The MGM LBX Lolita was transferred from a hard matted print as shown in the
USA. The hard matting was done to a 1.66:1 print/negative that was the
original aspect ratio, as shown in the UK and Europe. The Criterion edition
uses the properly formated 1.66:1 print for its transfer - and is 'director
approved' to boot.
So in this case, the MGM transfer actually not only has less info than the
Criterion transfer, but it has less info than was intended by the director.
(The P&S is even worse. It was done from the MGM print and not only loses side
info, but the top and bottom info that is lost on the hard matted print! Talk
about a can o' worms!)
Which is better? Depends on what you are looking for and your taste. I prefer
the Criterion edition.
John
In article <32CE5A...@ntb.no>, baard....@ntb.no says...
>
>
>------------A0558FD67A80
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>------------A0558FD67A80
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>
><HTML><BODY>
>
><DT>Tony Davies wrote:<BR>
>>Which are better transfers<BR>
>> for the other two Kubricks (Lolita and 2001), MGM or Criterion?<BR>
><BR></DT>
>
><DT>I hav the MGM version of Lolita. I have not seen the Criterion version,
>but two interesting things happen at the beginning of the movie. When James
>Mason enters the building searching for Quilty (Peter Sellers) he passes
>an oil painting. Some minutes later Quilty is shot while hiding behind
>the same painting. But now the painting is on the upper floor of the
house.</DT>
>
><DT> </DT>
>
><DT>Another interesting thing: On my laserdisc I can see someone pass by
>in front of the camera just before Mason enters the building. This
>did not answer your question, but I would like to know if this person is
>also visible on the Criterion Version.</DT>
>
><DT>Baard<BR>
> </DT>
>
></BODY>
></HTML>
>------------A0558FD67A80--
>