Okay, STAR WARS. Now, EYES WIDE SHUT?

[Poidog]

Yeah, EWS isn't SW but hey, we might as well try and get everything our way, no matter what title it is, right?

Anyway, there should be a campaign to have EWS released as NC-17 (or was it Unrated) and/or both R/NC-17.

Sure, this movie wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but if you don't care either way, why not support the campaign anyway? If you hated the movie or hated Kubrick, then it's understandable. But if you just disliked the movie, no harm no foul, right?

Now, adding a subcampaign to have this movie released as LTBX-16x9 ... well, heh heh.

[jb523]

Personally, I wouldn't fight for a letterboxed version. I'd rather go with full-frame on this one. But as a matter of principal, I think it's critical to have the uncensored version available.

[Jon]

I loved Eyes Wide Shut - it was my favourite movie of last year, and although I live in the UK, so got to see the uncut version (and the music was NOT rescored in the orgy scene, as some websites have stated), but I only have a R1 player, and don't have enough money for a R2.

So it kills me to say this, but I refuse to buy the American DVD of Eyes Wide Shut.

I really hope Criterion release this brilliant film (what - Armageddon and NOT Eyes Wide Shut?). Since Kubrick's contract with Warner's was to release it in full-frame, other companies could release it in 16x9 widescreen, which represents the hugely carefully composed images.

I would Rather have what Kubrick Wanted. When you saw the movie in the theatres, it was a very narrroww screen. Almost a square. This is how Kubrick works. Not all DVD's have to be widescreen, especially Kubrick titles after 2001. If you watched the shining Documentary, He uses a t.v. monitor for playback. So he sees what the home viewer will see, not the theatre goer.

unfortunately, I'm not going to buy this movie for the same reasons everyone else has. I would rather have the unrated version without the pervert blocking my view. It's what kubrick intended and its what I want.

I'm sure Kubrick is having a good laugh with kaufman up there in genious heaven

[Poidog]

What I meant to say was a LTBX-16x9 and a FF version should be released on the same disc. It still fulfills Kubrick's contract (I'm guessing) or it sounds like a loophole to me. And, of course, release an R and Unrated version on that same disc. Seamless branching? DVD-18?

Also, for those who have widescreen TVs, they might blow it up to fill the screen and the image will be LTBXed anyway, unless they have their black bars on the side (yuck).

[roger thornhill]

Well, I wouldn't want an artificially letterboxed movie (one whose original aspect ratio was 1.37:1, which I believe was the case here). And I damn well don't want a censored version.

I refused to see this in the theater because of the censorship. I figured I'd see the uncensored version when it came to home video. Guess I was wrong . The way things are going, I may never see this film.

------------------
dds #070

[This message has been edited by roger thornhill (edited 01-27-2000).]

That is disapointing. It seens that we will never see Kubrick's original version of EWS on DVD. I live in Europe and i watched the original version in theaters, and i want to watch the same version on my DVD. After the last year's disapointing Kubrick collection (great films, poor dvd's), the release of R-rated EWS. I'm seriously thinking about not buying any DVD's from Warner.

[Jon]

Hey - they could at least put Theatrical Matte Option (a couple of widescreen bars optional via the subtitle function).

Wouldn't it just rock if you add the digital censoring via the subtitle function?

Shadowy man on....shadowy man off....shadowy man on....shadowy man off.

It would keep me happy for years.

[DJRobX]

The reason that most are so passionate about watching widescreen versions is "because it's what the director intended". So why on earth would you want a matted version of EWS when full-frame is clearly what Kubrick intended? How is chopping the top and bottom off the image any better than chopping the left and right sides off?

I think the lack of an unrated version is a big bone-headed maneuver by Warner. They would fly off the shelves if they were unrated, just because people would want to see what they missed. Now, not only have you lost that little bit of enticement, but you have people angry over censorship, especially given the recent popularity of the uncensored American Pie.

This quote goes out to Warner:

"Stooopid!! You're so stoopid!!!!!"
-UHF

I think if we want to start up a campaign, we should fight against the SOURCE of this problem, which is the MPAA rating system, or the theater industry which refuses to carry NC-17 movies. I'm really getting tired of seeing watered-down movies. Other countries don't have this problem, so why on earth does the country that boasts freedom of speech have the proverbial stick up it's rectum when it comes to movies?

