criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote:Don't hold your breath for Kubrick re-releases. Just don't.

Technically, they already double-dipped on Full Metal Jacket, if only because the first edition was so earth-shatteringly bad.

aox wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Don't hold your breath for Kubrick re-releases. Just don't.

Besides 2001 and The Shining, that's a real shame.

Actually... pretty sure I saw that 2001 will be getting a digibook re-release. Now that Goodfellas has lowered the bar...

(Couldn't find the reference (for 2001) -- but obtw rumor is Gladiator is apparently being re-mastered too.)

fdm wrote:

aox wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Don't hold your breath for Kubrick re-releases. Just don't.

Besides 2001 and The Shining, that's a real shame.

Actually... pretty sure I saw that 2001 will be getting a digibook re-release. Now that Goodfellas has lowered the bar...

but obtw rumor is Gladiator is apparently being re-mastered too.)

I can see the sticker now: "NOW FEATURING FLAMING ARROWS!"

Cinephrenic wrote:Classic studio double-dipping, regarding Goodfellas.

If it's acceptable to rerelease Goodfellas on the strength of some tenuously-related Bugs Bunny cartoons made when Scorsese was still in diapers, can we look forward to Foghorn Leghorn and his famous Southern hospitality enriching Deliverance, or Road Runner warming us up for The Getaway?

If it takes some Taz cartoons to get the Devils released, I say okay

THE DEVILS released as an extra on a collection of Tasmanian Devil cartoons ... ?
Yeah, that sounds about how WB would go about it.

There is only 5 Taz cartoons, at least during the classic period.

Flike wrote:We're finally beginning to see decent re-releases, and that's very exciting. Now for ... pretty much all the Kubricks except 2001...

I guess I've been under a rock. What's wrong with the Kubrick Blu-rays? (I don't own any except 2001).

The Shining is pretty good too, but I've heard very mixed reports of the others - which is why I only have those two.

I think the Kubrick Blu-Rays are really excellent. The sound could use a little improving, but the picture quality is pristine. Actually, I just watched my Eyes Wide Shut BD yesterday and I'd forgotten just how good it looked.

I have the HD DVDs of the Kubrick films and I thought they all looked fine, especially 2001. Though admittedly it's been a while since I've seen them and that was when HD was still fairly new to me and everything looked amazing.

cdnchris wrote:I have the HD DVDs of the Kubrick films and I thought they all looked fine, especially 2001. Though admittedly it's been a while since I've seen them and that was when HD was still fairly new to me and everything looked amazing.

Yeah, I'm only going off the HD DVDs (which I believe used the same transfers and encodes), but I was impressed with the quality on all of them except for Full-Metal Jacket, which was so bad they had to re-release it.

They also have some of the lowest costs in Blu-ray.

A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut are mediocre, borderline unacceptable, and need to be redone. 2001 is the only one that is essentially perfect.

aox wrote:A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut are mediocre, borderline unacceptable, and need to be redone. 2001 is the only one that is essentially perfect.

Too much grain, right?

fdm wrote:

aox wrote:A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut are mediocre, borderline unacceptable, and need to be redone. 2001 is the only one that is essentially perfect.

Too much grain, right?

ummmm, no

I've seen (multiple times) the Kubricks on Blu-Ray and I can't see the problem. I've seen most on the big screen as well with excellent prints and the colors, grain and even aspect ratios look fine. Can someone explain more clearly what's the problem with the Blu-Rays?

I can't speak for the Clockwork Orange blu-ray that I haven't seen, but the Eyes Wide Shut blu is more than adequate, certainly in the better half of the 40-ish blu-rays that I own.

So, I still haven't bought a Blu yet, and the last few posts here are not making me sprint to the Blu counter. Sigh......I dunno......

Fierias wrote:I can't speak for the Clockwork Orange blu-ray that I haven't seen, but the Eyes Wide Shut blu is more than adequate, certainly in the better half of the 40-ish blu-rays that I own.

What are the problems with Eyes Wide Shut? All the complaints I've seen about EWS seemed more geared at the film's visual design than the look of the transfer, but maybe I missed some valid concerns…

nsps wrote:

Fierias wrote:I can't speak for the Clockwork Orange blu-ray that I haven't seen, but the Eyes Wide Shut blu is more than adequate, certainly in the better half of the 40-ish blu-rays that I own.

What are the problems with Eyes Wide Shut? All the complaints I've seen about EWS seemed more geared at the film's visual design than the look of the transfer, but maybe I missed some valid concerns…

There's nothing particularly wrong with Eyes Wide Shut. It looks pretty much like it did when it was shown in theaters. At least the one I saw it at.

The Clockwork Orange Blu looks a little soft to me. It certainly has the best PQ of any home video release thus far but still seems like it could be improved upon. Also, it bears mention that it's presented in the (I think) correct 1.66:1 aspect ratio, which I believe cannot be said for most earlier releases.

2001 and especially The Shining, of course, look absolutely incredible on Blu.

swo17 wrote:The Clockwork Orange Blu looks a little soft to me. It certainly has the best PQ of any home video release thus far but still seems like it could be improved upon. Also, it bears mention that it's presented in the (I think) correct 1.66:1 aspect ratio, which I believe cannot be said for most earlier releases.

2001 and especially The Shining, of course, look absolutely incredible on Blu.

""
Yes, ACO is soft, but at least the grain is consistent. The latter cannot be said for EWS which I find varies from scene to scene. This of course could be a problem from the source, but I would like to think a film made in 1999 had consistent film stock.

This goes a little over my head, but apparently, ACO also has a 'banding' problem that had shown up in a few other early Warner Blu's.

Both still look better than their DVD counterparts.

The Shining and 2001 look magnificent though. I haven't seen the Full Metal Jacket release (the botched or the updated).

nsps wrote:

Fierias wrote:I can't speak for the Clockwork Orange blu-ray that I haven't seen, but the Eyes Wide Shut blu is more than adequate, certainly in the better half of the 40-ish blu-rays that I own.

What are the problems with Eyes Wide Shut? All the complaints I've seen about EWS seemed more geared at the film's visual design than the look of the transfer, but maybe I missed some valid concerns…

I'm saying that I don't see any problems.

Fierias wrote:

nsps wrote:

Fierias wrote:I can't speak for the Clockwork Orange blu-ray that I haven't seen, but the Eyes Wide Shut blu is more than adequate, certainly in the better half of the 40-ish blu-rays that I own.

What are the problems with Eyes Wide Shut? All the complaints I've seen about EWS seemed more geared at the film's visual design than the look of the transfer, but maybe I missed some valid concerns…

I'm saying that I don't see any problems.

Sorry—was actually referring to posts above yours (fdm, aox, other combinations of three letters (OK, just those two) saying it was mediocre-to-bad.