Stanley Kubrick Collection

Message

dx23 · #51 Post by **dx23** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:44 pm

From thedigitalbits.com:

Look for 4 new Stanley Kubrick SEs including 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Shining (1980) and the original unrated version Eyes Wide Shut (1999). Each will include new documentaries and never-before-seen footage blessed by the Kubrick Estate (although don't look for deleted scenes - Stanley himself never wanted them released).

Info on re-releases here

Titus · #52 Post by **Titus** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:23 pm

Uhh----Barry Lyndon? Full Metal Jacket? Barry Lyndon? Lolita? Barry Lyndon? Come on, they're not going to half-ass it on us now, are they?

jedgeco · #53 Post by **jedgeco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:30 pm

justeleblanc wrote:
Ben45 wrote:To help with the WS/FS Kubrick debate I'd like to weigh in with some evidence here. I own said massive book (The Stanly Kubirck Archives, a masterpiece of a book) and in one story board it is very clear what the OAR should be. He included a note on it that it should be in widescreen (I forget the actual ratio) for theaters and fullscreen (again, forget) for home video. He makes the boxes and handwrites the ARs for each format. If I was home I'd take a picture of it and will when I get the chance
This only helps if this quote existed before the mass explosion of 16:9 televisions.

Well, let's look at the language in SK's note that is shown in the picture:

"The frame is 1-1:85 Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area

(emphasis added)

"Compose" for 1.85. "But protect" for 1.33. His words tell me two things: 1) Contrary to past speculation, SK "composed" his shots (for The Shining at least) for 1.85 theatrical presentation, not full appature projection. While doing so, he still "protected" the full frame for future television presentation. 2) SK was not dogmatic about aspect ratios but composed his shots with hope films would look proper in the aspect ratio best suited for a particular medium (I.e., 1.85 in the theater, 1.33 for television).

Now that TV screen sizes are (much) larger and increasingly widescreen, I think this weighs heavily in favor of a widescreen (1.85 or 1.77) option for The Shining, FMJ, and EWS.

Oedipax · #54 Post by **Oedipax** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:51 am

jedgeco wrote:
"The frame is 1-1:85 Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area

(emphasis added)

Very interesting, thank you for that quote. I have to say I'm inclined to agree now that the films should be seen in their theatrical ratios. I say this despite feeling that The Shining looks amazing in 1.33:1.

ben d banana · #55 Post by **ben d banana** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:03 am

Except for that damn helicopter shadow.

jedgeco · #56 Post by **jedgeco** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:32 pm

Also, in the DVDTalk forum linked above, someone links to a very interesting 2001 alt.video.dvd post by David Mullen (allegedly the same David Mullen who's the DP of "Norfolk" and "D.E.B.S.," among others):

>I believe it is in it's full beauty, just like Eyes Wide Shut. Filmed
>in 4:3 - as the director intended. So you are not missing anything. As
>a matter of fact, if the 16:9 ever comes out, it will be the butchered
>version.

That's inaccurate. The later films were composed for matted widescreen theatrical release, which means matted to 1.85. On the Kubrick newsgroup, someone who worked with Kubrick as an assistant editor on "The Shining" has stated that all camera and editing equipment were marked to indicate the 1.85 cropping. The steadicam operator Garrett Brown has also stated that all of his steadicam work was framed for 1.85.

Ths is also blatently obviously in all the medium close-ups in the film, which are unusually low in frame in the matted TV version. In the transfer of "Eyes Wide Shut", which Kubrick did NOT supervise, the headroom and framing has been adjusted to look "correct" in full-frame, while the transfers of "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" are straight unmatted transfers with no framing adjustments -- hence the odd headroom and dead space above people's heads in a number of shots.

Kubrick simply preferred that his films be shown unmatted on 4:3 TV's -- he didn't compose them for 1.33, or else they would have been oddly cropped-looking in the movie theaters (ever seen an old Academy 1.37 film cropped to 1.85? Looks terrible.) He wanted them to be transferred full-frame to 4:3 video, hence why "Dr. Strangelove" comes out as having multiple aspect ratios (since now some in-camera mattes have become visible that weren't seen theatrically), and why "Clockwork Orange" is slightly letterboxed but has one scene with a different hard matte, and why "Barry Lyndon" is slightly letterboxed, since it also used a camera matte. His last three films were shot unmatted, so no mattes appear in the transfer.

