'strangelove' (which isn't warner i guess so not included here) has an alt ending.
Do you mean the pie fight scene? If I remember correctly, there isn't any footage surviving from that.
― Tuomas, Friday, 27 July 2007 09:35 (nine years ago) Permalink
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 27 July 2007 09:51 (nine years ago) Permalink
more details on the new DVDs (and Eyes Wide Shut will be the uncensored Euro version):
― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 16:03 (nine years ago) Permalink
Uh, so they fucked with the aspect ratios of the films to suit new televisions, and there's no release in a hi def format, and this new box will lack Dr. Strangelove.
Looks like I'm sticking with my current box set, thanks.
― mh, Thursday, 23 August 2007 16:10 (nine years ago) Permalink
TMC has Fail-Safe on and so far it's quite a bit more entertaining than Strangelove, although as pointed out by the presenter this would have been a rather improbable opinion to formulate, much less defend, in 1964.
― El Tomboto, Friday, 5 October 2007 02:05 (nine years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb, Friday, 5 October 2007 02:39 (nine years ago) Permalink
this would have been a rather improbable opinion to formulate, much less defend, in 1964.
Still is! It's from an era when George C Scott was allowed to be funnier than Walter Matthau.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:15 (nine years ago) Permalink
But where did George get with Yvonne De Carlo?
― James Redd and the Blecchs, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:35 (nine years ago) Permalink
Ken, we should really go to the movies sometime.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:36 (nine years ago) Permalink
I got Walter mixed up with Tony Curtis for a second. Yeah, I might be able to get away in the near future. You and Ian going to see that Ian Curtis thing?
― James Redd and the Blecchs, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:38 (nine years ago) Permalink
Stanley Kubrick: a Life in Pictures is finally releasing on Netflix this week. I've been waiting seven years to see this.
― Darin, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 22:46 (eight years ago) Permalink
3 minute short doc on Kubrick: http://www.aantranikian.com/kubrick.html
The 18 minute interview with Tony Kaye they made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa9DD_q0CM8
― caek, Friday, 4 July 2008 21:07 (eight years ago) Permalink
i like the font where they have written KUBRICK on the first link. do you have any idea what it is?
― jed_, Friday, 4 July 2008 21:18 (eight years ago) Permalink
jesus, how much did that cost?!
― jed_, Friday, 4 July 2008 21:20 (eight years ago) Permalink
― Mr. Que, Saturday, 13 December 2008 17:08 (seven years ago) Permalink
― very very serious (gabbneb), Saturday, 13 December 2008 18:01 (seven years ago) Permalink
subtitle: i was a paralegal for stanley kubrick
argh almost worked on that :(
― Just Johnson (special guest stars mark bronson), Saturday, 13 December 2008 18:25 (seven years ago) Permalink
Anthony Harvey on editing Strangelove:
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 30 June 2009 01:03 (seven years ago) Permalink
Great link. Thanks.
― EZ Snappin, Tuesday, 30 June 2009 13:12 (seven years ago) Permalink
Still no blu-rays of Lolita and Barry Lyndon :(
I've never been totally clear on the whole aspect ratio issue with Kubrick's films- correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that Kubrick's problem was with letterboxing on 4:3 screens more than widescreen itself, yes? I mean, I can't imagine watching 2001 cropped, and weren't his post-2001 films shot for widescreen theatrical showings? I'm sure Kubrick had enough clout that he could've had them shown in a narrower ratio if he thought it was necessary...
― Telephone thing, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 15:59 (seven years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I think his beef was about showing the films on TVs, but with TVs being widescreen mostly nowadays, it's not such an issue.
― Keith, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:05 (seven years ago) Permalink
he would make two versions, shooting more vertical so that the tv version would not be cropped.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:05 (seven years ago) Permalink
wait, they wd be different takes?
― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:08 (seven years ago) Permalink
or just made 2 versions in post?
same take, but ya, cropped later.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:10 (seven years ago) Permalink
it is cause for an ENDLESS debate among kubrick heads and aspect ratio trainspotters tho.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:12 (seven years ago) Permalink
well I think they shd be seen the way they were in theaters, now that letterboxing is commonplace. Why debate?
― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:18 (seven years ago) Permalink
some people make the argument that he preferred a squarer frame, just in general. he was definitely opposed to letterboxing on 4:3 TVs but now that most TVs are widescreen that seems moot. the main issue seems to be that he never clearly named his preference.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:37 (seven years ago) Permalink
It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."
There has been a longstanding debate regarding the DVD releases of Kubrick's films; specifically, the aspect ratio of many of the films. The primary point of contention relates to his final five films: A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut.
Kubrick's initial involvement with home video mastering of his films was a result of television screenings of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Because the film was shot in 65 mm, the composition of each shot was compromised by the pan-and-scan method of transferring a wide-screen image to fit a 1.33:1 television set.
Kubrick's final five films were shot "flat"—the full 1.37:1 area is exposed in the camera and cropped in a theater's projector to the 1.85:1 ratio.
The first mastering of these five films was in 2000 as part of the "Stanley Kubrick Collection", consisting of Lolita, Dr. Strangelove (in association with Sony Pictures), 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick oversaw the video masters in 1989 for Warner Home Video, and approved of 1.33:1 transfers for all of the films except for 2001, which was letterboxed.
Kubrick never approved a 1.85:1 video transfer of any of his films; when he died in 1999, DVDs and the 16×9 format were only beginning to become popular in the US, and most people were accustomed to seeing movies fill their television screen.  Warner Home Video chose to release these films with the transfers that Kubrick had explicitly approved. 
In 2007, Warner Home Video remastered 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut in High-Definition, releasing the titles on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray Disc. All were released in 16×9 anamorphic transfers, preserving the theatrical 1.85:1 aspect ratios for all of the flat films except A Clockwork Orange, which was transferred at an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. 
In regards to the Warner Bros. titles, there is little studio documentation that is public about them other than instructions given to projectionists on initial release; however, Kubrick's storyboards for The Shining do prove that he composed the film for wide-screen. In instructions given to photographer John Alcott in one panel, Kubrick writes:
THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1.85-1. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1.33-1 area. 
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:39 (seven years ago) Permalink
I just don't get why they don't include both versions on the DVDs, that way people can watch it "the way Kubrick intended" or "the way it looked in theaters" or whatever the hell they want.
― The Yellow Kid, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:22 (seven years ago) Permalink
they would need to include an extra disc, is why. and also most people don't really know/care about this ish to make it worth the expense.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:30 (seven years ago) Permalink
for some reason the dvd of 'i heart huckabees' has both versions.
― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:34 (seven years ago) Permalink
would make more sense for it to include neither imo
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:35 (seven years ago) Permalink
I've seen some Woody Allen movies that have both aspect ratios, each on one side of the same disc.
― The Yellow Kid, Thursday, 2 July 2009 03:22 (seven years ago) Permalink
that's a shame because by doing that he's taking away the space on the disc he could save for the behind-the-scenes featurettes on the creation of the stunts and f/x
― real men love cheeses (latebloomer), Thursday, 2 July 2009 04:07 (seven years ago) Permalink
I know I for one really want to know how he pulled off the exploding Brooklyn Bridge in Manhattan.
― Telephone thing, Thursday, 2 July 2009 13:42 (seven years ago) Permalink
Just saw 2001: A Space Odyssey at The Fox Theater in Atlanta and I have to say it was the most amazing Kubrick film experience I have ever had. The print they showed was absolutely beautiful, with brighter colors than I have ever seen, and the sound was terrific. The acoustics in the theater really enhanced in particular the more ambient parts of this film. The breathing sequences were very intense! So many new things I noticed watching this, so many things I wanted to take note of! Alas I could not keep track because I was enthralled with the film and absolutely absorbed in every moment. Even projected on a big screen the special effects are all absolutely flawless (the cheetah attack in the beginning.....wow!!!!) and watching this movie is always like participating in a beautiful symbolic dream.
