The above link was not found????Ethan Riley said:
Very well put.
Thing is, Joe, their newsletter clues do not necessarily indicate that a certain movie is going to be released within a month or two, only that it's coming eventually. We had the clue for ON THE WATERFRONT a number of months before the Blu showed up.Joe Lugoff said:
Nice post. I agree that the cut we now have is better. It is tighter (and with comedy, this can make all the difference) and less exhausting. I owned the extended laser disc (which does not represent any theatrical edition), and found that the timing lagged in numerous places. The argument the cast has on the desert highway about how shares should be divided was even longer than the overlong version we have now. To have both an extended theatrical cut plus the current cut via seamless branching would seem a good compromise.Dee Zee said:
That link, Sumner, had nothing to do with the Gleason interview of the IAMMMMW cast. Instead, it is a link in Ethan's signature.Sumnernor said:
An awful lot of suppositions on your part none of which are true, BTW. Mr. Kramer made his cuts during the four-week run of the long version - after watching the film several times with audiences. HE made the cuts - he was not forced to make the cuts - he made the cuts because he felt the film need tightening based on the audience reaction (not one audience, many). You are basically improvising scenarios and one would have to ask why? Those of us who know the family know that Mr. Kramer was happy with his final version and that's all you need to know. Whether fifty years later he'd like the original road show cut out is anyone's guess, but do not pose theories as fact because that does no one any good.cadavra said:
Not in MY life they don't! Au contraire.Moe Dickstein said:
But he doesn't seem to know anything about this alleged Criterion version.ahollis said:
Just because he has not said anything doesn't mean he doesn't know anything. He is a gentleman and will only speak when it's time. This I have learned and respect.Joe Lugoff said:
Ever since the LD came out, the short cut ceased to have any relevance for me. I've only watched the LD cut of that since then because I take the view that once a more coherent cut emerges in an official version, that supplants any previous version that is narratively inferior for my viewing purposes.Ethan Riley said:
You're assuming I don't know the family. I do. You're assuming I wasn't around in 1963 when the reports came out that the film was being shortened. I was. You're assuming I don't know much about how the business works. I've been in it for 40 years, almost all of it in the world of library/catalog/classic films. If I speculate, I will indicate as such.haineshisway said:
I do not understand why post 727 was made. I did not state that the link had nothing to do with the Gleason interview of the IAMMMMW cast. All I stated was "The above link was not found???? and then you repeat basically what I did. It looks like a wasted post.Mike Frezon said:That link, Sumner, had nothing to do with the Gleason interview of the IAMMMMW cast. Instead, it is a link in Ethan's signature.
Note to Ethan: The link is not working.
Oh, THAT Cadavracadavra said:
Normally I'd just bow to your knowledge, but I was around in 1963, too, I've been in the business for over 40 years, too, and I know the family, too and with all dure respect If neither of us is speculating, it's interesting that the stories can be different? So, I'm just curious - the family has told you specifically that Mr. Kramer was forced to shorten the film during the first four weeks of the run, specifically so the Dome could get in more showings (which they couldn't and didn't to the best of my knowledge, although I can't say I'm sure on that one, although logic would tell you that shaving twenty minutes wouldn't make an iota of difference about an extra showing a day at the Dome during that time)? Because that flies pretty much in the face of what I've heard and been told. But, stranger things have happened.
