Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
Backdraft isn't even a great movie but it's fun to watch for 2 reasons:

1. great practical special effects
2. a stacked cast of actors who are fun to watch even if the movie isn't great

Take away those two things and there's nothing left

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

caligulamprey
Jan 23, 2007

It never stops.

The Shining bonus features list states "The 4K remastering is of Kubrick's original 146 minute version of the film which premiered in the United States on May 23rd, 1980," which I think means it features the original hospital ending? If it's true, I'm surprised they're not making a huge deal out of it.

Iron Crowned
May 6, 2003

by Hand Knit
Holy poo poo Backdraft 2 is real!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8172466/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe

What you thought it was a joke? lol

I guess they were just waiting for William Baldwin to get desperate enough for his price to come down into 5 figures.

feedmyleg
Dec 25, 2004
It was through reading an article on Backdraft 2 that I found out Donald Sutherland is still alive.

Iron Crowned
May 6, 2003

by Hand Knit

Basebf555 posted:

What you thought it was a joke? lol

I mean considering that video was just clips from Backdraft 1, yes

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe

Iron Crowned posted:

I mean considering that video was just clips from Backdraft 1, yes

Ah, yea it was just cued up wrong, the Backdraft 2 trailer is first, then the original trailer.

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

WB just confirmed the 4K of The Shining is the premiere cut with the original ending. Nothing about having all three cuts or audio yet, but it’s only May...

caligulamprey
Jan 23, 2007

It never stops.

Egbert Souse posted:

WB just confirmed the 4K of The Shining is the premiere cut with the original ending. Nothing about having all three cuts or audio yet, but it’s only May...
Holy poo poo, this is even better news than the Ghostbusters UHD having the full ghost blowjob scene.

CPL593H
Oct 28, 2009

I know what you did last summer, and frankly I am displeased.
Talk to me when they find the Dr. Strangelove pie throwing fight.

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

CPL593H posted:

Talk to me when they find the Dr. Strangelove pie throwing fight.

You can request to view the work print at one of the film archives

Steen71
Apr 10, 2017

Fun Shoe

caligulamprey posted:

Do these UHDs that sport 4K remasters also use those same remasters on the included Blu-Ray, or do they simply just pack in the previously released original releases?

Another example: The Big Lebowski UHD comes with the lovely old DNRed BD.

edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007

I think my mass effect is broken

Egbert Souse posted:

WB just confirmed the 4K of The Shining is the premiere cut with the original ending. Nothing about having all three cuts or audio yet, but it’s only May...

All three cuts?

Samuel Clemens
Oct 4, 2013

I think we should call the Avengers.

I assume Egbert is referring to the original theatrical cut with the hospital ending, the US version without that scene, and the European version, for which Kubrick cut out about half an hour of footage because he wasn't happy with the film's initial reception.

Teenage Fansub
Jan 28, 2006

I hope they include the general release cut. I'm not sure I could just abandon it and have something else as the new default.

I'd also be happy to see the DVD ratio back. That's how I discovered the movies and it really set them apart in that era.
I remember some really dirty, hairy matte edges from the square version of Barry Lyndon that I love to see again in high def.

Cemetry Gator
Apr 3, 2007

Do you find something comical about my appearance when I'm driving my automobile?

EL BROMANCE posted:

That's Kubrick's intended aspect ratio.

https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/mayorgrubert/media/bWVkaWFJZDo2MTk1NDU5NQ==/?ref=

Nope, 1.85:1 was Kubrick's ratio for this film.

For whatever reason, there's a ton on conflicting information when it comes to Stanley Kubrick and the aspect ratios of his later films, with the exception of 2001, which is 2.20:1 as God intended.

There's a lot of claims that people make without citation, but every citation I can find supports the idea that Kubrick shot for 1.85:1, but like a lot of directors, had his eye on the full 1.37:1 frame.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/shining.htm

If you look at the screencaps, you can see how the 1.33:1 version has a lot of headroom all over the place. The compositions aren't bad, but the 1.85:1 version is clearly tighter.

Now, Vitali has stated some different things, but it's possible that he was wrong, or misremembering. Or getting things backwards. There's plenty of scenes in Full Metal Jacket where the 1.33:1 isn't bad, but the widescreen clearly looks better composed.

