The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#151 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 16, 2019 4:42 pm

Roger Ryan wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 4:36 pm
FlickeringWindow wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:57 pm
WBShop just sent out an email specifically noting it’s the premiere version.

I do hope it at least has an option for the three cuts branched.
The thing is, as I guess has already been pointed out, is that it would be easy to call the standard U.S. edit the "premiere version" since the film was subsequently edited-down for the European market. We need Warner Home Video to specify it contains the previously unseen hospital coda. If it does, there's no way the standard U.S. edit would not be included as well since it's the version Kubrick wanted for general U.S. release (and the shorter European cut should be on there as well).
The film opened in NY/LA on May 23rd, 1980 - the Friday of Memorial Day weekend. Those prints were changed within a week of that date. The press release has gone out of its way to say that this cut is the one released on May 23rd, 1980. Why be so anal about the premiere date unless they're trying to communicate, through the length and date, that it's the original edit? I'm totally baffled about it too, but this would be a hell of a lot of mistakes (on film festival sites, in press releases, etc) all at once.

We will know by the end of the weekend, once the 4K restoration has screened at Cannes and in Toronto, whether it includes the hospital coda or not.

ford
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#152 Post by ford » Thu May 16, 2019 7:11 pm

welp:
Harlan: Stanley wanted to make sure that nobody would ever re-assemble his edit in any other way. All outtakes and unused scenes were systematically destroyed — including negatives and rushes. He himself knew that he would never consider a re-cut. He was someone who lived totally in the present. He never looked back."

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#153 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 16, 2019 7:32 pm

That interview from 2017 has absolutely nothing to do with this announced restoration in 2019 since it was two years ago, no "welp" about it - there appears to be new information now unless someone at Warners is just completely inept at disseminating information to multiple sources

ford
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#154 Post by ford » Thu May 16, 2019 7:36 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 7:32 pm
That interview from 2017 has absolutely nothing to do with this announced restoration in 2019 since it was two years ago, no "welp" about it - there appears to be new information now unless someone at Warners is just completely inept at disseminating information to multiple sources
I didn't say it did. I just thought it was interesting that people who closely worked with Kubrick made a point of explaining the lengths he went to to prevent his films from being re-edited.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#155 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 16, 2019 7:39 pm

Much like the aspect ratio issue, this is well-trod territory over the years, but that doesn't change how strange the roll-out of this restoration has been and what seems to be the very likely possibility that the original cut is coming - I only took issue with your "welp," not the idea of sharing that quote, etc - no one is going to stumble upon the smoking gun unless it's new information from Warners, or from those exhibiting or viewing the print at Cannes.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#156 Post by Roger Ryan » Fri May 17, 2019 8:09 am

I saw The Shining three times (same theater) when it opened in wide U.S. release in June, 1980 and each time I noticed an odd jump between the close-up shot of Jack in the maze and the tracking shot into the photograph. This didn't look like a reel change, so I thought the print might have been damaged a bit and a splice made to remove the damaged frames. It wasn't until years later that I learned about the hospital scene that had been cut after the premiere; I now suspect that original print I saw was one of the ones where the footage was trimmed after the print was struck.

Given that Warner Home Video did not include the 17 minutes of existing footage trimmed from 2001 as a supplement to the UHD release last year, I'm still incredulous that a deleted scene would actually be re-edited back into The Shining and that this modified version would be treated as the primary version on the disc. As "mfunk9786" says, we'll know soon.

User avatar
Roscoe
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#157 Post by Roscoe » Fri May 17, 2019 6:51 pm

Digitalbits is confirming that

"We’ve learned from multiple sources now that the version of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining coming to 4K Ultra HD on 10/1 will be the same 144-minute cut of the film we’ve seen previously on disc. There was an error on the press release that suggested a 146-minute run time, which led some to speculate that the film would include the epilogue ending (which took place at a hospital) that was cut by Kubrick at the last minute. We figured this was highly unlikely and, indeed, this is not the case. So adjust your expectations accordingly."

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#158 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri May 17, 2019 7:29 pm

Someone's getting fired.

Ishmael
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:56 pm

Re: The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

#159 Post by Ishmael » Fri May 17, 2019 7:35 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:29 pm
Someone's getting fired.
Eh, that person just got this re-release of an old film a fuck-ton more publicity than it otherwise would've gotten. Not saying it was intentional, but I doubt it's going to make Warner's too unhappy when all is said and done.

Post Reply