[Poidog]

Originally posted by DJRobX:
The reason that most are so passionate about watching widescreen versions is "because it's what the director intended". So why on earth would you want a matted version of EWS when full-frame is clearly what Kubrick intended? How is chopping the top and bottom off the image any better than chopping the left and right sides off?

Because for me, wider is better than skinnier. I guess I'm not in that "most" category because ...

... for me, it's not because of what any director intended. It may sound stuck-up, but I really don't care what the director intended in terms of aspect ratio (sorry to purists or artistic valuists). For me, seeing the image wider than a 4x3 ratio (unless it was made for TV) gives me the feeling of watching a movie/film rather than a TV program (I don't like much TV except for a few dramas - X-F, L&O). Anything wider than 1.85:1 (1.78:1) is what I like. For example, JOAN OF ARC is so much better widescreen than it was shown on TV.

Since I don't have a WS TV, the matting gives it a cinematic look. If I had a WS TV, I could blow it up to fit the screen but if the images were anamorphic, it would have slightly better picture quality, although in this case, the film images were grainy to begin with so who knows how this would look? In the case of EWS, it could be that the cinematography gives it a cinematic look, but my opinion on ratios stands.

And, on top of all of this, Kubrick could have shot this movie using the whole 4x3 frame so matting the movie might not have worked anyway. I can't recall when I saw this movie in the theater but the screen was not framed at a 1.33:1 aspect ratio.

Finally, regarding content, that's where I AM a purist. Keep in whatever the director intended. UR over R or put both in. So ... who's starting that campaign? I'll support it! DVDFile.com ... ??? This thread could be a mini-campaign.

There IS a petition to have EWS released unrated: http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/ewspetition.html



[This message has been edited by Nicolas Besse (edited 01-29-2000).]

[Rock]

HAHA!

Poidog, you crack The Rock up. On one hand you support the director's vision and respect the artistic value (removing the digital characters and selling EWS in the unrated format), but on the other hand you are essentially saying, "Screw artistic vision or director's intent, I want it widescreen because that is the way movies should look." The Rock is more of a purist, and you have to realize that it is just a psychological barrier you have to get over to watch movies like EWS in 4:3 format and not think of them as television instead of cinema.

But, to each his own. And, for what it is worth, The Rock understands where you are coming from. It seems like widescreen would be better...but only in most cases.

Bottom line: Really, as far as ratio goes, The Rock would prefer whatever the director wants. Does widescreen look better? Yeah, most of the time, and as long as you aren't making it widescreen for the sake of what movies are supposed to look like. As for the unrated version, The Rock wants to see that because the digital characters severely hamper the film's integrity, despite the scene with the characters being brief.


DVDFile.Com Moderator
LucasP@Wabash.edu

------------------
The Rock says: Who needs Dairy Queen when you've got cigarettes?

[clortho]

From what I recall of reading some of Kubrick's comments, the guy shot full frame because he wanted the 'best' version available in both markets, theatre and home theatre. IMO, in this respect Kubrick was an idiot because he did not know what his fans preferred and/or he obviously had no clue where home theatre was heading, and heading there very quickly.

Myself, I'm all for director's respect/intent/vision, but only to an extent. When I buy a film, I want it to be as close to the theatrical experience I had as possible. Which usually means some sort of widescreen ratio. I still don't get why Warner could not have released a dual layer or double-sided disk with both versions as they have in the past. It would have fulfilled Kubrick's 'last wish' and also given us finicky bastards something to chew on. But not doing the unrated is just plain silly...WB needs to be slapped for that, as well as teaming with AOL...I don't want to start seeing AOL adverts on my dvds!

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[Poidog]

Originally posted by Rock:
HAHA!

Poidog, you crack The Rock up.

I'm glad I gave you a laugh. But, SINCERELY speaking, I sincerely understand everyone's point-of-view and released full-frame and R-rated would not deter me from purchasing it although I would prefer it to be Unrated over anything else (aspect ratio included). So, I'm getting over a different kind of psychological barrier: being able to handle seeing covered-up nude bodies. Oops.

