The Canadian set has the correct & matching cover art for "The Shining".

I saw a couple of the sets at Best Buy tonight, along with most of the single discs. The box is fine, but I am going to be slightly annoyed if my order from B&N comes with the unmatching Shining, as the rest have a nice spine that has a sort of connecting multicolored line and simple text.

I just ordered it from B&N online. $27 with free shipping after a membership discount and 50% off coupon. The site says shipping in 1 to 2 weeks, so I guess the price is worth the wait.

I've been thinking about this dilemma for a while, especially since I broke down and spent a fortune on that Batman set, just to listen to the commentaries when I don't particularly think they're good movies. I just wanted to hear the commentaries, and no one rented them.

One thing to consider is an independent video rental store. I went to one the other night and asked the guy if he was going to carry these new Kubricks and he said he was getting the new 2001, but not sure about the others. He said if they have a lot of features, he might. I pushed a little, telling him they had commentaries and stuff, and being a Kubrick fan, he said he'll probably carry them. Some of these stores are run by film lovers and you might find a cool one that would carry new editions of good films.

Netflix is infuriating with how out of date a lot of their DVD's are- some editions are 10 or more years old, with plenty of future dips to have chosen from. Blockbuster is hit or miss.

I wonder if the studios discourage (through pricing?) rental chains and Netflix from upgrading their movies in order to generate more sales from nuts like us who will re-buy a movie for a deleted scene or a commentary track.

If nothing else, I'm really curbing my SD DVD buying because I know I'll want these in HD when I switch over... and chances are, there will be yet another new improved HD edition by that time. Time to stop wasting so much money on fleeting editions. The commentary tracks are out there and not going anywhere anytime soon. I mean, I still have so many DVD's that I haven't even watched yet.

You guys do realize that it's a 10-disc (!) set for around $50-$60? It is cheap. And while I'm sure most of us would pay an extra $10 or so for nicer packaging (though I doubt it, the way some cheapskates here hem and haw about a couple bucks), a lot of Kubrick fans that would never post here could not care less.

So those of you who have it....are we better off sticking with the old set or are the new editions really worth the dip? I plan on getting EWS to get the uncensored....but the others?

Yeah, $60 for five great (well, good in the case of FMJ) films with each having featurettes, commentaries, and two feature-length documentaries, and A+ remasters for each film finally in the original intended versions. That's not much to complain about, even with some minor shortcomings (no mono tracks, no EWS commentary).

So, may I ask, what is the big deal with the "unrated" version of Eyes Wide Shut? I mean, it has been my experience that "unrated" really means nothing in terms of these releases. Maybe a little extra skin (mainly women showing tits), and that's about it.

I saw this movie some time back, and really wasn't all that impressed. What's the story with the "unrated" version. Will it actually add more to the whole sexual theme? Do we actually see Tom Cruise naked? I'm serious, I know next to nothing about the "unrated" version.

It was a pretty big deal at the time, but Kubrick had guaranteed WB an R-rated film. After he passed, the producers opted to digitally insert shadowy figures to obscure parts of the orgy sequence to avoid an NC-17. This version, I assume, just restores this sequence to the way Kubrick had left it.

It eliminates the figures standing in the way of sex scenes during the orgy. The whole problem with them was that this was not Kubrick's intention, it was done by the studio to avoid NC-17.

There are screen captures from the unrated version at dvdbeaver which clearly show the differences between the new and past release...

I agree that I should just be happy with getting five of the greatest films ever made for $10-$12 apiece, but my question is: what is the point of releasing a box set at all - what makes it collectible - besides the packaging? Were FMJ not strangely available exclusively in the box set, there would literally be no reason for buying the box set except for the packaging. This is also (presumably) a release that someone might buy as a gift for someone else, and in that case I think the buyer would inspect the packaging pretty carefully.

WHV's regular (that, is, the non-limited) edition of the Matrix Ultimate Collection has the same MSRP as the Kubrick set, and is also 10 discs. Yet that set has a pretty thick outer box, handsome individual digipaks for each film, and a booklet. This release arguably should have been treated with even more care and consideration than the Matrix set, yet they have put out a set with a box so flimsy that virtually every copy of it will arrive signficantly banged up, with the individual films stuck inside in regular keep cases, with the artwork not even consistent due to the apparently widespread gaffe with the regular cover for The Shining, and no booklet. It just shows poor planning and inconsistent quality.

Are all of the individual releases supposed to come with slipcovers? I just bought Eyes Wide Shut, Clockwork Orange & 2001, all of which came with them. I also bought The Shining but it didn't have one. I'll probably get Lolita later in the week but that didn't have a slipcover either. For some reason, they didn't have Full Metal Jacket yet so I haven't seen whether it's missing one or not.

FMJ is only available in the box set.

Ah. Thanks. That would explain it then.

Can someone with the proper door cover for The Shining post a nice high quality scan for those of us who are anal about these sorts of things?

This is honestly the most tragic thing to happen to DVD probably followed by the genius decision to split "Grindhouse" into two separate releases a month apart. I'm aware that's how it was released theatrically overseas, but not here. Purely asinine.

I e-mailed this thread to thedigitalbits.com to see if they can find out any information about why everything got so screwed up with this release. Completely unforgivable.