For example, he stated that Barry Lyndon should be 1.77:1, but Mr. Kubrick on the other hand has this to say:
https://somecamerunning.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5523026f58834015433160327970c-pi

YES! DURING THE INTERMISSION, PLAY SIDE 2 OF THE RECORD STARTING WITH BAND 2 FOR AS LONG AS YOU WANT UNTIL THE END OF THE RECORD!

There you have it!

Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 01:03 on May 17, 2019

ruddiger
Jun 3, 2004

All this Kubrick talk really makes me want to rewatch Filmworker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6JiftDPP7Y

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

What's gotten muddled is what Kubrick actually approved vs. what was intended in theaters.

In 1991, he (and likely Leon Vitali) supervised and approved new transfers of his films for laserdisc. Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Lolita, and 2001 for MGM/UA Home Video. A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket for Warner Home Video. Dr. Strangelove for Criterion. Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket were presented 4x3. Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon were letterboxed to around 1.66:1. 2001 at 2.20:1. (Note: Killer's Kiss, while released in 1955, was photographed for 1.37:1 and was never intended for widescreen).

Warner Home Video released the first DVD editions of Lolita, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket in August 2000 - all using the same SD transfers approved back in 1991. Sony released Dr. Strangelove a year earlier from the Criterion transfer, as did MGM with Killer's Kiss, The Killing, and Paths of Glory (again, using the same 1991 transfers).

In 2001, Warner Home Video remastered the same titles in HD (apparently 2K). No aspect ratio changes, but 2001 is now encoded 16x9 instead of 4x3 letterboxed (still 2.20:1). Sony wouldn't remaster Dr. Strangelove until 2004, which was the first time the film appeared on home video in constant 1.66:1. Supervised by Leon Vitali, new 5.1 remixes were created for A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket. Sony also created a new 5.1 mix for Dr. Strangelove.

In 2006, Warner Home Video created new remasters for DVD, Blu-ray, and HD-DVD of 2001, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. Full Metal Jacket had actually been an early launch Blu-ray, but was from the 2001 transfer and was encoded 1080i. This is the first time the international cut of Eyes Wide Shut has been available in the US. For the first time, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut are available in widescreen (all 1.78:1 as usual for Warner releases), though original 2.20:1 and 1.66:1 respectively for 2001 and A Clockwork Orange. As of 2019, there have not been DVD-based remasters of Lolita or Barry Lyndon.

Sony releases Dr. Strangelove on Blu-ray in 2009 from a new 4K restoration at 1.66:1. This same transfer is used for Criterion's Blu-ray edition.

Criterion releases Paths of Glory in 2010 at 1.66:1, the first widescreen edition on home video (originally exhibited at 1.85:1, so it's opened up a bit). Criterion also releases The Killing with Killer's Kiss as a bonus film the following year. The Killing at 1.66:1 (originally 1.75:1, slightly opened).

In 2011, WHV releases Blu-rays of Lolita and Barry Lyndon as Amazon exclusives using the 2001 2K masters. Lolita at 1.66:1, Barry Lyndon at 1.78:1.

In 2012, Kino Lorber released the first-ever home video edition of Fear and Desire, Kubrick's debut feature, on DVD and Blu-ray in the original 1.37:1. Includes his last short film The Seafarers. The UK Masters of Cinema edition adds Kubrick's first two short films Day of the Fight and Flying Padre.

Barry Lyndon received a Criterion edition in 2016 from a new 4K restoration at 1.66:1. Options for both original mono (PCM) and 5.1 remix (DTS-HD MA).

2001 received a UHD upgrade in 2018 with the original 1968 6-track mix and the 1998 5.1 remix both in DTS-HD MA.

(Also, while Spartacus hasn't had much involvement from Kubrick for home video other than consulting with restorers for the 1991 restoration, the first Universal DVD in 1998 used the old Criterion laserdisc transfer, the Criterion DVD used a new remaster in 16x9, Universal's first Blu-ray used the Criterion DVD transfer with massive DVNR, but followed up with a 2014 edition from a new 4K restoration).

CPL593H
Oct 28, 2009

I know what you did last summer, and frankly I am displeased.

Egbert Souse posted:

You can request to view the work print at one of the film archives

I had no idea that footage even existed. I read that it was destroyed. That's really cool.

Teenage Fansub posted:

I hope they include the general release cut. I'm not sure I could just abandon it and have something else as the new default.

