Stanley Kubrick Collection

[godardslave]

All of Kubrick's 16 films? I'll remain slightly sceptical for now, but if that's actually the case, it'll be the boxset of the decade, let alone 2006!

16?

Well, okay then, the 12 feature films and the 4 miscellaneous works. Happy now?

I make it 13 feature films and 2 documentaries [the seafarers, day of the fight] for 15 total. Now, I'm happy.

[justeleblanc]

There's been rumors of this for awhile now, started by Kubrick's brother-in-law and producer, Jan Harlan. He said he wants all the films possible in the box (including some of the shorts) but will not, under ANY circumstances, be including Fear and Desire.

I probably wouldn't want to watch it anyway.

[Cinéslob]

16?

Well, okay then, the 12 feature films and the 4 miscellaneous works. Happy now?

I make it 13 feature films and 2 documentaries [the seafarers, day of the fight] for 15 total. Now, I'm happy.

No love for Flying Padre?

Well, in whatever case, I'm sure the new set will be a damn sight better than the current one.

[pzman84]

I hope they release both aspect ratios on the new discs. That way the controversy will be ended. As for the films he made, it may be 17, as it is rumored he made the UN-sponsored "World Assembly of Youth." However, no print has been found and, like "Seafarers," Kubirck denies he ever did it. I would be curious to now if MGM or Sony has plans for SEs of "Killer's Kiss," "The Killing," and "Paths of Glory," and who has the right to all of Kubrick's early shorts and "Fear and Desire" and if their will be DVDs of them. (I have the Elusive DVD of "Desire." Not desirable.)

[Mysterypez]

and who has the right to all of Kubrick's early shorts and "Fear and Desire" and if their will be DVDs of them. (I have the Elusive DVD of "Desire." Not desirable.)

Warner Bros. has DAY OF THE FIGHT and FLYING PADRE. Both were RKO product. I know good elements exist to DAY OF THE FIGHT. THE SEAFARERS looks as if it was renewed in 2000. The original claimant was the Seafarers Union, so maybe they renewed it? Maybe WB has it like the rest? FEAR AND DESIRE was under copyright to Kubrick's Uncle, a dentist who partially? fully? funded the film. I think the film is PD though as I can find no renewal notice for the film. The original neg to the film turned up in a lab in Puerto Rico of all places about 6-7 years ago and now resides at the LOC Conservation Center at the Wright Patterson Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio.

[oldsheperd]

I hope this won't be the definitve Kubrick collection. I've heard rumors about a special edition of 2001, any news on other Kubrick Warners releases get SE treatment?

[kevyip1]

2001 Space Odyssey also came in a big gray box as a limited collectors edition. This is/was? a Warner trend during the beggining of the DVD days, where they would release a film as a regular snapper release and also release a limited boxset that only included litograph and posters and other inane stuff. They did it also with Blade Runner, The Wizard of Oz, The Exorcist, Twister and the Dirty Dozen. Some of them are on sale right now at DDD for $19.99.

These box sets were not made by the studios. They were made by a company called Creative Design Arts, which is no long in business.

[dx23]

According to this http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread ... ost6411974 over at DVDTalk, all Stanley Kubrick films released on DVD by WB are going out-of-print. The listing shows the UPCs for all releases with the Stanley Kubrick Collection banner on top. It seems that the much rumored 2006 Special Edition re-releases are right on schedule and I just hope that they don't censor again Eyes Wide Shut.

[AZAI]

They deserve proper SE's......I would love Clockwork, Barry and the others. BTW is this only 'bout the region 1?

[Gordon]

I hope that with these new SEs finally sees Warner adopting anamorphic 1.66:1 transfering and we see such transfers for Lolita; A Clockwork Orange; Barry Lyndon; The Shining; Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. I used to tow the party line about "what Kubrick intended and wanted - 1.33:1" but now I am satisfied with what I have read and seen (ie. cropped/matted screen caps) and I feel that all of Kubrick's films from Lolita onwards should be anamorphic 1.66 or 1.78 on DVD.

2001 should be transfered in high-def from the 65mm neg or IP and encoded at the highest bitrate with NO edge-enhancement, only careful digital clean-up.

As for extra features, I am not sure what the best approach would be. They all should be 2-disc edition as most of the films have long running times.

Lolita should, at the very least, feature a new interview with Sue Lyons. Anamorphic widescreen.

2001 should feature the original promotional featurette that shows on-set footage and runs about 20 minutes. There was a documentary a few years ago 'hosted' by James Cameron that I found fluffy and dull and would not want it included. I personally would like to see interviews with Friedrich Nietzsche scholars, retired NASA/Moon-landing personel and insightful film scholars in addition to Keir Dullea and Arthur C. Clarke. There are so many possibilities here. Deleted scenes?

