|
Related Topics:
| BA: Chaplin Edition titles R2 £8.49 each - I hope this is not OT and that my subject line is correct (this is my first posting to this ng) but have some of the Warners Chaplin Edition titles as part of a Warners Brothers promotion at £8.49 per 2 disc set. I think I counted..
Chaplin on the net - Hi, Do you know where I can find Chaplin's movies on the net? Thank you
Chaplin in NY? - Did Chaplin ever film in New York? Where and what films?
Chaplin on TCM tonight - Starts @8:00 pm runs until 6:15 am. Looks like it shows each of the four recent Warner DVD films (not sure which version of Gold Rush) preceded by a of each film. Bruce
White Chaplin DVD Box - I was at Best Buy tonight, and noticed that Madacy has two of their Chaplin DVD's in a box set, and guess what- they're in white boxes that look similar to the new ones from Warner Home Video. Does this mean every Chaplin DVD..
|
|
|
Next: Charlie Chaplin: Laurel on Chaplin
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:10 pm
Post subject: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition??
Archived from groups: alt>movies>chaplin (more info?)
|
|
|
Why has this movie not yet gotten a proper re-release on DVD? I was
watching the old DVD last night and the quality of the print they used
was less then stunning, it's full of speckles and looks much older
than a film made in 1992. The DVD transfer itself is also not great -
digital transfers have come a long way since that DVD was released in
1999. This film could clean up very nice! This film was a major
success when it was released with a plethora of major stars, correct?
Why are they letting this film become so obscure on the digital market
when it was such a popular film starring so many big stars?
Not to mention ALL of the footage that has been said exists for this
film that was cut out of the movie all together. We know that the
making of A DOG'S LIFE was part of the film - there are photos that
prove that. I have also heard that they filmed bits of making VERDOUX
and LIMELIGHT.
Why not release a director's cut and let the director edit the film
the way he originally intended before he was told to cut it down? I
have seen DVD re-releases of films that are almost no different that
the original issue give or take perhaps one or two NEW special
features. A remastered, extended release of this film is WAY
overdue...
....who owns this film now anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 35
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 30
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:58 am
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
CHAPLIN was neither a commercial or critical success, so it's not
surprising a "special edition" DVD hasn't been released. As I recall,
an extended version >was< released on laserdisc in England years ago,
but it's not currently available anywhere as far as I know. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 26
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:30 am
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 21, 7:10 pm, symphonyofhor....RemoveThis@juno.com wrote:
> Why has this movie not yet gotten a proper re-release on DVD? I was
> watching the old DVD last night and the quality of the print they used
> was less then stunning, it's full of speckles and looks much older
> than a film made in 1992. The DVD transfer itself is also not great -
> digital transfers have come a long way since that DVD was released in
> 1999. This film could clean up very nice! This film was a major
> success when it was released with a plethora of major stars, correct?
> Why are they letting this film become so obscure on the digital market
> when it was such a popular film starring so many big stars?
>
> Not to mention ALL of the footage that has been said exists for this
> film that was cut out of the movie all together. We know that the
> making of A DOG'S LIFE was part of the film - there are photos that
> prove that. I have also heard that they filmed bits of making VERDOUX
> and LIMELIGHT.
>
> Why not release a director's cut and let the director edit the film
> the way he originally intended before he was told to cut it down? I
> have seen DVD re-releases of films that are almost no different that
> the original issue give or take perhaps one or two NEW special
> features. A remastered, extended release of this film is WAY
> overdue...
>
> ...who owns this film now anyway?
There was a lot of footage that was cut, but I don't remember that any
specific references to A Dog's Life were filmed and I don't recall
that anything from the Verdoux or Limelight timeframe, other than the
scene onboard ship headed for England, being shot either. I was only
around for the US filming, so it is possible that something was shot
in Europe but I don't remember hearing about it. It was also 16 years
ago, and I am now officially old, so my memory is certainly less than
photographic. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I know for a fact that I've seen photos of Downey Jr. with the dog
from that film - actually, it's also on the main menu screen of the
DVD too (Region 1 at least). I'm suprised - I had always thought this
film was a big movie for it's time, not just because of the subject
matter, but the fact that it has so many stars in it.
