Kafka DVD New info... - Kafka (1992) Discussion

[–] aaronj2004 19 years ago

it would be amazing to see a 2 disc special edition of kafka
i am a huge fan of this movie
I like the funny role that irons plays in the third die hard film,
A 2 DISC DVD of kafka WOULD BE BRILLIANT !!!!!!
and i think that people would enjoy this as a 2 disc

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] barnyard078 19 years ago

Being a huge Soderbergh fan, I have long been awaiting both this film and King of the Hill on DVD. I have not even seen these films on VHS, as I await these greatly. Does anyone know who owns the DVD rights for both Kafka and King of the Hill? Maybe a few e-mails from some rabid Soderbergh fans could rush things along. One can only hope!

reply

[–] tokyostory2000 19 years ago

I have the Russian DVD. The picture quality is fair, but the audio is out of sync by about a second throughout the whole movie. I know this is not my player, since I have other PAL DVDs that don't have this problem. This is really annoying and distracting, even if you really want to watch the movie.

reply

[–] doof14 18 years ago

could it be a bootleg?

reply

[–] jkotynek 18 years ago

DVD Found!

Region One, NTSC from Japan. I just bought it from EBay and it arrived. It's just the film, but it is LETTERBOXED!

Here is the info for the item on EBay:

Kafka Japanese DVD Jeremy Irons Soderberg Widescr NTSC

This DVD was released in Japan. As far as I know, this is not available on DVD in the US.

It is in NTSC format, the video standard used in Japan and North America.

This DVD is NOT region coded. This means the disc is "region free", also known as "region 0" or "code 0" and can be played in DVD players around the world. Yes, you can play this in Region 1 DVD players in North America. This DVD was produced in a digital-master production process which is used in Japan for limited releases, and not a glass-master pressed production process which is generally used for production runs of 10,000 plus units. However, digital mastered DVDs and glass-mastered DVDs have the exactly the same capacity, video and audio quality, and playback capabilities.

The disc is new and sealed in a tall DVD case.

There is some writing on the box in Japanese, which makes this even more of a collectors item. There are no forced subtitles, i.e. subtitles that can not be turned off.

Just the Facts
Screen: Widescreen, B&W, color
Running Time: 99 minutes
Audio: English

** John K

reply

[–] maturity 18 years ago

Thank you, Mr. Soderbergh, for showing respect to the film and its fans by giving both the original version and your new version. There are a lot of lame directors, like George Lucas and Terry Gilliam, who decide to force their new versions down our throats. For ex: It's now impossible to find the original USA theatrical cut of "THX 1138", "Star Wars" ep 4-6, or "Brazil" on DVD. The directors created new versions and washed their hands of the old ones. That is wrong. A lot of us fans prefer the version we originally saw. Others want the chance to make up their own minds. We shouldn't be stuck with just a revised version.

I don't like all of Soderbergh's films, but he deserves credit for working to put BOTH versions out. If you are listening, Mr. Lucas and Mr. Gilliam, please do the same by releasing original theatrical cuts of your films. Not everyone likes your revisions and changes. If you want to see KAFKA now, it's available on DVD in the UK and France. (Region 2 locked, PAL video format.)

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maturity 18 years ago

I didn't say the TV version of Brazil. I said the USA Theatrical Cut, which was 131 minutes. I have seen all 3 official versions of Brazil - the USA Theatrical Cut, European Cut, and Director's Cut. I think the added scenes ruin the pacing. They're redundant and pointless.

The European version removes the whole intro with the clouds and the title song. It opens with the Central Services commercial after some static and noise. Terry Gilliam restored the cloud opening and title song for his Director's Cut. He cut lines from the Director's and European Cut - when Sam says "My God it works" and when Jack says "You look like you've seen a ghost."

I wish directors would stop going back and obsessively changing their works. How would we like it if Leonardo da Vinci came back and decided to re-paint the Mona Lisa, because it doesn't fit his original vision? THE ORIGINAL VERSION SHOULD BE PRESERVED, NOT THE DIRECTOR'S CURRENT VISION. If he wants to put out a different version, it should be OPTIONAL, not the only choice.

