Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => The Good, The Bad and The Ugly => Topic started by: mike siegel on May 14, 2011, 08:46:10 AM



Title: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: mike siegel on May 14, 2011, 08:46:10 AM
For those of you who walk miles for a camel: The FILM LOUNGE, a film club I co-founded last winter,
presents a Leone - Night on Juni 1, 19:30. We will screen one of the last surviving German 35mm prints
of GBU + four 35mm Scope Trailers of Leone's 60's western. On a very big screen, nice old cinema from
the 50's (284 seats). The location is Böblingen near Stuttgart.

(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/leone-add.jpg)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on May 14, 2011, 12:26:46 PM
Lucky!


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: cigar joe on May 14, 2011, 07:54:50 PM
nice  O0


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Novecento on May 15, 2011, 06:05:41 AM
Nice one Mike.

Out of curiosity, if "zwei" means "two" then who out of the three is being overlooked? I'm guessing "Angel Eyes"?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on May 15, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
Of course, Sentenza is "only" the baddie. And therefore not one of the scoundrels (or rogues).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Novecento on May 17, 2011, 12:15:52 PM
Thought as much.

Not the best title IMO. Having said that, the German name for DYS does sound pretty good to me (not that I actually understand German very well so I'm not really qualified to comment).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Novecento on May 18, 2011, 12:09:25 AM
I knew I'd heard this title somewhere before. Wasn't this German title the original working title for GBU:

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=1048.0


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on May 18, 2011, 02:05:15 AM
Yes, it seems it was an original working title, and unfortunately the Germans adapted it for their title.

2 glorreiche Halunken ... arrhghhhh ... a very bad title. For a newspaper edition of the DVD the English title was used in bold, and the German one appeared only much smaller beneath.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 16, 2014, 12:40:08 PM
Did this 35MM print have the opening credits and character titles in German?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 18, 2014, 03:03:48 PM
I checked my TV recordings.
I still have a copy from the first German broadcast of GBU in 1983. But as it was cut by 20 min I filled it up with the full screen Warner VHS tape. So it is a mish-mash version.

The credits are in German, the order follows the MGM version (LvC and Wallach not directly after Eastwood like in the Italian version), but the "clouds" in which the titles appear are from the Italian version.

The only part of the credits from the VHS I retained is the title itself, cause that was in English. So the VHS must have had different credits. Strangely the naming of the 3 leads within the film is here (in the Warner VHS) first in Italian, but at the end then suddenly in English.

I also checked a mid-90s broadcast of the 175 min version. This was now a copy of the Italian version (provided with the 1967 German dub) with the better looking Italian credits and the differently cut torture scene, and, surprise, surprise, the short "Sorry Tuco" scene at the end is in this version.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 18, 2014, 07:03:01 PM
Stanton, I'd really appreciate it if you could quickly scan through your copy of the 1983 German broadcast and let me know whether or not it includes the following:

1) Shorter version of the first scene where Al Mulock and his 2 "pals" attempt to capture Tuco. The shorter version does NOT have the clip of the tall/skinny bounty hunter turning to his right as shown below:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/trailerparkboy/gbu-skinny-bounty_zps1935153f.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/trailerparkboy/media/gbu-skinny-bounty_zps1935153f.jpg.html)

2) Shorter dining scene: AE and Stevens have fewer spoonfuls of stew before Stevens speaks. The shorter version does NOT include slightly wider shots of AE and Stevens eating. Stevens also looks down momentarily as shown below:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/trailerparkboy/gbu-stevens-dining_zpsc04232d5.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/trailerparkboy/media/gbu-stevens-dining_zpsc04232d5.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/trailerparkboy/gbu-sentenza-dining_zps18010975.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/trailerparkboy/media/gbu-sentenza-dining_zps18010975.jpg.html)

3) Includes Blondie holstering his pistol after shooting 3 bounty hunters.

4) The infamous "Tuco flip" transition is included (i.e. the flip/wipe effect after Tuco says "He understands nothing about Tuco, nothing!" and bites the cigar.

5) Shorter sequence of 3 bandidos approaching hotel room 4 to gun down Blondie, which does NOT include the footage below of the confederates leaving town:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/trailerparkboy/gbu-hotel-room-4_zpse925ca29.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/trailerparkboy/media/gbu-hotel-room-4_zpse925ca29.jpg.html)

6) Blondie turning around to see Tuco in hotel room window is shorter; Blondie does NOT glance down (at Tuco's boot) as shown below:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/trailerparkboy/gbu-blondie-hotel_zps5550726d.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/trailerparkboy/media/gbu-blondie-hotel_zps5550726d.jpg.html)

7) Missing the clip of the brick wall exploding immediately before the floor collapses and Tuco falls with it:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/trailerparkboy/gbu-brick-wall_zps52cb0b96.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/trailerparkboy/media/gbu-brick-wall_zps52cb0b96.jpg.html)

8.) Fades to black (intermission) right after Tuco gets face washed with coffee and Blondie passes out in bed.

9) Includes Blondie tipping his hat to Tuco just after "Sorry, Tuco"


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 19, 2014, 02:28:18 AM
Uuuh, that sounds like work ...

Which versions have these clips and which not?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 19, 2014, 11:45:10 AM
Uuuh, that sounds like work ...

Which versions have these clips and which not?


The version described above is found on the 90/93 MGM LD and Spanish DVD. A small group of us have a hunch that this is the original theatrical release version (i.e. International cut). I'd really like to verify this with a pre-90's TV presentation from Germany and France.

Obviously, VERY few people would still have an old TV recording. You're probably the only one on this forum with a German TV capture from the 80s. I don't think it will take more than 15 minutes to skim through your recording and determine whether or not the above scenes are included.

I'd really appreciate if you could do this for us.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 19, 2014, 02:22:13 PM
It will take much more than 15 min, but of course I will do it.

The Spanish DVD you mentioned is the first one, from the late 90s. and you say it is not identical to the first US DVD?
And these scenes are in every US DVD and Blu, but not on the LD?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 19, 2014, 02:43:18 PM
It will take much more than 15 min, but of course I will do it.

The Spanish DVD you mentioned is the first one, from the late 90s. and you say it is not identical to the first US DVD?
And these scenes are in every US DVD and Blu, but not on the LD?

Thank you!  O0

If you focus on only those scenes I described above it should save you time and we'll have enough info to figure out what version it is.

The Spanish DVD was released sometime in the 90s by filmax not MGM. I don't know the exact date. It was sourced from a Spanish theatrical print and it's identical to the 90/93 LD but not the 98 DVD. You can view it on YouTube here: http://youtu.be/YRvB2L14OS8

The scenes above are in every MGM home release from the 98 DVD/LD onwards. They are absent from the 90/93 LD and Spanish DVD (filmax).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 19, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
Ahh, ok, but it's surprising that the first dVd is not identical to the LD. I thought it was the international version.

Let's see:

1) The shot and 2 others are missing. That's the Warner VHS, cause the first scene was completely cut from this TV version.

3) The holstering is in it, but it is also on the Blu. So ... ? Another scene?

4) The flip is in it. Wow, can't believe that it is not on the Blu. I will also check the other TV recording which was taken from an Italian master.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 19, 2014, 03:15:54 PM
5) - 7) Yes, all 3 are not in the TV version


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 19, 2014, 05:55:53 PM
Thanks for checking Stanton!


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Novecento on November 19, 2014, 07:08:02 PM
4) The infamous "Tuco flip" transition is included (i.e. the flip/wipe effect after Tuco says "He understands nothing about Tuco, nothing!" and bites the cigar.

Why do you refer to this as infamous? I'm feeling out of the loop...


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 19, 2014, 08:10:10 PM
Thanks so much, Stanton. It sounds like your 80's TV recording is indeed the "International Cut".


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 19, 2014, 08:11:43 PM
Why do you refer to this as infamous? I'm feeling out of the loop...

I was just being silly. There's nothing infamous about it.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 20, 2014, 02:36:08 AM
8 ) The intermission fade is there

9) Blondie tips at his hat.
Why you are asking for this and the holstering in #2 ? are these things different on the LD? These 2 parts are identical on the Blu, the TV version and also on the Italian one.


I also compared the Italian based version for the above things. The flip is there and the intermission fade also. Otherwise all is identical to the Blu. And to mention it again, this Italian version contains the "Sorry Tuco" scene, which it seems is missing from all (most?) Italian DVDs and Blus.

I also stumbled over some information about the first German DVD: http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassung&fid=815&vid=3026

I always thought that it must be identical to the UK DVD, but it isn't. The runtime is 155:03 min (Pal runtime) and it seems to have (apart from 2 censorship cuts) the same trims as the TV version. He even mentions 3 more of these short trims. One is when Tuco takes a bath. On the Blu and the Italian version he pours 4 glasses with soap in the tub, but on this DVD only 2. And on my TV version also only 2. What's on the LD?

And which are the exact runtimes for the LD and the Spanish DVD?