However, my opinions still stand for reasons too long to get into here (count the number of times I edited my message - this post was L E N G T H Y).

So where's the big American campaign from 'net powerhouses to get EWS released in the UR version? I'll sign it. The link provided a few posts above seems to have been "altered" and isn't quite the influencial campaign it was intended to be.

------------------
Mahalo,
Poidog
with kalua pig and laulau on the side - no, not the dog, just the poi!)

Compromise & Sacrifice: happiness tools.
Live Aloha!

[This message has been edited by Poidog (edited 01-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Poidog (edited 01-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Poidog (edited 01-30-2000).]

[jb523]

If you prefer wide films to give it the cinematic look, what do you do about Casablanca or Citizen Kane, or do you make an exception for earlier films. Also, to include both versions would not necessarily have been to Kubrick's wishes; chances are, the last thing that Kubrick would have wanted would have been to give the consumers an option. He prefers it full-frame, Warner releases it full-frame. That is the contract that he worked under, but I'm sure his death affects these things greatly (which would explain the censored version of the film). In any case, I'm sure it's what Kubrick wanted, and if you look at Full Metal Jacket or the Shining, the 4x3 composition is great.

I just hope that the transfer is good, and as soon as the uncensored version is out, I'll grab it. I expect that the transfer will be good. I wasn't disappointed with the box set (the transfers were good--not great).

Well,

as a person who saw the unblurred version, I'd say you're not missing anything.

and watching the Chinese subtitled VCD version this morning, I'd be glad to get a copy of the blurred version, just for curiosity's sake - what and how did they do it?

My only gripe would be non-widescreen/anamorphic, but it is a known fact that Kubrick along with Pollack only allow their movies to be released PS on video.

Also, all on set monitors are just that...they shoot widescreen, or full frame with (marked out) standard monitors.

It's still a poor movie, apart from some well-acted scenes.

[Jon]

Firstly, this is not the first time Warner's have presented a censored version of a Kubrick movie.

The version of A Clockwork Orange presented currently is the snipped R-rated version. I've heard some of the missing footage is from the rape-film in the Ludovico theatre.

Secondly, full-frame ruins the composition on The Shining (FMJ not so bad) - the hallways look SO much more dramatic and lengthened when matted to widescreen (I just zoomed in on a mate's widescreen set).

Thirdly, it is NOT a "poor movie" - it is stunningly brilliant both acting, scripting, technical...you name it.

Fourthly - Citizen Kane, Casablanca etc. were meant to 1.37:1 all the way. The three latest Kubrick films were not.

Fifthly - why the hell didn't Warner's digitally remove the sound guy reflected in the mirror which I've heard so much about but can't remember seeing at all.

Sixthly - I really hope Warner license it to Criterion as they would do the coolest of cool things with it (yes they would). Like side-by-side on-screen comparisons between the R and unrated orgy scenes.

Seventh - it is such a long movie (2 3/4 hours) it wouldn't fit on a single layered disc - it would HAVE to be dual-layer to get the whole thing on. So DVD-18 is the only viable option for two versions really.

Finally - Warner, now, come on. If it pisses people off, why do it in the first place?

Oh yeah. They can re-release in three months unrated and in 16x9 at a possible new price-point.

[Wesly Moore]

Everybody else is having so much fun, I think I'll finally weigh in on this one, too.

While I don't understand Kubrick's reasons for preferring the standard 4:3 (more like 1.37:1) aspect ratio for his films, I can certainly respect it if that's what he really wanted. I also understand and empathize with those who saw "Eyes Wide Shut" matted to 1.85:1 in theaters and want to recreate that experience at home. It is a conundrum.

Having seen and luxuriated in films like "2001" and "Dr. Strangelove," I feel confident that Kubrick was well aware of how to do a bang-up job at filming in a wide aspect ratio. If, for some of his films, he chose not to do so, while I may wonder at his decision, I can accept and respect it.

On the other hand, Warner's decision to release only an R-rated version of EWS on video in America is goofy and incomprehensible. Which version of "American Pie" sold more copies? Hey, WB--do the math!

------------------
Wesly Moore
------------------
weslymoore@aol.com