The Shining (1980)

[Blu-21]

Why would anyone prefer the 4:3 version with black bars on the left and right sides when viewed on a 16:9 display when the 1.78:1 version is equally as correct and fills up the entire screen?

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Why would anyone prefer the 4:3 version with black bars on the left and right sides when viewed on a 16:9 display when the 1.78:1 version is equally as correct and fills up the entire screen?

Actually the 1.33 AR was correct for broadcast up until '99 when widescreen TVs were not the norm.

If Kubrick had lived a few more years he would, for sure, only approve the OAR of his movies and none of them were 1.33

[Lutz]

I really like on the blu ray framing how the credits roll up the screen one at a time and disappear before the next one!

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Eny-

Every few months/years comes a guy that prefers the cropped 1.33 versions and back their preference with the old Vitalli interviews, like this is a new grail.

It's well established for years that Vitalli is wrong and it's been proved time and time again that Kubrick shot The Shining with a 1.85 AR and protected it for 1.33 to be shown on TV.

My advise is just to ignore it. To some people ignorance is bliss. Like what you like but don't go on spreading untruths just because it suits your taste.

^^^^^^

This

Kind of reminds me of the latest episode of South Park (PC Principle) P.C. comes around every now and again, and we have to endure it for awhile. Then it goes away. And repeat.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Why would anyone prefer the 4:3 version with black bars on the left and right sides when viewed on a 16:9 display when the 1.78:1 version is equally as correct and fills up the entire screen?

The Question is not what fills your screen, but the artistic intent. Jauja was shot in the academy ratio with the rounded frame edges showing in the Blu ray as well. Should it be cropped to 1.78:1 just to fill the screen?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Eny-

Every few months/years comes a guy that prefers the cropped 1.33 versions and back their preference with the old Vitalli interviews, like this is a new grail...My advise is just to ignore it. To some people ignorance is bliss. Like what you like but don't go on spreading untruths just because it suits your taste.

I hope you are educated enough to understand the difference between what's cropped and what's recomposed keeping that ratio in mind. Both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 are the ratios and so is 1.66:1 for Europe. All of them should be available and not what the current WB execs think is right. But since they own the rights nothing can be done. And I wasn't spreading untruths. I just quoted a direct interview of an insider. Did not make those claims myself. WB would not have taken such pains to mention, at the back of the 4:3 DVDs that the film is presented as Kubrick intended. There are many other Full Screen DVDs such as those like Jurassic Park, where no such disclaimer is present, though they are also open matted like those of Kubrick.

And regarding ignoring me, I don't really care whether you ignore me or not!

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The Question is not what fills your screen, but the artistic intent. Jauja was shot in the academy ratio with the rounded frame edges showing in the Blu ray as well. Should it be cropped to 1.78:1 just to fill the screen?

I think that what he was trying to say is that since both AR were approved by Kubrick, in hindsight we can have an option to choose between the two when watching it.

We all agree with you about artistic intent, that's why when we see and read conclusive proof that said movie was shot and intended to be projected at said aspect ratio we go with that.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I hope you are educated enough to understand the difference between what's cropped and what's recomposed keeping that ratio in mind. Both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 are the ratios and so is 1.66:1 for Europe. All of them should be available and not what WB thinks is right. But since they own the rights nothing can be done.

And regarding ignoring me, I don't really care whether you ignore me or not!

Sorry, I'm just Joe Six Pack without any knowledge whatsoever about movies and these technical aspects.

But much worst than that is not being educated enough to read english!

THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1:85. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area.

Cropped? Recomposed? How can anyone distort this is beyond me.

How about movies shot open matte, like most are shot? Should studios release all AR as well to accomodate your tastes?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Eny-

I think that what he was trying to say is that since both AR were approved by Kubrick, in hindsight we can have an option to choose between the two when watching it.

That's my point!

Originally Posted by Eny-

We all agree with you about artistic intent, that's why when we see and read conclusive proof that said movie was shot and intended to be projected at said aspect ratio we go with that.

Well, then The Shining is not intended to be in 1.78:1 but 1.85:1. So, in a sense, this is wrong too, if only marginally.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Eny-

Sorry, I'm just Joe Six Pack without any knowledge whatsoever about movies and these technical aspects.

But much worst than that is not being educated enough to read english!

Cropped? Recomposed? How can anyone distort this is beyond me.