And what is the exact runtime of the first US DVD?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 20, 2014, 01:59:50 PM
Thanks again for taking the time to do this. All evidence points toward this broadcast, the Spanish DVD, and 83/90/93 LDs having the IC, not the 98 DVD.

The holstering was cut from the 98 DVD but was included in the 98 LD as well as the 83/90/93 LDs. I remember reading somewhere that Blondie tipping his hat may have been cut from some releases. Just thought I'd ask.

Was the 175 min Italian version only broadcast on German TV in the 90s? It wasn't available as a home release? Could the German DVD you linked to be this version?

Nice observation on the Tuco soap/bath scene. I wasn't aware of this difference. The Spanish DVD and 83/90/93 LDs show Tuco pour only 2 glasses of soap, whereas the 98 DVD shows him pour 4 glasses.

I'll have to get back to you on the runtimes.  What would be the most accurate way of determining this?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 20, 2014, 02:13:28 PM
The only part of the credits from the VHS I retained is the title itself, cause that was in English. So the VHS must have had different credits. Strangely the naming of the 3 leads within the film is here (in the Warner VHS) first in Italian, but at the end then suddenly in English.

I distinctly remember watching a version like this, with the character titles in both English and Italian, many years ago. It had to be on VHS. I've read online that others recall seeing this version too.  Since I'm in Canada it had to be NTSC and likely a rental . I wonder if Warner was the Canadian distributor in the 80s?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 21, 2014, 02:15:04 AM


Was the 175 min Italian version only broadcast on German TV in the 90s? It wasn't available as a home release? Could the German DVD you linked to be this version?



Only on TV.

The same with the 178 min version of OUTW. They compiled a German version by using the old dub, re-dubbing the one line which was new, and changing a few wrong parts of the dub. It was since the mid-90s often broadcast, but since the rights of the long version do not belong to Paramount the only Home video versions here are exactly the same as in the rest of the world.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 21, 2014, 02:26:28 AM
Thanks again for taking the time to do this. All evidence points toward this broadcast, the Spanish DVD, and 83/90/93 LDs having the IC, not the 98 DVD.

The holstering was cut from the 98 DVD but was included in the 98 LD as well as the 83/90/93 LDs. I remember reading somewhere that Blondie tipping his hat may have been cut from some releases. Just thought I'd ask.



Nice observation on the Tuco soap/bath scene. I wasn't aware of this difference. The Spanish DVD and 83/90/93 LDs show Tuco pour only 2 glasses of soap, whereas the 98 DVD shows him pour 4 glasses.



The holstering is also mentioned as missing in this comparing of the first DVD (should be the same as the one linked above in reply 21) and the 2004 DVD:

http://www.schnittberichte.com/schnittbericht.php?ID=1622

There are 2 more short trims mentioned towards the end.

And in the linked DVD from reply 21 are also 2 more brief shots mentioned which are missing.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 21, 2014, 04:23:14 PM
98 DVD duration is 02:42:15


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 22, 2014, 02:28:06 AM

That's over a min longer than the international version should run.

Then we can figure that the first DVD was already taken from an Italian master (the same one which was used for the 2004 DVD), but all the scenes which weren't dubbed yet were cut out and offered as bonus. Maybe the same Italian master from which UA compiled back in 1967 the 161 min version. Which then (probably) was not 100 % identical with the Italian theatrical cut. Hence included the "Sorry Tuco" scene and a differently cut torture scene.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 22, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
Now that we have a better understanding of what the "International Cut" really was, it's worth revisiting (if you haven't already read it before) DVD Savant's blog about the MGM home releases from the 1990s onward. He was involved in the creation of the 1998 DVD and therefore provides valuable info about the sources used.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 22, 2014, 12:59:37 PM
Link?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 22, 2014, 05:18:56 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/trailerparkboy/Savant-2014-11-22_zpsaf8ca667.jpg)

Articles in chronological order:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s24gbuitalo.html

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s90leonerev.html

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s745GBU.html

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s1139gbu.html

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2331leon.html

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2907gbu.html


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 23, 2014, 02:10:38 AM
Thanks, I already found most of them, but not all.

This passage says that the restoration in 2002 was not only done from the original Techniscope negative, but that they also used a "good 35mm American dupe negative": 

"Film-wise, much of GBU was rebuilt from the ground up. With a copy of the full Italian version and a Techniscope negative, MGM archivist John Kirk engaged the film restoration company Triage for the film work. They rematched most of GBU by eye and reprinted a new 35mm 'scope conversion negative. That process is covered in one of the documentaries on the disc but what isn't made clear there is that the negative supplied from Italy had flaws. For some sections of the film it was decided to fall back on a good 35mm American dupe negative instead. You can see some of the problems in the restored scenes: mottling in the sky when Lee Van Cleef arrives at the ruined Rebel fort; yellow staining in the new scene where Tuco and Blondie ride a wagon through a battlefield. "

And this dupe negative (with Italian audio only) must contain the complete version as is was also used for some of the new scenes. And was then most likely already used for the 1998 DVD, which then explains why there are all these short segments formerly not part of the 161 min versions, which turns the 161 min into a 162 min version. And from this negative from the vaults of UA also the "new" scenes were then taken for the bonus section of the DVD.
And we also must assume that from this negative the torture scene still was taken, cause the differently cut Italian torture scenes would cause problems with the English dub.



Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 23, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
I'm not sure if Savant is referring to the SLWB when he says people are bashing John Kirk for the yellowing of GBU, but that is actually one thing I haven't seen people here blame Kirk for.

The yellow seems to be a trend for all Leone movies now (including OUATIA, which is not distributed by MGM/Fox); the yellowing definitely seems to be an Italian thing. IF the yellowing of all these Leone movies really all stems from that one comment by the camera assistant on GBU that Leone wanted a yellow look, that would be astoundingly insane of these Italian "restoration experts."


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 23, 2014, 03:22:16 PM
But calling Kirk a jerk without knowing anything substantial about him has happened here though. ;)

I'm sure that Leone wanted a slight yellow look for the landscape of his westerns, but the actual Blu overdoes it a bit. The landscape looks indeed more westernish, but it hurts all the other colors with some bad results.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 23, 2014, 05:12:49 PM
But calling Kirk a jerk without knowing anything substantial about him has happened here though. ;)

who says it's without knowing anything about him?

The reason I've called Kirk a jerk is cuz of his own words about GBU. I can't speak for anyone else. But I have called him a jerk for A) including the Cave scene despite admitting that Leone took it out, because HE (Kirk) decided it was "jarring" to see the three Mexican gunmen without knowing how Tuco recruited them, and justifying it by saying well, it was once shown at the Italian premiere - again, even though he admitted that Leone took it out; and B) for changing the gunshots, again cuz he decided it wouldn't fit with his new audio, and not giving any option for the old ones.

Using the guy's own comments, that's not insubstantial.

BTW, it happens to be that I think Savant is the one human being involved in movies that I disagree most with in the world. I mean, I have virtually never read or heard a word he says that I agree with. It's incredible how anytime I read an article or listen to a video he makes, within two minutes I already disagree with like 5 things. And btw, his piece on the bonus features of the MGM DVD of DYS is so wrong, as discussed in these two threads http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=5936.0 and http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=10181.0
So, when I hear Savant defend Kirk, it just makes me more confident of my dislike for Kirk. If he had bashed Kirk, I'd be second-guessing myself for my own bashing of Kirk. I mean, maybe I am just so incredibly wrong about everything – a possibility I am not discounting, but it's either me or Savant, cuz I couldn't imagine myself ever disagreeing with a human being about movies more than that guy. (I am not disagreeing with Savant on this particular point that Kirk wasn't involved in the yellowing - as I said in my previous post, that seems to be a trend from the Italians.)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Groggy on November 23, 2014, 08:49:21 PM
I'm not sure if Savant is referring to the SLWB when he says people are bashing John Kirk for the yellowing of GBU,

Quite possibly. He's definitely familiar with this site.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 24, 2014, 02:41:23 AM
who says it's without knowing anything about him?

The reason I've called Kirk a jerk is cuz of his own words about GBU. I can't speak for anyone else. But I have called him a jerk for A) including the Cave scene despite admitting that Leone took it out, because HE (Kirk) decided it was "jarring" to see the three Mexican gunmen without knowing how Tuco recruited them, and justifying it by saying well, it was once shown at the Italian premiere - again, even though he admitted that Leone took it out; and B) for changing the gunshots, again cuz he decided it wouldn't fit with his new audio, and not giving any option for the old ones.

Using the guy's own comments, that's not insubstantial.


As I said nothing substantial.
The reasoning behind the inclusion of the cave scene is more complex, as it was mainly legitimated by what Grimaldi said about it. In the interview with Kirk it seems that he had some doubts about it but Grimaldi insisted. Of course these might not be every reason, and he probably does not mention the commercial background of having an unseen scene in a well known cult film.