BTW, the "butchered version" of Brazil you seem to be talking about is the "Love Conquers All" version - which was NEVER shown in theaters. It was edited down to 94 minutes by the studio. They tried to prevent the film's release, but Gilliam pressured them with an ad in Variety. He was contractually obligated to keep the movie around 2 hours. It was released at 131 minutes in the USA. That version is not available on DVD currently. Only the Director's Cut, European Cut, and "Love Conquers All" version.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maturity 18 years ago

It's the version he agreed to make and the pacing is tighter IMO. Most Americans grew up with the USA Theatrical Cut. They understand it. Everything that Gilliam added is either redundant or irrelevant. It slows the movie down. Most directors would make 3-hour movies if they had nobody to answer to but themselves. Most of these would-be auteurs need some editorial oversight.

If you want the version Gilliam intended at the time, that would probably be the much darker European Cut. He approved the USA version and included things he cut for Europe. He seems to have cut and added things at random. I thought the cloud ending was better, because it was darkly ironic. It was also more fitting to the tone of the music.

Art is never finished, merely abandoned. The great directors move on, they don't spend decades tweaking films and worrying about them.

reply

[–] maturity 18 years ago

And now a word from a hypocritical washed-up director:

"I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them."
--George Lucas, expressing concern over the Colorization of Black & White films

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000184/bio

Apparently, it's alright for Lucas to add special effects, change voices, change music, add new scenes, change dialogue, change key character actions, and dis-own the original films that made him king of a billion dollar empire. But colorizing B&W films... Oh, the humanity!

BTW, Mr. Lucas, I won't be buying your original trilogy in September, because it is NOT anamorphic or restored. It's a 13-YEAR-OLD LASER DISC TRANSFER, complete with STEREO SOUND and WINDOW-BOXED VIDEO. You claim you're "testing the waters." Rubbish! You are releasing the originals with INFERIOR QUALITY and BUNDLING the Special Editions. What will that prove?

Read Amazon. Out of 99 reviews, the average rating is 2 stars - even worse than your original hack jobs. I won't buy the Special Editions. They're barely worth using a FREE rental. You have no respect for film history, or you would release the originals, by themselves, in pristine quality. Millions would buy them. You don't need to test any waters to know that.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maturity 18 years ago

He wasn't "forced" to do anything. He agreed to deliver a 2-hour movie. He even went 11 minutes over that, and the studio didn't complain. In Europe, they used the longer version (which he changed again for his Director's Cut). The studio didn't cut the film. He made changes to meet agreed-upon time constraints. Not every movie-goer thinks "longer is better."

He could have cut other things, like the endless dream sequences. Nobody would have missed that garbage. I'm not a fan of the unicorn dream and origami figure from Blade Runner either. Only idiots need those images to see the possibility that Deckard is a replicant. His dialogue with Rachael (and many other things) more than plants the idea that he is a replicant.

I don't care what Gilliam wanted. I've seen all 3 official release versions and prefer the 131-min USA Theater Cut. Gilliam approved the cut. He wasn't able to add every bit of FILLER, because he agreed to a 2-hour film. The new scenes are not essential to the story at all. The original version(s) should be preserved, not a revisionist version made 10-15 years later. His Director's Cut NOW is not the same as it was then, because HE's not the same.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maturity 18 years ago

"Okay, this is pretty much the last time I'm going to retread this:"

You have been going in circles and not bothering to read what I'm saying. So, of course, nothing is achieved. Retread is a good word for what you are doing. You just put a new tread on the same old tyre. Here's a perfect example...

> Exec:
> "Hey, Terry, cut your 142 mintue film by ten minutes or Universal will not
> release it. Tough titty."