A Clockwork Orange should feature the UK (BBC ?) documentary which would be hard to surpass. Anamorphic widescreen.

Barry Lyndon deserves a a feature length documentary featuring all surviving leading actors and principle crew as well as Edgar F. Harden who seems to be the world's foremost authority on Thackeray. Anamorphic widescreen.

The Shining should still include the original making-of, but also feature new interviews, including Stephen King if he is willing, deleted scenes, etc. Anamorphic widescreen.

I'd love to hear a candid commentary featuring R. Lee Ermey on Full Metal Jacket. Anamorphic widescreen.

Eyes Wide Shut would be a trickier film approach at present, in regard to special features. At the very least, it should be totally uncut, uncensored, not zoomed-in in places and presented in anamorphic widescreen.

As ever, we'll have to wait and see.

[Ashirg]

I found this quite funny: Shining trailer

[Alonzo the Armless]

Too late

[che-etienne]

In the Ciment book on Kubrick, it seems to suggest that the 4:3 aspect ratio was specifically demanded by Kubrick as the proper viewing. I can see that, especially since 4:3 seems to work visually much better than any widescreen aspect ratio for the films which use it, these being: Eyes Wide Shut, Full Metal Jacket, and The Shining. Each film has very hypnotic symmetrical usage of the steadicam, and the 4:3 aspect ratio lends itself to such camera movement, especially the long tracking shots down corridors. Gus Van Sant was clearly profoundly influenced by this on "Elephant" which was shown at Cannes in 4:3 I believe, and is available in either aspect ratio on the DVD. As I recall, Kubrick was quite methodical and obsessive about how his films were viewed and experienced overall. He sent recommendations to theatres to recommend proper viewing conditions in terms of sound etc. He personally over saw what theatres were sent prints etc. Most of the time a filmmaker of such import wouldn't really bother with such details, but he did. If those dvds are in 4:3, then I think they're the way they should be. I own both "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" in current form, and I can definitely see why he would've liked 4:3 at least from my perspective. Even his more epic and grand endeavors like "Barry Lyndon" are resistant to going for true anamorphic widescreen. He get the frame quite tall on "Lyndon" to get the proper framing, giving that film the look of old David paintings or some such. Apparently on "2001" the producer had to really prod him to go with cinemascope. Anyway, enough rambling, I just think Kubrick had specified it pretty clearly.

[justeleblanc]

The parallels between Kubrick and Terri Shiavo are ridiculous.

[kevyip1]

To those who were going to sell their current Kubrick box sets...so how much did you sell it for??

Ebay is currently filled with an 11-disc Asian import that costs mostly between $10-20...

[rossbrew]

Speaking of Kubrick, I was in LA last week and managed to catch the screening of "Barry Lyndon" in a brand new print at the Aero Theatre- awesome! I've owned the dvd from the second Kubrick box set since it's arrival but have never had the pleasure of seeing BL on the big screen....they had the intermission as well- not to mention it was a fairly packed house. This film started originally as one of my less favored Kube's but has now emerged as my fave....

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Potential exciting news from Mobius[/b] message board:

Malcolm McDowell gave a 2hr talk in Melbourne last week (at the launch of the ACMI Stanley Kubrick exhibition) and spoke at length about his career. He did throw some hints to the audience that should be of interest to folks on this board. McDowell mentioned how he had been trying to get Lindsay Anderson's IF - among other titles from his back catalogue - onto DVD with a commentary by him, but had no luck until a recent oneoff screening organised by Jay Roach led to the studio that currently owns IF contacting him. McDowell bemoaned the difficulties in pursuading various studios to release certain older films, and mentioned a recent illustrative story. McDowell was contacted more recently to record a commentary for a particular Stanley Kubrick movie (no prizes for guessing which one) and responded that he would record a commentary for THAT film only if the studio would agree to let him record a commentary for a certain Lindsay Anderson film - made two years later - that he remains very fond of. The studio agreed. McDowell has recorded both commentaries. Both titles should be coming out next year.

McDowell's talk was a good one, and fans of his work should enjoy the above news if true.

[zedz]

O Lucky Us!

[yoshimori]

In the Ciment book on Kubrick, it seems to suggest that the 4:3 aspect ratio was specifically demanded by Kubrick as the proper viewing.

I couldn't find such a suggestion in the Ciment interviews. Could you point to something specific?

... 4:3 seems to work visually much better than any widescreen aspect ratio for the films which use it, these being: Eyes Wide Shut, Full Metal Jacket, and The Shining. Each film has very hypnotic symmetrical usage of the steadicam, and the 4:3 aspect ratio lends itself to such camera movement...

Whether it 'works visually much better' is, I guess, a matter of taste. But I'm sure that 4:3 is no more amenable to symmetrical compositions than any other aspect ratio. I'd think, even, that wider ratios would make it much easier for filmmakers to balance compositions around a center. No?

