retihsuhnt

I saw over on DavisDVD that in late January Columbia Tri-Star will be releasing Dr. Strangelove: SE in Superbit. Im left wondering why? I mean its a great movie and the SE was a great disc with the extras, what really will be gained by a "superbit" release of this film?

The only answer is that it can be of reference quality sight and sound, but Im not too sure if that can happen with this film.

Im not knocking the film, but since Kubrick has passed away and there are always debates on how a film of his should look. Will this SB really do the trick? Your thoughts are welcome.

Gyno Rhino

It's a scam.

The studios know that it is one of the most beloved movies of all time. So they will wrench every last penny out of it.

Don't buy into it.

DonnachaOne

I'm wondering if they're planning on using a new method for displaying the varying aspect ratios, and using the Superbit title as an excuse for a rerelease.

jough

I would like the title to be completely anamorphic, so maybe a new transfer is a GOOD thing.

I have the old Kubrick collection - never picked up the SE, so maybe I'll pick up the SB SE.

Besides, it's got a nice low price, too.

retihsuhnt

Okay Im not wanting to sound mean or anything. But wouldnt making the film anamorphic defeat the whole purpose of the way it was filmed?

I mean it was filmed to be presented in a number of different aspect ratios and if we are "morphing" it wouldnt that simply be presenting in a different manner than which was intended?

My whole thing is, why SB this picture. I think SBs should be used for titles that SCREAM for awesome video and audio. Im not characterizing movies here, but The Rock, Armageddon, or even Die Hard are all movies which thrive on sound effects and their video presentation a lot more than their plot/script.

I love Strangelove and if they SE this SB and keep the extras I might "double dip", hell I "double dipped" when they corrected FMJ. I just dont see this movie as warranting an SB. I tend to side with Rhyno when it comes to this, if it has a better suped up secret name then the consumer (is believed by the studios) will have to buy it.

jough

All films on DVD should have superbit bit rates (and many do - the "Superbit" line is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else).

Anyway, anamorphic enhancement has nothing to do with aspect ratio (well, it has *something* to do with it, but that's another discussion).

From 1.66:1 to 1:85:1 it could all be anamorphic (whereas the current disc isn't anamorphic, is it?).

I'll wait for the reviews to see if this is a new transfer or just the same old disc in new packaging.

Dan Average

Yes, and with good reason, since (roughly) half the movie is 1.33:1. Unless Columbia plans on tampering with Kubrick's intentions this won't be getting an anamorphic transfer anytime soon.

jough

They could window-box the 1.33:1 segments anamorphically, since the other half of the film would benefit.

It's hard to say which is better. How are they going to consider the "director's intentions" when most people have widescreen HD-TVs? Will they then all be cut to 1.78:1 to make them fit the 16:9 displays?

Hmm?

Bill Geiger

The Japan release of this film is next month (Superbit as well).

Mr. Salty

The vast majority of "Strangelove" is 1.33:1 and most of the rest of it is significantly less than 1.66:1. There are only a handful of scenes that appear to be anywhere close to 1.66:1.

Windowboxing 1.33:1 in order to make it anamorphic actually results in lower resolution, so if Columbia were to release an anamorphic version of "Dr. Stranglelove" it would actually be inferior.

Anamorphic enhancement is a good thing where it is appropriate but it is clear that it would be a bad idea for this movie.

I would imagine they will do it exactly the way they are doing it now, which is presenting films in the aspect ratio preferred by the director without regard to what type of TV set most people own. Doesn't seem difficult to me.

jough

Perhaps you're not aware of Mr. Kubrick's intentions, then.

He's said that he wants the picture to fill the entire screen on home video versions. In order for that to happen with 16:9 sets the ratio of the films would have to be trimmed/boxed to 1.78:1.

Mr. Salty

I am aware of Mr. Kubrick's intentions and your statement is an oversimplification.

There are plenty of threads discussing Kubrick's preferred framing. To discuss it further here would be off-topic and would quickly derail this thread.

djtoell

Perhaps you're not as aware as you like to believe, then. When Dr. Strangelove was released on LD by Criterion, Kubrick himself decided that the film would be presented in the alternating 1.33:1/1.66:1 ARs. If he intended, as you claim, that "the picture...fill the entire screen on home video versions," he would not have made this decision. He would have instead chosen to have the entire film presented at 1.33:1. That he made the choice he did makes it quite clear that he had no such rule that you've proclaimed.

DJ

tor_greg

Oh no, not again....

talemyn

Nuh-uh!

talemyn

Yah-huh!!

talemyn

NUH-UH!!!

talemyn

YAH-HUH!!!!

jough

Yuh-huh infinity.

purplechoe

Removed attack/inapropriate post

theneobez

lol am I the only one that thought this was a joke reading the thread title?