The Shining (1980) - Blu-ray Forum

Scott1174 · 03-22-2007, 08:14 PM

Has the Shining been announced for Blue Ray or HD?

DTMoney84 · 03-22-2007, 08:26 PM

Not for Blu-ray it hasn't

Josh · 03-22-2007, 08:34 PM

Use question marks. They are your friend.

Jack Torrance · 03-22-2007, 08:37 PM

Actually, from the HTF discussion transcript from 2/27/07

We're not ready to reveal details on this year's Kubrick promotion as they are still somewhat formulating, but a promotion will definitely be in stores before Xmas.

and

[JoeGarcia] Any chance we'll see more Kubrick on Blu-Ray this year? Thanks for supporting high-def and thanks for being here!

[WARNER] Yes you will see more Kubrick on HD-DVD and Blu Ray before the year is over.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...07htfchat.html

Not an announcement of The Shining, but some info nonetheless...

Knight-Errant · 03-22-2007, 08:40 PM

Look forward to it!

Jack Torrance · 03-22-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

Look forward to it!

As much as I would like to boycott WB - you know me -- I want that Shining!!!

Deciazulado · 03-23-2007, 01:30 AM

The French article with their list (a translation of the list is around here somewhere) had several Kubricks for around Christmas. I hope they do it in the proper 1.85 ratio.

Banjo · 03-23-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The French article with their list (a translation of the list is around here somewhere) had several Kubricks for around Christmas. I hope they do it in the proper 1.85 ratio.

It was released to the theatres in 1.85:1 but the movie was filmed in 1.37:1 though I'll have to mention that it was released in 1.66:1 in Europe.

So which is the true original aspect ratio? :-/

Probably the negative ratio since Stanley Kubrick was pretty anti-widescreen in his later years.

Deciazulado · 03-23-2007, 02:07 AM

What did I just say?

javayoda · 03-23-2007, 02:12 AM

I don't think Kubrick liked black bars on a 4:3 television. I remember an interview with Kubrick's assistant Leon Vitali. He stated future high-def Kubrick releases with the exception of 2001 would be released in 4:3 per Stanley's wishes. Since then, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut have been shown in high-definition 1.85 widescreen on various cable and satellite channels. As we all know, Full Metal Jacket is widescreen on Blu-Ray. Frankly, I'm pleased Warner Brothers and the Kubrick estate have re-evaluated this position.

I think Kubrick, had he lived, may very well have changed his mind with the advent of quality 16:9 displays.

I want Barry Lyndon on BD50.

Knight-Errant · 03-23-2007, 03:11 PM

Yeah I've been puzzling about this issue too. I knew Stanley preferred 4:3 to letterbox, but then the situation is very different now.

You can get an affordable video projector that will fill your wall with a WS image. It's a different reality essentially.

So I of course support WS BD versions of Kubrick movies.

Deciazulado · 03-23-2007, 03:48 PM

I hope you all are aware that movies have been projected in Widescreen in the US since the mid fifties, and the USA spherical widescreen ratio is 1.85 and no movie composed for Academy 1.37 can be projected cropped into 1.85 without damaging it. So what do you think a movie made for a US company like Warner for exhibition in the US was composed for?

I've seen the last 7 Kubrick's films in the theater except one, even have projected some of them. All in 1.85 except 2001 which was a 70mm print.

marzetta7 · 03-23-2007, 04:11 PM

redrum....Redrum...REDRUM...REDRUM!!!

Deciazulado · 03-23-2007, 04:27 PM

REDRUM !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

It was released to the theatres in 1.85:1 but the movie was filmed in 1.37:1 though I'll have to mention that it was released in 1.66:1 in Europe.

So which is the true original aspect ratio? :-/

Probably the negative ratio since Stanley Kubrick was pretty anti-widescreen in his later years.

Oh and just to clear something up, movies are not released IN 1.85 or 1.66, they are projected AT 1.85 and 1.66.

it's a slighly different concept. There's no separate "1.66" print and "1.85" print.

It's the same print for both (a 35mm spherical 1.37 print).

The projector aperture on a 1.66 screen just shows more height of the print.