When he's been asked about his PREFERRED projection format for film festivals, he's asked for a 1.66 : 1 matte to be used -- not to show them projected in 1.33 even though a film festival could do that.

Apparently for "Barry Lyndon" he had 1.66 mattes sent to all the theaters showing the film that only had 1.85 mattes. But by "The Shining", I think he realized that 1.85 was going to be used, since it was going to get a much wider release than "Barry Lyndon" and 1.85 was becoming the world-wide standard for matted widescreen projection.

So to say that a matted widescreen version would be "butchered" is inaccurate and misleading. Kubrick never indicated what he thought should be done for his films if 16:9 TV ever became commonplace (which is hasn't yet.) I doubt he would have insisted on a 4:3 image boxed on the sides of 16:9.

In any case, a 1.66 : 1 matte would preserve the aspect ratio that Kubrick seemed to prefer for theatrical projection. It wouldn't be a "butchering" of the image since Kubrick was making films primarily for widescreen movie theaters, not for 4:3 TV. Anyway, the 4:3 full-frame transfers of his films, the ones that he supervised, are currently available for those who want to see them.
David Mullen

I find the reference (although unsourced) to SK's preferences for festival screenings especially telling.

Also the reference to Garrett Brown lead me to this long-forgotten post on the Kubrick newsgroup I remember years back:

Aug 29 1997, 2:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
Subject: Garrett Brown Confirms Shining Aspect Ratio

A couple of days ago I contacted Garrett Brown (Steadicam inventor and operator on The Shining) with respect to our raging debate over the aspect ratio of The Shining. Mr. Brown very kindly replied today. His message is as follows:

"Dave, The Shining was shot without hard matte, composed for 1:1.85."

That should put an end to the debate. I have to say that all of the cinematographers, director-cinematographers, and camera assistant-types at amk knew this was the case. It can also be said that The Shining is a masterfully shot film, particularly if extremely well-informed, intelligent viewers felt that it could have been or even (in the case of one particularly strident amker) WAS composed for Academy.

Bottom line: The Shining is a 1:1.85 film. Put that factoid in the achives and let's move on, kids.

As for FMJ, this would tend to support the contention that it isn't an Academy film either. The only question is whether or not it's 1.66 or 1.85.

Again, Brown's word (like Kubrick's on the storyboard) is "composed" for 1.85.

Based on this and all the evidence I've seen over the years, I cannot believe that SK would have wanted viewers watching his films on 16x9 sets to watch them framed at 4x3 with grey side bars, so an anamorphic widescreen transfer framed at 1.66/1.77/1.85 should at least be an *option* on the new discs.

Lino · #57 Post by **Lino** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:38 am

Rumours are flying about the possible inclusion of both fullscreen and widescreen versions being offered in the recently announced Special Editions. Of course that this doesn't mean that 2001 will have a fullframe optional presentation, obviously! This only applies to all the others that are causing some of the most heated online debate right now.

If this is to happen, it will be a smart move on the part of Warners to please (almost) everyone. This way, Kubrick's wishes about TV presentations will be fulfilled and you'll also get the option to view it as it originally screened theatrically in the comfort and commodity of your own personal Home Cinema installation!

che-etienne · #58 Post by **che-etienne** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:51 am

Well, David Mullen and Garrett Brown have certainly convinced me. I can't wait to see those films again the way they were meant to be seen in the theatres. And this goes for all the ones currently available in academy ratio.

Andre Jurieu · #59 Post by **Andre Jurieu** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:09 am

Annie Mall wrote:This way, Kubrick's wishes about TV presentations will be fulfilled...

I'm just wondering (this is just a general question) ... in 10 years, when 95% of the people who own a TV have widescreen displays, will people still be telling us that Kubrick wanted his films shown in 1:33? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me considering the actually reason Kubrick did it will no longer be an issue once the majority of consumers switch over to widescreen TVs.