Whatever, he made 2 decisions which were wrong for you (and me and many others), but you ignore everything he did for the film, and that was a huge and expensive restoration, which he surely could have become cheaper and easier by using that dupe negative which he already owned.
And then if he thinks that the cave scene is good for the film, and the 5.1. audio is better than anything heard before, than it is still his opinion, one you must not agree with, but should respect. Unless you know more about Kirk than I or others here. You must not love him, but disrespect him and despise him without knowing much of him is not ok for me.
As far as I know I have the impression that he tries to do a lot for films which wouldn't have been done without him. Doing things always means that mistakes are possible.

And btw, and you are excused, cause as a lawyer you cannot know this, but some use the principle innocent until proven guilty (in dubio pro reo as the wisenheimer says).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 24, 2014, 04:01:09 AM

And btw, and you are excused, cause as a lawyer you cannot know this, but some use the principle innocent until proven guilty (in dubio pro reo as the wisenheimer says).

is this a court of law? should I call witnesses and allow Kirk's lawyers the right to cross-examination? for God's sake, this is a movie forum. I can have whatever opinion I want. I'm not sending Kirk to prison. "Innocent till proven guilty" when we're discussing movie preferences? take it easy.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 24, 2014, 04:19:33 AM
As I said nothing substantial.
The reasoning behind the inclusion of the cave scene is more complex, as it was mainly legitimated by what Grimaldi said about it. In the interview with Kirk it seems that he had some doubts about it but Grimaldi insisted. Of course these might not be every reason, and he probably does not mention the commercial background of having an unseen scene in a well known cult film.

Whatever, he made 2 decisions which were wrong for you (and me and many others), but you ignore everything he did for the film, and that was a huge and expensive restoration, which he surely could have become cheaper and easier by using that dupe negative which he already owned.
And then if he thinks that the cave scene is good for the film, and the 5.1. audio is better than anything heard before, than it is still his opinion, one you must not agree with, but should respect. Unless you know more about Kirk than I or others here. You must not love him, but disrespect him and despise him without knowing much of him is not ok for me.
As far as I know I have the impression that he tries to do a lot for films which wouldn't have been done without him. Doing things always means that mistakes are possible.

And btw, and you are excused, cause as a lawyer you cannot know this, but some use the principle innocent until proven guilty (in dubio pro reo as the wisenheimer says).

the main problem is that Kirk didn't offer options. If he thought the movie would be better with new gunshots or without the English original mono, then let hi offer new options in addition to the original ones. But he didn't offer any such option on his extended DVD. He is trying to impose his will on another artist's work. There is no excuse for that. Say what you will about the Cave scene, whatever, I can just click "Next chapter" on my remote when it comes up. And btw, I am happy that Kirk re-recorded Eastwood/Wallach in 2003 - if people don't like those recordings and would rather watch the Italian audio version of those scenes with English subtitles, they have the OPTION to do so. That's the point - give the viewer the option and let him/her decide how he/she wants to view it. But not offering those audio options with the mono and original gunshots, that is Kirk deciding to impose his will on another artist's work – he decided the artwork will be better with his "improvements," and he doesn't offer the option of not using said "improvements" - that is unforgiveable.

RE: "Innocent until proven guilty" – is this a court of law? should I call witnesses and allow Kirk's lawyers the right to cross-examination? for God's sake, this is a movie forum. I'm not sending Kirk to prison. "Innocent till proven guilty" when we're discussing movie preferences? if I'm in an art museum and see a painting and say, "This artist sucks," should I first have to call him up and allow him a hearing in which to defend himself? Take it easy. This is a movie forum. We're having fun here. At least we should be.  ;)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 24, 2014, 05:27:01 AM
Unfortunately you often don't sound like you have fun.

You don't send him to prison, yes, but you sound like you would do if younhave the power.

is this a court of law? should I call witnesses and allow Kirk's lawyers the right to cross-examination? for God's sake, this is a movie forum. I can have whatever opinion I want. I'm not sending Kirk to prison. "Innocent till proven guilty" when we're discussing movie preferences? take it easy.


Court of law? This is about simple rules of behaviour not about laws.

And this is about you not taking it easy. I take it easy, otherwise I would have written this long ago. I never take art too serious, even if it is serious (if you can follow me)
I don't like some of Kirk's or MGM's decisions either, but I discuss them, maybe mourn a little bit about them, but I don't flip out.

Unless you like to read insults about you in other forums, you shouldn't insult people here either. Which does not mean that we have to be too friendly, or can't make some jokes, but I don't like all this sucker, asshole, jerk, idiot etc statements of which the net is full. It is not only here of course.

And it is mostly not the artist who sucks, but only his work.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 24, 2014, 06:21:34 AM
 ;D

John Jerk is the devil himself.  >:D

No further questions, Your Honor.



Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 24, 2014, 11:19:04 AM
So...this is going nowhere. Can we get back on topic?

I linked to Glenn Erickson's articles NOT for his reviews (I don't think I've ever read any of them) but for his understanding of what elements were used for the 1998 DVD and subsequent "extended English language" edition. He worked in MGM's home release dept at the time of the 98 DVD so he has the knowledge.

If anyone has an old recording of a French TV presentation let me know.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 24, 2014, 02:21:01 PM
Drink, you are my hero ....


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 24, 2014, 02:22:13 PM
So...this is going nowhere. Can we get back on topic?

I linked to Glenn Erickson's articles NOT for his reviews (I don't think I've ever read any of them) but for his understanding of what elements were used for the 1998 DVD and subsequent "extended English language" edition. He worked in MGM's home release dept at the time of the 98 DVD so he has the knowledge.


Ok, and your conclusion is?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 24, 2014, 02:55:32 PM
The totality of evidence shows the "revisionism" with respect to the English language version began while Glenn Erickson was still working for MGM. That is, the 1998 DVD is not the "International Cut" as shown during the first theatrical release in the late 60s. In North America, the IC can be found on the 1983/1990/1993 LDs (and I presume their respective releases on VHS). We're still piecing together the information from other countries such as Spain, Germany and France. We've been focusing on any official releases or TV presentations before the mid-90's where they were more likely to be sourced from a theatrical print. So far we've confirmed your 80's German TV capture and the Spanish filmax DVD are the IC. It would be nice to have confirmation that the French release was also the IC. We'd need an early TV recording to confirm this, which may be a long shot. We got lucky with you, Stanton.  O0


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 24, 2014, 03:44:52 PM
The totality of evidence shows the "revisionism" with respect to the English language version began while Glenn Erickson was still working for MGM. That is, the 1998 DVD is not the "International Cut" as shown during the first theatrical release in the late 60s. In North America, the IC can be found on the 1983/1990/1993 LDs (and I presume their respective releases on VHS). We're still piecing together the information from other countries such as Spain, Germany and France. We've been focusing on any official releases or TV presentations before the mid-90's where they were more likely to be sourced from a theatrical print. So far we've confirmed your 80's German TV capture and the Spanish filmax DVD are the IC. It would be nice to have confirmation that the French release was also the IC. We'd need an early TV recording to confirm this, which may be a long shot. We got lucky with you, Stanton.  O0

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that different people may be using the term "international cut" differently.
Do you mean "international" as opposed to Italian - i.e., you mean American when you say "international"? You mean the 161-minute version shown in US theaters on original release?

You are saying that the 1998 MGM DVD is in fact not the version shown in US theaters on original release?




Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 24, 2014, 04:41:50 PM
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that different people may be using the term "international cut" differently.
Do you mean "international" as opposed to Italian - i.e., you mean American when you say "international"? You mean the 161-minute version shown in US theaters on original release?

In the late 60's, the "International Cut" is what was shown in theaters outside of Italy (e.g. US, Canada, Britain, Germany, France and Spain). The IC never included the Italian language only scenes that were redubbed in English in the early 2000's and had its own version of the Tuco torture scene. For censorship reasons the IC was trimmed down even further in several countries but it was still the IC. The US had the longest (161 min) version of the IC.


You are saying that the 1998 MGM DVD is in fact not the version shown in US theaters on original release?

That's exactly what I'm saying.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 24, 2014, 05:01:21 PM
okay, I think you are using the term "international cut" differently than other people use it. maybe I am wrong.

but the version shown in the US and the version shown in UK were different. According to Frayling, the US version was 161 mins. while the UK version was 148 mins - which means it was missing 13 mins. in addition to what was cut from the US version. Several scenes that appeared in US did not appear in UK (Frayling points out those scenes in the BRD commentary), one of them is the Tuco-Gunshop scene.

so, I believe your implication that the same version was shown in US and UK is incorrect. I can't speak about other territories.

anyway, what you are referring to as the "international cut" is, I believe, what most people on the SLWB have referred to as the "US version." Please correct me if I am wrong, but this isn't just semantics - we have to make sure we are on the same page as far as terminology.

Anyway, so you are saying the 1998 MGM DVD is different than the US theatrical version - do you know yet the exact differences or are you still trying to figure them out?