The negatives (and prints) of most spherical widescreen movies you have seen have an 1.37 image exposed on them, unless they used a hard matte on the camera or in printing. That's why you see them have more image in most 4:3 video transfers, they're showing the negative camera exposure "naked"

Jack Torrance · 03-23-2007, 04:35 PM

Kubrick post 2001 composed the ratio of his films to support both full frame and matted 1:85 (a fail safe in case the projectionist showing it messed it up somehow... this is also why the soundtracks of Kubrick's films up to as late as Full Metal Jacket were Mono, because how do you screw up Mono?) - but only the full frame version was allowed TV and for home video/dvd releases.

Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining (and I believe Barry Lyndon?) where shown recently on the HD Net movie channel in 16x9 transfers and looked gorgeous.

Frankly, I prefer the Shining in the matted 1:85 ratio... lops off the helicopter shadows and rotor blades visible in the opening sequence.

I definitely think Kubrick, with the advancement in technology of digital sets, would've approved 16x9 transfers of his movies.

javayoda · 03-23-2007, 05:39 PM

You're absolutely right. Kubrick composed his later films for 16:9 and 4:3 knowing they would eventually make their way to television. It's nice to know the helicopter shadow and rotor blades are cropped from the 1.85 version. I've never seen The Shining widescreen (and it's one of my favorite films).

Come on Warners!

Deciazulado · 03-23-2007, 06:38 PM

Sorry. You can't compose for two ratios.

You can compose for ONE, and protect for another.

Compose for 1.85, protect for 1.37. Possible

Compose for 1.37, and protect for 1.85. Kimpossible.

In the first case you show extra empty space in the 1.37 ratio.

In the second case, you crop out and amputate the elements you carefully composed for in 1.37 when you crop to 1.85. Not possible.

Case closed.
Next

Jack Torrance · 03-23-2007, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Sorry. You can't compose for two ratios.

You can compose for ONE, and protect for another.

Compose for 1.85, protect for 1.37. Possible

Compose for 1.37, and protect for 1.85. Kimpossible.

In the first case you show extra empty space in the 1.37 ratio.

In the second case, you crop out and amputate the elements you carefully composed for in 1.37 when you crop to 1.85. Not possible.

Case closed.
Next

Well okay Mr Picky

-- compose was a bad choice of word, forgive me. But compose for 1:85 and protect 1:37 is more correct. But Kubrick tried to make everything as foolproof as possible as it was his way not to trust anyone once the film was out of his hands. Woe the theater owner who had one of Kubrick's spies there and everything wasn't just perfect.

Anyway, please don't send me to detention or wear the dunces cap.

Deciazulado · 03-23-2007, 07:32 PM

hey where do you get that idea. Most people here are advanced class.

All I want is for you to ace your tests and be prepared for when you go out into the field. Full Metal Jacket

javayoda · 03-23-2007, 07:48 PM

If anyone could compose for both it'd be Stanley Kubrick.

Picking nits aside, how about Dr. Strangelove? Some versions of the film change aspect ratio while you're watching.

03-22-2007, 08:14 PM	#1
Scott1174 New Member Member since:Mar 2007	The Shining (1980) Has the Shining been announced for Blue Ray or HD? Last edited by Scottie; 03-12-2017 at 04:52 PM.

03-23-2007, 02:12 AM	#10
javayoda Member Member since:Jan 2007	I don't think Kubrick liked black bars on a 4:3 television. I remember an interview with Kubrick's assistant Leon Vitali. He stated future high-def Kubrick releases with the exception of 2001 would be released in 4:3 per Stanley's wishes. Since then, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut have been shown in high-definition 1.85 widescreen on various cable and satellite channels. As we all know, Full Metal Jacket is widescreen on Blu-Ray. Frankly, I'm pleased Warner Brothers and the Kubrick estate have re-evaluated this position. I think Kubrick, had he lived, may very well have changed his mind with the advent of quality 16:9 displays. I want Barry Lyndon on BD50. Last edited by javayoda; 03-23-2007 at 02:16 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
The Shining three different running times on Blu-ray	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Q?	203	02-24-2017 11:44 AM
The Shining on Blu for only £9.99	Region B Deals	Disco_And	0	01-13-2009 10:14 PM
The release of Shining on Blu Ray it is expected ???	Blu-ray Movies - North America	7eVEn	3	05-06-2007 08:58 PM

03-22-2007, 08:26 PM	#2
DTMoney84 Active Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Philadelphia, PA	Not for Blu-ray it hasn't

03-22-2007, 08:34 PM	#3
Josh Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Sep 2006 Home Theater Gallery:50 4K collection:37 Blu-ray collection:407 Digital collection:1 Blu-ray reviews: 15 Trading Score:34	Use question marks. They are your friend.

