i read that the canadian version was correct, but im not sure.mine was wrong, and i hope warner bros. fixes this, im really anal about these things.

The Shining cover has to be a mistake, but all the other DVD covers look awful.

Not me. The spines look stupid in the box.

i agree. how could QA not notice that the middle disk in the pack had A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT spine?

I did. As far as I know all of the Canadian versions of the set have the correct cover for "The Shining" - which is nice considering the fact that our box art is usually littered with the French equivalent of everything the box already says as well - but not the case with the Kubrick set. On the other hand, the individual Canadian releases of the Kubrick DVDs have French writing all over 'em, so as much as I dislike the set's weird cover art, I'm happy I got it.

Maybe some talented person can provide a scan of a new cover that the rest of us can print off.

I'd definately help you guys out if I could, but alas, I'm without scanner. I'm a chump.

Not as stupid as the box looks... I tossed that POS.

I've got box set from amazon today and of course, The Shining cover is the wrong one. It would be greatly appreciated if someone with the correct cover could scan it for us.

anybody have a pic with the wrong cover, as I am curious. I bought the hd-dvd's.

I've only read Part II of this thread, and the review of course, but does the boxed-set version of 2001 have a different cover than the standalone? I gather it was HAL's eye or something? I really kind of prefer the look of the 1990s snapper case (space station version), although I dislike those cases in general. The review has definitely convinced me that this is the best version yet, but the packaging of the standalone just doesn't do it for me. Could someone post a pic of the version that's in the boxed set? I'm not bothered that it doesn't have a slipcover, but I don't know if I'd want to buy the whole boxed set for the sake of a different cover, esp. if I couldn't trade in the other titles individually.

Tried to post directly, but the thread is locked, here are pics from the first Kubrick thread.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....08#post8234608

ETA: got it.

well, I like the fact that they are design-consistant-not a humble jumble of stock thrown in a box-but yes the black redrum cover would make it look complete. perhaps they ran short, and threw in the standalone discs cover
Hopefully Warner will have a mail-in program....i never liked the white covers-they didnt look classy enough for Kubrick-but I thought they should have designed all the covers in a consistant style of the new standalone 2001
cover.

Can you scan it for us???

Helps me as well... THANKS!

Ordered 2001, ACO, EWS, and Shining at DD20%. I don't need another copy of ALIP, and the covers are all much better and in slipcovers if you but them separate. Just will need WB to issue FMJ by itself or see if I can't get it on Ebay.

I realize that the box set covers suck and don't have slipcovers, but is it really worth paying more money (looking at DD's price for the boxset in comparison to the 4 separate DVD's total price) for the individual releases and not getting FMJ, just for better art and an extra layer of cardboard?

I guess I don't care as much about packaging as others do.

I agree. While good-looking packaging is a plus, disc content is, IMO, the most important thing.

Hence why I'm not buying the new Princess Bride release (great artwork, lousy extras), and why I bought the Kubrick box set (I'd rather have the Kubrick documentary and Full Metal Jacket than pay more for the other movies individually).

Besides, I was able to take the slipcovers off the separate releases, and put them over the ones in the box set, just because I preferred the separate artwork.

I never knew what you guys were talking about until I really looked the spines carefully. The part where it says "Stanley Kubrick's" is in red, unlike the rest of the covers. Plus "The Shining" has its own font, whereas every other movie has the same font.

Doesn't bother me. And that could have been done on purpose considering the horror aspect of that movie.

It's more elaborate than that. The covers inside the box set have entirely, front-to-back alternate artwork than the retail versions. Like, the retail EWS is a framed photo of the original poster, with Kidman looking at the camera, and 2001 is a shot of the space baby. If you flip the set over, on the back there are little versions of the covers next to the movie summaries, and you can see that The Shining is supposed to be the door that says REDRUM on the front of it and not Jack Nicholson. It's more than just the spines.

I think that if they were gonna do alternate art for the box set, they should have left the spines alone, and used the original theatrical poster art in a framed black border. I think I said that before, but it's still true -- that'd have been classy.

Just looking over the extra's for some of the flicks, they really seem like stingy affairs. I've read every DVD review I could find on each film, and everyone seems to praise the 'upgades'. Even though for the most part they consist of people not central to the films doing commentary and featurettes that are either painfully short or limited in number.

I look at DVDs out for 'Meatballs' and 'Stripes' or even 'Airplane' or 'Abominable' and see they have longer-running and more in-depth supplemental material than 'The Shining', 'Eyes Wide Shut' or 'Full Metal Jacket'. What the fuck is the deal? There can't be a lack of film historians/experts/makers/actors willing to discuss their feelings or interpretations of the films in question, or more than a few 18-minute featurettes about 'The Shining' or 'Full Metal Jacket'.

I'm wondering if most of the remarkably-high ratings for the newly-issued 'special editions' of Kubrick's finest are coming from people who are just overjoyed to have ANY supplemental material whatsoever for these films?

Have you watched the supplements?

It's about quality, not quantity. Those short featurettes cover quite a lot of ground.

I have a question about 2001. I've always known there were two versions released in snapper cases... one with Bowman on the cover, and the other showing the space station (I prefer the latter cover). I've just realized that the "Bowman" cover has an interview with Arthur C. Clarke listed as a bonus feature. Is this the same interview as was included on the MGM release? Anything else about the Bowman-cover version that might be interesting? I've owned both of the other versions, but saw one with the Bowman cover used today and was wondering if there's anything on it I haven't seen.

the helicopter blades in The Shining are not visible.

You're right. I just checked my copy and that shot is, finally, perfectly framed just like I always wanted it to be. Not sure what everyone else is seeing.