And if you are trying to figure out the theatrical version from what was shown on tv - how can you be sure that the TV versions would have been the same as the theatrical versions? One example: in Red River, the theatrical version (with Walter Brennan narrating; and a shorter final fight between Wayne and Clift) is different than the version shown on TV all these years (with no narration, but titles written in a book; also a longer fight between Wayne and Clift). The TV version was the one available on DVD all these years - until the new Criterion Collection BRD boxset was just released.
Point is, can you be sure that the version shown on TV would have been the same as the one shown in theaters?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 24, 2014, 07:24:10 PM
No, I believe for many years I've been using the "International cut" term in the same away as others, which is that it's more or less synonymous with "US cut" (because the US cut was the most complete version of the International cut). Do you agree the terms "International cut" and "US cut" have been used interchangeably (here and on other boards) when referring to the 161 min original theatrical release version?

One could argue that there's no such thing as the "International cut" because there was no single version shown in the rest of the world. I guess it's more correct to say that VARIANTS of the IC were shown in the various countries. The VARIANTS of the IC stemmed, in part, from the fact that there were different censorship restrictions in these countries. This speaks to your US vs UK example that Frayling describes in his book; the UK released an abbreviated/more censored version of the IC.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 24, 2014, 07:33:56 PM
Anyway, so you are saying the 1998 MGM DVD is different than the US theatrical version - do you know yet the exact differences or are you still trying to figure them out?

Some examples of the differences are shown in the screen caps I posted on page 1 of this thread. The differences aren't huge and there still may be more.

And if you are trying to figure out the theatrical version from what was shown on tv - how can you be sure that the TV versions would have been the same as the theatrical versions?

Point is, can you be sure that the version shown on TV would have been the same as the one shown in theaters?

The 80's TV version discussed here is not by any means definitive evidence on its own. However, it is consistent with a growing body of evidence that the 98 DVD is NOT the IC.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 24, 2014, 07:55:47 PM
No, I believe for many years I've been using the "International cut" term in the same away as others, which is that it's more or less synonymous with "US cut" (because the US cut was the most complete version of the International cut). Do you agree the terms "International cut" and "US cut" have been used interchangeably (here and on other boards) when referring to the 161 min original theatrical release version?

One could argue that there's no such thing as the "International cut" because there was no single version shown in the rest of the world. I guess it's more correct to say that VARIANTS of the IC were shown in the various countries. The VARIANTS of the IC stemmed, in part, from the fact that there were different censorship restrictions in these countries. This speaks to your US vs UK example that Frayling describes in his book; the UK released an abbreviated/more censored version of the IC.

161 mins. vs. 148 mins. to me seems like a very big difference, not merely a variant of the same cut.
To me, it seems more useful to specify US cut vs. UK cut (or any other countries that had different cuts), but you know a helluva lot more about this movie than I do. I probably misunderstood what people meant by Int'l cut - I am relatively new to this movie (my first viewing was in 2009, the extended version; I've never watched any version other than the extended one. I own the '98 DVD but haven't watched it).
I don't mean to tell you which term you should use; I just wanted to clarify which version you were referring to  ;)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 24, 2014, 08:00:17 PM
Some examples of the differences are shown in the screen caps I posted on page 1 of this thread. The differences aren't huge and there still may be more.

so those 7 extra shots you posted are on the '98 DVD, but you believe they were not in the US theatrical version? You believe the '98 DVD added those 7 shots?

anyway, I don't think it's too hard to contact Glenn Erickson himself. I know Groggy has been in touch with him. Maybe you can try that and see what he has to say. In the meantime, I'll remain civil about him and his buddy John Kirk so that I don't turn them off from reading this thread  ;)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 24, 2014, 08:08:56 PM
161 mins. vs. 148 mins. to me seems like a very big difference, not merely a variant of the same cut.

The 148 min UK version sure isn't a variant of the Italian cut! They hacked 13 minutes out of the IC.

so those 7 extra shots you posted are on the '98 DVD, but you believe they were not in the US theatrical version? You believe the '98 DVD added those 7 shots?

anyway, I don't think it's too hard to contact Glenn Erickson himself. I know Groggy has been in touch with him. Maybe you can try that and see what he has to say. In the meantime, I'll remain civil about him and his buddy John Kirk so that I don't turn them off from reading this thread  ;)

I'll probably try contacting him soon. I'd like to gather some more evidence before I do.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 25, 2014, 02:41:02 AM
UA was the worldwide distributor of GBU, except for Italy. And what they distributed was the so called international version with an 161 min runtime. I never heard of any other country having one of the new scenes in their theatrical version. But several countries compiled shorter versions for 2 simple reasons: they cut out some of the then offensive violence for censorship reasons or they cut some more scenes which are not necessary for the continuity of the story to get a shorter runtime. Or they did both. And it is obvious that the 148 min UK version was only a further trimmed version of the 161 min version for the 2nd reason.

I think there is already enough evidence that the 98 DVD has an additional minute, and is therefore not exactly the international version, but still represents the international version.

Lil brutto, my question at you was what you think so far where this version came from?

My conclusion is (to repeat it) for the DVD MGM went back to the best version they had in their vaults, and that was a dupe negative of the Italian version. And it is possible that this dupe negative was different from the in Italy theatrically released version. Maybe the torture scene was already changed in it.

Another question is what's so important about this small and hardly noticeable differences?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 25, 2014, 11:27:38 AM
Lil brutto, my question at you was what you think so far where this version came from?

My conclusion is (to repeat it) for the DVD MGM went back to the best version they had in their vaults, and that was a dupe negative of the Italian version. And it is possible that this dupe negative was different from the in Italy theatrically released version. Maybe the torture scene was already changed in it.

Another question is what's so important about this small and hardly noticeable differences?

My best guess is the same as yours. They used an Italian version to construct a version that's nearly the same as the IC. Either they opted to leave in the additional footage or it was a result of ignorance. Can't say for sure. As I said above, the difference is minimal but I'm working on a project to preserve the IC so these little details are significant to me. I believe it's worthwhile knowing what version was released initially released in theaters.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 25, 2014, 12:02:18 PM
But why ignorance?

Why should they have spent time back then to cut all these short parts out which do not change the international version in any respect. At worst they don't hurt, at best they make it slightly better.

Actually I think if they one day release the international version alongside the DC, and I'm sure this will happen one day, I would prefer to have this 162 min version instead of the slightly shorter one.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 25, 2014, 03:44:10 PM
I'm curious if they had audio sync issues by leaving this 1 min of extra footage in?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 25, 2014, 04:05:50 PM
But why ignorance?

Why should they have spent time back then to cut all these short parts out which do not change the international version in any respect. At worst they don't hurt, at best they make it slightly better.

Actually I think if they one day release the international version alongside the DC, and I'm sure this will happen one day, I would prefer to have this 162 min version instead of the slightly shorter one.

I think we should remember that both the Italian cut (with the full beating scene) and the original IC are both Leone's approved cut. Anything else is someone else's frankenstien patchwork. Of course I don't mind the extra stuff here and there in the 98 I.c. but that's not what Leone sent out of Italy with his name on it.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 25, 2014, 04:15:54 PM
As an example, let's say that when Leone released the movie in Italy in 1966, someone said to him, " wow, blondie at the end is so cold blooded, after all that partnership he doesn't think twice about leaving Tuco hanging from a noose". Knowing he has a second chance to edit the film for international audiences, Leone decides to add blondie saying "sorry Tuco" to the international cut to soften that betrayal. (This is just me using this as an example, there's no evidence I'm basing this off of)

So should mgm then decide to remove "sorry Tuco" because it's not in the Italian? Or should the Italians decide to add it to their print? The answer is both should leave it as Leone intended at the time. (In 1966 and in 1967).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: cigar joe on November 25, 2014, 08:31:21 PM
I should check the VHS tape I have of it.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 26, 2014, 05:40:21 AM
I think we should remember that both the Italian cut (with the full beating scene) and the original IC are both Leone's approved cut. Anything else is someone else's frankenstien patchwork. Of course I don't mind the extra stuff here and there in the 98 I.c. but that's not what Leone sent out of Italy with his name on it.

Hmm, but do we have any evidence that Leone had anything to do with the shorter IC?

And the Sorry Tuco scene was in the German TV version of the Italian version. So it seems that there is an Italian version with that small scene. The existing Italian audio on the first MGM Blu does also confirm this.

As this TV version also included the Italian torture scene (which was quite tricky for the using of the German dub) I have to assume that the Sorry Tuco scene wasn't added form another version.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 26, 2014, 11:08:10 AM
Hmm, but do we have any evidence that Leone had anything to do with the shorter IC?

And the Sorry Tuco scene was in the German TV version of the Italian version. So it seems that there is an Italian version with that small scene. The existing Italian audio on the first MGM Blu does also confirm this.

As this TV version also included the Italian torture scene (which was quite tricky for the using of the German dub) I have to assume that the Sorry Tuco scene wasn't added form another version.

