The Shining at DVinfo.net

Glenn Gipson · March 30th, 2005, 11:24 AM

So I finally got The Shining DVD, one of my favorite horror films of all time. I especially loved the behind the scenes documentary on the making of the Shining. Stanley Kubrick was my all time favorite director, and it was a pleasure to actually see him direct for the time in my life. But I have to say, the thing that is so amazing about this movie is the soundtrack. To me, there is not a better horror soundtrack out there then the Shining.

Shame they just don't make movies like this anymore...

Christopher C. Murphy · March 30th, 2005, 12:16 PM

I agree - my girlfriend and I wanna go see the re-make of "Amittyville Horror". But, what's the chances of it not having boring CGI everywhere taking the real "horror" out of it?

My only beef with new horror movies is the effects and fast editing. If they just held shots for longer and dropped the lame effects in favor of doing it live on the set...it would be scarier. There have been a few scary films I've seen lately....Session 9, Saw and a few others.

In the Saw when the guy jumps out of the closet? No effects...just simple old scare tactics. Those types of scenes are worth 1000 times more because it could really happen. That's the key for me...can it really happen? I know the Shining had make believe moments that werem't reality, but the pace was so slow you got sucked in. There wasn't cartoon animations (I don't care to call them "animations" minus the cartoon if they look like cartoons!) anywhere...real people acting.

Jack was the best because he went mad...nothing is scarier than some real dude going mad.

Mathieu Ghekiere · April 1st, 2005, 06:18 AM

I agree with you, Christopher.
Real tension beats CGI big time!

Christopher C. Murphy · April 1st, 2005, 07:23 AM

Let's hear it for CGI-less films!!! Yea!

Barry Gribble · April 1st, 2005, 09:26 AM

The Shining is one of my all-time-favs also... have to get that.

Regarding CGI... I went to see a movie a few years back..."The House on Haunted Hill" I think... It was CGI all over the place... dragons flying out of the paintings and such... and the absolute scariest moment - the one when the entire audience jumped and gasped - was when they opened a box and a skeleton jerked upright in it. It was hilarious, because this is the same thing they did 70 years ago. Nothing else garnered a reaction anything like it....

Christopher C. Murphy · April 1st, 2005, 09:31 AM

"The House on Haunted Hill" - I saw that too! That's the EXACT movie I saw where afterwards I swore up and down that CGI sucked. lol

It's gotten a tiny bit better since then, but not much. I believe in 10 years things will be almost acceptable, but I still think it's not there. If it can't "really happen" then I'm usually pulled out of the story and end up talking to myself. That's not really good and I'm sure that I'm not alone. If I am then I probably need therapy!

Glenn Gipson · April 1st, 2005, 03:37 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Gribble : The Shining is one of my all-time-favs also... have to get that.

Regarding CGI... I went to see a movie a few years back..."The House on Haunted Hill" I think... It was CGI all over the place... dragons flying out of the paintings and such... and the absolute scariest moment - the one when the entire audience jumped and gasped - was when they opened a box and a skeleton jerked upright in it. It was hilarious, because this is the same thing they did 70 years ago. Nothing else garnered a reaction anything like it.... -->>>

The only thing about this Shining DVD is that it's not Letterboxed, and that sucks. Or at least my version isn't.

Charles Papert · April 2nd, 2005, 12:07 PM

"The Shining" was projected in a 1.66 aspect ratio (also called European), which would have been "lightly" letterboxed for 1.33 TV's. It's possible that the video version is actually showing a bit more negative top and bottom (rather than blown up and chopping the sides), so you are getting more picture, not less!

Keith Loh · April 2nd, 2005, 12:59 PM

From the Shining FAQ:

13/ What aspect ratio was The Shining filmed in?
The entire negative was exposed, meaning that there was no in-camera hard matting so the film was effectively shot in Academy 1.37 but it wasn't intended to be shown in cinemas that way. The film was shot and conceived for 1:1.85 ratio screening (and the camera viewfinders had the 1.85 framelines marked on them) This is the standard ratio that widescreen films in the US are projected in. The 1:185 crop was achieved when the film was projected onto cinemas screens.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/h...g/shining.html

Yi Fong Yu · April 3rd, 2005, 12:55 AM

halo folx,

i don't wanna disappoint ya'll but in a recent WB interview, the entire Kubrick catalogue of films will undergo a "SE" spiced up transfer to make it look brand new. thus, the copy ya'll have will be outdated... again.

good thing i rent instead of buy =).

Barry Gribble · April 3rd, 2005, 05:33 AM

regarding the aspect ratio...

