The Shining (1980) UHD Review

Thanks, Matt. I am definitely picking up this one after the inevitable price drop.

Thank you for your review. I'm not sure if I'll buy the disc or the 4K digital. It depends on the pricing between now and Black Friday sales.

It looks amazing Robert, and IMO this film warrants a physical media purchase. Just a sumptuous transfer. You'll want to enjoy every nuance. And yes, thanks for the great review Matt!

Robert Crawford said:

Thank you for your review. I'm not sure if I'll buy the disc or the 4K digital. It depends on the pricing between now and Black Friday sales.

Click to expand...

Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free

most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast

Powell&Pressburger said:

Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free

most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast

Click to expand...

I saw that earlier this morning and ordered "The Shining" along with two other 4K titles. As to Gremlins, my HD digital that I bought for $4.99 on iTunes has already upgraded to 4K so I'm passing on the disc.

All work and no 4K makes Jack a dull boy.

I’ve read it’s the incorrect aspect ratio -
Why isn’t this mentioned in the review?

Because it’s not in an incorrect ratio.

It's "incorrect" if you're being pedantic - the disc is opened up very slightly to 1.78 from the theatrical 1.85 ratio. But there's far more variation than that in theatrical projection, especially in 35mm, and I defy anyone to show how the composition is somehow compromised by that added sliver of picture.

Worth said:

It's "incorrect" if you're being pedantic - the disc is opened up very slightly to 1.78 from the theatrical 1.85 ratio. But there's far more variation than that in theatrical projection, especially in 35mm, and I defy anyone to show how the composition is somehow compromised by that added sliver of picture.

Click to expand...

Whenever I read somebody griping about 1.78 vs 1.85 ratio, I just shrugged my shoulders and sigh.

I would imagine that what we've got in terms of ratio has come from the decisions of knowledgeable insiders and the cream of the Kubrick crop. Like "2001" there comes a point where one should just sit back, stop torturing themselves, and simply bask within its beauty.
This 4K of "The Shining" is a wonderful disc; and has further whetted my appetites for a hopeful UHD of "A Clockwork Orange".

Robert Crawford said:

Whenever I read somebody griping about 1.78 vs 1.85 ratio, I just shrugged my shoulders and sigh.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's petty - on both sides. It's also stupid of the studios to make the minor alteration in OAR in the first place.

On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?

Colin Jacobson said:

On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?

Click to expand...

You could also use that same argument not to put those tiny lines on. The main thing is that we're getting stunning versions of all these classic movies. I've said it before (& will no doubt say it again); we movie fans are spoiled rotten these days.

Powell&Pressburger said:

Target has added THE SHINING & GREMLINS 4Ks to their current sale of Buy 2 get one Free

most of the Target locations had stock in my area but I just checked and all my nearby locations are now out of stock! I guess news spreads fast

Click to expand...

Thanks for mentioning this. I just ordered The Shining, Apocalypse Now and Avengers: Endgame through the deal. It works out to a little over $18 per UHD title. I wanted to order John Wick 3 in UHD, but it wasn't available for some reason, so I settled for the $5 higher priced Avengers film.

Colin Jacobson said:

Yeah, that's petty - on both sides. It's also stupid of the studios to make the minor alteration in OAR in the first place.

On my TV, the black bars for 1.85:1 are barely noticeable. Why bother to go 1.78:1 for these instances?

Click to expand...

I know sometimes Warner just does that in general, but it may have been at Vitali’s direction to honor Kubrick’s wishes.

Kubrick did not like the appearance of black bars on a TV screen. There’s documentation which I’ve viewed at the Kubrick archive which confirms this. He shot his later films which spherical lenses not because he hated widescreen, as some have erroneously reported in past years, but rather, so that he had the option to present his films open matte. He felt it was better to have extra height on the image, even if it wasn’t carrying essential information, vs the appearance of black bars on what (in his lifetime) were small TV screens.

While I don’t think there’s a significant difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 (as was noted in an above post, theatrical exhibition is far less precise than that variance), I think this could simply be a matter of honoring the spirit of Kubrick’s request, that when picture information is available, that he’d prefer to open up the matte a little rather than having the television viewer observe dead space on their screen.

It’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that if he had lived up see 60” widescreen televisions become the norm that his views may have changed. But since it doesn’t harm the film to present it at 1.78:1, and since doing so honors both the spirit and the letter of his stated preferences, I don’t see a problem.

Billy Batson said:

You could also use that same argument not to put those tiny lines on.

Click to expand...

The difference is that the tiny bars accurately represent OAR and the tiny bar-free version doesn't.

Again, I don't bunch my panties about 1.78:1 versions of 1.85:1 movies, but I think it's idiotic. Even the most ardent "FILL MY TV!!!" dope is unlikely to care about the thin lines so why not stay true to OAR?

Josh Steinberg said:

I know sometimes Warner just does that in general, but it may have been at Vitali’s direction to honor Kubrick’s wishes.

Kubrick did not like the appearance of black bars on a TV screen. There’s documentation which I’ve viewed at the Kubrick archive which confirms this. He shot his later films which spherical lenses not because he hated widescreen, as some have erroneously reported in past years, but rather, so that he had the option to present his films open matte. He felt it was better to have extra height on the image, even if it wasn’t carrying essential information, vs the appearance of black bars on what (in his lifetime) were small TV screens.

While I don’t think there’s a significant difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 (as was noted in an above post, theatrical exhibition is far less precise than that variance), I think this could simply be a matter of honoring the spirit of Kubrick’s request, that when picture information is available, that he’d prefer to open up the matte a little rather than having the television viewer observe dead space on their screen.

It’s entirely possible and perhaps likely that if he had lived up see 60” widescreen televisions become the norm that his views may have changed. But since it doesn’t harm the film to present it at 1.78:1, and since doing so honors both the spirit and the letter of his stated preferences, I don’t see a problem.

Click to expand...

I think the TV landscape of 2019 is so different from what Kubrick experienced through his death in 1999 that his "stated preferences" become irrelevant.

He built those preferences around what looked best on 1990s 4X3 tube TVs, sets where the average consumer probably had a 27" set.

No way that can be compared to a world populated by 16X9 sets, TVs where the norm is probably 40+ inches.

So I couldn't possibly care less what Kubrick liked best 20+ years ago. Due to technological changes, his preferences about home video are far too outdated to matter anymore.

25 years ago Cameron endorsed a 4X3 version of "The Abyss" based on the era's technology - you think he'd still do that?

No, but since it’s a 50/50 shot in the first place as to whether the releasing studio automatically does 1.78:1 for 1.85:1 films, since the studios/filmmakers already consider that a valid presentation, I don’t see the harm in putting out The Shining in that format which does represent both the intended framing and honors Kubrick’s stated preferences.

I’ve seen 35mm prints of The Shining projected with far more framing variation from one reel to the next than exists going from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. If you watch the actual film projected, particular in a theater doing changeovers, due to the placement of the projectors and the angle of the booth, what hits the screen is far less accurately framed than any disc version has ever been.

Josh Steinberg said:

No, but since it’s a 50/50 shot in the first place as to whether the releasing studio automatically does 1.78:1 for 1.85:1 films, since the studios/filmmakers already consider that a valid presentation, I don’t see the harm in putting out The Shining in that format which does represent both the intended framing and honors Kubrick’s stated preferences.

Click to expand...

But weren't Kubrick's last "stated preferences" to show "Shining" 1.33:1? If you're gonna make "honoring Stan's wishes" the argument, then it should still be 1.33:1, right?