I believe that Leone was contractually obligated from the beginning to deliver a cut of a certain length to UA, I will have to dig into my books/interviews to find exact quotes but yes as I understand he was responsible for deciding what sections to cut for the I.c. The fact that all foreign countries share the same basic ic source (and then hacked it to their own liking) leads me to believe the full ic cut released by leone/Grimaldi was leone sanctioned.

As for sorry Tuco you may be right, I was just using that as an example of where both countries could make the wrong decision.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 26, 2014, 11:18:14 AM
Maybe the 161 min version was "Leone sanctioned" in that once he knew he had to chop some, he chose what to chop; but it's not "Leone PREFERRED," I.E. he preferred ideally to have the Italian version, and only chopped down to 161 mins. cuz he was forced to by UA. Therefore, IMO the Italian version is still the ideal version, and I am happy my boyfriend John Kirk made it available to English-speaking audiences (even with the new dud, which of course isn't ideal but I like it cuz you have the option to use that new English dub or switch to Italian audio with English subtitles for those scenes).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 26, 2014, 11:20:02 AM
Haha typo there, I meant "dub" not "dud" (freudian typo?) :D


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 26, 2014, 12:53:19 PM
I can't remember that I ever read something about Leone being responsible for the 161 min version, or at least that he approved it. For me the 161 min version was always the UA version, and as such a cut version like any other film cut against the director's wishes.

But, then, unlike most other cut versions, the 161 min version had begun to carry on a life of its own. Most people were initiated to GBU by this version, and the film works perfectly in this version. The 174 min version is a little bit better, but for the price of being longer. So it's a tie.

But I will now always watch the longer version, alone for the scene in which the drunk captain asks our 2 buggers for their names.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 26, 2014, 02:50:47 PM
I can't remember that I ever read something about Leone being responsible for the 161 min version, or at least that he approved it. For me the 161 min version was always the UA version, and as such a cut version like any other film cut against the director's wishes.

But, then, unlike most other cut versions, the 161 min version had begun to carry on a life of its own. Most people were initiated to GBU by this version, and the film works perfectly in this version. The 174 min version is a little bit better, but for the price of being longer. So it's a tie.

But I will now always watch the longer version, alone for the scene in which the drunk captain asks our 2 buggers for their names.



This passage from this very site (interview with Mickey Knox) implies that sergio was present for the dubbing of the American version, the 161 min cut. I would think that would mean he had some say in the cut that was released? I will check my Mickey knox book when I return home to make sure I am understanding this correctly...

""""
There are rumours that Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone had a big argument in the dubbing studio of GBU? Have you witnessed to that?

No, I tell you what happened. Clint Eastwood was working in another film, and couldn't come while I was working in the dubbing (of GBU). They did the whole dubbing of the film, except with Clint. Sergio Leone was so god damn cheap. I mean he was incredibly cheap, that he thought "well, I could manage Clint's dubbing myself" without paying me any salary and living allowance. He didn't want me to hang around to wait for Clint Eastwood, getting paid for doing nothing. So, I left. I did everything but Clint's parts.

""""


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 26, 2014, 03:29:44 PM
I don't know if he was there (he spoke not enough English to be of much help), but if so, then it is still not a proof that he liked the 161 min cut. Or that he helped to create it. That probably complete dupe negative for the 98 DVD seems more to be an indication that they got the complete version for release. Or for their own disposal.
According to Frayling the contract with UA demanded a film with a 2 hours runtime.

Well, anyway, I assume that Leone was informed about the shorter version of GBU, but I don't know if he has had the power to change it. He sold his soul with these 600.000 Dollars. Especially as UA also got the rights of the other 2 Dollar films for the same price, and all 3 sold worldwide (except Italy, and another exception are Germany and Spain as the co-producers in case of Fod and FAFDM) and for eternity. Can't believe that he and Grimaldi made such a foolish deal. Even if all 3 were not the biggest sellers in the USA, still UA made a fortune out of these 600.000 well spent Dollars.

There is btw somewhere an interview where Leone says that he asked Paramount if they wanted the long version of OUTW or a shorter one. They wanted the long one, so the theatrical version was released in the USA (though only for a short time). I doubt that Leone would have been happy with a shorter version of OUTW, despite asking them.



Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: noodles_leone on November 27, 2014, 01:26:04 AM
I used to have a French pre 1998 VHS recording of GBU. I'll check that when I'll be back in France. I don't have any VHS player thoug so if I can find the VHS I'll have to send it to somebody.
If I cannot find it I'll ask some friends of mine, former members of the board (John Baldwin and my screenwriter), they may have a copy somewhere.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 27, 2014, 07:29:16 AM
I used to have a French pre 1998 VHS recording of GBU. I'll check that when I'll be back in France. I don't have any VHS player thoug so if I can find the VHS I'll have to send it to somebody.
If I cannot find it I'll ask some friends of mine, former members of the board (John Baldwin and my screenwriter), they may have a copy somewhere.

Thank you, noodles_leone. Let us know what you find.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Cusser on November 27, 2014, 09:59:59 AM
But I will now always watch the longer version, alone for the scene in which the drunk captain asks our 2 buggers for their names.

For me: Angle Eyes at the fort scene, and the scene after leaving Mission San Antonio.  Both emphasize the ant-war theme of the film really well.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 27, 2014, 09:42:51 PM
I don't know if he was there (he spoke not enough English to be of much help), but if so, then it is still not a proof that he liked the 161 min cut. Or that he helped to create it. That probably complete dupe negative for the 98 DVD seems more to be an indication that they got the complete version for release. Or for their own disposal.
According to Frayling the contract with UA demanded a film with a 2 hours runtime.

Well, anyway, I assume that Leone was informed about the shorter version of GBU, but I don't know if he has had the power to change it. He sold his soul with these 600.000 Dollars. Especially as UA also got the rights of the other 2 Dollar films for the same price, and all 3 sold worldwide (except Italy, and another exception are Germany and Spain as the co-producers in case of Fod and FAFDM) and for eternity. Can't believe that he and Grimaldi made such a foolish deal. Even if all 3 were not the biggest sellers in the USA, still UA made a fortune out of these 600.000 well spent Dollars.

There is btw somewhere an interview where Leone says that he asked Paramount if they wanted the long version of OUTW or a shorter one. They wanted the long one, so the theatrical version was released in the USA (though only for a short time). I doubt that Leone would have been happy with a shorter version of OUTW, despite asking them.




I am not saying that he preferred the International cut, but that he approved it/sanctioned it.., I just found this quote from Eli Wallach in fraylings book (regarding the English dubbing in New York)

"Sergio stood beside me for seven straight days. He checked each line, even though he spoke no English."

Clearly if he was that involved in the dubbing and since we know certain italian scenes were never dubbed into English, then they were working with an already shortened cut. If Leone was there for every line of dubbing do you think he'd leave the decisions of what to cut out of the international cut to someone else? It was already a year after the film had been released in Italy and he spent weeks supervising the English dubbing. After all the things I've read on Leone, everyone says he was meticulous in the editing room, so I believe he would have supervised the cutting down of the film. Ergo both the Italian and international cuts are both Leone's.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 30, 2014, 03:11:58 AM
No, I think we still don't know.
There is no information so far who is responsible for the 161 min version, and even if Sergio helped to create it he might not have approved it. But is also possible that UA made it, and as it is a good compromise Leone accepted it, cause his contract with UA obligated him to a 2 hours film. The British 148 min version was then one which damages the vision.
If Leone was happy with the 161 min version, he must have asked himself why the Italian version ran longer.

I never viewed it as an "official" version, that is for me only the 174 min Italian version.

Btw we also have no clue why there are 2 versions of the torture scene.

Another question must be how important the grotto scene was for Leone, if it is true that Grimaldi convinced Leone to cut it out more or less against his intention.

It is also noteworthy that after the first theatrical release also in Italy several scenes were cut out for re-releases. And that it was (according to de Fornari) not till the early 80s that GBU was restored there to its full length. It would be interesting to know if Leone had anything to do with this restoration, cause the grotto scene was not put back.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 30, 2014, 06:41:12 AM
No, I think we still don't know.
There is no information so far who is responsible for the 161 min version, and even if Sergio helped to create it he might not have approved it. But is also possible that UA made it, and as it is a good compromise Leone accepted it, cause his contract with UA obligated him to a 2 hours film. The British 148 min version was then one which damages the vision.
If Leone was happy with the 161 min version, he must have asked himself why the Italian version ran longer.

I never viewed it as an "official" version, that is for me only the 174 min Italian version.

Btw we also have no clue why there are 2 versions of the torture scene.

Another question must be how important the grotto scene was for Leone, if it is true that Grimaldi convinced Leone to cut it out more or less against his intention.

It is also noteworthy that after the first theatrical release also in Italy several scenes were cut out for re-releases. And that it was (according to de Fornari) not till the early 80s that GBU was restored there to its full length. It would be interesting to know if Leone had anything to do with this restoration, cause the grotto scene was not put back.

