Stanley Kubrick Collection

[andyli]

Barry Lyndon down to $13.99 right now.

[Gregory]

I'm pretty sure Barry Lyndon was generally shown theatrically at 1.66:1. If they can release Lolita in that ratio, I don't know why they can't do the same for BL. I've waited so long to own this title and now I don't think I even want it.

[swo17]

Looks like internet bitching might work after all: Amazon has individual BD releases of Barry Lyndon and Lolita available for pre-order. No release dates shown yet though.

These now have release dates of May 31 and are described as Amazon exclusives.

[frankiecrisp]

Does anyone have any idea why Dr Strangelove and Spartacus are not included in the uk/europe edition of the Stanley Kubrick Collection? The set looks the same as the US version except for those two films

[med]

Columbia and Universal probably didn't want to give up their rights to Eurpoean distribution. (For whatever reason.) All the other films in the set fall under the Warner/MGM banner.

[aox]

BluRay.com review of the 40th Anniversary Edition of A Clockwork Orange

Warner just repackaged the 2007 release. What a huge let down.

[Peacock]

Yeah really disappointing they didn't decide to re-encode it to MPEG4 or something to sort out the little flaws. But to be fair, they did change the audio to DTS MA, and added the Life in Pictures documentary.

[Roger Ryan]

Yeah really disappointing they didn't decide to re-encode it to MPEG4 or something to sort out the little flaws. But to be fair, they did change the audio to DTS MA, and added the Life in Pictures documentary.

Yeah, but the LIFE IN PICTURES doc is still only SD! Is it even anamorphically-enhanced this time? It wasn't the first two times it was issued.

I can't say those new featurettes sound too riveting, either.

Really, the only good news here is that the box set will be a fine edition for those who have never purchased Kubrick before and/or want to upgrade to Blu-ray. For those of us who already upgraded to Kubrick Blu, this set remains completely unnecessary.

[manicsounds]

Actually not just a repackaging. 2 new featurettes are on the first disc, so disc 1 is an entirely new disc. Just the same picture quality.

I remember on the last DVD of "Life In Pictures" the film clips were mastered horribly and there were interlaced lines everywhere. Plus non-anamorphic, but still a treat to watch.

[mfunk9786]

Despite the fact that I'd love to see the new featurettes (still own my DVD of Life in Pictures), I'll be voting with my wallet on this one. The entire film needs a new remaster, and the fact that Warner has just repackaged the old grainy mess they already released is a total bummer.

[MichaelB]

I'm pretty sure Barry Lyndon was generally shown theatrically at 1.66:1. If they can release Lolita in that ratio, I don't know why they can't do the same for BL. I've waited so long to own this title and now I don't think I even want it.

Although there are endless rows about Kubrick's preferred aspect ratios, this is one of the films where there's no doubt - Kubrick was so determined to enforce 1.66:1 that he even checked up on cinemas wanting to book the film to make sure they could handle that framing, and would send them projection masks with the print if they couldn't.

I can also confirm from personal experience that he sent spies to check out the screening to make sure that this was respected.

So I'm genuinely astonished that this appears to be framed for 1.85:1 - especially since Kubrick's PA Leon Vitali was involved with earlier transfers, and he was the guy who used to ring me up after screenings to discuss the state of the print, whether our projector lamp was adversely affecting the colour, etc. (Sometimes after one of our conversations, the print in question would mysteriously disappear from the vaults - or at least it wouldn't be commercially bookable again).

[GaryC]

I'm pretty sure Barry Lyndon was generally shown theatrically at 1.66:1. If they can release Lolita in that ratio, I don't know why they can't do the same for BL. I've waited so long to own this title and now I don't think I even want it.

Although there are endless rows about Kubrick's preferred aspect ratios, this is one of the films where there's no doubt - Kubrick was so determined to enforce 1.66:1 that he even checked up on cinemas wanting to book the film to make sure they could handle that framing, and would send them projection masks with the print if they couldn't.

I can also confirm from personal experience that he sent spies to check out the screening to make sure that this was respected.

So I'm genuinely astonished that this appears to be framed for 1.85:1 - especially since Kubrick's PA Leon Vitali was involved with earlier transfers, and he was the guy who used to ring me up after screenings to discuss the state of the print, whether our projector lamp was adversely affecting the colour, etc. (Sometimes after one of our conversations, the print in question would mysteriously disappear from the vaults - or at least it wouldn't be commercially bookable again).

When we showed Barry Lyndon in 35mm at Southampton University, there was a long note to the projectionist signed by Kubrick inside one of the reel cans. That specified a ratio of 1.66:1 (or "no wider than 1.75:1" from my twenty-five-year-old memory), amongst several other things, including the preferred light level in foot-lamberts (can't remember how many).

We didn't get any phone calls as far as I can remember, nor any mysterious visitors - who would have had to be signed in to the Students' Union in any case.

[Gregory]

Spies -- that's funny, I didn't know Kubrick had gone quite to those lengths.
I recently bought back the same DVD release of BL that I sold off more than five years ago, so I'll soon be enjoying it again in glorious 480p. Thanks once again, Warner.

