criterionforum.org

I'd heard that we were getting that "alternate ending" on The Shining set: the final scene in the hospital that Kubrick lopped off with his axe after the premiere. Oh well.

And doesn't Wendy Carlos look better as Walter?

and here's the DVDBeaver review of A Clockwork Orange

so, and please pardon my ignorance on the matter, which are the films that he actually shot in full screen? (just so i know which dvds to keep when i upgrade!) and does anyone know of 'lolita' and 'barry lyndon' are going to be released in hd, or simply standard dvd?

Lolita (the only feature-length Kubrick besides his first feature I haven't seen) and Barry Lyndon (which many of us here, myself included, consider his best) will not appear in HD. Why? No one really knows. Lets hope they're still forthcoming.

s.j. bagley wrote:so, and please pardon my ignorance on the matter, which are the films that he actually shot in full screen? (just so i know which dvds to keep when i upgrade!) and does anyone know of 'lolita' and 'barry lyndon' are going to be released in hd, or simply standard dvd?

I believe The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut were the only films of his shot for 1:33 as well as 1:85 (and 1:66 for Europe).

Full Metal Jacket is kind of a mystery for me, at least, because it was the only film of the previous Kubrick set that said it was modified from its original aspect ratio to fit tv's (where as The Shining and EWS said they were preserving the aspect ratios of the original negatives)

thank you, kindly!

denti alligator wrote:Lolita (the only feature-length Kubrick besides his first feature I haven't seen) and Barry Lyndon (which many of us here, myself included, consider his best) will not appear in HD. Why? No one really knows. Lets hope they're still forthcoming.

I think these may get released next year, they may be waiting to see how the current Kubricks sell first. I think they may sell pretty well, some have even talked about buying into a format just for these releases.

Has anyone been able to confirm whether the new Barry Lyndon might be anamorphic, or is it the exact same disc?

miless wrote:and here's the DVDBeaver review of A Clockwork Orange

Is it just me or does the older Warner still look better then the new disc? Granted it's not anamorphic but the new edition just looks that bit softer to me eyes.

I was thinking the same, I actually wondered at first if they might have been displayed the wrong way around until I remembered that going anamorphic often seems to have that softening effect.

ivuernis wrote:

miless wrote:and here's the DVDBeaver review of A Clockwork Orange

Is it just me or does the older Warner still look better then the new disc? Granted it's not anamorphic but the new edition just looks that bit softer to me eyes.

I agree. After seeing the comparisons of ACO and The Shining I think I'll hold onto my old Kubrick collection even though I'm picking up the new one for the supplements and the anamorphic transfer.

greggster59 wrote:I agree. After seeing the comparisons of ACO and The Shining I think I'll hold onto my old Kubrick collection even though I'm picking up the new one for the supplements and the anamorphic transfer.

I think I'm going to hold onto my old Kubrick collection for now and may wait until I get a HD player (which will prob be another while) and then get the HD discs instead. The extras look good on all the new discs but I've seen several of them before and anyway I prefer The Shining and EWS in full-screen.

was the unrated 'eyes wide shut' available on dvd at all, previously?

Yes, Warners R2.

Gary suggests that EWS completes the cycle of films included in the new Kubrick box...so where is Full Metal Jacket?

Cronenfly wrote:Gary suggests that EWS completes the cycle of films included in the new Kubrick box...so where is Full Metal Jacket?

It's on the cover of the box, and it's still on Amazon. I'm sure it's just a mistake.

kaujot wrote:

Cronenfly wrote:Gary suggests that EWS completes the cycle of films included in the new Kubrick box...so where is Full Metal Jacket?

It's on the cover of the box, and it's still on Amazon. I'm sure it's just a mistake.

That's what I thought too, but given the relative mystery (if that's the right word) surrounding the new FMJ DE release in some regards (e.g. seemingly not being available on standard-def outside the box, there still being no standard-def artwork [to my knowledge]), I thought that perhaps something more sinister was afoot.

well, we should (at least) know by Tuesday.

No mention of commentary on the DVDBeaver review of Eyes Wide Shut. Is this an error or did Warner Brothers decide not to include it as a feature?

Taketori Washizu wrote:No mention of commentary on the DVDBeaver review of Eyes Wide Shut. Is this an error or did Warner Brothers decide not to include it as a feature?

No mention of a commentary on the official website.

Taketori Washizu wrote:No mention of commentary on the DVDBeaver review of Eyes Wide Shut. Is this an error or did Warner Brothers decide not to include it as a feature?

It seems that Warner has remove it (for some reason). (click on the small image of the back cover).

It was listed in the original press release, along with these other extras:

DVD Special Features:

Disc One

· Scene specific commentary by Sydney Pollack and historian Peter Loewenberg

Oh well.

The back cover and promos all stated that both the "R" and Unrated versions of EWS would be included and DVDBeaver mentions that they couldn't find the "R" version. No loss, IMHO.

Gary at the Beaver reviews the HD disc of A Clockwork Orange and finds it disappointing. 1.66 AR is cropped to 1.78, and overall the image isn't as stunning as he expected. Curious to see what others think.

The 1.78 AR is a troubling phenomenon. There are a number of 1.85 films that end up as 1.78 in HD. This needs to end. Now.

denti alligator wrote:The 1.78 AR is a troubling phenomenon. There are a number of 1.85 films that end up as 1.78 in HD. This needs to end. Now.

Isn't this just done to better match the 16:9 ratio? Does the image ever really suffer from the missing portion? I'm all for as much image as possible, but I'm not really going to start pulling out my hair unless it's valuable image that is being lost. If you watch any 1.85 or 2.35 film at the theatre there are slight portions of the image that never synch up to the screen perfectly and I have my doubts that every theatre ever created has a perfectly constructed screen that matches the desired ratio exactly. If someone can actually point out at least a handful of films that suffer greatly from the missing 0.07 then I would also start to protest this routine formatting practice because it has been proved to be consequential. However, I doubt I've ever observed an instance in which including the missing 0.07 results in a dramatically different interpretation of the film based on the bastardized images. This doesn't strike me as a similar occurence as "colorizing" black and white films, since that practice usually resulted in drawing attention away from specific aspects of the original image. I doubt very many directors or cinematographers even worry that much about the practice.