According to Glenn Erickson at dvd savant, and the Italian censorship documents which tell us the length of the film when submitted in 1966- and what happened in 1969, this is what happened to the beating scene:

In 1966 the film was released in Italy with the full beating scene intact.
The beating scene was shortened/recut for the international cut in 1967.
In 1969 the Italian version was censored for 14 year olds and the film re-released. At this point the Italian negative of the film was changed/damaged.

In the 80's the Italians went to restore the film, but unlike most of the other scenes that were cut entirely (and could be recovered) the negative for the beating scene was damaged or the trims from the negative were lost. What the Italians did then (according to Glenn) is pull what footage they could from the international cut version and join it with what they had left of the beating scene in the Italian version - creating a "hybrid cut". This is the version that has persisted in Italy since then. This version feels very choppy (especially in the audio) because of what happened. It will be interesting to see if the next blu Ray release in Italy has the full beating scene intact (since digital technology can be used to fix/restore it to its rightful place in the film)


(When mgm went to create the long version of the film in 2002 they were starting with the Italian audio track from 1966, which is when they themselves discovered that there was not enough footage in the current Italian beating scene to fill the scene according to the audio track - that's why they searched for the longer version but were only able to find a print of it since the negative was damaged - this is also covered in the dvd savant articles)
(Also taking into account the length of the grotto scene it appears it was also part of the print sent to the censor in 1966)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 30, 2014, 07:29:17 AM
Ahh, interesting.

The runtime of the Italian version, often given with either 178, 180 or even 182 min, may have included intermission music or additional exit music.

If these runtimes taken form censorship documents are the same which were made public once on the anica.it site (in meters), than they are not very trustworhthy, as they too often differ very much from the uncut versions released on DVD or Blu. In both directions. I don't know how this can happen cause usually such information tend to be accurate.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 30, 2014, 09:42:45 AM
Well, I would tend to trust an official 1966 document over a modern home video release, especially since the international cut and the italian cut have been mixed back and forth since the 80's,  but you are right, the times may have included an intermission. The grotto scene IS mentioned in the 1969 censorship document as something to be added to the film (or that's what it seems according to a very rough translation), so perhaps it wasn't part of the 1966 cut.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 30, 2014, 11:34:26 AM
Well, I would tend to trust an official 1966 document over a modern home video release,


Normally I would do this also, but the data I mentioned from the anica.it web site with runtime in meters (and also date of certification and date of release) are surprisingly too often heavily deviating.


Quote
The grotto scene IS mentioned in the 1969 censorship document as something to be added to the film (or that's what it seems according to a very rough translation), so perhaps it wasn't part of the 1966 cut.

Do you have a link for this?

Oh, and ... well I could check this myself, but if you know it already ... then the order of the shots of the long torture scene is identical to the international version?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 30, 2014, 11:41:10 AM
Well, I would tend to trust an official 1966 document over a modern home video release, especially since the international cut and the italian cut have been mixed back and forth since the 80's,  but you are right, the times may have included an intermission. The grotto scene IS mentioned in the 1969 censorship document as something to be added to the film (or that's what it seems according to a very rough translation), so perhaps it wasn't part of the 1966 cut.

As I recall, John Kirk said in that bonus feature on the MGM DVD that the only time the grotto scene was ever shown was at the Rome premiere. After that Rome premiere, it was cut and never shown again until Kirk put it back in for MGM's extended version in 2003. I've no interest in going back and watching that bonus feature with Kirk again, but if memory serves me correct, other than the one showing at the Rome premiere, the grotto scene was never shown in any version ever until Kirk put it back in in 2003.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 30, 2014, 11:45:47 AM
As I recall, John Kirk said in that bonus feature on the MGM DVD that the only time the grotto scene was ever shown was at the Rome premiere. After that Rome premiere, it was cut and never shown again until Kirk put it back in for MGM's extended version in 2003. I've no interest in going back and watching that bonus feature with Kirk again, but if memory serves me correct, other than the one showing at the Rome premiere, the grotto scene was never shown in any version ever until Kirk put it back in in 2003.

Grimaldi said that it was him who convinced Leone to cut the Grotto scene out. But maybe this was done before the premiere. Memories might be wrong.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 30, 2014, 11:51:50 AM
RE: the debate over whether both versions were supervised by Leone: I think it's possible that Leone cut the 161MV but still preferred the 174MV. Maybe UA told him, we are going to cut some stuff from the movie, and Leone figured he may as well be involved cuz if it's gonna be cut, better that he is involved than leave the cutting to some dude at UA.
So, even if we assume Leone chose which 13 minutes should be cut, it doesn't mean he didn't do it reluctantly, and it doesn't mean that he didn't prefer that UA had left the 174 mins. intact. This is all guessing and speculating, but all I am saying is that even if it were proven that Leone was the one who put together the 161MV, that wouldn't prove that he was happy with it and that he didn't firmly prefer the 174MV. I have to assume that he preferred the 174MV - after all, the Italian distributor seems to have allowed Leone to leave the movie as long as he wanted, and he made the 174MV for Italian release.
I have to assume that Leone's preferred version is the 174MV.

(What I can't understand is why he cut the scene with Angel Eyes at the fort. That scene is very important for the story and for the anti-war theme. e.g. it is more important to the movie than the Tuco in the Gunshop scene, which is basically comedy and showing Tuco's criminal character but not necessary for story or theme. Maybe Leone just so fell in love with the Tuco character that he didn't want to cut a major scene with that character.)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 30, 2014, 11:54:54 AM
Grimaldi said that it was him who convinced Leone to cut the Grotto scene out. But maybe this was done before the premiere. Memories might be wrong.

The fact that (according to Kirk) it was shown at the premiere, was the excuse Kirk used to put that scene back in in 2003. He said he thought it would be jarring for us to see those 3 Mexican bandits without seeing Tuco recruit them; and the fact that Leone indeed showed that version one time gave Kirk the justification like, I'm not putting in a new scene for the first time, Leone did show it once! the fact that he thought it was jarring without it was the reason he wanted to put it back in; the fact that it was shown once at the premiere was the justification he had for doing so, that he isn't doing something that has never been done before.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 30, 2014, 12:02:37 PM
RE: the debate over whether both versions were supervised by Leone: I think it's possible that Leone cut the 161MV but still preferred the 174MV. Maybe UA told him, we are going to cut some stuff from the movie, and Leone figured he may as well be involved cuz if it's gonna be cut, better that he is involved than leave the cutting to some dude at UA.
So, even if we assume Leone chose which 13 minutes should be cut, it doesn't mean he didn't do it reluctantly, and it doesn't mean that he didn't prefer that UA had left the 174 mins. intact. This is all guessing and speculating, but all I am saying is that even if it were proven that Leone was the one who put together the 161MV, that wouldn't prove that he was happy with it and that he didn't firmly prefer the 174MV. I have to assume that he preferred the 174MV - after all, the Italian distributor seems to have allowed Leone to leave the movie as long as he wanted, and he made the 174MV for Italian release.
I have to assume that Leone's preferred version is the 174MV.

(What I can't understand is why he cut the scene with Angel Eyes at the fort. That scene is very important for the story and for the anti-war theme. e.g. it is more important to the movie than the Tuco in the Gunshop scene, which is basically comedy and showing Tuco's criminal character but not necessary for story or theme. Maybe Leone just so fell in love with the Tuco character that he didn't want to cut a major scene with that character.)


Well again, I am NOT debating which version Leone preferred, of course that would be the Italian cut. What I am saying is that there are only two "official" cuts of the film, and that various changes have been made to both versions now so you can't consider either version as currently available on home video as Leone's. Even the 1998 us dvd is wrong, I know this because if you look at early international cuts from other countries, as well as early us laserdisc releases, other than censorship cuts they match exactly my original GBU continuity script (which is literally frame count accurate.)

So what I am saying is the 1998 dvd is missing a couple shots and adds others that shouldn't be there. The Italian version at the very least should have the full beating scene and perhaps the grotto but that is open to debate until further evidence presents itself. Even the music on the current grotto versions seems to be wrong as Morricone composed music for the scene, but that's not what's used.

And according to the Italian documents it's possible the grotto scene was added back in 1969 to make up for other scenes that were cut for a new version of the film released with a 14 rating.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 30, 2014, 12:07:05 PM
The fact that (according to Kirk) it was shown at the premiere, was the excuse Kirk used to put that scene back in in 2003. He said he thought it would be jarring for us to see those 3 Mexican bandits without seeing Tuco recruit them; and the fact that Leone indeed showed that version one time gave Kirk the justification like, I'm not putting in a new scene for the first time, Leone did show it once! the fact that he thought it was jarring without it was the reason he wanted to put it back in; the fact that it was shown once at the premiere was the justification he had for doing so, that he isn't doing something that has never been done before.

It was mainly because Grimaldi said that Leone wanted the scene in back then. And that he cut it out without really wanting it.

