Yeah, you should absolutely not buy another copy...Exchange it.

So any pics of these supposedly awesome slipcovers?

My Best Buy had a Kubrick set today and Target had two sets. I decided to only buy Eyes Wide Shut. I like Full Metal Jacket, hate 2001, and never seen the other two. I decided to skip[the box set.

Find post #614

The slipcovers are nothing special, I don't know where you heard this. They are identical to the actual artwork underneath.

Thanks Cheapchildren and Darth Marino.

Did anyone get A Life in Pictures individually? Mine does not have a slipcover. I'm just wondering if it was supposed to have one. At Best Buy, some of the individual sets had slip covers (2001, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining) and some didn't (Eyes Wide Shut and A Life in Pictures.).

Got the last set at a Best Buy. Also saw two copies at Target.

Did anyone get a copy of The Shinning with the door cover in a set? The one in my set is the same cover as the individual release. Any chance Warner will make replacement covers available?

Why the hell did they even have different covers for the sets and the individual releases? It's just confusing everything.

And now as I look at the discs themselves, the art on them is kind of screwed up, too:

Disc one of each two-disc set has the same image as the cover case of the individual releases. (The disc art for disc one of 2001 has the blue and purple starchild image. But the image on the case is the close up of HAL's eye.) But this scheme is only followed for 2001, Clockwork and Eyes.

The Shinning, with it's "Here's Johnny" case cover, does not have the same image on disc one. (Disc one of the Shinning is an image of Danny riding down the hall.)

And Full Metal Jacket, while the cover case does fit with 2001, Clockwork and Eyes, the disc art doesn't have any image at all. It's just the title in the same lettering as is on the case. But there's no 'Born to Kill' helmet.




Also, Eyes only has the unrated version, despite saying on the back that both versions are available. But then that's one mistake that's probably for the better.

Will the approx. 50 dollars for set remain or is it gonna change to 70-80?
Im in between buying Kubrick set or Alfred Hitchcock - The Masterpiece Collection from amazon. Both are slightly over 50.

Is your friend blind?

Perhaps you know something that he wouldn't want his wife/girlfriend to find out about?

Don't wanna get sued.

http://www.skynet.ie/~ceason/cormac/...per_willie.jpg

I was thinking something along that same line, but just remember that both Psycho and The Birds are supposed to get Legacy Series a la The Sting.

Speaking of the Shining, in one of the screencaps on DVDBeaver, I thought the blood came off on the second floor.

Yea, but im not that big of a Hitchcock fan that i would skip the big and cheap(per film) collection in order to get legacy series. Im a big Kubrick fan, BUT if the price will stay on 50 i would skip it and go on with Alfred at the moment, cuz ii is amazons discount.
So the question remains:
Will the price of the Kubrick set go up?
(preorder price was 55, and its released and still on 55)

Score! The Best Buy near my office has this available, and they are holding one for me. It will be in my hot little hands later today.

Now I just have to hope for no glitches like the screen going black during The Shining...

That's pretty much what I figured... It's the same disc as the old one. There's still no excuse for WB not remastering and giving us an anamorphic presentation. I'm not asking for it to be cropped to 1.85:1, I'm asking for an anamorphic transfer with the current and correct 1.66:1 framing. Sigh...

Can somebody please post a pic of the "door" cover to The Shining? (The one that matches the box set).

I tried the link posted earlier, but do not have flash on my work computer, and so nothing shows on the page.

Thanks.

Ok, so I officially go to Walmart and pick up another copy of The Shining to replace the one in my boxset with the screen going black for 10 seconds problem. I would have exchanged the whole boxset like recommended, but there are no other copies, I got the last one at Target, and I'm too impatient to wait till they recieve more in stock.

Anyways, I take home the new one, and AGAIN the screen goes black, exactly the same times, 2:17-2:28. Anyone else have this problem?? I'm getting really frustrated here, I'll exchange it for a new one tonight again at Walmart, so wish me luck.

The box on mine states an R rating and though it also mentions selectable
rated or unrated versions of the film I believe I read that only the unrated
version made it to the final product. I haven't seen the film so I wouldn't
know where to look to tell if I have the R or unrated if the prior isn't the case.

I'd like to add that with all the talk of the covers in the set being ugly, I really
like the disc artwork for disc 2 of A Clockwork Orange.

The orgy scene, if there are "shadow people" covering the "good stuff", it's the R-Rated version.

My "The Shining" disc doesn't have and video dropouts there. Also, my EWS says two cuts are included (with the "R" on the package), but it's the uncut version only.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...-wide-shut.htm

You'll know pretty quick.

Alright folks, sorry about my post, I should have waited a little while longer before posting but the person who originally make that statement actually didn't see it until just now and they do in fact have the unrated version. They were totally confused about the way the packaged was labeled and also having the R rating label on the back of the box.

Did you try the disc on other DVD players?

My copy of the shining plays fine.

Get the Kubrick Collection. There is no comparison between Kubrick and Hitchcock.

My EWS did not come with the Rated version either. I think Warner is going to have a hard time making this right to all the fans.

Thats pretty bold.

But totally true.

"No comparison" better? Uh, no.

I think he's better as well, but not "no comparison".

Theres no comparison between Kubrick and John Woo. Theres no comparison between Kubrick and John Hughes.

I think Hitchcock has at least earned a comparison.

The two directors you mentioned are much better than Hitchcock.

Ok, now that IS a little bold.

Is that what the covers were supposed to look like?

How much Hitchcock have you seen? He is the master of suspense. Hard to compare that to someone who is good at action (not so much anymore though).

Wow, I hope this doesn't escalate to Superman Ultimate Box set levels.

I prefer Hitchcock to the directors you cite. Far more prolific as well with consistent quality. He didn't take ten year breaks like Kubrick and his five best movies are extraordinary.

haha some hate on Hitchcock, give me a break. Go watch at least 15 of his movies and report back.

But all I have to say to another non-anamorphic Barry Lyndon (let alone no HD) is SCREW YOU, WB. What a joke. :down:

I have seen most of Hitchcock's movies. Had to take a class in college with only his films and my brother owns both DVD sets. The trick to suspense is that it only exists with characters that the audience can care for. To me the only suspense that Hitchcock created that meant anything was in Sabotage.

Do you even know what you're talking about? You can't make a movie that is 1:66 anamorphic without cutting into the image. Making a 1:85 ratio out of BL would cut off a lot of information from the meticulously set up shots. Your desires are no different than of those that want full-screen versions of movies shot in widescreen - just to fill your screen, but damn the image.

Hitchcock wasn't really as consistent as Kubrick, at least in the 1960s and 1970s. After making The Birds, Hitchcock's only other great film was Frenzy. In that time period, Kubrick made Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and Barry Lyndon. I'll take those four over Marnie, Torn Curtain, and Topaz.

Although, Hitchcock never made anything as embarassingly bad as Fear and Desire.