Criterion ready to release IT’S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD (1 Viewer)

[Joe Lugoff]

I'm desperate for news, so I read the Wikipedia entry for IAMMMMW. Two threads at HTF are mentioned as references, and there is a paragraph that talks about this thread.We're talking the big time!

I use Wikipedia all the time. I even make "corrections" to it (at least, I hope they're corrections).

But when I see a sentence like this, I have to wonder:

"Several people on the Home Theater Forum have stated that the release is comming, however, and for people to be patient."

Yes, Wikipedia is the "big time" for the Internet, but it's not exactly the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Can someone prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Stanley Kramer's very first cut of IAMMMMW was five hours long? That sounds too much like an Urban Legend to me.

 

[TonyD]

Don't waste your time. He doesn't like the Three Stooges. He's hopeless.

I was the one who mentioned the three stooges and I didn't say I didn't like them.

Either way, you win Joe. How dare anyone not like this movie and even offer an opinion to that.

 

[Ethan Riley]

I was the one who mentioned the three stooges and I didn't say I didn't like them.

Either way, you win Joe. How dare anyone not like this movie and even offer an opinion to that.

I

Maybe this isn't the place to offer negative opinions for movies. People are entitled to their opinions. It's their reasons for viewing those opinions on the internet that are suspect. And Joe nailed it--Bujaki patronized the film simply to feel superior to the rest of us beasts. He just wanted to make us feel like crap.

IT WORKED.

 

[Robert Crawford]

People need to calm down! I saw nothing wrong with Bujaki's post as I've wondered about some of the angst expressed in this thread too. This thread shouldn't exist just for the fans of this film. If people can't handle contrary opinions then perhaps posting on an internet forum isn't for you. If any fans or non-fans of this film crosses the line in regard to our posting guidelines then this forum's administrative staff will deal with it. It is ironic that that an upcoming BD release of a comedy made to make people laugh has generated such negative reactions from various posters to each other.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

.

 

[Tino]

Man, this thread is going wacky. In a sad way. Jeez.

 

[Robert Harris]

Can someone prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Stanley Kramer's very first cut of IAMMMMW was five hours long? That sounds too much like an Urban Legend to me.

I can help you with that.The film was originally cut to 27 reels. In its various cuts, even with footage moving from one reel to another, the editors locked it within the same 27 reel format, as it remains today for projection.27 reels = 300 minutes.No urban legend, just fact.RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

This isn't the place for it! What are you trying to prove? Do you go into churches on Sundays and tell them Jesus is just a myth?!

Go over to the Criterion Forums and say IAMMMMW is a lousy movie. They'll love you for that over there.

It's not your place to tell another member what they can or can not say here!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Man, this thread is going wacky. In a sad way. Jeez.

Too much so, I hope there is an announcement soon.

 

[Todd J Moore]

Here's how I took Jose's post:

"I didn't like this movie when I saw it, but I support everything Criterion puts out. Therefore, I will buy it. This isn't the first movie Criterion has released that I didn't like, but I bought all the same. I do this to support Criterion in all they do. In addition, after reading for the love this movie has, when I buy it I will give it another chance to see if there's something I missed."

This is okay to me, since I've done much the same. As I've mentioned before, I'm a serial fan. I've bought every serial that has been released on DVD, including every release from Alpha. I've even bought ones from Alpha that I saw on VHS from VCI and openly hated like The Clutching Hand. Why? Because I support the release of serials on DVD and will buy any such serial in the hope of seeing more come out. I'd do the same with Blu Ray. So, yes, even if The Clutching Hand or Young Eagles was released on Blu Ray, I'd buy them no matter how much I dislike them. And Jose is far more willing to give IAMMMMW a second chance than I would be to give something I didn't like a second chance. Usually, it's one and done for me.

In short, there's nothing wrong with Jose's post. His comment about the tantrums also holds water as people are being awfully hot and bothered about the potential news of the release of a film, flipping out each month it's not announced and getting frankly overdramatic.

That being said, here's how I take Joe's posts:

"How dare you express a contrary opinion to mine on this movie! You have no right to! Get off this thread you lowly heathen! And nobody else had better suggest I'm overreacting, even when every sentence I write ends with an exclamation point! You think you're so superior because you don't like this movie! Well, I'm superior to you because I DO like it!"

Seriously, Joe. It was suggested previously by Ron that you not come into this thread if every time you come in, you flip out about something. This seems like sound advice to me. There's no point in getting bent out of shape every other day, especially about a Movie. There's plenty of movies I like that others don't, including my friends. Doesn't bother me one bit that they dislike them. I don't flip on them and say "how dare you dislike that movie! It's the greatest thing ever made!"

