MovieChat Forums > AKA (2002) Discussion > WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SPLIT - SCREEN ON T...

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SPLIT - SCREEN ON THE SUNDANCE CHANNEL??

posted 20 years ago by maestro7PL
14 replies | jump to latest

I just saw "AKA" tonight on the Sundance Channel and was angry to discover that they showed a version that was not only edited down to 106 mins., but replaced the original theatrical release format of the triple-split screen with a single image for the entire movie, except for one one-minute scene! Did any of you see this movie on the Sundance Channel, and if so, was it basically shown in a single - scene format as it appeared on my TV set? I am disappointed that the Sundance Channel would show a film in a drastically altered form with no disclaimer at the beginning--very shoddy tactics for an independent pay channel. Even commercial TV stations mention when a movie has been edited for TV! Does anyone know who I should complain to about this? I am having trouble finding a contact number for the Sundance Channel. And if anyone has seen this version as well as the original uncut version, what did I miss?

[–] TheBuffer 19 years ago

I heard about that split screen thing. I saw the film on Sundance then I bought the DVD and you get both versions of the same film. Like a regular film and the three screen, split screen. I thought it was cool.

[–] maestro7PL 19 years ago

Thanks for the notice about the DVD having both versions. Which did you prefer? I heard the split-screen didn't really add anything to the film and in fact, became somewhat distracting.

[–] ebbybrett 19 years ago

I really liked the split screens actually, I got used to them really quickly

[–] oldsenior 19 years ago

I too got the DVD with both versions and I must say I preferred the regular version. I had to go through the split screen to hear the directors comments, but even watching it that way it seemed to not hold one's interest, really could'nt follow the story, even thou I knew the story, rather disconcerting. Also when listening to the director's commentary, he painted a picture of him-self which really was contrary to that of the leads performance, but other than that I thought the performances were fine.

[–] nawnynawny 19 years ago

the makers of this film should be locked up.

[–] TheBuffer 18 years ago

I think they already have! isn't thios what the film is all about? the film maker being locked up?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nawnynawny 18 years ago

Then perhaps the filmmakers should be executed. I hope they don't subject the world to anymore pretentious horse S H I T. Trust me Buffer, The film sucked beyond belief.

[–] oldsenior 18 years ago

That's what it was really like in the late 60's and early 70's. Trust me, it was great.

[–] nawnynawny 18 years ago

Who cares if it was really like that? It was still garbage.

[–] youngblood_hills_fan 18 years ago

This movie was incredible. It was done great, with great actors... I have the DVD with both versions and found the triple screen to be kinda hard to watch at some points and liked the regular version, mainly because the picture was twice as big. It was a good story with good humor too.

[–] nawnynawny 18 years ago

Yawn. Who are you, the no-talent director or something?

[–] SheWillRememberYourHeart 17 years ago

Yes, because it's not possible that that person simply has an opinion which is different to yours and still a valid one.

Then again, you're the guy who thinks because a movie sucks (in your opinion), the makers should be executed. Having a good perspective on things is obviously your thing.

I used to have a , but damnit do I want a !

[–] jayhawk-18 14 years ago

THAT explains it. We watched it on DVD last night and seemed straightforward except for one scene at the big party in Paris when suddenly the screen split into three, showing three different camera angles of the same scene. It seemed to serve that part of the narrative very well (his new identity, his new pal, this new social scene all colliding at once), but I don't think I could have sat through 2 hours of it.

Other than that, the version we watched didn't employ the split screen device, with no option on the DVD of switching versions. However, throughout the movie I kept thinking it should at least be in wide-screen, because there were so many scenes where there were more than 2 people in the shot but you only saw the ear of one and the shoulder of the other. Unfortunately this compounded the feeling of the production being amateurish and low budget, reducing my overall enjoyment of the film.