The Shining (1980)

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by 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.

LOL, I wouldn't jump down your throat, because you actually understand the difference, and I always enjoy either agreeing or disagreeing with you based on that.

[The Fallen Deity]

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.

We'd be discussing the aspect ratios of his films in general.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

We'd be discussing the aspect ratios of his films in general.

This one and Barry Lyndon appear the most obsessively discussed in this regard, but due to it being a horror film The Shining gets discussed far more.

With 2001 it's always all about how it needs a new transfer, ideally a gazillion K one.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

This one and Barry Lyndon appear the most obsessively discussed in this regard, but due to it being a horror film The Shining gets discussed far more.

With 2001 it's always all about how it needs a new transfer, ideally a gazillion K one.

Yeah this and Barry Lyndon do indeed seem to be the two Kubrick films where the aspect ratio get discussed frequently.

As for 2001, I don't know about a gazillion K one but it definitely needs a new transfer.

[hendersd]

Hopefully we will see a 50th anniversary edition of 2001 in 2018. Make it so.
As far as ratios go, I'm such a maniac that I bought both versions of The Abyss on laserdisc; one widescreen an the other open matte (shot in super 35). The "open matte" version was cropped on the sides though. I recall wishing they would just open it up all the way around, with no cropping.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by hendersd

Hopefully we will see a 50th anniversary edition of 2001 in 2018. Make it so.
As far as ratios go, I'm such a maniac that I bought both versions of The Abyss on laserdisc; one widescreen an the other open matte (shot in super 35). The "open matte" version was cropped on the sides though. I recall wishing they would just open it up all the way around, with no cropping.

"Open-matte" is actually kind of a misnomer when talking about Super 35. Open-matte specifically refers to films which are shot with spherical lenses to yield a 1.37:1 aspect ratio, with the intention of the top and bottom being (more-or-less) evenly cropped by mattes in the projector to produce the 1.85:1 (or so) ratio seen on the screen. Super 35 also used spherical lenses, but exposed more of the negative than normal 35mm cinematography (taking up the space normally reserved for the optical audio). The final aspect ratio (usually 2.40:1) is achieved by reframing the image during the printing process, and prints would go out to theaters already hard-matted to the intended ratio. (In the very rare cases of 1.85 films shot in Super 35, I'm not sure if the final prints would have been hard-matted or not.)

Then, on pre-HD video transfers, the full exposed negative could be considered in re-framing the image for 4:3 televisions. For both open-matte and Super 35 films, the amount of cropping and opening up would often vary from shot to shot.

As for Kubrick, from what I understand, he approved the 4:3 masters for The Shining, FMJ, EWS in the early 90s, and he considered those the definitive home video versions. He died in 1999; widescreen TVs were around, but they had not become the standard yet. Had he lived a little longer, it's very possible he would have reconsidered. But that is speculation, of course.

I'm happy with the 16:9 versions, as that is very close to what would have been seen in theaters, and all evidence suggests Kubrick intended the cinematic experience to be framed that way. But I certainly wouldn't mind the two ratios for those three films co-existing.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

This one and Barry Lyndon appear the most obsessively discussed in this regard, but due to it being a horror film The Shining gets discussed far more.

With 2001 it's always all about how it needs a new transfer, ideally a gazillion K one.

Lyndon is the only Kubrick release that I'll say is objectively wrong. There's verified documents sent to projectionists in which Kubrick himself says it should be presented in 1.66. Either WB completely f#cked up the Blu-Ray transfer and Leon Vitali was called in for damage control and came up with the bullsh!t lie that Kubrick always intended for 1.78, or Vitali f#cked up and told the transfer people incorrect information. Even if all the post-BL stuff stays 1.85 forever, if we can get BL fixed, I'll be happy.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BNex99

For both open-matte and Super 35 films, the amount of cropping and opening up would often vary from shot to shot.

Indeed, because no frame is kept completely clean from beginning to end, I don't care how fastidious the director is, and even in the 'opened up' versions there are questions of aesthetics, however compromised they're considered to be.

The demo on the T2 UE DVD about how the two versions compare is extremely enlightening, showing the full aperture as captured (complete with boom mic in some shots) with overlays of both the 2.35 and 4:3 framing. Some of the 4:3 shots are much taller than the 2.35, others are virtually pan and scan in their severity. As the accompanying text notes say, there were 1625 separate decisions re: the reframing in one reel alone!

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Lyndon is the only Kubrick release that I'll say is objectively wrong. There's verified documents sent to projectionists in which Kubrick himself says it should be presented in 1.66. Either WB completely f#cked up the Blu-Ray transfer and Leon Vitali was called in for damage control and came up with the bullsh!t lie that Kubrick always intended for 1.78, or Vitali f#cked up and told the transfer people incorrect information. Even if all the post-BL stuff stays 1.85 forever, if we can get BL fixed, I'll be happy.

There's only 1.67% difference between 1.75:1 and 1.78:1. By contrast, there's a 3.78% difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1.

Barry Lyndon is actually closer to its OAR than The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut on Blu-Ray.

