Is anyone else with an A3 having issues playing the 2nd disc of A clockwork Orange HD DVD?

I get an error message that says " Not a dvd formated disc" I returned the disc, only to find that the new copy also says this. The first disc plays fine. hmmmmm

I was checking some of the other discs to see how the movies are framed. I don't normally say this, but I kind of prefer the unmatted version of Eyes Wide Shut. On the first release, every shot looks perfect with more picture visible at the top and bottom. The new version seems a little too cropped to me.

I also compared the first release of Clockwork Orange to the new version. The first was also in widescreen, but I noticed these two versions are framed differently. I wonder if the new release is supposed to be the correct OAR?

I picked up the new EWS, and I also prefer the unmatted version. I just wish it was also unrated.

I may find myself liking the widescreen version when I actually have a widescreen TV, but the picture on the full frame one is just dazzling.

Anyone have this box set and get the matching artwork for The Shining? -- If so from what retailer did you buy this? Everywhere i've seen this has the non-matching spine of The Shining, just wondering if this really exisits

Everyone i've talked with got the out of place shining cover.

I think they purposely used the same Shining cover for the box set because that "Here's Johnny" moment is one of the most recognizable images by the general public, second only to Al Pacino in Scarface.

Futureshop in Canada has the set with the matching case for The Shining.

But does it also have the ridiculous french translations on the cover/synopsis/spine?

Not ridiculous if you're French Canadian.

It seems all the Canadian boxes have the right Shining cover. And no, mine does not have any ridiculous french on it. YAY!

There are no French translations anywhere on my set.

I'm surprised wb hasn't made a statement as to how bad they fu**ed up the kubrick release.

There's no reason why they can't just have the french translations on the flipside of the DVD sleeve; they did it with the 2-disc limited edition Star Wars discs from last year and it was mighty nice.

I suppose what I meant by that was that its ridiculous how much stuff they have to jam into one cover when they're tackling it in both languages. I for one hate the looks of them.

I really have no interest in watching Eyes Wide Shut in this WS format (I think how it is, is a 'masterpiece') and if you don't either R2 land has the uncut version unmatted. It can be had pretty cheaply. I think in general I am sticking with the old releases.

Hate to start this old thing up again, but this film was definately composed with a 16x9 theatrical frame in mind. It looks much better in widescreen than it ever did in 4x3.

I was in the theater on opening night for EWS... It was projected widescreen, not open matte. End of discussion.

Yeah, I'm with you, but I'm an English-speaking American. As for your first point, two-sided printing is more expensive, mostly likely double the cost or more, but it costs no more to include both languages on the same side.

They messed up one cover and neglected to change the EWS artwork to say it only had the uncut version. A lot of studios do even worse and no one says anything.

Um, theaters can get it wrong, so don't be so smug about it. I don't disagree though, I highly doubt that 4:3 was preferred, just that YMMV with your local cineplex, so that's hardly an "end of discussion" proposition.

Not to mention advertised a non-existent commentary track.

As for this whole WS/FS debate, the individual theatre you watched the film in does not dictate the director's preferred presentation of the film; as I highly doubt Milos Foreman intended 'Man on the Moon' to have it's soundtrack off by about 4 seconds and for the image not to be centered for the opening two minutes of the film.

I grew up watching all of Kubrick open-matte at 1.66:1. When the original slew of DVDs were released back in '00, thats how he dictated them to be presented on home video. With the argument of widescreen televisions and the like, I'm still not sure he would suddenly change his preferred aspect ratio seven years after making a definitive statement on the matter.

Amen, brother.

You have to consider that those were a very tumultuous seven years. You're entitled to speculate as much as any of us are, but personally, I can't just take that statement at face value. In 2000, lots of films were being shown on TV cropped on the sides, or panned and scanned. If Kubrick had demanded that theaters scale back to Academy ratio when showing his films, I'd believe that "home video releases must be open-matte" meant he preferred a ratio of 1.33:1, but to me that means "don't you dare crop or pan-and-scan my films!!!" The argument could be made that he didn't like letterboxing either, but I've seen no evidence to convince me that anamorphic presentation on widescreen TVs would be contrary to Kubrick's wishes.

Beyond all the great films he could have made, this debate alone is reason enough to wish him alive once again. One closing thought, though. As a long-time still photographer, it could be possible that he preferred Academy ratio because he was used to composing for still cameras, which have a similar aspect ratio. I still think the widescreen presentation in theaters contradicts this, though. My call is that he didn't prefer 1.33:1 as a rule, just that if you show his films on a 4:3 TV, it had better damn well be open-matte, not P&S or cropped.

Well, that's just your opinion. This debate has and will go on forever but what I see open matte Eyes Wide Shut is how I think it was composed. The DVDBeaver first shot of Kidman looks much better to my eyes in OPEN MATTE. Some other chat I ran across on Google awhile ago here claimed that with the Swedish DVD there is a Kubrick text that says he wanted it shown 1.33:1 (I do not know if this just meant DVD or in general).

Take it all as you will, but to pretend you know the answer you should by now know is just silly.

Ugh. How can we *still* be having this debate.

1. Kubrick has never made a "definitive" statement on the matter. If he has, I'd love for you to find it for me... because after hundreds of these threads, I've yet to see it.

2. We have printed storyboards where Kubrick HIMSELF states that The Shining is being shot 1.85:1, but "protected" for 1.33:1.


Kubrick shot movies open matte -- there's nothing radical about that. Hundreds of movies are shot that way every year. And, in the days of low-res VHS and LD and small TV sets, he indicated that he wanted things opened up to 4:3 for home viewing.

Kubrick didn't live to see widespread use of 50+", 1080-line, 16x9 sets in people's homes. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that -- if he did -- he'd default to the theatrical presentation.


To take Kubrick's home video preferences from the mid-80s (or whenever) and try to apply them to 2007 is a little silly, IMO. My home theater now is BETTER than the actual theater that I went to for The Shining. Why should I stick with a compromised (or, in Kubrick's wording, "protected") aspect ratio?

So was I. It looked completely misframed at 1.85:1, and still does at 1.78:1. And I've been singing this song since before the first DVD was issued, mildly at first given that Kubrick wasn't around to frame the prints for theatrical exhibition, and given that the projectionist might have been to blame for what I saw opening night.

I didn't see a similar framing until "EWS" was broadcast on HD-Net, which confirmed my initial impressions that the film is poorly framed when matted to the 1.78/1.85:1 ratios.

And when these releases were announced, I suggested that finally here was the chance to provide both framings, particularly on the HD releases where all that extra memory is just sitting there, waiting to be used in a truly substantive way.

So we shouldn't be having this discussion any longer. But here we are, with an opportunity completely lost. I don't begudge those of you who prefer the 1.85/1.78:1 framings - it's a rather subjective call, after all - but I do begrudge WB for the inadequate release we presently have.

n/a