Doctorossi

Well, there's (re)creating a "new" (old) cut as a bonus and there's (re)creating it and calling it the feature. The two are not the same.

NoirFan

But even the former would be contrary to Kubrick's wishes, and WB has a history of respecting that, e.g. the back cover of The Shining DVD noting "full-frame as the director intended".

Josh Z

After his death, Warner re-released most of Kubrick's movies in widescreen on both DVD and Blu-ray, against his last stated wishes.

NoirFan

Well then, as long as we're violating his wishes, where's the home video release of Fear and Desire already?

Doctorossi

You've spoken with Mr. Kubrick about Blu-ray extras, then?

NoirFan

Wow. Are you intentionally trolling here? If you bothered to read the posts you're quoting, you'd see that my post clearly referred not the scenes as a stand-alone extra, but a full-length cut of the film that reincorporates the footage:

We can only guess how Kubrick would feel about the scenes being included as an extra feature, but, as noted, he did not want the footage (re)incorporated into the film, whether this second cut supplants the first or not.

Doctorossi

NoirFan, did you understand the post of mine you quoted? He didn't want the the footage (re)incorporated into the film. What is being discussed would be an alternate supplemental version, an extra. The film would stand, as is, and would be the primary feature of the release. See the Blade Runner set for a reference example. The director's preferred cut is front and center, the "feature presentation". The other cuts are extras. Is anyone confused?

NoirFan

Edit: Fuck it. It's a moot point now anyway.

Doctorossi

Do you know something definitive that we don't know about what's going to be on the release? Or is "moot point" your way of saying, 'I'm no longer interested in discussing it, therefor it is no longer an interesting question'?

NoirFan

This sounds pretty final to me:

I take that to mean no alternate cut, branching or otherwise. Deleted scenes as a stand-alone extra? Hopefully.

Lemmy

Well, in that case.....I'm pretty satisfied with the current release, actually. Though I think I'll revisit it today to be sure; it was in the first handful of blu's I bought when I got the player, and from what I recall, it already looks great.

If it warrants an upgrade, I will...but I'm not sure it does (for me, anyway).

This ended up like the BTTF blu-ray thread...where I started the thread out of enthusiasm, and then ended up not even interested in the darn thing (for different reasons), come release date time!

mhanlen1

The current HD release of 2001 looks awesome. It was a huge upgrade from the previous releases, so I'm happy. Of course I own the HD-DVD versions of the Warner/Kubrick titles- but they're all pretty identical to the Blu's (from the research I've done). Now Clockwork Orange is a different story. It was a disappointment for me, as it looks very DVD-like. I've read multiple accounts that it's as good as it's going to look considering the source- but I don't buy it. A 35mm film has to have more resolution than that. I guess I'd be satisfied if an overly technical explanation were given for why it looks the way it does, but I have yet to hear anything convincing. Oops, sorry about the derail.