The Shining (1980)

[AllOuttaBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Honestly, I can see why some people would prefer the 1.33 version. It's likely what they first saw on VHS or DVD, and some of the compositions arguably work better in that ratio. If they put both versions in the same package, it would be perfect. If Transformers warrants it, why not Kubrick?

I'm all open matte with EWS; very attached to that 1.33:1 frame. That, and the apparent softness in the blu has kept me from upgrading...despite the censoring! But it's going to happen, eventually.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by AllOuttaBubbleGum

I'm all open matte with EWS; very attached to that 1.33:1 frame. That, and the apparent softness in the blu has kept me from upgrading...despite the censoring! But it's going to happen, eventually.

The problem is that I dont think we are going to get anything better unfortunately.

[AllOuttaBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

The problem is that I dont think we are going to get anything better unfortunately.

Aye, probably why the existing disc is still near the top of my "To Blu" list.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by fontcow

Jack Nicholson Laugh - The Shining - YouTube

This isn't as black-and-white as you guys are making it out to be. All of Kubrick's films post-Barry Lyndon have had a lot of debate regarding what aspect ratio they should be shown in. Allegedly, before his death, he said he wanted Shining, FMJ, and EWS to be presented in 1.33 on all future home video releases. The 1999 DVD set has them in that ratio, and all were allegedly approved by Kubrick. It was only later on when the 1.85 versions were released on DVD and Blu-Ray.

I'm not saying that the 1.85 versions should never be released again. The widescreen versions are great, and, as many would argue, Blu-Rays should strive to recreate the theatrical experience. But, as there is debate amongst film buffs, and given the respect and appreciation they have for Kubrick, is it really out of the question to just release both versions? If movies like Transformers and The Evil Dead warrant such a release, surely Kubrick would as well? Who would it even hurt? The fans of the 1.33 version will be happy, and those that prefer the 1.85 version can just ignore it. You can even save it for a "collector's edition" or a boxset or something and just have the 1.85 version on the "standard" release.

I just don't understand the hatred towards the idea. What's the problem?

[oldgame]

The Evil Dead was filmed in 1:33. It was zoomed in to make a widescreen release.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by oldgame

The Evil Dead was filmed in 1:33. It was zoomed in to make a widescreen release.

Technically, so is every movie shot on 35mm film without an anamorphic lens.

And you're ignoring the point, which is that they gave the viewer options. They let them watch the original 1.33 version or a 1.85 version, all in the same set. And The Evil Dead certainly doesn't have the same prestige as The Shining or Full Metal Jacket. Hell, Evil Dead required more work, since thet needed to make a widescreen version through pan-and-scan. All they'd have to do with the Shining is use the full image that's already on the negative

Put it another way: The Final Cut of Blade Runner is the director-approved version. It is exactly what Ridley Scott wanted. And yet, I can still watch all 4 other versions of it, including the workprint. Because there are still fans of the theatrical cut, or the "director's" cut. If Warner Bros. is perfectly fine with the added expense of releasing 5 different versions of Blade Runner, is it too much to ask for a 1.33 version of The Shining?

[oldgame]

I can watch all versions of Blade Runner. Yes all versions and aspect ratio's should be included with the Shinning. This guy seems to have alot of good information http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=35701

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Technically, so is every movie shot on 35mm film without an anamorphic lens.

And you're ignoring the point, which is that they gave the viewer options. They let them watch the original 1.33 version or a 1.85 version, all in the same set. And The Evil Dead certainly doesn't have the same prestige as The Shining or Full Metal Jacket. Hell, Evil Dead required more work, since thet needed to make a widescreen version through pan-and-scan. All they'd have to do with the Shining is use the full image that's already on the negative

Put it another way: The Final Cut of Blade Runner is the director-approved version. It is exactly what Ridley Scott wanted. And yet, I can still watch all 4 other versions of it, including the workprint. Because there are still fans of the theatrical cut, or the "director's" cut. If Warner Bros. is perfectly fine with the added expense of releasing 5 different versions of Blade Runner, is it too much to ask for a 1.33 version of The Shining?

Different cuts and different ratios are apples and oranges. I for one would love a new edition of The Shining containing all three cuts of the film by seemless branching: the original week release, running roughly two minutes longer than the US cut, the US cut and the international cut.
Regarding issuing the full frame versions on blu-ray. First, they aren't full frame. They only show a 1.33:1 image formatted specially for 4x3 tv's. They don't show all horizontal information. Second, Kubrick insisted on those because he DIDN'T WANT BLACK BARS ON THE TV SHOWINGS. Releasing them on blu-ray would mean EVEN THICKER BLACK BARS ON A WIDESCREEN SET. I'm sure he would be the first one to oppose were he alive.
Here in Chile sometimes you meet collectors disappointed that their favourite movies don't come with the original Spanish dub they saw on tv a zillion years ago and I just wonder if these people wouldn't be happier if they could still watch these movies on crappy vhs. These are not B&W movies digitally coloured to make them more accessible to modern audiences. These are movies shown the way they were always meant to be seen.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