[knives]

Didn't he do some similar things with 2001 when they first started showing it on teevee to the point of driving one of the BBC heads up the wall. I think he also specified what the lighting should be during the intermission.

[MichaelB]

Didn't he do some similar things with 2001 when they first started showing it on teevee to the point of driving one of the BBC heads up the wall. I think he also specified what the lighting should be during the intermission.

Actually, Kubrick complained to the BBC after the screening, and with good reason - without bothering to consult him beforehand, they thought it would be a good idea to letterbox the "exterior" shots but add additional twinkling stars in the black bars, in order to hide the fact that they were doing this. The next time they showed 2001, it was in the Film Club slot, and fully letterboxed - very possibly at Kubrick's insistence.

On the other hand, it's entirely true that he had the interior of one of the New York cinemas premiering A Clockwork Orange repainted to avoid adverse reflections hitting the screen.

[Roger Ryan]

As revealed in the magnificent documentary STANLEY KUBRICK'S BOXES, apparently anyone who wrote him a fan letter would end up in a file with the potential to be contacted about evaluating the print condition and/or projection of a Kubrick film playing in a cinema near the fan's home!

I see that "Michael B" was one of these lucky ones (not to demean Mr. B's status as being merely a fan, of course).

What a shame that Kubrick departed just as DVDs were taking off - you know he would have insisted that the WHV releases be done correctly.

[MichaelB]

As revealed in the magnificent documentary STANLEY KUBRICK'S BOXES, apparently anyone who wrote him a fan letter would end up in a file with the potential to be contacted about evaluating the print condition and/or projection of a Kubrick film playing in a cinema near the fan's home!

I see that "Michael B" was one of these lucky ones.

Well, my "fan" status was gained by booking his films for a couple of London repertory cinemas as opposed to contacting him directly - but I certainly had more than one conversation with his PA Leon Vitali (aka Lord Bullingdon in Barry Lyndon) over the years. They were always very pleasant chats - any problems were invariably down to the print rather than our presentation, as we tried to get it right. (Not least because our audiences were just as fussy as Mr Vitali, especially in the afternoon when the really hardcore buffs came).

Given that we showed around 15-20 films a week, it would have driven me spare if every filmmaker had taken such care over the presentation of his work, but he probably rang me no more often than once a year, so that was fine.

[GaryC]

Didn't he do some similar things with 2001 when they first started showing it on teevee to the point of driving one of the BBC heads up the wall. I think he also specified what the lighting should be during the intermission.

Actually, Kubrick complained to the BBC after the screening, and with good reason - without bothering to consult him beforehand, they thought it would be a good idea to letterbox the "exterior" shots but add additional twinkling stars in the black bars, in order to hide the fact that they were doing this. The next time they showed 2001, it was in the Film Club slot, and fully letterboxed - very possibly at Kubrick's insistence.

I saw that screening (on New Year's Day 1982 - with incidentally a pan-and-scan presentation of Spartacus on ITV earlier the same afternoon, which I also watched). I also saw an afternoon showing of 2001 on the BBC a year or two later, certainly before I went to University (1984), which was fully panned and scanned. The Film Club didn't start until 1986.

Channel 4 showed it at least once letterboxed to around 1.66:1.

[andyli]

Early screengrabs for Barry Lyndon and Lolita at Blubrew.com.

[med]

Barry Lyndon is def 1.85:1, if those grabs are any indication.

[MichaelB]

That's already been confirmed beyond any doubt.

[Gregory]

I wonder if anyone will do a comparison of matched screencaps to show how much they opened up the sides vs. how much they took off the top and bottom (not to say I'd be too happy about the former, but it's better to add to the frame than take anything away).

[Oedipax]

I wonder if anyone will do a comparison of matched screencaps to show how much they opened up the sides vs. how much they took off the top and bottom (not to say I'd be too happy about the former, but it's better to add to the frame than take anything away).

Yikes, this isn't gonna be pretty. It's definitely cropped heavily on top and bottom, with a miniscule amount added to the sides. The new BD definitely comes down more on the side of chopping off information rather than opening anything up.

Here's a quick and dirty comparison using one of the screencaps linked above. Not an exact frame match, but you can still see the difference quite clearly.

As a side note, I wouldn't put too much stock into the color differences seen here yet - different capturing methods, color profiles, color modes, etc. could account for a lot of this. I'll leave that to the pros


Bluray scaled down to DVD size


DVD at native resolution


Both images overlaid, DVD underneath, bluray on top

[Feego]

Here are a few more comparisons (these images have been resized considerably, so pay no attention to the sharpness, etc.):

Blu-ray (the yellow lines on the sides indicate how much information has been added)


DVD (the yellow lines on the top and bottom indicate how much was removed for the Blu-ray)

Capture 2 (Blu-ray)
Capture 2 (DVD)

Capture 3 (Blu-ray)
Capture 3 (DVD)

Also, it appears that either the DVD image was vertically stretched or the Blu-ray was vertically squashed. I'm no expert on this, but the blu-ray image looks more accurate to me in this respect. The faces look a bit too thin on the DVD by comparison.

[Gregory]

Thank you, Oedipax and Feego.