More like "Hey, Terry, you agreed to make a 2-hour movie, so how about we split the difference?" 120+142 = 262. 262 / 2 = 131. You can't say he was "forced" to cut it, when he agreed to make a 2-hour film. They even let him go over. Should they just let him make it how ever long he wants, and ignore the agreement?

"I.e. HE WAS FORCED."

I.e., YOU DON'T READ. The studio compromised. Gilliam compromised. He agreed to deliver a 2-hour movie. He wanted a 142-minute movie. They said, let's split the difference and make it 131-min. He AGREED to make a 2-hour movie, thus he AGREED to cut anything ABOVE two hours. It was nice of the studio to give him an extra 11 minutes, if not the 22 extra he wanted. Gilliam FORCED HIMSELF to CUT, by AGREEING to make a 120-MIN MOVIE, and TRYING to make a 142-MIN MOVIE. I think he had more than enough time to convey what he wanted to. He needed to take a step back and look at things objectively. There was plenty of repetition in the 131, and esp the 142 min versions. LESS IS USUALLY MORE.

"I don't care what Gilliam wanted."
"Ah, and now we get to the crux of the issue."

That's not the real issue. I don't care if he puts out a Director's Cut, but it would be a trivial matter to include both versions (or all three) on DVD. Films exist to satisfy the audience, not to satisfy a director's ego. He can have his Director's Cut. I don't like it. I'd like to buy the tighter 131-min cut, which is what most Americans had seen before the DVD was released.

Gilliam's concerns and preferences are his own. You seem to believe that what a director wants is sacred, above what the fans (and studios) want. Do you defend George Lucas's bastardization of the Star Wars trilogy? If not, why?! It's what HE wants, afterall. Millions of fans disagree, but you obviously hold directors above the fans (including yourself) and studios who finance them. I find that a bit strange. Could you please explain? Thanks.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phishpeaks 18 years ago

Judging from a RELATIVELY objective position of observation I must say that GnlOtto is the 'victor' in this argument. Sorry 'bout that Maturity. However, if your screen name isn't an ironic choice, then you should have no problem in seriously considering the possiblity that your perceptual viewpoint (on this matter) is worth abandoning.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maturity 17 years ago

Wrong, GnlOtto's arguments were bogus and circular. You're not objective. You're ignorant and so is GnlOtto. His points were all debunked one by one, but he went on arguing and ignoring everything I said. He lost. Period.

reply

[–] phishpeaks 17 years ago

Ignorance, thy name is [im]maturity.

reply

[–] maturity 11 years ago

Sounds like you're ignorant. I raised valid points. Where are yours?

reply

[–] maturity 17 years ago

It's also interesting to note that ALL GnlOtto's comments have been "deleted by administrator." And no, I didn't report them. In fact, I can't imagine why they would have been deleted, except for making him look bad. How can you say he won the debate when all he did was talk around every issue I raised? Your objective observation seems a little biased, not to mention irrelevant.

reply

[–] mkcbeastie 17 years ago

I would seriously doubt that Gilliam is behind all the different cuts of Brazil that are out there. Like you said, the studio cut the "Love Conquers All" version and Gilliam fought to put his own out. I believe there was a compomise. But really the origional version is the one put out by Criterion DVD. All other cuts were made to satisfy contractual obligations in the US and with distributers overseas. I believe Gilliam only recognizes one version and included the "Love Conquers All" version on the Criterion DVD to contrast his and show the studio's ignorance.

As for Lucas, I totally agree. Those horrible cuts of the origional Star Wars films that came out before Ep. 1 - 3 were crap.

reply

[–] maturity 17 years ago

Gilliam just added and cut things at random. Compare the European version, with the cloud opening removed, several lines of dialogue changed, and the clouds at the end deleted. He even stated in his commentary that he liked both versions - with and without clouds. He also says he prefers beginning with the title song, even though he arbitrarily cut it for the European version. Basically, he added and cut things based on a coin flip. His Final Cut combines stuff from American and European versions. I prefer the 131 minute USA Theatrical Cut. That's how I first saw the movie. The changes are jarring to me.