Similarly there are movies I don't care for that others like. Going back to serials for a moment, a lot of serial fans love Undersea Kingdom. Absolutely love it. I don't like it, not one bit. Why? Because I think it's a rather mean-spirited serial. Is it competently made? Yes. Do I get that people love it? Yes. Do I even get why people might love it? Yes. But I dislike it passionately and will express my opinion on any serial message board and not care if people like my opinion or not. Because that's my right. And while people can disagree with my opinion, they can't tell me I can't express that opinion. Mostly because I'd tell them to bugger off, but that's me.

I think this is one of the major problems of fandom. People become so attached to a movie or series or what have you that they can't stand anyone thinking any different about it. I love serials. Only one of my closest living friends enjoys them, too. This does not bother me. And I wouldn't flip on my friends for disliking serials. If I did, I would have no friends. of course, the other problem being the Internet where people can act as abusive or nasty as they want since they're hidden online and not likely to have a face to face with the person. Honestly, Joe, would you say the things to Jose that you've said here if you met him in person?

My apologizes to the Moderators if I've overstepped my bounds.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

I can help you with that.The film was originally cut to 27 reels. In its various cuts, even with footage moving from one reel to another, the editors locked it within the same 27 reel format, as it remains today for projection.27 reels = 300 minutes.No urban legend, just fact.RAH

That doesn't "prove" it to me, but nothing will.

But I'll trust you on this and I'm wondering what was in that almost two hours that was removed. Were there additional scenes, or did the scenes we know just run longer? Probably a combination of the two, I guess.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Too much so, I hope there is an announcement soon.

Yes, I'll admit that the anticipation and repeated disappointment has driven me insane.

However, if the announcement comes and it isn't a decent attempt to restore what opened on November 7, 1963, I'll go even insaner.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

However, if the announcement comes and it isn't a decent attempt to restore what opened on November 7, 1963, I'll go even insaner.

Joe, you should be immensely happy very soon.
I doubt anyone is going to be remotely disappointed.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

If I'm going to be happy, that means it can only be one thing. The thing I've waited fifty years for.

Thanks to R.E. for the best clue yet.

I saw IAMMMMW in its shortened version in April of 1964. I knew as I was watching it it was destined to be one of my most favorite movies of all time. I also knew, even then, that a good half hour was cut from it. I wanted to see that half hour that long ago, almost fifty years ago.

If it turns out I don't like it, boy, will I feel silly.

 

[Robert Harris]

That doesn't "prove" it to me, but nothing will.

But I'll trust you on this and I'm wondering what was in that almost two hours that was removed. Were there additional scenes, or did the scenes we know just run longer? Probably a combination of the two, I guess.

Appreciate your taking my word for it. Your "proof" would come in the form of editorial notes, daily production reports, camera reports, and the final line script. All of which can be made available to you. There were a myriad of other plots and sub-plots, inclusive of one in which Rooney and Hackett, while away an hour or so waiting for Jim Backus to wake up, by massaging sun tan lotion into a leggy chorine.

There are the colloquies, which went on forever, about 12 pages of them.

A discussion, which contains my favorite line in the film, after Tracy identifies himself at the big W, with Ms Merman asking innocently, "but what about those of us that were just passengers..."

Mr. Tracy's family problems, with his brother-in-law asking for a loan to open a restaurant, and which Tracy's wife told her brother that he would receive. On top of which are Tracy's daughter's problems -- all 6'5" of her.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Keep in mind that from first assemblage to the premiere cut, only 100 minutes were deleted.

RAH

 

[Joe Lugoff]

But 100 minutes is a full length movie in itself.

I don't understand this. Why did they film so much? Were they intending to release a five hour movie? Of course not. So why go to the time and expense of doing it when they knew so much would be removed? Are all movies made that way? I know they're not.

My favorite line in your answer was this:"All of which can be made available to you."

I'd like to see what you called the "final line script." How can I? Thanks for whatever you can do.

 

[Robert Harris]

But 100 minutes is a full length movie in itself.

I don't understand this. Why did they film so much? Were they intending to release a five hour movie? Of course not. So why go to the time and expense of doing it when they knew so much would be removed? Are all movies made that way? I know they're not.

My favorite line in your answer was this:"All of which can be made available to you."

I'd like to see what you called the "final line script." How can I? Thanks for whatever you can do.

All of the Kramer files, inclusive of the line script can be requested via UCLA. There would probably be some minimal charge for copying.

Simply request access or copying of "Editor's line script."

RAH