stephen^wilson
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2002
- Messages
- 246
Can someone remind me what the pussycat gag was?
I wonder if Roach realizes he's hit the ultimate low of blasphemy to us OAR buffs... preferring something other than the theatrical aspect ratio!OAR and theatrical aspect ratio are absolutely, unequivocally, not the same thing.
There are only four SMPTE 35mm theatrical projection ARs, and none are 2.35:1, for example.
Additionally, S35 and regular 35 may both be re-reframed, matted different, etc. Those who cite this as an issue unique to S35 are in error.
how exactly do you know the reasons why the "slow" jokes were cut out of the R1 version??
Back when the film first appeared at Canne discussion regaring the alternate cuts came up quite a bit. There is no doubting they resotred additional material in the hope the humour would reach the different audience of foreign markets (just like the "hows your father" gag in the UK cut of Spy who Shagged Me), but consider the market both Myers and Roach are in themselves for a second...
I stated my personal opinion of the bonus footage we got, I did not state theirs as I don't know it, and I dont think they'd hate the scenes because they would not have left them in for ANY release print if that were the case, I completely agree.
What I do think however is that the scenes were not of any major significance to either of them because if they had been, they would have left them in the domestic cut. Why? Because that's the cut they themselves, their family and their friends are going to end up seeing and owning.
That's fine if some of the additional material is allegedly a homage to the humour of Myers' late father, but thats a personal in joke of sorts, and if that's so true you'd think such scenes would be important enough to have retained in the version Myers' family would see and end up owning. Most of Myers' films will show he's not one for dropping in jokes just because they are private, heck, half of So I Married and Axe Murderer he considers somewhat of a private joke.
On the commentary of my Laserdisc copy of Austin Powers, Myers and Roach discuss the deletion of the henchman scenes and it's clear from Myers' comments that the footage was dropped during the editing process because they didn't work as well as hoped, and its just one of those quirky things that went away as is typical with comedies.
It's clear to me they got what they wanted out of the domestic release. If they had not, New Line would have let them put stuff back for DVD, heck it would have been a great selling point for the R1 release given the phenomena the film became. If there was stuff New Line suggested be removed due to fears American's wouldn't "get it" then being the pro branching, unrated, alternate cut Studio they are, for DVD/LD they probably would have allowed Roach and Myers to put some stuff back had they REALLY wanted to.
Roach and Myers got well involved with the creation of both the movies (and now the third I'd expect) for their DVD releases and again, I'm not saying they hate those scenes we got, but to me it is clear they were not significant enough for them to want to keep in the domestic release.
If Roach cared and was involved enough to oversee the transfer in his prefered aspect ratio then one would think he'd oversee that he got his prefered cut of the movie too. In my humble opinion, that's exactly what he got.
Just my 2 pence,
Dan
Is it just me or does the transfer suck? This was my second DVD 4 years ago and I always thought it was good but watching it today after a few years, it has a lot of problems with it.Join the club! I wouldn't say that it "sucks", but it hasn't aged gracefully. For my original 1999 review, I gave it a "B+"; for my updated 2002 review, I've dropped that to a "C+". (Another New Line flick - The Mask - has dropped more substantially - my original 1999 review awarded it a "B+", but now I'd only grant it a "C" - not anamorphic, and too much damned EE!
And on the topic at hand, I don't like the 2:1 framing of AP:IMOM. It cheeses off almost everybody. Many of the OAR crowd have problems with it, and the fullscreen brigade will STILL complain about the black bars...
Audio sync was an issue at various points throughout the transfer, with a significant portion of this movie appearing to be on the verge of going out of sync. The early part of Chapter 5, on the aeroplane, is particularly noteworthy for being on the verge of going out of sync.Anyone else notice this?
Check if the R2/R4 is 2.40:1, if not, you're not seeing the exact framing you saw theatrically either.This may be the case, but 2.35:1 is closer to what I prefer (in this case) than 2:1. I like the way the film looks in a wider AR and more importantly, I'm not losing any image. For me, it's easier to accept more picture than less.
In conclusion, I do not follow directors' intentions blindly - case in point, Lucas's tinkering of "Star Wars". However, I always acknowledge these intentions but in the case of Austin Powers, I get more enjoyment out of a wider aspect ratio and the "extra" jokes.
So the changes to the Star Wars SEs, the 2002 version of ET, and the conservative framing on home video releases of Apocalypse Now are all cool by you?Yes. 100% cool by me. It doesn't mean I like them, simply that I support the rights of artists to control their own works. Of course, supporting artistic freedom often appears to be a mind-boggling position 'round these parts.
DJ
Yes. 100% cool by me. It doesn't mean I like them, simply that I support the rights of artists to control their own works. Of course, supporting artistic freedom often appears to be a mind-boggling position 'round these parts.I have absolutely no objection to that position. I agree that filmmakers can do whatever they'd like with their work. However, I also feel that they should enable fans to see it as it originally appeared. Of course it's their right to change things, just as it's our right to bitch about it. It's not an "either-or" situation...
Of course it's their right to change things, just as it's our right to bitch about it.A problem arises for me when "the right to bitch" is modified into "the right to force filmmakers to do what we want because we are entitled to see what we want and the filmmaker no longer should be allowed to touch his work."
DJ