Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-12-05, 06:34 PM   #76
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
and I also doubt that Warner would license the existing disc from them again.
Why?
 
Old 12-12-05, 06:37 PM   #77
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiky
All depends on the transfer and your equipment, Josh, which you know better than I. It's true that most NA widescreen transfers are cheesy crap that looks like it was copied from a VHS, even on a 20" screen. But a 4:3 that has been redone can look just fine.
Although it's true that some non-anamorphic discs look better than others, and some can be very watchable when zoomed to fill a 16:9 screen, all else being equal a zoomed 4:3 disc will always look inferior to a true anamorphic transfer. An anamorphic transfer has 33% more vertical resolution.

Quote:
Some of the movies in question aren't in great shape, anyway, are they? Anamorphic can't change film noise, etc.
Warner remastered most of Kubrick's catalog in 2000 to clean up dirt and noise. The "Remastered" DVDs look substantially better than the original 1997 releases, but unfortunately were all transferred as 4:3 (except for 2001: a space odyssey).
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Last edited by Josh Z; 12-12-05 at 06:43 PM.
 
Old 12-12-05, 06:41 PM   #78
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
Why?
Because there's really nothing in it for them, is there? Besides, if they're going to remaster all of the other movies, they can't very well include one disc that is exactly the same as before.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
 
Old 12-12-05, 08:17 PM   #79
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
from Jaun C at HTF

The Stanley Kubrick Archives, page 452:



Note the faded red marker frame labeled "1-1.85", and the indication top right:

THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1.85
Obviously you compose for that
but protect the full 1-1.33 area.


Kinda gives a new perspective, doesn't it?
__________________
You wanted a Sig. You got a Sig. The Hottest Sig in The World...Music Video I directed for Quiet Company <---Let me know what you think. <-Now Playing on MTV.CA
dvd aficionado
Official Fox Film Noir Thread All New Official Twilight Zone Thread
HD-DVD Supporter
 
Old 12-12-05, 11:24 PM   #80
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Because there's really nothing in it for them, is there? Besides, if they're going to remaster all of the other movies, they can't very well include one disc that is exactly the same as before.
Well, it helps Warner make the boxset more attractive by bringing in Kubrick fans through a different genre (as nothing else in the Warner box would really qualify as comedy to most purchasers, I'd venture to guess - at least, it gets more accolades than Lolita typically does when critics put together lists of the best comedies). That said, the Strangelove SE was already available separately for a few months when the last remastered Warner box came out, and the 40th Anniversary Superbit disc hasn't been part of a box yet (so it would be remastered as compared to the previous box), so I'd say there's quite a bit of potential for its inclusion in a box. If Warner found it to be worthwhile before, I wouldn't be surprised if they found it to be so once again.

DJ
 
Old 12-13-05, 07:09 AM   #81
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,843
Cameron, that pic is awesome! Thanks for reposting it here.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
 
Old 12-13-05, 07:34 AM   #82
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,041
It's my pleasure, Josh (and Cameron). Yes, I posted that picture (check the pic URL)... and it's Juan, not Jaun.

I had this pic for quite a while but I didn't post it anywhere lest I be accused of flogging a dead horse. But now that hi-def DVD is coming, I think we should raise this issue, because I'm afraid we could end up with HD Shining on pillarboxed 4:3.
 
Old 12-13-05, 08:30 AM   #83
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtoell
Well, it helps Warner make the boxset more attractive by bringing in Kubrick fans through a different genre (as nothing else in the Warner box would really qualify as comedy to most purchasers, I'd venture to guess - at least, it gets more accolades than Lolita typically does when critics put together lists of the best comedies). That said, the Strangelove SE was already available separately for a few months when the last remastered Warner box came out, and the 40th Anniversary Superbit disc hasn't been part of a box yet (so it would be remastered as compared to the previous box), so I'd say there's quite a bit of potential for its inclusion in a box. If Warner found it to be worthwhile before, I wouldn't be surprised if they found it to be so once again.

DJ
I agree 100%.
 
Old 12-13-05, 11:34 AM   #84
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
apologies on the name. And thank you again for sharing it. I have thumbed over that book frequently in the book store, but want to add it to the library. Steep price tag keeps me down.
__________________
You wanted a Sig. You got a Sig. The Hottest Sig in The World...Music Video I directed for Quiet Company <---Let me know what you think. <-Now Playing on MTV.CA
dvd aficionado
Official Fox Film Noir Thread All New Official Twilight Zone Thread
HD-DVD Supporter
 
Old 12-13-05, 05:40 PM   #85
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, US of A
Posts: 10,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grubert
It's my pleasure, Josh (and Cameron). Yes, I posted that picture (check the pic URL)... and it's Juan, not Jaun.

