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.

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.

Yes you can. There are several anamorphic 1.66:1 DVD's (Rear Window and Army of Darkness, for example). I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of pillar boxing the image (someone with more knowledge can elaborate/correct me if I'm wrong).

1.66:1 anamorphic results in pillarboxing on the sides. It's like how a 2.35:1 image is letterboxed in the 16x9 frame, except the black bars are on the sides. This is how the new A Clockwork Orange DVD is handled. There's a ton of title out there with 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen, even a few others from WB (Friendly Persuasion, released back in '01, is 1.66:1 16x9).

Also, the 2001 DVD for Barry Lyndon is absolutely stunning. If it were a non-anamorphic DVD with an older transfer (like the one used for the 1999 DVD), that would be a problem. Since it's 1.66:1, the resolution difference isn't that big of a deal like a 1.85:1 film or 2.35:1. Now, for HD, that's where the big difference would be.

Wow. I mean, wow. How dare you challenge slop101's knowledge of all things dvd. I mean wow. You have to be the one who is confused here. Wow.

The only real issue I have is one of my DVD cases (Clockwork Orange) has a big cut on the front. The plastic is damaged, but the artwork is fine. BTW, I have to agree that the case holding all 5 movies is really cheap and flimsy.

I'm holding out until the second printing of these, when all the cases match and (hopefully) they might even address the flimsy packaging issues.

I saw a few of these in BJs for $49.99 and resisted temptation, only because it's really easy to. It's like seeing an ex-girlfriend who you used to be very attracted to who had a rough few years, and all of a sudden can resist her pretty easily. The packaging for this set is dreadful, and there's nothing lousier than picking up a big, blocky boxset and having it feel as if it weighs a half an ounce.

Seems a bit unfair to compare a director in his prime with one who is near the end of his life. Hitchcock had at least a half dozen masterpieces (arguably many more) under his belt before Kubrick had made a single film. (And I think MARNIE is excellent.)

Anyway, let me reiterate the call for a good scan of the SHINING artwork that was supposed to be included in the boxed set. I wish WB would put it up on their website to make up for their error, but it sounds like they're having a hard enough time just getting the DVDs into stores.

Enough of the arguing over Hitch and Kub.
The question was: Will the price go up on Kubrick set or no? Is it still on 55, cuz it hasnt really been released or it will stay there and that real price 80$ was just a lie on amazon.com.