[Geoff D]

I've never minded Lyndon's ratio on Blu. I'd love to see it in 1.66 someday but by Kubrick's own hand we know that 1.75 was tolerable for him so the 1.78 on the Blu is close enough for it to be nothing like the act of sacrilege that some folks like to paint it as.

Still, last time I watched it was the 1.59 DVD.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

There's only 1.67% difference between 1.75:1 and 1.78:1. By contrast, there's a 3.78% difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1.

Barry Lyndon is actually closer to its OAR than The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut on Blu-Ray.

Did you even read my post? The OAR was 1.66, not 1.75. 1.75 was the maximum width Kubrick would allow. And yet going even further beyond that is totally fine?

And with the 1.85-1.78 thing, all they're doing is cropping the open matte version to 1.78. You're seeing more, not less, information. When you're cropping from 1.66 to 1.78, you're losing 7.22% of the image on the top and bottom.

[Geoff D]

But given the somewhat imprecise nature of any kind of theatrical masking it's not unreasonable to think that the 1.78 video version is framed more accurately than a theatrical 1.75 projection, if you take my meaning, so I'm happy to say "eh, close enough".

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Lyndon is the only Kubrick release that I'll say is objectively wrong. There's verified documents sent to projectionists in which Kubrick himself says it should be presented in 1.66. Either WB completely f#cked up the Blu-Ray transfer and Leon Vitali was called in for damage control and came up with the bullsh!t lie that Kubrick always intended for 1.78, or Vitali f#cked up and told the transfer people incorrect information. Even if all the post-BL stuff stays 1.85 forever, if we can get BL fixed, I'll be happy.

The difference is a small sliver of the image which I'm not losing any sleep over. Instead I'm enjoying what is my second favourite Kubrick film in glorious HD.

My point was that I can't see what these endless, circular discussions where the same "evidence" gets endlessly repeated are supposed to achieve. The irony is that then people take the examples I gave to immediately start up two more of the three tedious discussions again.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

Barry Lyndon is actually closer to its OAR than The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut on Blu-Ray.

...yeech. You must be one of those "Full Frame or Bust" folk.

The full frame transfers of the 80s and 90s Kubrick films never looked right to me. The widescreen transfers are absolute heaven IMO.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

...yeech. You must be one of those "Full Frame or Bust" folk.



The full frame transfers of the 80s and 90s Kubrick films never looked right to me. The widescreen transfers are absolute heaven IMO.

To be fair, whatever the director & cinematographer chose is the correct aspect ratio.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

...yeech. You must be one of those "Full Frame or Bust" folk.

The full frame transfers of the 80s and 90s Kubrick films never looked right to me. The widescreen transfers are absolute heaven IMO.

I think you've completely misunderstood what he's saying in your haste to pour scorn on the poor misguided "full framers". He's saying that the 1.78 Blu-ray of Lyndon is technically closer to the "all right, if you must" 1.75 framing recommended by Kubrick than the 1.78 Blu-rays of those other flicks are to their intended 1.85 aspect. Capito?

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think you've completely misunderstood what he's saying in your haste to pour scorn on the poor misguided "full framers". He's saying that the 1.78 Blu-ray of Lyndon is technically closer to the "all right, if you must" 1.75 framing recommended by Kubrick than the 1.78 Blu-rays of those other flicks are to their intended 1.85 aspect. Capito?

Oh gotcha.

I don't necessarily hate full framers. I'm just expressing that I never liked the framing of those transfers even back in the day.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

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?

March 1999.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by chip75

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.

You've got it wrong. The whole issue started with Criterion. They expressly asked Kubrick if he wanted his films letterboxed in their theatrical aspect ratio and he refused. He wanted them open matted, warts'n all for 4x3 tv's EVEN when given the assurance that they wouldn't be "recomposed", as you say.
He wouldn't have to worry about TV airings, as they would have been shown open matted regardless of his opinion.
The bottom line is people claiming for these open matted transfers CLEARLY never saw a Kubrick on the big screen.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

You've got it wrong. The whole issue started with Criterion. They expressly asked Kubrick if he wanted his films letterboxed in their theatrical aspect ratio and he refused. He wanted them open matted, warts'n all for 4x3 tv's EVEN when given the assurance that they wouldn't be "recomposed", as you say.
He wouldn't have to worry about TV airings, as they would have been shown open matted regardless of his opinion.

This isn't really right either. (Strictly speaking, I'd point out that the Criterion "Lolita" wasn't 4x3, for reasons that seem a lot murkier than the question of why "Strangelove" wasn't 4x3.) After "2001", Kubrick specifically composed the films in such a way that TV airings that were open matted would still be an "approved" composition. This was because he was so disappointed with the way "2001" looked when shown on TV (I have seen some people add that "Spartacus" was a factor as well, that even though he felt less ownership of the film, he still didn't like the way it looked on TV).

I would agree that the issue was only retroactively applied to the pre "2001" movies besides "Spartacus" once Criterion released their laserdiscs, but the "worrying about TV airings" motivation overall can't be dismissed as blanketly as you do.