Of course, during the intermission I heard someone joke about wanting to fall asleep. Perhaps they would have been happier with Transformers 2 (which was previewed right before this ambient/spiritual masterpiece!).
The very spiritual nature of this movie is something I felt most of all this time around, and something I hadn't noticed before. The pacing, the emphasis on sounds and vibrations, the shifting between forms of consciousness (apes to Dr. Floyd to Dave to HAL etc.), the meditative pacing; it felt very in tune with Eastern philosophies and spiritual traditions. The way Dave keeps seeing himself in the conclusion, and not recognizing his own body, I now recognize as evidence that the psychedelic out of body trip that he has taken is not simply a trip to a physical destination but a trip to an entirely new state of consciousness. He looks at himself in the mirror because he is in the process of becoming a post-corporeal entity; a planetary consciousness. The star-child is Kubrick's way of pointing out Sagan's "Tiny Blue Dot", the recognition that with the space age we are gaining a new perspective on our planet: that the Earth IS mankind. The deep symbiotic relationship we have with our planet is something that becomes startlingly clear when viewed from outer space.
Something about the shot of the tiny pod, holding lifeless (?) Frank in its arms, hopelessly facing the Discovery One now controlled by an unresponsive HAL really got to me. Almost feel like it points to some kind of religious iconography but now sure what.
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 26 July 2009 06:24 (seven years ago) Permalink
― http://tinyurl.com/ggggst (Pleasant Plains), Sunday, 26 July 2009 07:37 (seven years ago) Permalink
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, July 26, 2009 2:24 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
what i love about that scene is how it's shot "over the shoulder" of the discovery one... it's basically a simple shot-reverse shot dialogue setup the way it's composed and edited.
― julien schNAGL (s1ocki), Sunday, 26 July 2009 07:51 (seven years ago) Permalink
Yes, with the ships anthropomorphized somewhat, I definitely see that. You have to wonder if the monolith evolves not just the human race but their technology as well; now mankind = starchild/planetary consciousness and technology = mankind consciousness. Technology has become human. Note HAL's capability for error, emotional responses, and murder to ensure his own survival. Like the apes in the beginning, the first thing HAL does in his new evolutionary paradigm is kill.
With the past week's discussions of the Cold War Space Race it made the beginning apes/bones = man/spaceships connection seem even more cynical. He may show a US and Russian coexistence in space but the underlying message is that even thousands of years later we are still using technology as a clubbing bone.
Also that ape clubbing scene really brought Clockwork Orange to mind in a big way.
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 26 July 2009 14:19 (seven years ago) Permalink
Also re: Kubrick = no sense of humor. The toilet instructions reveal (because they are SOO long and it says 'Please read in entirety before using') was really f-ing funny and the part where HAL is trying to talk Dave out of shutting him down at the end, the audience was laughing out loud at every line. Going in to 2001 I had no expectations for anyone to make a peep the entire film.
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 26 July 2009 14:25 (seven years ago) Permalink
"It all tastes like chicken anyway."
― http://tinyurl.com/ggggst (Pleasant Plains), Sunday, 26 July 2009 17:09 (seven years ago) Permalink
― caek, Monday, 5 April 2010 17:28 (six years ago) Permalink
Very interesting article - thanks for linking.
― Bill A, Monday, 5 April 2010 17:46 (six years ago) Permalink
it was one cool little anecdote after another.
― caek, Monday, 5 April 2010 18:21 (six years ago) Permalink
After Stanley Kubrick
Christiane Kubrick had 42 wonderful years with her husband. But in the decade since his death, she has been beset by tragedy. For the first time, she talks about losing one daughter to cancer, another to Scientology – and why her uncle made films for Goebbels
― Elvis Telecom, Friday, 20 August 2010 02:01 (six years ago) Permalink
kubrick's sense of imagery peaked in 1971. discussion?
― Dominique, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 03:46 (six years ago) Permalink