[Stuart Wright]

AVForums Movies Podcast : 6th August 2009

We talk about the latest Blu-ray news, Look at what BD live offers users and discuss the changing face of the movie media, from magazines to online.

(you may need to right-click and save).

Time: 1:21:38 Size: 93.4mb

Please reply to this thread with your feedback.

[Pecker]

Some interesting comments in there.

RE: LOTR - not shot in CinemaScope, but shot 'two films at once' on Super 35.

Jackson has commented on how he shot open matte 35mm, so he composed both for 2.35:1 and 16:9 simultaneously (see extras on the Spec Ed DVDs – and no, I’m not wading through all 2 million hours to give you a time check on exactly when ).

Personal opinion, I don't find these films to be remotely 'deep'. There are a lot of different characters involved, but I don't think there's too much in the way of sub-plots as such - certainly not with a lot of sub-text.

By-the-by, a lot of people love them.

RE: The Exorcist - Great discussion about Friedkin and interesting comments about The French Connection. The latter was styled largely after Costa-Gavras' Z, which is being re-issued by Criterion in October - I hope you give this one a review.

I was interested in the discussion of church boycott's etc. Perhaps what you were not aware of was that, whilst the film was largely condemned by evangelical groups, the Roman Catholic Church was largely very supportive, mainly for the reasons given by Chris.

For more information on the film Marc Kermode has written a wonderful book for the BFI, updated to include the 'version you've never seen':

The "Exorcist" (BFI Modern Classics): Amazon.co.uk: Mark Kermode: Books

I'm afraid the comments made in this podcast about this 'newer' version are just a little inaccurate. The producer had no real axe to grind about which version to release, other than regarding time constraints.

Friedkin originally cut a version very similar to 'the version you've never seen' before the initial theatrical release. William Blatty (author & screenwriter) liked the ending - he wrote it! His publisher had asked for a less 'obvious' ending than he'd given when the book was published and felt he wanted to set the record straight with the film. Friedkin originally agreed (which is why the footage exists in the first place, to re-insert), but later felt it was too 'obvious'.

However, at various screenings of the original 'theatrical' version, it became clear that some audiences thought the ending was that 'evil' won. Subsequently Blatty petitioned Friedkin over the years to re-insert the footage to make it clear (Friedkin, remember, thought it was already clear).

In the end Friedkin agreed. That's why we have this version.

I would imagine that Blatty would point out that the fact you're discussing the addition of a 'happy' ending which changes the meaning of the film proves his point. Guys, it was always a 'happy' ending. People just missed it, which is why the original end was re-inserted.

To confirm - this isn't a tagged on happy ending which changes the film - it's the originally-shot scene which just underlined the fact that the film had a happy ending anyway. Whether the change in tone is jarring is open to debate, but it doesn't change the meaning of the ending.

Hope that helps clear it up.

Steve W

[Pecker]

One way I'll strongly agree with you lot - you did yourselves down at the end of that podcast.

I consider the reviews, both hardware and software, to be the most accurate and informative out there.

I think the only reviews in the print media that trump AVF are film reviews for Sight & Sound and some of the better film reviewers in the broadsheets.

That aside, you lot top the rest.

Steve W

[kingfats]

Very enjoyable podcast thank you.

[Nelviticus]

One of the best for a while, I love your reviewers' enthusiasm. A very interesting discussion at the end too about print media vs on-line - there's just something about holding a shiny new copy of Empire in your hand that a web site can't replicate, so I think (hope) there's definitely a place for both in the long term.

You need to stop using up so many good podcast ideas all at once though otherwise you're going to run out soon!

I agree with pretty much everything you say except that Gladiator is a bit pompous and over-blown and not a patch on Spartacus (sorry Chris).

Seeing as I already have eighteen DVDs' worth of Lord of the Rings movies (nineteen if you count the animated one) I think I'll be able to resist the urge to double-dip on the Blu-Ray releases. It'll be hard waiting for the Director's Cut editions but not as hard as it was waiting for the theatrical releases after Fellowship came out!

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I would imagine that Blatty would point out that the fact you're discussing the addition of a 'happy' ending which changes the meaning of the film proves his point. Guys, it was always a 'happy' ending. People just missed it, which is why the original end was re-inserted.

To confirm - this isn't a tagged on happy ending which changes the film - it's the originally-shot scene which just underlined the fact that the film had a happy ending anyway. Whether the change in tone is jarring is open to debate, but it doesn't change the meaning of the ending.

Hope that helps clear it up.

Steve W

Hmmm, i think this may open a whole new can of worms about what the director intended and whether the intent overrides the execution/general perception.

[Alan Paterson]

Or indeed whether he, in fact, intended what we think he intended or perhaps we have mis-understood his original intention.
Alan

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by mabo

Hmmm, i think this may open a whole new can of worms about what the director intended and whether the intent overrides the execution/general perception.

I agree - this one is a minefield, and I'm not sure there's a 'wrong' and 'right'.

Steve W

[mabo]

You're right - complete minefield and tbh it's the kind of topic that we'll never have a clear answer for.

Still, it might make for an interesting podcast topic.

[eddgreen25]

The magazine Hd Review has just ceased publication why the reviews out of date and would not listen to the readers
LIke all monthly mags they print weeks ahead thats why the web wins ok for big screen but not for bluray releases
Like all movie magazines the print is to small
at £4 a copy now they are not cheap
I like the magazines for the big colour photos

[LicensedTaximan]

Originally Posted by eddgreen25

at £4 a copy now they are not cheap

If you buy on subsciption as I do with Empire, Hi-Fi News, Home cinema Choice and Gramophone they work out quite a bit cheaper. Nice podcast as usual guys, all the best from LT.

[reddeviluk]

This Podcast is still not showing up on iTunes Guys....

[sig-gotyouth]

It's showing up in my list but I was a little confuesed...

Episode is titled August 6th 2009. Itunes comes up as released 06/07/2009 in my podcast list. But it's definatley there and now I know that I'll take a listen

[jfsebastian]

I've just listened to this month's movie podcast and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it was a very interesting discussion all round.

[Nelviticus]

Originally Posted by sig-gotyouth

It's showing up in my list but I was a little confuesed...

Episode is titled August 6th 2009. Itunes comes up as released 06/07/2009 in my podcast list. But it's definatley there and now I know that I'll take a listen

The <pubDate> tag has the wrong date which means some RSS sync software doesn't pick it up. Creative's ZENcast Organizer certainly doesn't. I had to download the rss_mp3.xml file, edit it, publish it on my home page then subscribe to my modified version, but then I am a geek

[jl2305]

First time i've listened to this. Very enjoyable.

Thanks.

[cas398]

Thanks for another podcast, gives me something to listen to whilst washing the dishes.

I thought it was a good discussion but not as good or as educating as your previous few. Like the HD movie discussion for example.

[cas398]

When is the next one out it's been a while?

The dishes are piling up.

[reingam]

Originally Posted by eddgreen25

I like the magazines for the big colour photos

If you double click on the images in the majority of our reviews you'll get a full size 1080p/720p screen grab - surely that's better than some glossy photo's