I'd also be happy to see the DVD ratio back. That's how I discovered the movies and it really set them apart in that era.
I remember some really dirty, hairy matte edges from the square version of Barry Lyndon that I love to see again in high def.

It's cool to be able to see the alternate ending but I'd much rather it be a special feature with the original instead of a replacement. It sounds kind of hokey to be honest and Kurbrick must have cut it out for a reason.

caligulamprey
Jan 23, 2007

It never stops.

I really love Kubrick's films in 1.33. I'm always gonna prefer what the director intended, but it just suits him so well. I'm also of the opinion that all films should either be shot in 2.40 widescreen vistas or super cramped 1.33 and ABSOLUTELY nothing in-between. Miss me with this non-committal 1.66 bullshit - the shrug of aspect ratios.

Buyin' Blu-rays out the Redbox can be the best if you don't particularly care about having cases. Just nabbed First Man and The Favourite for ?$7.98 total. Steals and deals.

Cemetry Gator
Apr 3, 2007

Do you find something comical about my appearance when I'm driving my automobile?

Egbert Souse posted:

What's gotten muddled is what Kubrick actually approved vs. what was intended in theaters.


True.

But I think people have to be careful of saying "he approved this" to mean "he preferred this" or "he thought his films should have been shown in this manner." And I think that's where a lot of conversations online get confused. We don't always have a clear record as to what Stanley Kubrick meant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw

Here's Syndey Pollack talking about how he chose his aspect ratios for his films - basically, he stopped shooting in scope because he didn't want his films butchered for television anymore. There's plenty of examples of directors taking the fullscreen version into account when shooting flat (1.85:1). They know that's how people will see the films, so they don't want things like boom mics creeping into the set.

By the time Kubrick shot Full Metal Jacket and the Shining, home video was a big part of the industry. It's not unreasonable that he may have shot his films for 1.85:1 but ensured they'd look good in 1.33:1. After all, Full Metal Jacket was mixed in mono back in 1987 because he wanted to make sure that people got a good sound experience no matter which theater they went to (according to Vitalli). So, we have some examples of where he would make a compromise to ensure an overall better quality.

And if we're being honest, television requires some compromise of the home video image as well. After all, letterboxing is still manipulating the image, since the movie wasn't initially framed with black bars on the bottom and the top of the screen... usually.

Also, Kubrick died before widescreen televisions and HD became a thing. So we have no idea how he would have wanted his films presented in HD. But a lot of people have started taking this idea that Kubrick should be seen in 1.33:1 as gospel without really doing much research. Most of what I see online is people repeating something they heard from someone else, and not much in the way of original sources.

Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 17, 2019

I, Butthole
Jun 30, 2007

Begin the operations of the gas chambers, gas schools, gas universities, gas libraries, gas museums, gas dance halls, and gas threads, etcetera.
I DEMAND IT

Cemetry Gator posted:

Also, Kubrick died before widescreen televisions and HD became a thing. So we have no idea how he would have wanted his films presented in HD.

I really want to see this part of the argument die. Physical media is now basically the bastion of collectors/enthusiasts, so the disc should represent how the film was originally projected theatrically. I think (particularly in Kubrick's case) shooting safety for the aspect ratios of home video/television is already a compromise; whether he did or not, surely the intended aspect ratio was the one on cinema screens.

And yes, I do want the original curved cinerama projection of How The West Was Won on home video, no matter how dumb it looks :colbert:

CPL593H
Oct 28, 2009

I know what you did last summer, and frankly I am displeased.
Didn't James Cameron say that he preferred the 1.33:1 aspect ratio for his movies at some point? Or is this another thing where he shot it to look good on a tv and people misunderstood what he was talking about?

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 12, 2015

by Cyrano4747

CPL593H posted:

Didn't James Cameron say that he preferred the 1.33:1 aspect ratio for his movies at some point? Or is this another thing where he shot it to look good on a tv and people misunderstood what he was talking about?

The latter. Cameron used Super 35 for everything between Abyss and Titanic; he framed everything for the theatrical widescreen ratios, but deliberately kept the top and bottom of the frame in mind for TV/VHS presentation.

Teenage Fansub
Jan 28, 2006

I think the Aliens special features say somewhere that Cameron regrets not matching the original film's ratio.

ruddiger posted:

All this Kubrick talk really makes me want to rewatch Filmworker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6JiftDPP7Y

Man, I hated Filmworker. It's one of the most poorly made documentaries I've ever seen (unless they recut it since the festival I saw it at two years ago.)
Total waste of a neat subject.