Now, I ask this question - if a Chaplin biography film had been
released around the same time as RAY and WALK THE LINE, do you think
it would have been a hit? Those films made a tremendous amount of
money. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 26
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 22, 8:37 pm, symphonyofhor....TakeThisOut@juno.com wrote:
> I know for a fact that I've seen photos of Downey Jr. with the dog
> from that film - actually, it's also on the main menu screen of the
> DVD too (Region 1 at least). I'm suprised - I had always thought this
> film was a big movie for it's time, not just because of the subject
> matter, but the fact that it has so many stars in it.
>
> Now, I ask this question - if a Chaplin biography film had been
> released around the same time as RAY and WALK THE LINE, do you think
> it would have been a hit? Those films made a tremendous amount of
> money.
There were many publicity stills shot that were not reflections of
actual footage shot for the film. I don't remember seeing the still
you describe. Is it available to be seen anywhere?
I guess the answer to your question is it depends on what the script
for the bio would have been. While I think Downey did an excellent job
in the role of Chaplin, both Jamie Foxx and Joaquin Phoenix were great
in roles that expanded their careers into areas where they hadn't
previously been. AND, maybe more importantly, Ray and Walk the Line
dealt with artists and their careers that the audience members had
direct knowledge of. Chaplin dealt with a career that was historic
(and not directly experienced) by most of its audience. I think that
(and a less than effective script for Chaplin) made a difference in
the way the films were received. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 35
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:28 am
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 23, 2:10 am, David Totheroh <dtothe... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 8:37 pm, symphonyofhor... RemoveThis @juno.com wrote:
>
> > I know for a fact that I've seen photos of Downey Jr. with the dog
> > from that film - actually, it's also on the main menu screen of the
> > DVD too (Region 1 at least). I'm suprised - I had always thought this
> > film was a big movie for it's time, not just because of the subject
> > matter, but the fact that it has so many stars in it.
>
> > Now, I ask this question - if a Chaplin biography film had been
> > released around the same time as RAY and WALK THE LINE, do you think
> > it would have been a hit? Those films made a tremendous amount of
> > money.
>
> There were many publicity stills shot that were not reflections of
> actual footage shot for the film. I don't remember seeing the still
> you describe. Is it available to be seen anywhere?
>
> I guess the answer to your question is it depends on what the script
> for the bio would have been. While I think Downey did an excellent job
> in the role of Chaplin, both Jamie Foxx and Joaquin Phoenix were great
> in roles that expanded their careers into areas where they hadn't
> previously been. AND, maybe more importantly, Ray and Walk the Line
> dealt with artists and their careers that the audience members had
> direct knowledge of. Chaplin dealt with a career that was historic
> (and not directly experienced) by most of its audience. I think that
> (and a less than effective script for Chaplin) made a difference in
> the way the films were received.
>
Well, that and the fact that the movie sucked. :)
Tom Moran >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 26
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:04 am
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 23, 8:28 am, Feuillade <Feuill....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2:10 am, David Totheroh <dtothe....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 8:37 pm, symphonyofhor....TakeThisOut@juno.com wrote:
>
> > > I know for a fact that I've seen photos of Downey Jr. with the dog
> > > from that film - actually, it's also on the main menu screen of the
> > > DVD too (Region 1 at least). I'm suprised - I had always thought this
> > > film was a big movie for it's time, not just because of the subject
> > > matter, but the fact that it has so many stars in it.
>
> > > Now, I ask this question - if a Chaplin biography film had been
> > > released around the same time as RAY and WALK THE LINE, do you think
> > > it would have been a hit? Those films made a tremendous amount of
> > > money.