As I recall, Kubrick was quite methodical and obsessive about how his films were viewed and experienced overall. He sent recommendations to theatres to recommend proper viewing conditions in terms of sound etc. He personally over saw what theatres were sent prints etc.

I've seen Full Metal Jacket 24 times in the theater and The Shining probably over a dozen times in the theater - and even Eyes Wide Shut three or four times in the theater - and I have never seen any of these films projected at 4:3.

Anyway, enough rambling, I just think Kubrick had specified it pretty clearly.

My spies suggest that Kubrick shot The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut at full aperture, knowing (and framing) that they'd be matted to 1.66 in Europe and 1.85 in the US. The reason for making sure the 4:3 frame looked good, according to my sources, was that Kubrick was, as we know, a money whore and that he figured he lose video sales bucks if he insisted on letterboxing his films. So, since in addition to being a money whore he was an artist, he made sure the 4:3 image looked good. fwiw.

[justeleblanc]

Again, Kubrick vs. Schiavo

I had a similar experience. For me I could never get into Barry Lyndon on the small screen. I had to have two cups of coffee and see it on the big screen to really enjoy it.

Now the question is, what aspect ratio did you see this in?

[Joe Buck]

My local Walmart had "Eyes Wide Shut", "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" in the $5.50 bin.....

[flyonthewall2983]

Full Metal Jacket has just been announced as one of the new HD-DVD titles from WB to come out this spring.

[Gordon]

Apparently on "2001" the producer had to really prod him to go with cinemascope. Anyway, enough rambling, I just think Kubrick had specified it pretty clearly.

Well, I don't know where you pulled that from, as Kubrick was the only producer on the film. Victor Lyndon was an associate producer but he goes uncredited (like so many other crew members), so he obviously didn't have much clout.

The film was shot in 65mm in order to achieve excellent optical effects and the excellent front projection shots. Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing in selecting 65mm Super Panavision.

Full Metal Jacket Blu-Ray? It will be interesting to see how they present it: 1.33:1 or 1.78:1.

[anton]

Full Metal Jacket Blu-Ray? It will be interesting to see how they present it: 1.33:1 or 1.78:1.

My guess, both. On a Flipper.

[che-etienne]

Well, I don't know where you pulled that from, as Kubrick was the only producer on the film. Victor Lyndon was an associate producer but he goes uncredited (like so many other crew members), so he obviously didn't have much clout.

I remember reading this too in the Ciment book. But I didn't mean any of the stuff I said as if I was 100% sure. I read the book a while back, and not in its entirety. Also, my copy of it is unfortunately back home, so I cannot verify.

I do recall now, however, that the comments about Kubrick's choice of aspect ratio were not as I claimed before found in the Ciment book, but may have actually been in Alexander Walker's book "Stanley Kubrick, Director". I think though that perhaps Walker and his fellow author's Ruchti and Taylor were merely assuming that such was Kubrick's preference.

The 2001 tidbit I'm fairly sure comes from Ciment's book, and is either in his introduction or in one of his interviews. Perhaps his interview with Alcott?

The film was shot in 65mm in order to achieve excellent optical effects and the excellent front projection shots. Kubrick knew exactly what he was doing in selecting 65mm Super Panavision.

I'm not doubting he didn't. He is perhaps one of my all-time favorites, so I believe in the utmost that every decision he made was calculated and for a reason. I was just passing along information.

I couldn't find such a suggestion in the Ciment interviews. Could you point to something specific?

Sorry... as I said, I am at the moment absent my copy.

Whether it 'works visually much better' is, I guess, a matter of taste. But I'm sure that 4:3 is no more amenable to symmetrical compositions than any other aspect ratio. I'd think, even, that wider ratios would make it much easier for filmmakers to balance compositions around a center. No?

Totally agree.

I've seen Full Metal Jacket 24 times in the theater and The Shining probably over a dozen times in the theater - and even Eyes Wide Shut three or four times in the theater - and I have never seen any of these films projected at 4:3.

If you've really seen the films that many times in the theatres than you are a better man than I! Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest that he ever specified those films to be projected in 4:3, only that perhaps he specified their DVD releases to be. Just speculating and probably wrong : )

My spies suggest that Kubrick shot The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut at full aperture, knowing (and framing) that they'd be matted to 1.66 in Europe and 1.85 in the US. The reason for making sure the 4:3 frame looked good, according to my sources, was that Kubrick was, as we know, a money whore and that he figured he lose video sales bucks if he insisted on letterboxing his films. So, since in addition to being a money whore he was an artist, he made sure the 4:3 image looked good. fwiw.

Spies? Kubrick - money whore? Hm.