I was disappointed when I got the "Eyes Wide Shut" DVD because it wasn't widescreen... only to find out the same thing - it was shot with a 1.37:1 ratio and letterboxed for the theater.

Something else I read about Kubrick said basically that he shot with the full negative so that he would never see his films in pan-and-scan mode for TV. If it was every going to be shown in this format, he wanted control over the full frame.

This makes sense if you've ever seen 2001 (shot 2.2:1) in pan-and-scan. There is a long continuous shot of three people sitting in a space station and talking. They are situated so that they take up the full width of the frame. The guy in the middle talks to the one on the left for a while, then turns and talks to the guy on the right. The full frame is beautiful, but to fit it in to 1:33:1 they have to frame the two guys on the left, then when the conversation switches they slowly pan over and reframe for the two guys on the right. It is excruciating to watch, really. I've never heard it said, but seeing this convinced me that this is why Kubrick shot everything with a larger negative later.

(btw - in the IMDB specs it says 2001 was shot with a 65mm negative... wow)

Greg Boston · April 3rd, 2005, 08:53 AM

Are you guys buying the 'widescreen' DVD versions. Many movies are released in both formats but you have to check the cover of the DVD jacket. They originally put one version on one side and the other version on the flip side(my Sony dvd player can flip the disc over). Some movie releases now have two dvds in one jacket for each version. When I bought Shrek, it was the wrong version for my screen. Had to go back to the store and get the 'widescreen' version.

Barry, you might want to check your 'Eyes Wide Shut' jacket.

regards,

-gb-

Barry Gribble · April 3rd, 2005, 09:02 AM

Greg,

Yes, I am conscious of that... on the DVD it says:

"This feature is presented in the full aspect ratio of the original camera negative, as Stanley Kubrick intended."

This is what Amazon says about it:

"As with the DVD formatting of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut was matted in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio for theatrical presentation, but the director composed his films in camera to accommodate television broadcast and home video viewing. The official aspect ratio of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD is 1.37:1. "

I can always tape it off on the TV :).

Yi Fong Yu · April 3rd, 2005, 06:07 PM

Greg,

CG movies are a little bit different. if you know the story behind A Bug's Life then you know what i'm saying. because everything is computer generated they can fit more information for BOTH the widescreen AND the 4:3. just check out A Bug's Life, you see more on both versions, no cropping... but that creates a complicated issue of which is more "correct", i guess it's all about preference.

March 30th, 2005, 11:24 AM	#1
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	The Shining So I finally got The Shining DVD, one of my favorite horror films of all time. I especially loved the behind the scenes documentary on the making of the Shining. Stanley Kubrick was my all time favorite director, and it was a pleasure to actually see him direct for the time in my life. But I have to say, the thing that is so amazing about this movie is the soundtrack. To me, there is not a better horror soundtrack out there then the Shining. Shame they just don't make movies like this anymore...

March 30th, 2005, 12:16 PM	#2
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	I agree - my girlfriend and I wanna go see the re-make of "Amittyville Horror". But, what's the chances of it not having boring CGI everywhere taking the real "horror" out of it? My only beef with new horror movies is the effects and fast editing. If they just held shots for longer and dropped the lame effects in favor of doing it live on the set...it would be scarier. There have been a few scary films I've seen lately....Session 9, Saw and a few others. In the Saw when the guy jumps out of the closet? No effects...just simple old scare tactics. Those types of scenes are worth 1000 times more because it could really happen. That's the key for me...can it really happen? I know the Shining had make believe moments that werem't reality, but the pace was so slow you got sucked in. There wasn't cartoon animations (I don't care to call them "animations" minus the cartoon if they look like cartoons!) anywhere...real people acting. Jack was the best because he went mad...nothing is scarier than some real dude going mad. __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

April 1st, 2005, 07:23 AM	#4
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Let's hear it for CGI-less films!!! Yea! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

April 1st, 2005, 09:26 AM	#5
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	The Shining is one of my all-time-favs also... have to get that. Regarding CGI... I went to see a movie a few years back..."The House on Haunted Hill" I think... It was CGI all over the place... dragons flying out of the paintings and such... and the absolute scariest moment - the one when the entire audience jumped and gasped - was when they opened a box and a skeleton jerked upright in it. It was hilarious, because this is the same thing they did 70 years ago. Nothing else garnered a reaction anything like it.... __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

April 1st, 2005, 09:31 AM	#6
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	"The House on Haunted Hill" - I saw that too! That's the EXACT movie I saw where afterwards I swore up and down that CGI sucked. lol It's gotten a tiny bit better since then, but not much. I believe in 10 years things will be almost acceptable, but I still think it's not there. If it can't "really happen" then I'm usually pulled out of the story and end up talking to myself. That's not really good and I'm sure that I'm not alone. If I am then I probably need therapy! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

April 1st, 2005, 06:18 AM	#3
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	I agree with you, Christopher. Real tension beats CGI big time!