03-22-2007, 08:37 PM	#4
Jack Torrance Special Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Overlook Hotel Blu-ray reviews:1	Actually, from the HTF discussion transcript from 2/27/07 We're not ready to reveal details on this year's Kubrick promotion as they are still somewhat formulating, but a promotion will definitely be in stores before Xmas. and [JoeGarcia] Any chance we'll see more Kubrick on Blu-Ray this year? Thanks for supporting high-def and thanks for being here! [WARNER] Yes you will see more Kubrick on HD-DVD and Blu Ray before the year is over. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...07htfchat.html Not an announcement of The Shining, but some info nonetheless...

03-22-2007, 08:40 PM	#5
Knight-Errant Power Member Member since:Aug 2005 Location:Sheffield, UK	Look forward to it!

03-23-2007, 01:30 AM	#7
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7041 DVD collection:4040	The French article with their list (a translation of the list is around here somewhere) had several Kubricks for around Christmas. I hope they do it in the proper 1.85 ratio.

03-23-2007, 02:07 AM	#9
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7041 DVD collection:4040	What did I just say?

03-23-2007, 03:11 PM	#11
Knight-Errant Power Member Member since:Aug 2005 Location:Sheffield, UK	Yeah I've been puzzling about this issue too. I knew Stanley preferred 4:3 to letterbox, but then the situation is very different now. You can get an affordable video projector that will fill your wall with a WS image. It's a different reality essentially. So I of course support WS BD versions of Kubrick movies.

03-23-2007, 03:48 PM	#12
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7041 DVD collection:4040	I hope you all are aware that movies have been projected in Widescreen in the US since the mid fifties, and the USA spherical widescreen ratio is 1.85 and no movie composed for Academy 1.37 can be projected cropped into 1.85 without damaging it. So what do you think a movie made for a US company like Warner for exhibition in the US was composed for? I've seen the last 7 Kubrick's films in the theater except one, even have projected some of them. All in 1.85 except 2001 which was a 70mm print.

03-23-2007, 04:11 PM	#13
marzetta7 Special Member Member since:Feb 2006	redrum....Redrum...REDRUM...REDRUM!!!

03-23-2007, 04:35 PM	#15
Jack Torrance Special Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Overlook Hotel Blu-ray reviews:1	Kubrick post 2001 composed the ratio of his films to support both full frame and matted 1:85 (a fail safe in case the projectionist showing it messed it up somehow... this is also why the soundtracks of Kubrick's films up to as late as Full Metal Jacket were Mono, because how do you screw up Mono?) - but only the full frame version was allowed TV and for home video/dvd releases. Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining (and I believe Barry Lyndon?) where shown recently on the HD Net movie channel in 16x9 transfers and looked gorgeous. Frankly, I prefer the Shining in the matted 1:85 ratio... lops off the helicopter shadows and rotor blades visible in the opening sequence. I definitely think Kubrick, with the advancement in technology of digital sets, would've approved 16x9 transfers of his movies.

03-23-2007, 05:39 PM	#16
javayoda Member Member since:Jan 2007	You're absolutely right. Kubrick composed his later films for 16:9 and 4:3 knowing they would eventually make their way to television. It's nice to know the helicopter shadow and rotor blades are cropped from the 1.85 version. I've never seen The Shining widescreen (and it's one of my favorite films). Come on Warners!

03-23-2007, 06:38 PM	#17
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7041 DVD collection:4040	Sorry. You can't compose for two ratios. You can compose for ONE, and protect for another. Compose for 1.85, protect for 1.37. Possible Compose for 1.37, and protect for 1.85. Kimpossible. In the first case you show extra empty space in the 1.37 ratio. In the second case, you crop out and amputate the elements you carefully composed for in 1.37 when you crop to 1.85. Not possible. Case closed. Next

03-23-2007, 07:32 PM	#19
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7041 DVD collection:4040	hey where do you get that idea. Most people here are advanced class. All I want is for you to ace your tests and be prepared for when you go out into the field. Full Metal Jacket

03-23-2007, 07:48 PM	#20
javayoda Member Member since:Jan 2007	If anyone could compose for both it'd be Stanley Kubrick. Picking nits aside, how about Dr. Strangelove? Some versions of the film change aspect ratio while you're watching.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals