Leaderboard Extra
Stanley Kubrick two dvds

Forums - Discs & Movies - Stanley Kubrick two dvds 

15th January 2006 13:51  #1

rob rickson Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 74
Stanley Kubrick special edition dvds
  I adore Kubrick films and I would die to have a two disc Clockwork orange dvd, I actually had dreams about it. Clockwork orange would be so beautiful on two disc loaded with extras on how one of the most groundbreaking films was created! Barry Lyndon is another under appreciated Kubrick gem, I would love to see some special features on how they designed those realistic scenes with such natural lighting. And a Paths of glory dvd and a 2001, a Shining two disc, Lolita!!! They did Dr.Strangelove so why can't we get some more? My only question is how come the most extraordinary filmmaker of th 20th century only has stripped dvds?!

15th January 2006 15:23  #2

Liran Marom Member Join Date: April 2004 Location: Israel Posts: 98
I agree with you. But, I think it's one of those studio things that is blocking the SE. The Shining has a little bit of extras but not enough for today's standards. Dr. Strangelove is not a Warner film, but Sony's so it got the right treatment (including DTS).

15th January 2006 15:27  #3

Je Ff Member Join Date: February 2005 Location: United States Posts: 438
I'm pretty sure there are 2 discs for Clockwork and 2001.  You can probably find them at some smaller retailers, aka: not Target or Best Buy.

15th January 2006 19:08  #4

Danny Storr Member Join Date: November 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 161
the reason there isnt alot of behind the scenes / Supplamentary material relating to Kubrick Films is because He didn`t believe is was right for the public to see how he made movies ...!!!
So I doubt you`ll ever see any 2 disc releases of any kubrick films

15th January 2006 20:13  #5

floyd dylan Banned Join Date: April 2004 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 913
Yeah it was Kubrick who put a block not the studios, that's why some of his films are pan and scan and bare bones.

16th January 2006 0:35  #6

Cheddar J. Cheese Member Join Date: October 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 1,492
His movies are pan and scan because that's how he filmed them (in that aspect ratio). "Full Metal Jacket" is being released on HiDef in May (source Digital Bits) so mayeb on the next gen of DVD (as much as it pains me to say that).

16th January 2006 0:51  #7

Chris Gould Editor Join Date: May 2001 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 7,085 Send a message via ICQ to Chris Gould Send a message via MSN to Chris Gould Send a message via Skype to Chris Gould
They're not 'pan and scan', they're open matte. Big difference.

16th January 2006 5:40  #8

rob rickson Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 74
I found these
  No special features but they're still good looking. I guess Kubrick didnt intend special features which I can understand but they can get some interviews on there or some rare footage. Heres some good collections.

   http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00005L...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00005B...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00005L...

  I don't know if it's really worth the price. Great pictures and nice sets but they lack the features. Definitely cool though.

16th January 2006 6:10  #9

floyd dylan Banned Join Date: April 2004 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 913
Still not widescreen though smart arse.

16th January 2006 7:48  #10

Matt Contributor Join Date: October 2004 Location: United States Posts: 2,113
Yet, they still aren't pan & scan either...

16th January 2006 10:00  #11

Chris Gould Editor Join Date: May 2001 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 7,085 Send a message via ICQ to Chris Gould Send a message via MSN to Chris Gould Send a message via Skype to Chris Gould
floyd dylan wrote: Still not widescreen though smart arse.

I wasn't being a 'smart arse', I was pointing out a technical distinction. You might not appreciate the difference, but our less antagonistic readers probably do.

17th January 2006 15:25  #12

Adrian Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,305
Chris wrote: floyd dylan wrote: Still not widescreen though smart arse.

I wasn't being a 'smart arse', I was pointing out a technical distinction. You might not appreciate the difference, but our less antagonistic readers probably do.


There is a huge debate between Kubrick scholar's as to what Kubrick's intended ratio for his films was, be it wide screen or 4:3.

17th January 2006 15:37  #13

Chris Gould Editor Join Date: May 2001 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 7,085 Send a message via ICQ to Chris Gould Send a message via MSN to Chris Gould Send a message via Skype to Chris Gould
Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that his films are released open matte, not pan and scan. The difference between those two can be as dramatic as Academy ratio and Scope.

17th January 2006 15:44  #14

Matt Contributor Join Date: October 2004 Location: United States Posts: 2,113
I thought it was a bit of an odd feature, but the DVD of The Interpreter contains a short featurette with director Sydney Pollack where he explains the pan & scan process and how it can ruin a movie or alter the director's original intentions. I only mention it because the disc is widely available and a relatively newer release, and the featurette is good for those that are still confused or have no clue on the differences between the widescreen and pan & scan.

17th January 2006 16:18  #15

Adrian Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,305
Chris wrote: Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that his films are released open matte, not pan and scan. The difference between those two can be as dramatic as Academy ratio and Scope.

You are indeed correct.  The question remains whether Kubrick meant for his films to be seen open matte.  (During the VHS days James Cameron framed his movies to look right in both widescreen and open matte.  Not sure if he still does this.)

If anyone ever wants to see open matte destroy a widescreen movie, watch the open matte version of A Fish Called Wanda.

17th January 2006 16:53  #16

Chris Gould Editor Join Date: May 2001 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 7,085 Send a message via ICQ to Chris Gould Send a message via MSN to Chris Gould Send a message via Skype to Chris Gould
John Cleese in his pants no less.

18th January 2006 0:14  #17

AmyChaser Member Join Date: January 2006 Location: United States Posts: 12
I am not trying to be a jackass but since thread seems to have fans of Kubrick, can someone tell me what is so fascinating or genius about him or his films?

I personally don't like his films much, based on a narrative level.  And I don't see anything technically fantastic about the production of his movies to set him apart from any other director.

I am honestly asking, without being rude, why is he so revered?

18th January 2006 0:59  #18

Cheddar J. Cheese Member Join Date: October 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 1,492
He went where no director had gone before in many respects:
At the height of the Cold War he made the dark COMEDY "Dr. Strangelove", a very serious issue at that time.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" had special effects beyond it's time (it was 1968). The story is not driven by dialogue, but by music, an almost silent film.
"A Clockwork Orange" is visually chilling from Alex's ultraviolent behaviour to his curing to his suffering, right 'round back to ultraviolent like clockwork. Again, the music gave the film a what has been called "Future Shock" theme where society has crumbled. Kubrick presents it in a way where you can believe that this can actually happen (or has already happened...)
In "The Shining", there were no real scary parts IMO (I know I will get many responses saying it's scary as hell) but Kubrick makes us feel a sense of isolation and when Jack finally just snaps, you feel like he's after you because you feel no one else is around and that's what's so frightening.

I'm sorry if this doesn't answer your question and/or doesn't make sense. Also, Kubrick is a director whose films you either love or hate. You're in no way being rude in saying you don't like his films.

18th January 2006 1:54  #19

Ian Schultz Banned Join Date: July 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 407 Send a message via MSN to Ian Schultz
Danny Storr wrote: the reason there isnt alot of behind the scenes / Supplamentary material relating to Kubrick Films is because He didn`t believe is was right for the public to see how he made movies ...!!!
So I doubt you`ll ever see any 2 disc releases of any kubrick films


Guess what?. Their are two 2-disc Kubrick films out. Spartacus Criterion and Dr.Strangelove SE

18th January 2006 20:57  #20

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,150
Kubrick films are great at the moment as they are the only one's in my collection that I can still watch on a 4x3 TV without masking and are as the director intended. This is probably the only advantage to having a 4x3 TV still and I'll be sorry when I inevitably have to watch them in the future with black bars down the sides. I don't believe his films (Spartacus and 2001 aside) will get the 16x9 treatment in HD that a lot of home cinema fans are hoping for as it would be a compositional nightmare.

19th January 2006 15:19  #21

Adrian Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,305
Dr. Strangelove is also available in anomorphic widescreen (the 40th anniversary addition.)  Since there is much debate on what Kubrick's intentions were (and the fact that he is dead and can't tell us), I do not see why they can't issue them as both full frame and anamorphic widescreen.

19th January 2006 19:36  #22

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,150
I don't think there is any debate on the subject of what Kubrick's intentions were. He shot those films in question 1.37:1 (1.66:1 for Clockwork) and that's how he wanted them to be transferred for home viewing. Any move to reformat these films to any wider aspect ratio would be in direct opposition to what he originally intended. If you reframe the 1.37:1 to a 16:9 aspect ratio then you throw off the focal points within the frame and unbalance everything. There are merits to all the ratios. I'm constantly amazed that people who are film fans and cinefiles seem to get so frustrated by 1.37:1 or anything other than 1.85:1 or Scope. Kubrick's framing is meticulous it should be viewed as he designed it. As always though, just my opinion.

19th January 2006 20:08  #23

Ian Schultz Banned Join Date: July 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 407 Send a message via MSN to Ian Schultz
I think ever since The Shining they were ment to be full screen

1st February 2006 1:21  #24

Cheddar J. Cheese Member Join Date: October 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 1,492
Source: Digital Bits

Two disc SEs of: "2001: A Space Odyssey", "A Clockwork Orange", "The Shining" and an unrated "Eyes Wide Shut" on DVD and HD coming soon (hopefully "Full Metal Jacket" too with the opposite being announced).

3rd February 2006 0:25  #25

Aaron Schneiderman Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,198
For those who do not understand the difference between "open matte" and "pan and Scan" please read this explanation so that you will no longer frustrate Chris. http://www.howstuffworks.com/video-format8.htm

Quick Reply 

Message Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.
Not Registered?
Forgotten Details?