that the best thing he could do is to at least do it so that he understood that beside the 1.85 frame line, they were going to have the composition that he would want you to see. From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it.

So he did the reverse of what most directors do, who look at the 'TV Safe Area', Stanley looked at the '1.85 Safe Area'.

Absolutely. Absolutely

Kubrick only hated 1.85 because of how theaters back then were butchering his early films by forcing them into that aspect ratio even tho they weren't shot or framed for it. Kubrick hated his film's shots and composition being ruined. After Barry Lyndon Kubrick realized how to stop this and began framing and shooting his films for 1.85 and 4:3. He would have approved of the 1.85 framing on the Blu-ray, because the film was shot for that so no shots were being ruined in 1.85. If we were talking about Lyndon or any of his films previous to that one that were shot in 1.66 or 1.33 it'd be different because those films were never framed or shot for 1.85, but he changed his method starting with the Shining. Likewise, if this was a case of the film being cropped to 2.35 then yeah he would hate that because the film wasn't shot for that ratio and it would butcher the film. But in 1.85 or 4:3 the film isn't being butchered so he was fine with both versions of the film.

[Michael24]

I first read The Shining just a couple years ago. Thought it would be a chore to get through given it's usual King size (), but man did I love it. Yes, the movie is definitely different from the book. I'd say it's a poor adaptation, but still a great movie in and of itself. In terms of adaptation, the 1997 TV mini-series Stephen King produced is far more faithful to the book. And, IMO, is itself excellent. I enjoy all three Shinings.

[samuel1976]

The mini series version is awful.

[I KEEL YOU]

I'm glad that somebody bumped this thread so that we can finally talk about Kubrick's intended aspect ratios. You'd think that such a subject would've been discussed to death before, but since it's never been mentioned it's good that we can start discussing it today. Hey, better late than never.

[samuel1976]

Originally Posted by demoni

I remember watching my 4:3 full screen laserdic "back in the days" and noticing the shadow of the helicopter with the camera crew appearing on the hillside at the beginning of the movie when the Torrance family are driving to the Overlook Hotel... right at the bottom of the screen. This always annoyed me, and I couldn't believe that Kubrick would have overlooked this.

In the 1.85:1 Blu-ray presentation however, this problem is solved...

You can also see the whirring of the blades at the top of the frame.

[Bob Kramer]

Mick Garris must surely be one of the worst hacks in the history of film. My God but he just sucks the life out of every single shot in every one of his films. Duuuuuullllllllllllll. He seems knowledgeable about the genre in his interviews, but wow is he a terrible artist.

As for King (off topic) the best thing he ever wrote, by far, was Rage. And of course he refuses to let it back in print thanks to PC mania regarding school shootings.