How about movies shot open matte, like most are shot? Should studios release all AR as well to accomodate your tastes?

Can you be a bit more clear about what you do want to say? For your information, I hold a masters degree in English Literature and have taught in a College, and worked as a Sub-Editor For one of the oldest English dailies in India.

Studios should release all ARs as intended, if the filmmakers wanted them. In this case Kubrick did want them.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

That's my point!

Thing is.... Kubrick approved the 1.33 AR for home video in a time when we all owned 4:3 TV sets. He did so to avoid Pan & Scan and preserve some integrity of what he shot.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Well, then The Shining is not intended to be in 1.78:1 but 1.85:1. So, in a sense, this is wrong too, if only marginally.

That's another discussion and something that Warner does with all(?) their releases. It doesn't bother me personally but ideally I would prefer that would release the movies in their OAR, in this case, 1.85.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Can you be a bit more clear about what you do want to say? For your information, I hold a masters degree in English Literature and have taught in a College, and worked as a Sub-Editor For one of the oldest English dailies in India.

What I'm trying to say is why can anyone discard Kubrick notes when shooting The Shining?

THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1:85. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area.

Does not read... Compose for 1-1:85 and 1-1:33.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Studios should release all ARs as intended, if the filmmakers wanted them. In this case Kubrick did want them.

I agree, if that was the case.... a little trip to Wikipedia...

Open matte is a filming technique that involves matting out the top and bottom of the film frame in the movie projector (known as a soft matte) for the widescreen theatrical release and then scanning the film without a matte (at Academy ratio) for a full screen home video release.

Many films over the years have used this technique (...) Stanley Kubrick also used this technique for his last five films.

Again... in a time before widescreen TV and the ability to reproduce the theatrical experience, the full screen (4:3) image was preserved/protected for a video release.

Nowadays movies are shot open matte and you don't see any 1.33 release for home video, unless composed specifically for that.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Eny-

What I'm trying to say is why can anyone discard Kubrick notes when shooting The Shining?

Does not read... Compose for 1-1:85 and 1-1:33.

I agree, if that was the case.... a little trip to Wikipedia...

Again... in a time before widescreen TV and the ability to reproduce the theatrical experience, the full screen (4:3) image was preserved/protected for a video release. Nowadays movies are shot open matte and you don't see any 1.33 release for home cinema, unless composed specifically for that.

Trust me I know a lot about open matte, hard matte, 4-perf, 3-perf, 35mm, 65mm, IMAX 15/70, LIEMAX, etc, and I am not saying this to be rude to you at all as I have no such bad intention. We are all forum members who share their love of movies.

The point is, again, not what past, modern or future TVs are, but if a filmmaker had specifically asked for a ratio, especially about a movie from a time when both versions were a normal feature, then those versions should be made available in modern high definition formats as well. Back in the day we had 4:3 TVs, but still had videos in 2.35 or 1.85 with thick black bars on top and bottom. They released both versions back then, why can't they do so now as well? That's my point.

Thanks to BobbyMcGee from the the thread -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...=172624&page=5

According to the Stanley Kubrick Archives by Taschen The OAR of most of Kubrick's films were 1.33:1 -

Shining OAR chart.jpg

P.S: Though Kubrick wanted the full negative frame of The Shining to be released, the 4:3 DVD is actually cropped at the sides, hence it also loses the original vertical framing to maintain the 1.33:1 shape.

[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

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

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.

[Geoff D]

Kubrick was such a master of his craft that his films work in the intended, composed-for theatrical ratio AND in open matte. I've kept my DVDs for the open matte versions and the Blu-rays for the 16:9 widescreen versions.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by 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

He wanted it that way because then he knew what the audience was seeing. Now that we have widescreen televisions, and the aspect ratio (on his Blu-rays, anyway) can be preserved, I doubt he would want 1.33. But we can't really know.

[sxerunner]

Shoot, thought a new release was coming. Got my hopes up, Blu-bros.

[DarthMarino]

Originally Posted by sxerunner

Shoot, thought a new release was coming. Got my hopes up, Blu-bros.

It's a good bet that any time a Kubrick thread is bumped, it will be about this. A Shining thread can also be about which cut of the movie is better.

[rickah88]

Worst thread bump ever!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Worst thread bump ever!

Yep, thanks for spamming it in practically every Shining thread you could find Riddhi, even though many of us read that Vitali interview years ago.