The argument that we need this scene cause we should know where these 3 long living guys came from is ridiculous anyway (where is the scene which shows us how Blondie recruited Shorty for the hanging business, I can't watch GBU any longer without having this very, very important information).
But I think actually Kirk (not jerk, not captain) only says that we know now where these 3 came from, not that it is important to know it. The main argument was that Leone did not want to cut it out, but did.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 30, 2014, 12:09:10 PM
Italian documents:

http://cinecensura.com/wp-content/uploads/1966/04/Il-buono-il-brutto-il-cattivo-1a-ed..pdf

http://cinecensura.com/wp-content/uploads/1966/04/Il-buono-il-brutto-il-cattivo-2a-ed..pdf



Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 30, 2014, 12:16:30 PM
Glenn Erickson's info on the beating scene:

"MGM's beautiful transfer of the Italian version lacked video for the scene where Tuco is mercilessly beaten by the sergeant played by Mario Brega, at Angel Eyes' bidding. An audio track existed that was over a minute longer. Without the video component, the new Italian version had to use the US version of this scene, which rearranged some shots as well. From the soundtrack, the missing minute sounds like 60 seconds' more of relentless walloping on poor luckless Tuco, in a scene considered too rough already. When last Savant checked, the original video for this scene may have been finally found, but too late for the present round of restorations."

Erickson's quote on the italian version:

"The Cineteca Nazionale in Italy did the bulk of the restoration by providing a good negative of the longest Italian cut, which is still a couple of minutes short of the original 3 hours. It was the source for the Italian-language-only scenes on the previous DVD."

Erickson's quote regarding the grotto scene:

"The one completely new scene is called The Grotto. In it Tuco recruits three bandits to murder Blondie. This is the only scene not shown in the original Rome engagement in 1966, before GBU was cut to 161 minutes for general release. John Kirk elected to retain The Grotto because producer Grimaldi categorically told him that it was part of the official cut of the film at the Rome Premiere and was dropped from the first release only for time, against the director's wishes. Kirk reinstated it with the producer's blessing. The restored scene fills GBU's most glaring continuity gap. Without the action in the Grotto, the three gunmen who try to ambush Blondie are unmotivated and gratuitous. The scene also presents Tuco as an accomplished manipulator instead of a malcontented loner."



Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 30, 2014, 12:19:55 PM
It was mainly because Grimaldi said that Leone wanted the scene in back then. And that he cut it out without really wanting it.

The argument that we need this scene cause we should know where these 3 long living guys came from is ridiculous anyway (where is the scene which shows us how Blondie recruited Shorty for the hanging business, I can't watch GBU any longer without having this very, very important information).
But I think actually Kirk (not jerk, not captain) only says that we know now where these 3 came from, not that it is important to know it. The main argument was that Leone did not want to cut it out, but did.
Of course Kirk's argument that it is jarring to see those bandits show up without knowing where they came from, is ridiculous. But that is his argument.
The fact that Leone once showed it in the Rome premiere is his justification. This is like a legal argument: There is the WHY and there is the JUSTIFICATION. e.g., why do we put people in prison? you can say, WHY we do it is to teach people a lesson. the JUSTIFICATION we have for doing it is cuz they committed a crime. You need both - the WHY, reason that makes you want to do it; and the JUSTIFICATION, what allows you to do it.

The reason WHY Kirk wanted it in is cuz it is jarring; his JUSTIFICATION, what allows him to put it in, is that Leone showed it at the Rome premiere.
if Kirk had said, "Leone really wanted it in, I am just restoring Leone's intended vision," then I would have been happy. But that is not what he says. He says that Leone putting it in shows that there is precedent and he isn't doing something new, but the reason he wants it in is that it is jarring otherwise. Now you know why I've called him Jerk (for that and the mono/gunshot issue, as well).

anyway, if you wanna check the bonus feature on the dvd, you can; maybe my memory is faulty. I have no interest in going back and watching it. Kirk's voice makes me very nervous.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 30, 2014, 12:20:21 PM

 Even the music on the current grotto versions seems to be wrong as Morricone composed music for the scene, but that's not what's used.

 

Yes, that's a strange aspect, and might speak against the Grotto scene being part of any released version.

The scene was doubtless dubbed in 1966, but the wrong music might then indicate that it was cut before the sound for the film was completed. But then MGM or Grimaldi must have worked on it in 2002.

It is also interesting that the Italians still abstain from including the scene on their releases. Is the Grotto scene in the bonus section of the Italian discs, or not even this?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on November 30, 2014, 12:35:02 PM
Of course Kirk's argument that it is jarring to see those bandits show up without knowing where they came from, is ridiculous. But that is his argument.
The fact that Leone once showed it in the Rome premiere is his justification. This is like a legal argument: There is the WHY and there is the JUSTIFICATION. e.g., why do we put people in prison? you can say, WHY we do it is to teach people a lesson. the JUSTIFICATION we have for doing it is cuz they committed a crime. You need both - the WHY, reason that makes you want to do it; and the JUSTIFICATION, what allows you to do it.

The reason WHY Kirk wanted it in is cuz it is jarring; his JUSTIFICATION, what allows him to put it in, is that Leone showed it at the Rome premiere.
if Kirk had said, "Leone really wanted it in, I am just restoring Leone's intended vision," then I would have been happy. But that is not what he says. He says that Leone putting it in shows that there is precedent and he isn't doing something new, but the reason he wants it in is that it is jarring otherwise. Now you know why I've called him Jerk .


No, I don't know. It is his right to think it is jarring, and I can't blame him when he thinks that he is recreating Leone's vision. And that alone is justification enough as long as he believes in that. He doesn't need a further "why". If I would believe that the scene belongs in the film, I would put such a scene in, even against my own view of the scene as part of the film.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on November 30, 2014, 04:42:18 PM
Excellent discussion.

A lot of great information here that sheds new light on what version was presented to the Italian censor board and how the film was edited for its various releases over the decades.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on November 30, 2014, 09:14:53 PM
Hey Stanton (sorry off topic here) but do you happen to own the german blu of FOD that was based on the Italian ripleys home video restoration? If so does it have the FOD outtakes in HD? Just discovered that the Italian blu does not have the outtakes at all, only the dvd version of the ripleys has them (so in SD).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 01, 2014, 02:18:27 AM
Hey Stanton (sorry off topic here) but do you happen to own the german blu of FOD that was based on the Italian ripleys home video restoration? If so does it have the FOD outtakes in HD? Just discovered that the Italian blu does not have the outtakes at all, only the dvd version of the ripleys has them (so in SD).

No, at the moment I stick to my Paramount DVD. I just re-watched it, and it looks very good on my 42" TV.

And as far as I know the outtakes are not on that Blu. The bonus stuff is just the same as on my DVD.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 01, 2014, 02:30:49 AM
The Mondo Blu runs 174:07

The MGM Blu runs 178:36

The runtime from the 1966 censorship card is 176:48 min (4840 meters)

The runtime from the 1969 censorship card is 157:26 min (4310 meters)

The runtime of the Grotto scene is 3:15 min (89 meters)

The runtime of the Grotto scene is on the MGM Blu 3:18 min




Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on December 01, 2014, 06:04:58 AM
This is great to have all this info in one place. Can you subtract the "hybrid" beating time from the mondo and then add the exact runtime of the extended beating? If you add that to the mondo time it probably equals the 1966 foot count...(no grotto then).


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on December 01, 2014, 06:06:52 AM
Thanks for the info, yes after some further digging you are right, they are not an extra on the german blu. They ARE an extra on the new Japan blu set but it doesn't say if they are in HD...


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on December 01, 2014, 07:21:42 AM
This is great to have all this info in one place. Can you subtract the "hybrid" beating time from the mondo and then add the exact runtime of the extended beating? If you add that to the mondo time it probably equals the 1966 foot count...(no grotto then).

174:04 - 4:54 (Mondo beating duration) + 6:52 (extended beating duration) = 176:02

EDIT:

My calculator shows 4840m equates to 176:26. I'm referring to a mkv of the Mondo BD and it cuts short the music after fade out so this could account for the 24 second discrepancy.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on December 01, 2014, 09:11:16 AM
We should add in the "sorry Tuco" time from the ic that is not on the mondo as well since it exists on the original italian mono track...

It's around 16 seconds difference I think...

http://jordankrug.com/Screening_Room/leone2/sorrytucocompare.mov


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 01, 2014, 10:23:04 AM
None of the running-time discrepancies are due to PAL vs. NTSC speedup?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on December 01, 2014, 10:27:32 AM
None of the running-time discrepancies are due to PAL vs. NTSC speedup?

