-

Jump to content



Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

Criterion ready to release IT’S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD

Criterion

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1465 replies to this topic

Poll: How would you want Criterion to handle MAD WORLD? (181 member(s) have cast votes)

How Would you want Criterion to handle MAD WORLD?

  1. I would like to see *everything* that was included on the Laserdisc release even if it does not match in quality (119 votes [65.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.75%

  2. The film is too long already. Would only want to see those scenes intended for the original RoadShow release (53 votes [29.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.28%

  3. All I want is the overture and exit music. Don't need all those extra scenes added (9 votes [4.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.97%

Vote

#1261 of 1466 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,488 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 13 2013 - 04:47 AM

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

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#1262 of 1466 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,624 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 13 2013 - 06:59 AM

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!


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#1263 of 1466 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,624 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 13 2013 - 07:01 AM

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

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


  • ahollis likes this

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#1264 of 1466 OFFLINE   Todd J Moore

Todd J Moore

    Second Unit

  • 337 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2005
  • Real Name:Todd Moore
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted October 13 2013 - 07:17 AM

*
POPULAR

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.


Edited by Todd J Moore, October 13 2013 - 07:34 AM.

  • Tino, Douglas R, David Weicker and 1 other like this

Viewing a 3D movie in 2D is kinda like viewing a Scope movie in Pan and Scan.


#1265 of 1466 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,022 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted October 13 2013 - 08:06 AM

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.



#1266 of 1466 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,022 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted October 13 2013 - 08:10 AM

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.



#1267 of 1466 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,022 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted October 13 2013 - 08:13 AM

.


Edited by Joe Lugoff, October 13 2013 - 08:32 AM.


#1268 of 1466 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 39,902 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted October 13 2013 - 08:14 AM

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.


  • cb1 likes this

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#1269 of 1466 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,022 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted October 13 2013 - 08:44 AM

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. :rolleyes:



#1270 of 1466 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,488 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 13 2013 - 08:57 AM

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


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#1271 of 1466 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,022 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted October 13 2013 - 09:31 AM

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.



#1272 of 1466 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,488 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 13 2013 - 10:04 AM

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


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#1273 of 1466 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer

  • 5,515 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted October 13 2013 - 10:48 AM

Thanks, RAH! I made a request for a copy of the script.

Joe, check this out:

http://www.cinema.uc...amer-collection

#1274 of 1466 OFFLINE   darkrock17

darkrock17

    Supporting Actor

  • 812 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2007
  • Real Name:Andrew McClure
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted October 13 2013 - 11:50 AM

 

ABC Late Night: The Comedians, “Stanley Kramer’s Reunion with the Great Comedy Artists of Our Time.” (1974) 
Hosted and moderated by Stanley Kramer. In-studio guests are Sid Caesar,  Buddy Hackett, Jonathan Winters.  Executive producer Stanley Kramer. Roundtable discussion of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World with clips. Program also includes a segment where Sid Caesar,  Buddy Hackett, and Jonathan Winters perform dramatic readings of scenes from Kramer's films:  Caesar as Captain Queeg from The Caine Mutiny (1954); Hackett as Cyrano de Bergerac (from the 1950 film); Winters as Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman (1951).

 

This special from the Stanley Kramer Collection would make a great special feature to included in this forth coming release. Can you imagine the three of these comedian's doing serious scenes from some of Kramer's noted works. Anything with Jonathan is going to be gold.


  • ahollis likes this

#1275 of 1466 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer

  • 5,515 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted October 13 2013 - 01:24 PM

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.


Typos like comming instead of coming drive me crazy. I created an account and fixed two of these in the HTF paragraph and sentence.

#1276 of 1466 OFFLINE   rmw650

rmw650

    Supporting Actor

  • 955 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2012
  • Real Name:Richard W

Posted October 13 2013 - 02:49 PM

Let's just hope for an announcement real soon on this and it's all what we hope this newest and special release is going to turn out to be, not only to make a lot of us fans of the movie happy and excited about the potential release, but at the same time to prevent Joe Lugoff from going off the deep end and causing himself a heart attack and going insane at the same time. We should know something soon, as Ron has been alluding to.


  • battlebeast likes this

#1277 of 1466 OFFLINE   cadavra

cadavra

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 157 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008

Posted October 13 2013 - 10:22 PM

*
POPULAR

I am constantly getting zinged on my Facebook page for calling this the Greatest. Movie. Ever. And you know what? That's fine. In the greater scheme of things, it's still just a movie, and I judge no one for not agreeing with me on this or any other topic.

 

Mike S.


  • Rob_Ray, ahollis and bujaki like this

#1278 of 1466 OFFLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter

  • 1,628 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted October 14 2013 - 01:12 AM

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.


It is not unusual for first cuts to be immensly long and contrary to IAMMMMW other movies have been shortened much more than their maker wanted them to be shortened.

Two high profile examples of directors who had this issue more than once are Erich von Stroheim and Sam Peckinpah. Another movie that famously was to be intended at some point to come out as two movies was the 1962 version of Cleopatra, it would have had two parts of about 3 hours each and eneded up at one movie with a runtime of roughly 4 hours - you do the math as to how much was cut.

#1279 of 1466 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,022 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted October 14 2013 - 08:38 AM

I am constantly getting zinged on my Facebook page for calling this the Greatest. Movie. Ever. And you know what? That's fine. In the greater scheme of things, it's still just a movie, and I judge no one for not agreeing with me on this or any other topic.

 

Mike S.

 

That's why I never proclaim anything to be the "best" or "greatest."  I just say it's my "favorite."*  That's an inarguable fact.  Of course, I still get put down and made fun of for it because I didn't say The Shawshank Redemption or The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I guess.

 

*Actually, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is my second most favorite movie of all time.  I know you don't care, but I'm just saying.


  • ahollis likes this

#1280 of 1466 OFFLINE   Rob_Ray

Rob_Ray

    Screenwriter

  • 1,448 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 12 2004
  • Real Name:Rob Ray
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted October 14 2013 - 08:56 AM

I am constantly getting zinged on my Facebook page for calling this the Greatest. Movie. Ever. And you know what? That's fine. In the greater scheme of things, it's still just a movie, and I judge no one for not agreeing with me on this or any other topic.

 

Mike S.

Mike,

 

Are you telling us that you think IAMMMMW is greater than "Sh! the Octopus?"  High praise indeed!


Edited by Rob_Ray, October 14 2013 - 08:57 AM.

  • Danny Burk and William Ferry like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Criterion

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users