I'd take a new, not full screen version of this film any day of the week. I still haven't picked it up, but I did rent it and the interviews they have on there were great.

Hopefully a new two disc Warner special edition...

If this is true I bet it'll be in widescreen. Since Kubrick is gone, perhaps Warner Brothers will have the common sense to override the "as the director intended" nonsense once and for all.

Isn't that the reason that so many movies are released in Full Screen?

The Stanley Kubrick films are an oddity. He shot them in widescreen, the studio released them theatrically in widescreen, but his DVD's were released in full screen, because that's how Kubrick wanted it. I'm not surprised the studio complied. Kubrick has made many films with WB and the studio isn't going to unnecessarily defy him and damage an existing relationship. Since Kubrick is no longer alive, there's no thriving business relationship and no future Kubrick films to look forward to. I assume the studio will now have more leeway to release the films in widescreen without Kubrick arguing against it.

Unless the Kubrick "estate" contests such a judgement (assuming they have some sort of control over these films) I don't see WB releasing a major boxset of Kubrick films in anything other than widescreen. In order to keep the purists happy, they may even have both the pan & scan and widescreen versions on each disc.

Don’t the full screen versions show more on the top and bottom in this case?

What's your point? That's how the full-screen transfers of 99% of all 1.85:1 movies work. Doesn't make it right.

Well if the director wanted them to show the most picture possible, no sense in debating it, right? And it's not like it had special effects or anything.

If you've been around here any length of time, you know it isn't about showing the "most" picture, it's about showing the correct picture. That means showing the frame that was composed by the director to be seen, which in the case of most Kubrick films is 1.33:1.

And special effects have nothing to do with it.

And cheaper too with the inevitable 6-12 month MSRP drop.

Even after 6-12 months the MSRP price usually isn't cheaper than the DDD price

Incorrect. The Kubrick DVDs are not in Pan & Scan format.

I hadn't heard about this. Is there any more info out there?

Leon Vitali is supervising new transfers being made for HD-TV - I believe they're using 4K scans so that they won't have to do it again for "Super HD-TV" or whatever higher definition format comes out next.

No source other than talking to the man briefly.

In other words, don't hold your breath on seeing new transfers any time soon.

There *could* be legitimate debate on this. This thread hasn't touched upon it yet, but there *could* be, on the following grounds...

Kubrick was aware of *both* the cropping *and* the fullscreen ... which is to say, he knew the cropping would take place theatrically, but chose to compose for fullscreen because he felt that more people would see the films on television ... there are other reasons, like he liked the height, and these would be especially applicable to 'Strangelove', but I mean when he went back to fullscreen later in his career ... he understood his audience, and knew that composing the shots for the medium they'd see the film in was a reasonable thing to do ... or, anyway, that's always been a major reason I've heard cited as to why he liked fullscreen.

So, if that is all true (which, not having ever met the man, I can't confirm), I can see it being a legitimate interpretation of his wishes to update the croppings when the "standard" of television becomes 1.85, or whatever those new-fangled flatscreen HD-TV things are.

That said, I can't imagine why people would advocate going against the director's wishes and call themself a "purist". That's not a "purist", it's a "fascist".

... which they've always said they would

Yep, they do.

Ah, but they'd lose the prestige of having had Kubrick in their line-up if they turn around and defy him as soon as he's dead. If I were a director and watched that happen, I'd never work with WB again.

Wanting 'Eyes Wide Shut' in widescreen is weird to me. I totally understand the argument from directors -- not just Kubrick -- who feel that the black bars can be distracting, and that shooting for fullscreen which can be cropped is a better compromise than shooting for widescreen but having to put up with a tiny image and one to two-thirds of the screen filled with black.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate widescreen, but no more than neccessary. If a director wants to go to the trouble of composing for fullscreen and making that the movie he wants to see, I appreciate that effort.

That's the thing, though. Fullscreen to me is 16:9, since that's the shape of my screen.

Surely Kubrick did not wish for there to be large grey bars on the SIDES of his images - he wanted the films to fill the screen of a home viewer's display.

Would not releasing the films in 16:9 to fill a widescreen display not be keeping with his wishes?

In a few years more people will have widescreen tvs than standard 4:3 displays.

It's not as cut and dry as you say, TGG.

and so it begins alllll over...

I rented this movie. Is there any real difference between the two releases? I just figured the second released conincided with the S.K. Collection release.

As stated on thedigitalbits.com

Aye. Class316 - if you don't like a movie, don't post in a thread about said movie. Thanks. That'll avoid these fruitless arguements.

Speaking of WS tvs...are the bars always grey on those things? If that is the case,I will just stick with a 4X3 tv to view WS films with black bars.

Heck my laptop WS monitor has black bars on it,so I don't mind viewing WS or fullframe/1:33 films on that. But the grey bars are not pleasent to look at. Of course the dvd player is not working at the moment,so back to standard tv for me,not that I mind.

So do all WS tvs have grey bars,or just some models?

hmm, well if they are going to produce a 'new' SE of Eyes Wide Shut, you think they might digitally erase the blooper where the camera is seen in the reflection of the shower edge beam.

No, they're an option.

They already did that...or were you ;)

ohhhhh! you're right, I only saw this in the theatre and never saw the 'corrected' video version, interesting.

I had thought that *all* the discs in the Kubrick collection were re-mastered, but, as said elsewhere in the thread, I was wrong, it was just a cover change.

Um, I don't think you know what "cut and dry" means, since I was the one who said, specifically, the exact reason that you're agreeing with as a possible complication (ie: *not* cut and dry, if it's complicated) as to the fullscreen vs. widescreen debate.

Looking back, I honestly don't know what you're referring to being "cut and dry"; the first thing I said was that there *could* be legitimate debate on this, even though I disagree with it. I just said that all the reasons in the thread stated prior to that were wrong or mis-stated, which *is* cut and dry.

Actually, it's possible; the secondary reason I've heard for why he preferred fullscreen was that Kubrick, apparently, *loved* height, he like his images to seem taller than they were. Now, as I said, I can't confirm any of the alleged reasons for why he liked fullscreen, but if that were true, he might still prefer the picture which seems taller, and has the full image that he shot.


So, okay, "purists", why doesn't anybody complain about the dialogue dub that the IMDb says they did to one of Kidman's lines?