On blu ray you don't have to worry since they are encoded at 24fps regardless of the country. Sometimes the extras are still in pal though.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 01, 2014, 10:39:52 AM
What's the exact English definition of the German title? Is it something like TWO MAGNIFICENT ROGUES/TRAMPS or TWO GLORIOUS ROUGUES/TRAMPS?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 01, 2014, 10:41:47 AM
So the main feature of a BRD is always in NTSC? I.e. As long as region-encoding is not an issue, any BRD will play on any BRD player?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 01, 2014, 12:18:05 PM
So the main feature of a BRD is always in NTSC? I.e. As long as region-encoding is not an issue, any BRD will play on any BRD player?

Not NTSC, that's just an US TV Standard.

All Blus work with 24 fps.

Pal works normally with 25 fps. Pal DVDs also

Two Glorious Scoundrels would probably be a direct translation (please, don't remind me again on that ... puke ... title)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 01, 2014, 12:25:10 PM
174:04 - 4:54 (Mondo beating duration) + 6:52 (extended beating duration) = 176:02

EDIT:

My calculator shows 4840m equates to 176:26. I'm referring to a mkv of the Mondo BD and it cuts short the music after fade out so this could account for the 24 second discrepancy.


4840 is equal to 176,79 min. The 0,79 are then of course no seconds, but the percentage of a min, equal to ca 48 sec. Or not?

But we cannot expect to get it exactly to the sec. There are always different logos at the beginning, and the length of the closing music might also vary.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 01, 2014, 12:31:22 PM
Yeah, various versions have credits of different length. Every new studio or restoration company that gets ahold of a movie adds their logo at the beginning. A few seconds' difference here or there will inevitably occur.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 01, 2014, 01:23:06 PM
174:04 - 4:54 (Mondo beating duration) + 6:52 (extended beating duration) = 176:02

EDIT:

My calculator shows 4840m equates to 176:26. I'm referring to a mkv of the Mondo BD and it cuts short the music after fade out so this could account for the 24 second discrepancy.


The Mondo runs 174:07 according to a German film database.

I also checked the extended torture scene on the Blu and on the 2004 DVD. The runtime is the same, so it must be on my Blu also in Pal length. If it is in Pal, then we have to add another 17 sec.
The torture scene on the MGM Blu runs btw with 5:02 min a little longer that the Italian one.

174:07 mondo + 2:15 extended torture scene + 0:16 Sorry Tuco = 176:35
Now we are pretty close.

Actually I prefer the shorter version of this scene. There are in the extended cut some more shots of the singing soldiers which clearly sing something else, the words do not match the lips, and somehow the scene is really too long  with these 2 extra minutes anyway.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 01, 2014, 01:56:07 PM
Oh, and if you watch the first minute of the Reconstruction of GBU in the bonus part of the disc, then you hear statements from Wallach and Grimaldi, which both remember that Leone hated it to make GBU shorter, but UA insisted.

The scenes which were cut from the Italian version are mostly the same as for the International version.

If I'm not wrong it is:

1. the scene in which Carson's girlfriend arrives with a group of soldiers (different to the IV)

2. Sentenza in the fort looking for Carson

3. Not sure about that, but it must be the scene in the desert with Blondie and Tuco's boot

4. Tuco asking for the direction to the hospital

5. Blondie and Sentenza camping at night, when Sentenza's men arrive

And the torture scene was shortened for excessive violence. Interesting that this was the only scene which was cut for the violence reason to make it suitable for 14 year olds.

Which also means my friend the drunk captain remained in the film in his full, glorious completeness. The Italians knew what's important.

Also the short segment after Tuco and Blondie leave the hospital wasn't cut.

Only, that even when the torture scene was completely cut, I don't get 20 min ...


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 01, 2014, 05:14:47 PM

Two Glorious Scoundrels would probably be a direct translation (please, don't remind me again on that ... puke ... title)

How about "Play Me the Song of Death" instead of OUATITW? Please don't tell me you like that one any better!


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on December 01, 2014, 08:26:50 PM
The Mondo runs 174:07 according to a German film database.

This is the correct duration of the Mondo BD but the exit music fades out prematurely. The exit music on the Italian CVC DVD, Spanish DVD, and the MGM DVDs and BDs (haven't checked the LDs) does not fade out prematurely so I'm confident it should play in its entirety. We're missing about 28 seconds of music so I estimate the total running time to be 174:35.

I've confirmed the duration of the Tuco torture scene on the Mondo BD to be 4:54. The extended torture scene on the MGM BD is 6:52. So the estimated total duration of the Mondo BD with the extended torture scene is 176:33 from the opening credits to conclusion of the exit music.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on December 01, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
This is the correct duration of the Mondo BD but the exit music fades out prematurely. The exit music on the Italian CVC DVD, Spanish DVD, and the MGM DVDs and BDs (haven't checked the LDs) does not fade out prematurely so I'm confident it should play in its entirety. We're missing about 28 seconds of music so I estimate the total running time to be 174:35.

I've confirmed the duration of the Tuco torture scene on the Mondo BD to be 4:54. The extended torture scene on the MGM BD is 6:52. So the estimated total duration of the Mondo BD with the extended torture scene is 176:33 from the opening credits to conclusion of the exit music.

Is this total time including "sorry Tuco?"

(And Stanton I am using a Kodak film calculator app and I got the same seconds time for 4840 meters...2:56:26, to answer your earlier question)


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on December 01, 2014, 10:10:53 PM
Is this total time including "sorry Tuco?"

No, with "sorry, tuco" included we're at a runtime of 176:49.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on December 01, 2014, 10:12:55 PM
Also, the CVC DVD is missing about 11 seconds of footage during the Tuco torture scene.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 02, 2014, 02:06:39 AM
How about "Play Me the Song of Death" instead of OUATITW? Please don't tell me you like that one any better!

That's a tricky one.

Actually it sounds great in German, and it could be a great title for the film, if it was Leone's title. But it is very far away form the intentions of the actual title.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 02, 2014, 02:10:15 AM
Is this total time including "sorry Tuco?"

(And Stanton I am using a Kodak film calculator app and I got the same seconds time for 4840 meters...2:56:26, to answer your earlier question)

meters X 52,6 : 24 : 60

4840 m X 52,6 : 24 : 60 = 176,79 = 176:48

But if you use a app it is most likely a little bit more precise. Probably the 52,6 is slightly rounded.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on December 02, 2014, 06:03:16 AM
meters X 52,6 : 24 : 60

4840 m X 52,6 : 24 : 60 = 176,79 = 176:48

But if you use a app it is most likely a little bit more precise. Probably the 52,6 is slightly rounded.

Nice, this is like math class in school where you can't just give the answer, you have to show how you arrived there :) very nice work Stanton. Maybe the app is wrong? I like your number better with the number that lil brutto arrived at above...

"No, with "sorry, tuco" included we're at a runtime of 176:49."


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: stanton on December 02, 2014, 06:27:54 AM
Now more funny news.
Actually most Blu Rays do not work with exact 24 fps, but indeed with the 23,976 fps which represent the NTSC standard. This makes the Mondo Blu slightly shorter. One nice guy from a German forum (who owns the Mondo) told me that the exact theatrical runtime would then be 173:55 min.

Phew, now we lose again 12 sec.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Novecento on December 02, 2014, 06:43:04 PM
Actually most Blu Rays do not work with exact 24 fps, but indeed with the 23,976 fps which represent the NTSC standard.

Are you sure about that? Why would that be the case unless it was a direct port of some NTSC footage?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on June 11, 2016, 09:34:09 AM
We've been focusing on any official releases or TV presentations before the mid-90's where they were more likely to be sourced from a theatrical print. So far we've confirmed your 80's German TV capture and the Spanish filmax DVD are the IC. It would be nice to have confirmation that the French release was also the IC. We'd need an early TV recording to confirm this, which may be a long shot.

It took nearly 2 years but I finally obtained a digital copy of a France 3 TV broadcast from the 90s that proves the French version is the International Cut with French credits and onscreen character titles. It is identical to the US version (i.e. no further censorship cuts were made), which contradicts what SL said:


From Conversations Avec Sergio Leone (french book)

Q: WHY are the different versions in countries?

A: the French version is the longest. I supervised dubbing in English and French[/b], I choose all the actors, from the largest to the smallest role. I fully assume the responsibility of the finished work.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Novecento on June 11, 2016, 08:09:17 PM
Thanks for confirming that. I wonder why Leone thought the French one was longer then?


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on June 11, 2016, 09:22:56 PM
I don't know, although it's pretty well established that you couldn't rely on what he said.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Jordan Krug on June 15, 2016, 03:26:36 PM
Thanks for confirming that. I wonder why Leone thought the French one was longer then?


I really think that if you take into account that each country did their own censorship in addition to the cuts made to the international cut, perhaps the French left the international cut "as-is". Since he lived in Europe, the English cut that Leone might have seen released or been familiar with is the u.k. Version, which was was censored more than the American/Canadian.


Title: Re: ZWEI GLORREICHE HALUNKEN 35mm screening
Post by: Lil Brutto on June 15, 2016, 04:54:00 PM
Who knows? That mean really needs to come back from the dead and be given a memory booster and some truth serum so he can clarify a few things.  :D