I, Butthole posted:

And yes, I do want the original curved cinerama projection of How The West Was Won on home video, no matter how dumb it looks :colbert:

The bluray I have has both a flat and curved version, unless you mean something else.

Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 07:13 on May 17, 2019

Monday_
Feb 18, 2006

Worked-up silent dork without sex ability seeks oblivion and demise.
The Great Twist
Why did 16:9 become the standard for TVs when it seems like very few movies were filmed for it? Just as a compromise between widescreen films and old 4:3 television?

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

CPL593H posted:

Didn't James Cameron say that he preferred the 1.33:1 aspect ratio for his movies at some point? Or is this another thing where he shot it to look good on a tv and people misunderstood what he was talking about?

In the laserdisc era, he preferred 1.33:1. Which makes sense. A 2.35:1 film plays beautifully on a huge screen, but letterboxing sucks when it's within a 4x3 frame at 480i resolution. When Kubrick approved full frame versions of his films in 1990-1992, he probably just thought they played better. It's overlooked a bit, but Kubrick was probably the most technically-minded director of his time and I can imagine him thinking it was dumb to letterbox a generally 4x3-safe film when the resolution/screen size was tiny.

If you want a similar example of evolving attitudes, Richard Lester preferred 4x3 on home video for A Hard Day's Night when it was photochemically restored in 1995, but asked Criterion to stick to the original 1.75:1 when they did their 4K restoration and Blu-ray.

Really, any aspect ratio fuckery on home video before Blu-ray is a moot point. You'd do anything to get a workable image with SD resolution. That's why I think on Blu-ray, and especially UHD, there's absolutely no excuse for not preserving the theatrical presentation unless the director specifically wants otherwise.

Monday_ posted:

Why did 16:9 become the standard for TVs when it seems like very few movies were filmed for it? Just as a compromise between widescreen films and old 4:3 television?

Probably mostly due to carrying over old standards, but 1.85:1 is almost a perfect median between 1.33:1 and 2.35:1. Since that's a clunky ratio, 16x9 is close enough (and just a hair wider than the old 1.75:1 aspect ratio).

TheScott2K
Oct 26, 2003

I'm just saying, there's a nonzero chance Trump has a really toad penis.

Monday_ posted:

Why did 16:9 become the standard for TVs when it seems like very few movies were filmed for it? Just as a compromise between widescreen films and old 4:3 television?

Tons of movies are in the ballpark of 16x9. Back to the Future, basically every studio comedy not made by Ivan Reitman, Aliens, Predator, most of the post-70s Disney animated movies (some a little narrower), and a lot of other stuff. 1.85:1 is very close to 16x9 and got plenty of use. Add in the fact that it fairly easily accommodates legacy 1.33:1 programming and anything shot in 2.35:1 and it's kind of a no-brainer.

TheScott2K fucked around with this message at 14:41 on May 17, 2019

Iron Crowned
May 6, 2003

by Hand Knit
Keep in mind that widescreen cinema only happened because TV scared the hell out of the studios.

Maxwell Lord
Dec 12, 2008

I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.


:smith:

Grimey Drawer
I'm kinda weird because when I still was just on smallish SD TVs I still preferred letterboxing by a mile. Sure the image was smaller and not great to start with but changing the shape of the frame really makes things feel different.

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

Iron Crowned posted:

Keep in mind that widescreen cinema only happened because TV scared the hell out of the studios.

Partly. It's worth noting that some early film formats were widescreen (at least wider than 1.33:1) and there were a slew of early 65mm features released between 1929-1930. Only two apparently survive complete (Fox's The Big Trail and the independent The Bat Whispers). However, they didn't make much of an impression. People were more interested than sound than either color or widescreen at the time. In fact, the cameras used to shoot those 1929-1930 films were modified to shoot the early 65mm films in the 50s like Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days.

What really started the widescreen revolution was This is Cinerama in 1952. It was the highest grossing feature of 1952 and only played in a single theater in New York. By spring 1953, the first widescreen features were being released by major studios.

There's an excellent article on the first year or so of widescreen by Bob Furmanek (founder of 3-D Film Archive):

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

CPL593H
Oct 28, 2009

I know what you did last summer, and frankly I am displeased.