Different cuts and different ratios are apples and oranges. I for one would love a new edition of The Shining containing all three cuts of the film by seemless branching: the original week release, running roughly two minutes longer than the US cut, the US cut and the international cut.
Regarding issuing the full frame versions on blu-ray. First, they aren't full frame. They only show a 1.33:1 image formatted specially for 4x3 tv's. They don't show all horizontal information. Second, Kubrick insisted on those because he DIDN'T WANT BLACK BARS ON THE TV SHOWINGS. Releasing them on blu-ray would mean EVEN THICKER BLACK BARS ON A WIDESCREEN SET. I'm sure he would be the first one to oppose were he alive.
Here in Chile sometimes you meet collectors disappointed that their favourite movies don't come with the original Spanish dub they saw on tv a zillion years ago and I just wonder if these people wouldn't be happier if they could still watch these movies on crappy vhs. These are not B&W movies digitally coloured to make them more accessible to modern audiences. These are movies shown the way they were always meant to be seen.

Aaaaaaa so Kubrick only liked it framed 1.33:1 because he wanted no black bars on the then home version playing on 4:3 TVs?
That makes sense.
Had there been 16:9 TVs, he'd want to fill that, I suppose, right?
Wait...
Did he pass before 16:9 TVs came out?

[Todd Tomorrow]

I'm certain that at the end of our universe, the brains in jars we'll evolve into will still be discussing the correct aspect ratio of The Shining.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I'm certain that at the end of our universe, the brains in jars we'll evolve into will still be discussing the correct aspect ratio of The Shining.

That is an almost comforting thought to me.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I'm certain that at the end of our universe, the brains in jars we'll evolve into will still be discussing the correct aspect ratio of The Shining.

Haaaaa definitely.
I just don't see any benefit in 4:3 or opening the upper and lower matting.

Our eyes are situated on and in our head horizontally. Not vertically.

I don't even like it when people don't turn their phone when shooting video.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I'm certain that at the end of our universe, the brains in jars we'll evolve into will still be discussing the correct aspect ratio of The Shining.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by MisterFantastic

Looks terrible, VC-1 codec, 17mbs bitrate, filtered video, looks like something off YouTube.

It's not that terrible, but yeah, it's filtered. Full of DNR side effects like motion lag (every time there's a fast movement, you see a trail of ghost images from the previous frames). There's also static grain in some shots.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Haaaaa definitely.
I just don't see any benefit in 4:3 or opening the upper and lower matting.

Our eyes are situated on and in our head horizontally. Not vertically.

I don't even like it when people don't turn their phone when shooting video.

In that case you should only watch Cinerama films.

I like the academy ratio and I like it when the occasional modern film uses it. I'm more concerned with composition than with where our eyes are situated and I enjoy it when a ratio is consciously chosen as part of the visual language of a film rather than because that makes easier to show on TV.

[fontcow]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I'm certain that at the end of our universe, the brains in jars we'll evolve into will still be discussing the correct aspect ratio of The Shining.

I'll be fine with this as long as my last name isn't Hfuhruhurr or Uumellmahaye.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by oldgame

Yes all versions and aspect ratio's should be included with the Shinning. This guy seems to have alot of good information http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=35701

NO, because there is only ONE aspect ratio.

You can always, always only have ONE aspect ratio for which a movie (or any composition) is framed. You CANNOT compose for 2 different aspect ratios at the same time. One is the REAL composition, the other is a SAFE FRAME. That's it. Not sure who many times I have to say it for people to get it.

The Shining was COMPOSED in camera for 1.85, because that's how it would be projected theatrically. Even the official storyboards confirm this. End of story.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

Second, Kubrick insisted on those because he DIDN'T WANT BLACK BARS ON THE TV SHOWINGS.

It had nothing to do with Kubrick not wanted black bars, pillar-boxing or letterboxing on TV showings, he didn't want television networks to recompose his compositions without his input, so he provided a safe 4:3 version for television.

His 4:3 versions were intended for home viewing to suit the technology of that time. I'd imagine if he was shooting 2.39:1 movies today he'd provide 16:9 versions on the off-chance that networks would want to crop his work.

Personally I'd like to see both options presented, they're out there now, let everyone be happy about their purchases.

A remastered version with both cuts and both aspect ratios along with the documentary would be a nice set.

[Geoff D]

Even today some directors still ensure that there are 'approved' alternate ratio versions of their work. Before anyone (well, Bates) jumps down my throat: no, I'm not implying that a filmmaker approved pan and scan version of an anamorphic film (to give an extreme example) should be included as an option with just any film, but in these specific circumstances and in lieu of actual input from the director to elucidate further (he dead) I simply wouldn't have a problem with a multiple aspect edition of some of Kubrick's works.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I simply wouldn't have a problem with a multiple aspect edition of some of Kubrick's works.

I wouldn't either and even if you don't personally agree with one version or another, once it's out there, that's it, it will garner fans and appreciation regardless of its artistic merit.