I would agree with you here. I suppose I am just a WB-hater when it comes to Kubrick films (although I would indeed love some good commentary on them, especially the less known ones) because I've spent so much money on them in the past few years. Besides getting the first box I've bought far too many single releases. I guess the only reason I do keep coming back is because it is Kubrick. Also not trying to explain the movie industry to you, I just thought it was worth pointing out that the only CC release was the Universal one (I'd never bothered to look it up before). No hard feelings I hope. Also as kind of a side note, are there any DVDs around with commentary by a different filmmaker, like you mentioned? I've listened to plenty of the scholarly stuff, but I'd love to hear one great director talk about how he was influenced by a director from a previous generation.

I would love to have a Arthur C. Clarke commentary for 2001 A Space Odyssey. C'mon, guys, he isn't getting any younger; it's almost criminal that one wasn't recorded for the first release. This is the kind of thing that if you don't get it now, you'll never get it at all. (Not to sound morbid, but I think this would be important for posterity. Providing that Clarke was willing to do it, I'm assuming he was never approached because nobody who put out the DVDs -- MGM or Warner -- seemed to give a shit about features for any of the Kubrick discs.)

I have HD Cable from Time Warner. They just added HDNet and HDNet Movies. They also just got a HD=DVR. This sucker rocks.

Anyway, I was suprised as hell, and I recored it, A Clockwork Orange in HD.

Yes, there is an HD master of this in the world. It looks beautiful and I plan to keep it on the hard drive for a long time.

I also noticed that Barry Lyndon is coming to HDNet.

I know Stanly Kubrick must be rolling over in his grave that people are watching his movies in widescreen, how dare they. The Kubrick farm must believe that we should all keep a 4x3 set just to watch his movies. Forget the theatrical presentation or that widescreen is better on the eye's. Maybe we should all get an Imax home theater at home instead.

I agree. I hope HDNet shows a widescreen version of Citizen Kane soon.

They have it scheduled, just waiting for he colorization to be completed.

Just out of curiosity, what are all these different releases you keep mentioning?

No answer, drjay?

And by the way, there's also a very nice Criterion special edition LD of DR. STRANGELOVE, licensed from Columbia, with supplements.

There are (or have been) 3 versions of Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket (although the latter two include collector's sets) according to dvdpricesearch, as well as two versions of everything else WB has rights to (and 2 versions of the box set).

The INHD network has aired Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket in 16:9 HD (HDNet is using the same Clockwork Orange transfer; don't know if they're running Full Metal Jacket as well). And HBO has run Eyes Wide Shut in 16:9 HD as well.

So much sarcasm from people who don't understand the facts of the case.

Kubrick composed his movies for 1.85:1 theatrical exhibition. He liked seeing them in 4:3 on home video because he was an eccentric guy who had weird and antiquated ideas about how movies fit on his television screen. The 16:9 HD transfers cited above may not have been approved by Kubrick, but they do return the movies to a much closer approximation of their theatrical OAR framing, which Kubrick did approve.

Kubrick died just before 16:9 televisions started to become commonplace. It is unknown whether he would have allowed his movies to be remastered in their original widescreen, but there's a solid case to be made for it.

There have been only two DVD releases of Clockwork and Jacket.

Nothing new to add here concerning the great Kubrick debate... But I just wanted to say... ETILIM19, thanks for posting that link. Good read.

Technically, there were 3 releases of each:

1) Original non-remastered edition.
2) Remastered edition.
3) Deluxe gift set which includes #2 plus some lobby cards and the soundtrack CD.

I don't count those stupid things they're just rip offs. In that case you can say there has been 2 releases of Bladerunner on DVD.

Exactly.

These comments were made by Kubrick about 15 years ago, back when "home theaters" were virtually unheard of in the average person's home. And everyone had a 4:3 set. And most of them were about 25".

What would Kubrick have said about his video transfers in the DVD era? With increased resolution? And 16x9 displays becoming common? And people investing in state-of-the-art home theaters with huge screens?

No one really knows, but I think it's absurd to stick to the "Kubrick liked 4x3" mantra like it's gospel. As there becomes a need for fewer and fewer compromises for watching films at home, it makes a lot more sense to look at how Kubrick presented films theatrically, when there were no compromises required.

Josh, when you say original widescreen, what do you mean? I thought that were filmed in 1.33:1.

Clockwork Orange on HDNet is cropped on Top & Bottom. You see less information than the DVD and laserdisc versions.

I prefer the Kubrick's various aspect ratios on Clockwork Orange DVD and Laserdisc.

I just realized when I read this that Kubrick never lived to see 2001, the year he made so famous. Sad.

They were . . . then they were cropped to a "widescreen" format when shown in the theaters.

So are 99% of all movies with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 or less.

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml

Also, let's not forget that Kubrick was willing to change his mind when it came to his movies' soundtracks. He had most of them mixed for mono originally because he didn't want people seeing them in old non-stereo equipped theaters to miss out on anything. It took until the late 90s for him to realize that this was a silly decision, and he approved most of his movies to be remixed into 5.1 for their most recent DVD releases.

There is no reason to think Kubrick couldn't have come around on the aspect ratio issue as well. William Friedkin used to be a staunch black-bar hater, and even he's now on the widescreen support team.

Kubick was advised on many home video technical matters by his assistant Leon Vitali, who has demonstrated in interviews that he has no understanding at all of what anamorphic enhancement is or how 16:9 televisions work. I'm sure that with a little more information coming his way Kubrick very well may have realized the folly of insisting that his movies be transferred open-matte only.

You didn't answer my question. I asked what you meant by "original widescreen". Are you claiming that while Kubrick filmed in 1.33 he intended a theatrical widescreen ratio? I personally have no idea, I'm asking!

Nonsense. This is you reading into it. Vitali understood and understands anamorphic aspect ratios and video technology perfectly well. AFAIK he stated very clearly in the Digital Bits' interview that the reason they did not use 16x9 for several titles was that they wished to follow SK's last instructions to the letter, where he wanted no alteration of the ratios or image size to occur by 'windowboxing' in the titles which were between 2:35 (or greater):1 anamorphic and 1.37:1 camera negative (Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita).

Yes, his movies were composed for theatrical exhibition in widescreen. They would have played 1.85:1 in the U.S. and 1.66:1 in Europe. Kubrick's framing was flexible enough to accomodate both ratios, and he also tried to keep production equipment out of the 1.33:1 area so they could be opened up for television (not always succeeding -- see the helicopter shadow and rotors at the beginning of The Shining).

Read the DVDFile interview with him. Relevant comments are on page 3:

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_...ngkubrick.html

... Even though it was clear that Kubrick's wishes were based entirely on misinformation.

If Kubrick was really so upset about windowboxing affecting the relative image size (as if everyone in the world owned the same size television as one another), how would he have felt trying to watch a non-anamorphic 1.66:1 movie on a 16:9 TV? Either you have to crop some image off the top and bottom of the frame, or watch the whole thing in a tiny box in the center of the 16:9 frame.

Re-reading that interview for the first time in years it is clear that Vitalli didn't know what he was talking about. He only had a half grasp on it then, and the emergence of High Def masters on TV that were made in 1.78 confirms that he wasn't close to the project, didn't understand the specifics, and failed to comprehend the bennefits of 16x9 enhancement.