By the way, dvdempire lists the new "Barry Lyndon" as being animorphic (http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...em_id=1357115), but the new "Lolita" is 1.33 (http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...em_id=1356921). What the HELL is that? IMDB says the intended ratio is 1.66.

This whole fiasco just kills me.

The Shining has a slipcover. Lolita does not.

The set as a whole does feel really flimsy. Maybe I'll replace the cases.

cheers,

-the Jesus

Found a few of the sets at both the FYE and BB on Transit Rd in Williamsville/Clarence, NY. Saw most of the individual releases (no BL, didn't check for Lolita) at the FYE for $22.99 each, but I didn't look at BB. I might wait for the DD sale and hope things are fixed by then. I've been waiting for these films to be given proper treatment for years, and it's disappointing to see the issues that have popped up.

Besides FMJ, there's the Life in Pictures documentary that is exclusive to the box. And buying the box is cheaper than buying the movies individually, even if you count the doc as $0.

A Life in Pictures is not exclusive to the box. You can buy it separately (MSRP $19.98).

I bought 2001, The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, and A Life in Pictures individually. None had any inserts. Do the ones in the boxset have inserts?

Also, my copy of A Life in Pictures had no slipcase, either. Is it supposed to have one?

Finally, can anyone post pictures of all 6 covers in the boxset. Just curious to compare.

I didn't know, just because I assumed that no one would buy it alone since they're practically giving it away with the box-set.

Nope. No inserts inside mine.

What.
The.
Fuck????

Those covers are fucking awful. What's the point of not including the iconic artwork for ACO that appeared on the regular edition. Or the awesome new cover they made for 2001? Instead they go with this hacky photoshop shit for the boxed set?

I'm so glad I didn't preorder this. Looks like I'll skip the boxed set and either pick up the seperate releases, or just wait until I go hi-def.

Yeah they are terrible. I've no clue why they chose to allocate these piss poor covers for the box set.

I really couldn't care less about cases and covers.
I work at Best Buy 2 nites a week, I get a discount, I pay $50 for 5 movies from my favorite (well, maybe 2nd favorite) director ever, 16x9 versions.
No brainer.
So I just got done watching EWS and if you're someone thinking about buying it for the "unrated" material you can pass. Basically just more nudity as mentioned above.



And a question for you HD/Blu Ray peeps (and this has nothing to do with EWS exactly):
We wanna see movies at home as good as they looked in the theatre, right?
So why would you wanna watch an HD version of an old flick?
I.e. why would you wanna see a movie "better" than it looked in the theatre?
I mean if we're gonna be purists we wouldn't want HD, right?? Since it didn't look that good in the theatre anyway?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...kubrickbox.jpg

Unfortunately, I can't post the Shining cover but it should just be a door with Redrum written on it.


EDIT: Heres another view with the spines and the back (that shows the door for The Shining:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ubrickbox2.jpg

I canceled my order with Amazon. If the packaging is really that flimsy, I'd rather buy it in a store, and then it's easier to exchange if there's a problem. Assuming I can find it anywhere. And if I still want to buy it with with the crappy box and the insipid covers.

Warner really seems to have screwed this one up.

I also notice that, except for DVDBeaver, there haven't been any reviews of the set or the individual titles. For such a major release, you'd think Warned would send out some review copies.

lol nice covers

Anyone pick up Barry Lyndon? Is it the same disc as before?

Also what is the aspect ratio of the Life in Pictures doc?

wow, that artwork stinks.

didn't even think about the box set.

Bought full metal jacket Blu-ray, will probably get the Shining , could care less about the other 3 films.

FMJ, lolita, the Killing, killer's kiss, and shining are all great, the other films are just overrated.

Has ANYONE seen the Kubrick set at any store besides Best Buy? It appears no online stores got them (not sure about DDD). No madness on Ebay....yet.

Um, I like the new covers. I had no problem with the others, but don't really prefer one over the other. I ecspecially like the 2001 and The Shining

I was a bit concerned that we'd be getting different artwork in the box set, but I didn't think we'd be getting something THAT bad.

BJ's for $50

I liked the 2001 cover but i got stuck with the crappy box set cover. As far as locating the box set...only place i've seen it was @ best buy. They didn't have many copies left.

BJ's is only East Coast correct?

Thin card stock for the box and unattractive slipcovers than if one were to buy the titles individually. While it is the movies that count, from an esthetic standpoint, Warner dropped the ball on this set. The 2001 slipcover for the individual release is beautiful.

For me at least, the differences in the slipcovers (and the quality of the HD transfers versus SD) makes it a bit harder to decide whether I want to buy the set, or to buy individual titles, let alone the HD or Blu Ray versions.

I sense that if you want the boxset, Best Buy may be your best bet; otherwise, one may want to wait for a certain 20% off sale.

Wow - your ignorance shouldn't surprise me since you work at Best Buy, but still, wow.

Do you realize that film (how these movies originally looked in the theater) is a much higher "resolution" than any HD/Blu Ray transfer? You can project film on a much much bigger screen and it would look way better than a projected 1080p transfer would look.

Not to mention, 2001 was shot on 70mm film-stock, which looked better in the theater when it first came out than pretty much any "new" movie coming out now.