>
> > There were many publicity stills shot that were not reflections of
> > actual footage shot for the film. I don't remember seeing the still
> > you describe. Is it available to be seen anywhere?
>
> > I guess the answer to your question is it depends on what the script
> > for the bio would have been. While I think Downey did an excellent job
> > in the role of Chaplin, both Jamie Foxx and Joaquin Phoenix were great
> > in roles that expanded their careers into areas where they hadn't
> > previously been. AND, maybe more importantly, Ray and Walk the Line
> > dealt with artists and their careers that the audience members had
> > direct knowledge of. Chaplin dealt with a career that was historic
> > (and not directly experienced) by most of its audience. I think that
> > (and a less than effective script for Chaplin) made a difference in
> > the way the films were received.
>
> Well, that and the fact that the movie sucked. :)
To paraphrase, I'd rather understand than condemn. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 35
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 23, 12:04 pm, David Totheroh <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:28 am, Feuillade <Feuill....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 2:10 am, David Totheroh <dtothe....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 8:37 pm, symphonyofhor....RemoveThis@juno.com wrote:
>
> > > > I know for a fact that I've seen photos of Downey Jr. with the dog
> > > > from that film - actually, it's also on the main menu screen of the
> > > > DVD too (Region 1 at least). I'm suprised - I had always thought this
> > > > film was a big movie for it's time, not just because of the subject
> > > > matter, but the fact that it has so many stars in it.
>
> > > > Now, I ask this question - if a Chaplin biography film had been
> > > > released around the same time as RAY and WALK THE LINE, do you think
> > > > it would have been a hit? Those films made a tremendous amount of
> > > > money.
>
> > > There were many publicity stills shot that were not reflections of
> > > actual footage shot for the film. I don't remember seeing the still
> > > you describe. Is it available to be seen anywhere?
>
> > > I guess the answer to your question is it depends on what the script
> > > for the bio would have been. While I think Downey did an excellent job
> > > in the role of Chaplin, both Jamie Foxx and Joaquin Phoenix were great
> > > in roles that expanded their careers into areas where they hadn't
> > > previously been. AND, maybe more importantly, Ray and Walk the Line
> > > dealt with artists and their careers that the audience members had
> > > direct knowledge of. Chaplin dealt with a career that was historic
> > > (and not directly experienced) by most of its audience. I think that
> > > (and a less than effective script for Chaplin) made a difference in
> > > the way the films were received.
>
> > Well, that and the fact that the movie sucked. :)
>
> To paraphrase, I'd rather understand than condemn.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand that it sucks. :)
Tom Moran >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I think you guys are being a little hard on the movie. It's not the
most accurate depiction of his life, but how many screen biographies
are? It was the film that made me want to discover more about Chaplin
- so for that I owe a lot. I would give it a C+ overall - yes, they
glossed over a lot and focused much on his affairs and troubles, but
they were able to capture a lot of the Chaplin magic too. I think an
extended version would make this film a whole lot better too. >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 24, 2007
Posts: 88
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
<symphonyofhorror.TakeThisOut@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1177299422.226592.151770@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Now, I ask this question - if a Chaplin biography film had been
> released around the same time as RAY and WALK THE LINE, do you think
> it would have been a hit? Those films made a tremendous amount of
> money.
>
I don't know that it would have made tremendous amounts of money, because I
think there are more music fans who turned out and made those two films you
mentioned big hits, as opposed to the number of film fans who would turn out
to make a film like CHAPLIN a major hit, especially today.
That said, I think that with the recent interest in biopics, there may have
been more of an audience for the film today. The other issue is that while
RAY and WALK THE LINE were very highly acclaimed films, CHAPLIN (as it was
released in 1992) has had a less-than-stellar response by many critics and
viewers.
Matt >> Stay informed about: Chaplin (1992) - Special Edition?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