I had this pic for quite a while but I didn't post it anywhere lest I be accused of flogging a dead horse. But now that hi-def DVD is coming, I think we should raise this issue, because I'm afraid we could end up with HD Shining on pillarboxed 4:3.
I can see merits to both framing aspects for the shot above. I think I'm actually further undecided. Obviously he knew the movies were going to be theatrically shown widescreen, but he was clearly thinking about FF as well. It is very interesting nonetheless, so thanks much for the great contribution.
 
Old 12-13-05, 06:51 PM   #86
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 43
Is it just me, or do certain scenes in the remastered Full Metal Jacket look "funny." It doesn't look like a movie shot in 4x3 for 4x3 like we were told Kubrick's intention was by his apprentice that did the remastering. It looks like a 16x9 squished for a 4x3 TV.
 
Old 12-13-05, 07:34 PM   #87
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by roomservice
Is it just me, or do certain scenes in the remastered Full Metal Jacket look "funny." It doesn't look like a movie shot in 4x3 for 4x3 like we were told Kubrick's intention was by his apprentice that did the remastering. It looks like a 16x9 squished for a 4x3 TV.
It's not squished, it's just the shots have way too much headroom. The movie is clearly not composed for 4:3. A close-up of a human face should position the eyes 2/3 of the way up from the bottom of the frame. The movie looks like that when properly matted, but full-frame the eyes in such shots are closer to the center of the screen and the shots just don't look right at all.

Here's an old USENET discussion from cinematographer David Mullen (Twin Falls Idaho, Northfork) making the case for Kubrick's movies being better composed for 1.66:1.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.v...a807fe1673f06c
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
 
Old 12-13-05, 07:40 PM   #88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 259
That's absolutely my interpretation. No DP in their right mind would compose the shots in FMJ that way with the knowledge that in the future it would be the only way to view the movie.
 
Old 12-13-05, 09:35 PM   #89
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
dhmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Needle
I can see merits to both framing aspects for the shot above. I think I'm actually further undecided. Obviously he knew the movies were going to be theatrically shown widescreen, but he was clearly thinking about FF as well. It is very interesting nonetheless, so thanks much for the great contribution.
I think he composed shots for both aspect ratios so that his movies wouldn't be P&S when shown on TV. (A major issue that the P&S version of 2001 on VHS shows painfully well.) However, that would lead to the view that his movies should at least be reframed to 1.78:1 for release on any video format designed for widescreen TVs, such as DVD. In this view, releasing them in 1.33:1 aspect ratio is just plain wrong.
 
Old 12-28-05, 11:21 PM   #90
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 373
I'm hoping that the new set, if there is one coming out, will have amarays and have a lower price.

The snappers and price have been driving me away from buying the current box.
 
Old 12-29-05, 12:59 AM   #91
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
No doubt the snappers will be gone, and most of these are rumored to be two disc sets if only to house both aspect ratios of the films and its extras.
__________________
You wanted a Sig. You got a Sig. The Hottest Sig in The World...Music Video I directed for Quiet Company <---Let me know what you think. <-Now Playing on MTV.CA
dvd aficionado
Official Fox Film Noir Thread All New Official Twilight Zone Thread
HD-DVD Supporter
 
Old 12-29-05, 07:20 AM   #92
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 17,793
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this post from the HTF:

Quote:
Malcolm McDowell gave a 2hr talk in Melbourne last week (at the launch of the ACMI Stanley Kubrick exhibition) and spoke at length about his career. He did throw some hints to the audience that should be of interest to folks on this board. McDowell mentioned how he had been trying to get Lindsay Anderson's IF - among other titles from his back catalogue - onto DVD with a commentary by him, but had no luck until a recent oneoff screening organised by Jay Roach led to the studio that currently owns IF contacting him. McDowell bemoaned the difficulties in pursuading various studios to release certain older films, and mentioned a recent illustrative story. McDowell was contacted more recently to record a commentary for a particular Stanley Kubrick movie (no prizes for guessing which one) and responded that he would record a commentary for THAT film only if the studio would agree to let him record a commentary for a certain Lindsay Anderson film - made two years later - that he remains very fond of. The studio agreed. McDowell has recorded both commentaries. Both titles should be coming out next year.
__________________
The only thing that would have made that movie watchable is if she could lick her own ass. - Josh-da-man
Fuck you and your whore asshole that Eddie Money wouldn't dare touch. - Solid Snake
I wonder if I would turn invisible if I stick my finger up her ass. - Josh-da-man
If she sneezes and tries to hold it in, will her penis pop back out?- Abob Teff
 