Lino · #60 Post by **Lino** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:53 am

I think it's also safe to assume that these upcoming SE's will be akin to the recent Wizard of Oz in terms of DVD production: special packagings, bonus booklets, trinkets and such, soundtrack CDs, posters are likely to be included in the sets. One hopes, at least.

tavernier · #61 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:31 pm

Annie Mall wrote:I think it's also safe to assume that these upcoming SE's will be akin to the recent Wizard of Oz in terms of DVD production: special packagings, bonus booklets, trinkets and such, soundtrack CDs, posters are likely to be included in the sets. One hopes, at least.

Now you're getting TOO optimistic!

skuhn8 · #62 Post by **skuhn8** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:01 pm

Annie Mall wrote:I think it's also safe to assume that these upcoming SE's will be akin to the recent Wizard of Oz in terms of DVD production: special packagings, bonus booklets, trinkets and such, soundtrack CDs, posters are likely to be included in the sets. One hopes, at least.

Actually, this is a pretty safe bet as this'll be the third release of the collection. They aren't going to barebones again. Especially considering how Warners is shooting for glory in their special editions nowadays. It's not like Kubrick pulled a Woody Allen or anything saying "no extra shit allowed".

tavernier · #63 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:08 pm

skuhn8 wrote:
Annie Mall wrote:I think it's also safe to assume that these upcoming SE's will be akin to the recent Wizard of Oz in terms of DVD production: special packagings, bonus booklets, trinkets and such, soundtrack CDs, posters are likely to be included in the sets. One hopes, at least.
Actually, this is a pretty safe bet as this'll be the third release of the collection. They aren't going to barebones again. Especially considering how Warners is shooting for glory in their special editions nowadays. It's not like Kubrick pulled a Woody Allen or anything saying "no extra shit allowed".

He did, according to his brother-in-law Jan Harlan. Harlan once wrote a letter to the NY Times complaining about a review of the last botched Warners set and was adamant about no extra material ever seeing the light of day, as per Stanley's wishes.

But the longer Kubrick stays dead, the less they adhere to that supposed wish.....

Gigi M. · #64 Post by **Gigi M.** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:50 am

Release Date - September 6

A Clockwork Orange 2 Disc SE
Eyes Wide Shut 2 Disc SE
The Shining 2 Disc SE
2001: A Space Odyssey 2 Disc SE

Gordon · #65 Post by **Gordon** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:43 pm

Any preferences on artwork?

2001: A Space Odyssey

A Clockwork Orange

The Shining

Or do you think that Warner will create all-new artwork? Those original posters were all great and represent each film very well.

flyonthewall2983 · #66 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:17 pm

There was an awesome 2001 fake Criterion cover posted somewhere of it which was a simple shot from the stargate sequence. I couldn't tell you where it was now, unfortunately.

Lino · #67 Post by **Lino** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:37 pm

I'm sure they will create new artwork just like they did for their reissues of Gone with the wind and Wizard of Oz. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to use and re-use the same bloody pictures over and over again.

oldsheperd · #68 Post by **oldsheperd** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:15 pm

No word on these yet from anywhere? I somehow imagine we won't see new editions til 2008.

chaddoli · #69 Post by **chaddoli** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:44 pm

With Kubrick retros popping up at various places, I think we will have these this year or early next.

Antoine Doinel · #70 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:24 pm

Guys, look a few posts up - it's supposed to be September this year.

tavernier · #71 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:34 pm

Which means Warner should be announcing them any day now.

oldsheperd · #72 Post by **oldsheperd** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:36 pm

Sorry, Antoine, there's just not a lot of buzz. Usually we here something definite like the Blade Runner, Searchers, Peckinpah, etc. posts.

Antoine Doinel · #73 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:58 pm

That's true - same deal with Bogie Signature Collection. It streets a week later and we've gotten the details already. I'm sure (and hope) an announcement is forthcoming for the Kubrick set. September is going to be an expensive month!

#74 Post by **kinjitsu** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:17 pm

FWIW, no Kubrick titles are currently listed as forthcoming/pending at Michael's Movie Mayhem.

FilmFanSea · #75 Post by **FilmFanSea** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:31 pm

kinjitsu wrote:FWIW, no Kubrick titles are currently listed as forthcoming/pending at Michael's Movie Mayhem.

Yes, but all four of the titles expected are currently listed as "Discontinued" at "Michael's", so a September release date certainly seems plausible.