Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

"Eyes Wide Shut" unaltered to come to US


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
101 replies to this topic

#1 of 102 OFFLINE   Peter McM

Peter McM

    Supporting Actor



  • 923 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 1999

Posted April 23 2004 - 11:10 AM

The Digital Bits' Rumor Mill reports that MGM is mulling the release of the uncensored Eyes Wide Shut in the coming year.

I'm looking forward to this, but I have to wonder: Think Stanley would have given his blessing?
I am Car Salesman of Borg. You will be assimilated with no money down and easy terms available.

#2 of 102 OFFLINE   ChrisBEA

ChrisBEA

    Screenwriter



  • 1,657 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 19 2003

Posted April 23 2004 - 11:20 AM

Good news indeed. I would have to think that Mr. Kubrick would have given his blessing. I look forward to seeing it the way it was intended (I know I could buy another region, I just haven't).

#3 of 102 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,478 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted April 23 2004 - 11:32 AM

Warner, not MGM.

#4 of 102 OFFLINE   Matt Stone

Matt Stone

    Lead Actor



  • 9,070 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2000

Posted April 23 2004 - 12:08 PM

Quote:
Warner, not MGM.


Took the words out of my mouth. Good news, I'm glad I've held off buying the edited version.
In Heaven, everything is fine.
[ 2006 Films | 2005 Films | 2004 Films | 2003 Films | YMDB Top 20 ]
[ Star Wars | Sideshow | HT | DVDs | LDs | AIM: Maulrat87 ]

#5 of 102 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor



  • 9,761 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted April 23 2004 - 12:55 PM

Quote:
Think Stanley would have given his blessing?
Well since he shot and edited it that way, I would have to say yes. From all I've read, it was the studio that asked him to edit the parts, not necessarily his own desire to do so.

XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#6 of 102 OFFLINE   Steve Y

Steve Y

    Supporting Actor



  • 704 posts
  • Join Date: May 01 2000

Posted April 23 2004 - 12:55 PM

I love this film, and would gladly buy it in the uncensored format (I currently own a used copy without a case). In fact - I'm so happy about this R1 potentiality that I will not complain about how long it's taken for this to happen, or about the puritanical... wait, better stop now - I don't want to come down with a bad case of gift horse syndrome.

Here's hoping...

~s

p.s. before this turns into another "censorship" debate:

Mr. Kubrick did sign off on the changes. He did not disapprove of the (very distracting) digital sillouettes in the censored sequence. But this should not be taken to mean that before his death he changed his mind about the nudity. From a Q&A session with one of his collegues, I seem to remember it was confirmed that he went back and forth on the issue, which hinged entirely around breadth of distribution and questions like: "will an audience be turned off by this?" Kubrick played the U.S. ratings game so that people could actually see his film, which would have been pushed out of the market with an NC-17 rating.

The sequence is not a mere seconds of changed footage (in other words, we're not quabbling over split seconds of full frontal). I have seen both versions of the sequence, which is fairly long, and the change in mood is substantial, in my humble opinion.

#7 of 102 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,160 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted April 23 2004 - 01:18 PM

This is great news but I don't think there's a major difference between the two. In fact, had Warner kept their mouths shut about the alternate version, I wonder if anyone would have noticed? I mean, they could have released the US version everywhere and said it was what Kubrick cut. I personally love this film and it would be nice to see some deleted scenes with Keitel if they are available. Of course, the alternate ending to THE SHINING would be even better. Posted Image

#8 of 102 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer



  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted April 23 2004 - 02:24 PM

I might actually be able to finally see this film, since I refuse to watch it in it's censored version.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...

#9 of 102 OFFLINE   Peter McM

Peter McM

    Supporting Actor



  • 923 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 18 1999

Posted April 23 2004 - 02:46 PM

Quote:
Warner, not MGM


:b Posted Image
I am Car Salesman of Borg. You will be assimilated with no money down and easy terms available.

#10 of 102 OFFLINE   Paul Linfesty

Paul Linfesty

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 216 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2001

Posted April 23 2004 - 03:13 PM

But will this new "uncensored" release include the original "chants" soundtrack that appeared in the U.S. "R" version but was changed for the DVD?

#11 of 102 OFFLINE   Adam_ME

Adam_ME

    Supporting Actor



  • 930 posts
  • Join Date: May 31 2002

Posted April 23 2004 - 03:38 PM

Figures. I import the not exactly inexpensive Region 3 uncensored DVD and now this. Oh well, WB supporting unrated films is a good sign. Now if we can only get them to change their minds regarding DTS.
I should really learn to knock....in case there's a threesome going on in my bedroom. - Sandy Cohen, The O.C., The Countdown

My DVD Collection

#12 of 102 OFFLINE   CraigL

CraigL

    Screenwriter



  • 1,863 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2000

Posted April 23 2004 - 04:05 PM

YES!!!!