April 1st, 2005, 03:37 PM	#7
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Gribble : The Shining is one of my all-time-favs also... have to get that. Regarding CGI... I went to see a movie a few years back..."The House on Haunted Hill" I think... It was CGI all over the place... dragons flying out of the paintings and such... and the absolute scariest moment - the one when the entire audience jumped and gasped - was when they opened a box and a skeleton jerked upright in it. It was hilarious, because this is the same thing they did 70 years ago. Nothing else garnered a reaction anything like it.... -->>> The only thing about this Shining DVD is that it's not Letterboxed, and that sucks. Or at least my version isn't.

April 2nd, 2005, 12:07 PM	#8
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	"The Shining" was projected in a 1.66 aspect ratio (also called European), which would have been "lightly" letterboxed for 1.33 TV's. It's possible that the video version is actually showing a bit more negative top and bottom (rather than blown up and chopping the sides), so you are getting more picture, not less! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

April 2nd, 2005, 12:59 PM	#9
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	From the Shining FAQ: 13/ What aspect ratio was The Shining filmed in? The entire negative was exposed, meaning that there was no in-camera hard matting so the film was effectively shot in Academy 1.37 but it wasn't intended to be shown in cinemas that way. The film was shot and conceived for 1:1.85 ratio screening (and the camera viewfinders had the 1.85 framelines marked on them) This is the standard ratio that widescreen films in the US are projected in. The 1:185 crop was achieved when the film was projected onto cinemas screens. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/h...g/shining.html __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

April 3rd, 2005, 12:55 AM	#10
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	halo folx, i don't wanna disappoint ya'll but in a recent WB interview, the entire Kubrick catalogue of films will undergo a "SE" spiced up transfer to make it look brand new. thus, the copy ya'll have will be outdated... again. good thing i rent instead of buy =). __________________ bow wow wow

April 3rd, 2005, 05:33 AM	#11
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	regarding the aspect ratio... I was disappointed when I got the "Eyes Wide Shut" DVD because it wasn't widescreen... only to find out the same thing - it was shot with a 1.37:1 ratio and letterboxed for the theater. Something else I read about Kubrick said basically that he shot with the full negative so that he would never see his films in pan-and-scan mode for TV. If it was every going to be shown in this format, he wanted control over the full frame. This makes sense if you've ever seen 2001 (shot 2.2:1) in pan-and-scan. There is a long continuous shot of three people sitting in a space station and talking. They are situated so that they take up the full width of the frame. The guy in the middle talks to the one on the left for a while, then turns and talks to the guy on the right. The full frame is beautiful, but to fit it in to 1:33:1 they have to frame the two guys on the left, then when the conversation switches they slowly pan over and reframe for the two guys on the right. It is excruciating to watch, really. I've never heard it said, but seeing this convinced me that this is why Kubrick shot everything with a larger negative later. (btw - in the IMDB specs it says 2001 was shot with a 65mm negative... wow) __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

April 3rd, 2005, 08:53 AM	#12
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Are you guys buying the 'widescreen' DVD versions. Many movies are released in both formats but you have to check the cover of the DVD jacket. They originally put one version on one side and the other version on the flip side(my Sony dvd player can flip the disc over). Some movie releases now have two dvds in one jacket for each version. When I bought Shrek, it was the wrong version for my screen. Had to go back to the store and get the 'widescreen' version. Barry, you might want to check your 'Eyes Wide Shut' jacket. regards, -gb-

April 3rd, 2005, 09:02 AM	#13
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	Greg, Yes, I am conscious of that... on the DVD it says: "This feature is presented in the full aspect ratio of the original camera negative, as Stanley Kubrick intended." This is what Amazon says about it: "As with the DVD formatting of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut was matted in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio for theatrical presentation, but the director composed his films in camera to accommodate television broadcast and home video viewing. The official aspect ratio of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD is 1.37:1. " I can always tape it off on the TV :). __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

April 3rd, 2005, 06:07 PM	#14
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	Greg, CG movies are a little bit different. if you know the story behind A Bug's Life then you know what i'm saying. because everything is computer generated they can fit more information for BOTH the widescreen AND the 4:3. just check out A Bug's Life, you see more on both versions, no cropping... but that creates a complicated issue of which is more "correct", i guess it's all about preference. __________________ bow wow wow