Film history should be preserved, not revised. If directors want to put out new versions, fine. But preserve the old. George Lucas's changes to Star Wars are a joke. He ruined Episodes 4 and 6. Empire is the least harmed, but I can't stand how Lucas changed the Emperor's dialogue. I could accept changing the Emperor's voice to match Jedi, but his new dialogue is redundant and over-written. Lucass should quit. Han shot first and Greedo never shot.

I appreciate that Soderbergh is trying to provide Kafka fans both versions, not just force his new vision down our throats. Ridley Scott is doing the same with Blade Runner - releasing 4 or 5 versions this year (hopefully). Choice is good. Even if Ridley Scott doesn't like the versions with narration, he is giving the fans what they want. I will never buy the Star Wars movies if I have to buy the adulterated, bastardized, Lucass-ized abominations.

reply

[–] mkcbeastie 17 years ago

Unfortunatly I'm not sure if you can buy Ep. 4-6 without those horrible changes (on DVD that is). Although I haven't checked in a while. But we should have the choice of getting the version where Han shoots first.

Another jarring change to me is the Apocalypse Now redux. I find most of what's cut out of the origional theatrical version cut out for a reason.

And I haven't listened to the commentary track on Brazil yet, but I'll have to check it out. I really enjoy the Criterion version of the movie, but I can understand how the small changes could be grating. It's the same way with the Donnie Darko Director's Cut (say that ten times fast). I prefer the theatrical cut.

reply

[–] maturity 17 years ago

"Unfortunatly I'm not sure if you can buy Ep. 4-6 without those horrible changes (on DVD that is). Although I haven't checked in a while. But we should have the choice of getting the version where Han shoots first."

Actually, you can get the original versions of Star Wars 4-6 now, but they were mastered from 13-year-old Laser Discs, and you have to buy the Special Editions with them. I would never buy those abominations. And George Lucas will probably re-release them this year for the 30th anniversary (or later).

Also, it's not that Han shoots first. It's that Greedo doesn't shoot at all. It changes Han's character and makes the scene into a travesty.

I agree with you about Donnie Darko. I can't stand the Director's Cut, how they changed Frank's voice, added effects, changed the music, and used book pages to explain each scene. The original version was perfect. It was Lynchian and had a dream logic, like Kubrick films. The Director's Cut was dumbed down.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chris-murray3 17 years ago

So, when is this new Director's Cut alongside the original cut of the film coming?

reply

[–] ConnRog 17 years ago

I saw your post for Kafka about DVDs new cuts and I totally agree with you. I think that for better or worse the movie that you put out is what you put out. I appreciate how both Soderbergh and Spielberg don't touch their works for the most part. I prefer to remember the way a movie was by the first time I saw it. Like with Blade Runner, the new cut is what really made it the big cult hit. I think that is unfair because I still have not seen the version which did not do well and I prefer to judge it by.

reply

[–] maturity 17 years ago

I hated some of the changes to Blade Runner, like the unicorn dream and origami. However, I didn't like the original's happy ending and narration. It seems like directors always add and subtract, something good is lost, and something bad is then added. Rarely do we see an overall improvement.

Generally, I believe in "less is more." It's better not to spell out everything for the audience. Leave some things implied or ambiguous. That's what messed up Donnie Darko, IMO. The Director's Cut spelled it all out in an unsatisfying way instead of letting the audience use their brain.

Same thing with Blade Runner. We really didn't need to be told that Deckard may have been Replicant. It's already implied by Rachael's asking him if he had ever taken Voight-Kampff test. (And other things like his personality and behavior.)

I don't mind new versions being made, but the original should be shown respect. Don't dis-own it. Don't change dialogue, don't add and remove scenes, don't add special FX, don't revise plot details, don't change music or sound FX. Preserve the version people first saw and fell in love with.

Nobody would change Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, or Godfather. When there's a creative dispute, let viewers decide.

reply