I was JUST going to order this in the next few weeks! How crazy is that? I usually order it and the next thing is that the new version comes out. Posted Image

#13 of 102 OFFLINE   MatS

MatS

    Screenwriter



  • 1,599 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 2000

Posted April 23 2004 - 04:21 PM

$hould have been i$$ued that way from the out$et

thi$ i$ nothing more than more of the con$tant barage of $tudio re-i$$ues to try and make another quick buck off of tho$e who have already made a $imilar purcha$e

no thank$

#14 of 102 OFFLINE   Haggai

Haggai

    Producer



  • 3,883 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 03 2003

Posted April 23 2004 - 04:49 PM

I guess I'll be interested in seeing this at some point, and Steve Y is at least one voice chiming in here as someone who's seen it and says that it does make a difference. I'll keep an open mind about it, but my guess is that it won't make a huge difference for me. We're talking about one sequence in a movie that isn't really about sex anyway, contrary to the bizarre pre-release buzz that made it out to be some sort of non-stop 2 1/2 hour-long orgy. Being as familiar with Kubrick's movies as I already was back then, in '99, I never really believed any of that stuff, and indeed I ended up being right (I like the movie very much, by the way). Someone else I saw it with on its release date was going on and on about the digital re-touching right afterwards, but I couldn't resist pointing out that her months-long obsession with that specific issue (reading every magazine article, repeating every rumor as fact) might have colored her perceptions just a little bit.

#15 of 102 OFFLINE   Walter Kittel

Walter Kittel

    Producer



  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted April 23 2004 - 05:49 PM

Having seen the U.S. release theatrically and on DVD and having seen the R3 version the differences are insignificant, IMHO. The unedited version probably tends to emphasize the mechanical, non-emotional nature of the anonymous sex during that portion of the film moreso than the edited version; but since that message is already pretty clear I don't consider the alteration that problematic in terms of the films overall (ahem) thrust. As a matter of principle I can see the objection to the alteration, but in practical terms both film versions work exceedingly well.

- Walter.

Fidelity to the source should always be the goal for Blu-ray releases.

#16 of 102 OFFLINE   Mark_TS

Mark_TS

    Screenwriter



  • 1,700 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 23 2004 - 06:29 PM

ah yes, how they insisted that they could release EWS no other way-who knows? maybe we will see anamorphic versions of SKs films as WB slowly "change their mind$"
The Official HTF 'elitist' lol....
"War is God's way of teaching Americans Geography"-Ambrose Bierce

#17 of 102 OFFLINE   GerardoHP

GerardoHP

    Supporting Actor



  • 696 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 10 2001
  • Real Name:Gerardo Paron
  • LocationLos Angeles, California

Posted April 23 2004 - 07:01 PM

$hould have been i$$ued that way from the out$et
I figured this would happen the moment the Kubrick people started saying a few years ago that the existing DVD versions of his movies were the definitive versions and that the uncensored version of EWS would not be released in the U.S. That kind of statement is always suspicious to me.

And, not to start the widescreen debate again but, it was at around that time that his people also indicated that, even after HDTV took on, his titles would always be shown at 4:3 because that's how he wanted it. Why, wouldn't you know that a bunch of Kubrick titles recently (as far as I know) started showing up in widescreen on the HD movie channels!

I wonder how long before they show up at your local Costco's DVD isle...

Posted Image
Gerardo

#18 of 102 OFFLINE   Will*B

Will*B

    Second Unit



  • 472 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2003
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted April 23 2004 - 10:56 PM

Extras = sale.

Otherwise, no thanks.
 

 


#19 of 102 OFFLINE   Ike

Ike

    Screenwriter



  • 1,677 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 14 2000

Posted April 23 2004 - 11:40 PM

The change is significant not because of how important the sequence is, but because of how distracting the digital figures are.

I too hope we are given the option of anamorphic, since HBO HD (and currently Showtime HD) has been showing it 1.78:1, and it looks perfectly fine to me composed this way.


#20 of 102 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer



  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted April 24 2004 - 01:12 AM

the differences are insignificant
That might very well be true, but for me, it's besides the point. It's the principle of the thing. I want to see the film, unedited, and uncensored. You could take Citizen Kane, and fuzz out the name of the nightclub where Susan works and argue that it's an insignificant change to the film, and you'd be right, but I'd still be opposed to it.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...





Forum Nav Content I Follow