Old 12-29-05, 08:12 AM   #93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bolton, United Kingdom
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Millheiser
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this post from the HTF:
Check out post #66
__________________
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog - Emily Collingwood: I can't see him. All I can see is the flags...

Last edited by John Hodson; 12-29-05 at 08:15 AM.
 
Old 12-29-05, 09:29 AM   #94
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 17,793
You're kidding!
__________________
The only thing that would have made that movie watchable is if she could lick her own ass. - Josh-da-man
Fuck you and your whore asshole that Eddie Money wouldn't dare touch. - Solid Snake
I wonder if I would turn invisible if I stick my finger up her ass. - Josh-da-man
If she sneezes and tries to hold it in, will her penis pop back out?- Abob Teff
 
Old 12-29-05, 09:56 AM   #95
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,099
Just watched Eyes Wide Shut again last night and boy does this one need a new transfer. Very grainy but it doesn't look intentionally grainy... just sloppy-- kind of VHS quality. It would be helped tremendously with a better transfer AND anamorphic enhancement.

I didn't pick up the first collection precisely because it didn't contain the OTAR of FMJ, EWS and the Shining. I figured they would be released properly eventually... then I broke down and picked those three up individually when they dropped to < $10.

So, I've been waiting (and will continue to) for a proper box set. Hopefully these rumors are true.
 
Old 12-29-05, 10:09 AM   #96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bolton, United Kingdom
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Millheiser
You're kidding!
D'oh!
__________________
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog - Emily Collingwood: I can't see him. All I can see is the flags...
 
Old 12-29-05, 10:24 AM   #97
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Posts: 1,483
Just wanted to point out this little nugget from the DVD Talk Forum:

Quote:
Originally Posted by evenswr
Found this quote from earlier in this thread, thought it might add some fuel to the fuel tank...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
Malcolm McDowell gave a 2hr talk in Melbourne last week (at the launch of the ACMI Stanley Kubrick exhibition) and spoke at length about his career. He did throw some hints to the audience that should be of interest to folks on this board. McDowell mentioned how he had been trying to get Lindsay Anderson's IF - among other titles from his back catalogue - onto DVD with a commentary by him, but had no luck until a recent oneoff screening organised by Jay Roach led to the studio that currently owns IF contacting him. McDowell bemoaned the difficulties in pursuading various studios to release certain older films, and mentioned a recent illustrative story. McDowell was contacted more recently to record a commentary for a particular Stanley Kubrick movie (no prizes for guessing which one) and responded that he would record a commentary for THAT film only if the studio would agree to let him record a commentary for a certain Lindsay Anderson film - made two years later - that he remains very fond of. The studio agreed. McDowell has recorded both commentaries. Both titles should be coming out next year.

_______________
If they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, housing, schools, jobs, civil rights, and civil liberties-then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."-JFK
My DVDs
__________________
My DVDs
 
Old 12-29-05, 12:54 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 276
Would it be safe to go ahead and buy Paths of Glory and The Killing or are there plans to rerelease those films as well even though they aren't in the original box set?
 
Old 12-29-05, 01:40 PM   #99
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Astoria, NY, USA
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson_Browne
Would it be safe to go ahead and buy Paths of Glory and The Killing or are there plans to rerelease those films as well even though they aren't in the original box set?
It seems very unlikely that MGM (now part of Sony) will be re-releasing those titles any time soon. Same thing goes for Killer's Kiss. Even though Sony now controls the titles, and Sony did have one title in the previous boxset, there's probably not much that could be done with the titles that would be likely to warrant Sony putting money into them. The transfers are all 4x3, and are likely to stay that way. There also probably isn't much in the way of supplementary material for any of the titles, either. Even if all of them could likely benefit from fresh 2005 transfers, I'd guess that Sony wouldn't deem that as a being a worthwhile investment for a DVD re-release.

DJ
 
Old 12-29-05, 04:28 PM   #100
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,463
Can someone tell me why the remastered Clockwork Orange is not anamorphic?
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0