Maxwell Lord posted:

I'm kinda weird because when I still was just on smallish SD TVs I still preferred letterboxing by a mile. Sure the image was smaller and not great to start with but changing the shape of the frame really makes things feel different.

When DVD came around and 4:3 televisions were still the standard I spent years spitting venom at anyone who even considered buying a fullscreen disc.

Peacoffee
Feb 11, 2013


There’s some great old boxing footage shot in the 20’s that’s widescreen. Also a few silent films had scenes shot in wide (I want to say Old Ironsides?) where they just had cloth framing in regular format, and then after intermission the cloth is pulled back revealing a massive screen which they used for the climactic naval battle. It’s pretty cool stuff.

CopywrightMMXI
Jun 1, 2011

One time a guy stole some downhill skis out of my jeep and I was so mad I punched a mailbox. I'm against crime, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

CPL593H posted:

When DVD came around and 4:3 televisions were still the standard I spent years spitting venom at anyone who even considered buying a fullscreen disc.

https://local.theonion.com/non-widescreen-version-of-dvd-received-as-hanukkah-gift-1819567190/amp

Samuel Clemens
Oct 4, 2013

I think we should call the Avengers.

The earliest widescreen film I know of is the footage from the Corbett-Fitzsimmons fight in 1897, which was shot in 1.65:1.

Also arguably the first feature film, though only about 20 minutes of the whole recording survived.

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

Welp, The Shining will be the 144 min regular US cut after all.

Peacoffee posted:

There’s some great old boxing footage shot in the 20’s that’s widescreen. Also a few silent films had scenes shot in wide (I want to say Old Ironsides?) where they just had cloth framing in regular format, and then after intermission the cloth is pulled back revealing a massive screen which they used for the climactic naval battle. It’s pretty cool stuff.

Old Ironsides had Magnascope sequences, but it wasn’t widescreen. They literally just put a zoom lens on the projector to make the image larger on a bigger screen and moved the masking up.

TheScott2K
Oct 26, 2003

I'm just saying, there's a nonzero chance Trump has a really toad penis.

CPL593H posted:

When DVD came around and 4:3 televisions were still the standard I spent years spitting venom at anyone who even considered buying a fullscreen disc.

In the VHS days when my grandma would buy me a movie, some angel at the video store near her house always made sure it was the widescreen version. Thank you, whoever you are.

CPL593H
Oct 28, 2009

I know what you did last summer, and frankly I am displeased.

TheScott2K posted:

In the VHS days when my grandma would buy me a movie, some angel at the video store near her house always made sure it was the widescreen version. Thank you, whoever you are.

I was in a video store about ten years ago and this old lady was in there with her grand kids and every time the kid (who was all of five or six years old) picked up a movie she started yelling at him that they couldn't rent it because it's widescreen and that "Cuts off half the picture!". Even if she wasn't completely wrong about that, what the gently caress difference did it make to her which cartoon he wanted to watch? It's not like she was going to watch it too. It took every thing I had not to intervene. If you're stupid and you think the bullshit about "cutting off the picture!!!!!" is true, then whatever. But screaming at a child because he wants to rent Madagascar in widescreen makes you a loving rear end in a top hat. Of course now that TVs are rectangles instead of squares, everyone is whining in the other direction so a bunch of old TV shows are all hosed up looking. Everything is trash because the world is perpetually catering to idiots.

Peacoffee
Feb 11, 2013


Egbert Souse posted:

Welp, The Shining will be the 144 min regular US cut after all.


Old Ironsides had Magnascope sequences, but it wasn’t widescreen. They literally just put a zoom lens on the projector to make the image larger on a bigger screen and moved the masking up.

The correction is appreciated.

As for The Shining, I can understand why it would be true he got rid of all the copies, since that ending would change up the film a lot.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CPL593H
Oct 28, 2009

I know what you did last summer, and frankly I am displeased.

Peacoffee posted:

The correction is appreciated.

As for The Shining, I can understand why it would be true he got rid of all the copies, since that ending would change up the film a lot.

The story I've heard is that any time Kubrick cut footage out of one of his movies it was later destroyed. Based on that I just assumed that the hospital ending didn't even exist anymore. And in the case it's probably for the best because the hospital ending sounds pretty hokey and unnecessary.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply