The Start of Cemetery Season!!!!! - Page 41

mousepod · 10-23-2007, 01:23 PM

Actually, it was originally released on home video at 1.33:1, which is how Kubrick wanted it (this is before most people had widescreen TVs). It wasn't shot with an anamorphic 2.35 Panavision lens, afaik, so the old TV version was just an "unmatted" format. They've "rematted" it down for the current release. It's much much closer to the theatrical version now. And I am happy.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812 · 10-23-2007, 01:30 PM

Oh, I don't think I can pass this up. Will try to leave work early and secure seats for anyone else who's going. I'm guessing this sort of event will sell out.

blueerica · 10-23-2007, 01:41 PM

Damn it -- I am signed up for some volunteer work... I'll find out what shift I am on, then I will figure out what the plan will be.

innerSpaceman · 10-23-2007, 03:06 PM

I don't think this will sell out on a Wednesday, when you'd have to be on their email list (or know) someone who is) to even suspect this is happening.

Oh, I'm so torn.

I loves me some Shinning.

Alex · 10-23-2007, 03:20 PM

Are you sue about the 2.35:1? Everything I am looking up now is saying it was filmed with full film exposure (4:3) and projected at 1.85 in the United States and 1.66 in Europe. And then on VHS he preferred 1.37.

Even if 1.37 is what Kubrick wanted for home TVs, I say screw him and show what was seen in the theater.

Alex · 10-23-2007, 03:22 PM

Note to self, remember that there is another page of posts before replying.

innerSpaceman · 10-23-2007, 03:25 PM

um, yeah, mousepod is right in what he writes. It was theatrical at 1.85:1 and original DVD release at 1.33:1.

I was only right about the difference, not the particulars. And I'd still like to know on whose authority it's claimed that Stanley Kubrick preferred the 1:33? Or is it simply alleged he wanted that for home release, being he - - what - didn't like matte framing on home displays? WTF? Old crackpot!

That's if any of this bears a resemblence to his actual wishes. Who's saying so, and when?

Alex · 10-23-2007, 03:36 PM

What I've always heard is that after 2001 was pan and scanned for TV he was so pissed of by this that he always composed his shots so that they would work in a widescreen theatrical projection and also in an unmatted TV presentation (that way while some of the screen image is lost he didn't have other people introducing cuts and pans to his movie).

I don't know if it is true then that he actually preferred full screen or if it was more just making the best of the technological limits.

But if that is the case then with our modernizing move to widescreen TVs then it is definitely time to start producing DVDs with the theatrical aspect ratios.

I can easily imagine "I want it shown unmatted on TV!" gaining the force of law in the Kubrick estate with the underlying reason for it being lost to the mists of time.

Gemini Cricket · 10-23-2007, 03:42 PM

There are some classic moments in The Shining, but like Bladerunner, it's one of those movies that makes me sleepy. 2001 does that to me too.

innerSpaceman · 10-23-2007, 03:51 PM

So many movies make me sleepy. I usually LOVE those films. That have a hypnotic quality that induces sleepiness as a side effect. This is distinct and apart from boredom. It's a psychenautic effect that I lurve!

10-23-2007, 01:23 PM	#401
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	Actually, it was originally released on home video at 1.33:1, which is how Kubrick wanted it (this is before most people had widescreen TVs). It wasn't shot with an anamorphic 2.35 Panavision lens, afaik, so the old TV version was just an "unmatted" format. They've "rematted" it down for the current release. It's much much closer to the theatrical version now. And I am happy. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 01:30 PM	#402
Eliza Hodgkins 1812 Sputnik Sweetheart Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Beach Posts: 2,685	Oh, I don't think I can pass this up. Will try to leave work early and secure seats for anyone else who's going. I'm guessing this sort of event will sell out.
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 01:41 PM	#403
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	Damn it -- I am signed up for some volunteer work... I'll find out what shift I am on, then I will figure out what the plan will be. __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 03:06 PM	#404
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I don't think this will sell out on a Wednesday, when you'd have to be on their email list (or know) someone who is) to even suspect this is happening. Oh, I'm so torn. I loves me some Shinning.
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 03:20 PM	#405
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Are you sue about the 2.35:1? Everything I am looking up now is saying it was filmed with full film exposure (4:3) and projected at 1.85 in the United States and 1.66 in Europe. And then on VHS he preferred 1.37. Even if 1.37 is what Kubrick wanted for home TVs, I say screw him and show what was seen in the theater.
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 03:22 PM	#406
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Note to self, remember that there is another page of posts before replying.
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 03:25 PM	#407
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	um, yeah, mousepod is right in what he writes. It was theatrical at 1.85:1 and original DVD release at 1.33:1. I was only right about the difference, not the particulars. And I'd still like to know on whose authority it's claimed that Stanley Kubrick preferred the 1:33? Or is it simply alleged he wanted that for home release, being he - - what - didn't like matte framing on home displays? WTF? Old crackpot! That's if any of this bears a resemblence to his actual wishes. Who's saying so, and when?
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 03:36 PM	#408
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	What I've always heard is that after 2001 was pan and scanned for TV he was so pissed of by this that he always composed his shots so that they would work in a widescreen theatrical projection and also in an unmatted TV presentation (that way while some of the screen image is lost he didn't have other people introducing cuts and pans to his movie). I don't know if it is true then that he actually preferred full screen or if it was more just making the best of the technological limits. But if that is the case then with our modernizing move to widescreen TVs then it is definitely time to start producing DVDs with the theatrical aspect ratios. I can easily imagine "I want it shown unmatted on TV!" gaining the force of law in the Kubrick estate with the underlying reason for it being lost to the mists of time.
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 03:42 PM	#409
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	There are some classic moments in The Shining, but like Bladerunner, it's one of those movies that makes me sleepy. 2001 does that to me too.
	Submit to Quotes

10-23-2007, 03:51 PM	#410
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	So many movies make me sleepy. I usually LOVE those films. That have a hypnotic quality that induces sleepiness as a side effect. This is distinct and apart from boredom. It's a psychenautic effect that I lurve!
	Submit to Quotes