I've noticed that this has been put on line by a few people, but they are all 98 minutes. It says it's about 2 hours on here, so is there an cut and uncut version out there?
shareI've noticed from peoples comments, there is indeed a longer versions with several extra scenes.
shareNo one seems to have addressed this, so:
I haven't timed it myself, but all the cinema listings I've seen give the running time as 123 or 124 minutes.
I am in this film and i can tell you for a gauranteed fact that the film is on for 2 hours and 4 mins in total, i cantb tell you how annoying it is when people say ohh the film doesnt make sense, or it just jumps from one scene to another!.Thats because they either have a pirate copy which is not full length or have tried to watch it online. Go and see the full version and you will enjoy it and understand it to its full potential.Thank you.
shareSERIOUSLY? THATS COOL KRAFTY G. WHAT PART WERE YOU IN THE FILM
share
Hey blueeyesentertainment, I played a character called tora in the film, I'm in the opposite gang from the main character and am only in about 6 scenes. I'm the guy on the back of the car in the crossbow scene and I also have the hammer on the bridge. I'm also in the double blade scene when I tell him he's mad if he thinks that he can just walk in our scheme then walk back out again. The best experience of my life to be honest buddy. Just had another audition the other day for a film called outpost 2. Wish me luck lol.
that's cool man. I want to be an extra, do you know any good agencies about Glasgow? I'm local.
share
Where abouts in Glasgow are you? There are quite a few to be honest. I'm with revolution talent management at the moment, but there are many more based in Glasgow. Just google them buddy, I'm sure you will find something. If you want to do extra work then you can join any agency basically, but I think they may have an annual fee of £100 or something. You may also get lucky and get auditions for actual parts in feature films etc, it's just your luck and if your face fits etc. Good luck mate whatever you do. feel free to email me if you want anymore info at [email protected]. Take care
thats cool man il email you some details
shareso do you have your own IMDB page?
"Nothing in this movie makes sense." said the narcoleptic.
Iv got the official DVD its a great film fantastic at times weak at others the main problem is the lack of back ground on Characters there is not much to them the father is nasty but we dont know why? i know the main Character is the focal point but id like to have known more about the others the end of the films a joke wont say but i was disgusted .. and this is set in 1973 there a line in the film you kid looks like worzel gummidge hello this was not famous until the very late 70s so that way off.... i know i am nit picking but there that's what i think the film is worth a watch and to own on DVD especially if you like hard hitting Scottish films iv watched it 4 times and i am proud to own it and regarding two versions the one on line is edited and missing about 20 minutes to dont bother with it the lead actor was amazing .....
cheers karen x
VideoVaganza!
¸.·´¸.·´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´ .·´ ¸¸.·¨¯`·.
I've seen the 98 minute version of the film , which I had downloaded already. Now I'm just finishing watching a version that I downloaded, which I take to be the complete/uncut version. However it clocks in at approx 1hour and 58 minutes, which is still 6 minutes shorter than the official stated running time of 2 hours and 4 minutes(124 minutes). This version that I'm watching is grainy but I just found another version that I downloaded and am currently burning to DVD. But, once again, the running time is approx. 1 hour and 58 minutes. Surely there's not 6 minutes of actual footage/scenes missing. I'm wondering if it's just that the version in theaters is listed at a few minutes longer because they take every last final credit, etc, into account. If anyone has any info regarding this, particularly whether or not that 6 minute difference is really cut, I'd greatly appreciate it.
shareThe difference in running time may be related to the differences between video standards. The NTSC system runs at a bit less than 30 frames per second. The PAL system runs at 25 frames per second. This may account for the shorter running time or the "missing" six minutes.
Thanks a lot for the explanation/reply ejmd-2. I figured it was something technical, rather than anything to do with scenes being cut or missing, but I don't know much about technical stuff involving the type of thing you explained above. Thanks again.
shareThere's no way the PAL / NTSC conversion would account for this sort of time difference. The frame rate difference accounts for approximately 4%, so a 2 hour film in NTSC format would lose no more than 5 minutes in PAL playback. The DVD will be available soon so it will be easy to tell whether it's the full cut or some bowdlerised version.
What we see as spectacle is in fact a ceremony
I've thought about this and decided to try and work it out. I did some simple sums to try and find the discrepancy. I used an example of a film with a running time of two hours.
2 hours = 120 minutes.
First I calculated the number of seconds in an hour:
60x60 = seconds per hour:
1 hour = 36,000 seconds; 2 hours = 72,000 seconds)
Then I calculated how many frames would be in a two hour film:
PAL runs at 25 fps.
72,000 x 25 = 1,800,000 frames.
NTSC video runs at (almost) 30 fps.
72,000 x 30 = 2,160,000 frames.
Subtracting 2,160,000 from 1,800,000 shows an apparent difference of 36,000 frames between NTSC and PAL over 2 hours. In other words, a PAL film running at the faster NTSC frame rate would appear to have a shorter running time.
The difference, which I calculated to be 36,000 frames when running at 30 fps would take (almost) 1,200 seconds: 36,000 frames / 30fps = 1,200 seconds
That 1,200 seconds is 20 minutes (1,200/60 = 20).
Without knowing where the "short" version starts and finishes in the opening and closing credits (assuming it starts after the first frame of the opening credits and/or ends before the final frame of the closing credits), it would be difficult to find an exact correspondence between the reported running times of 98 minutes and 124 minutes, but I think that most of the difference--ie 20 minutes--can be accounted for by the difference in frame rates.
ejmd-2
That's not how it works. You're saying 36,000 frames represents 20 minutes of time lost in the NTSC to PAL conversion process. It doesn't. I can assure that the 4% rule is accurate and that a 120 minute film in NTSC format does not run 20 minutes shorter in PAL format. Some people complain that PAL sounds too fast. Personally, I find the difference indiscernible but at the speeds you're talking about, PAL would sound ridiculous.
Your sums add up but it's simply not how the system of conversion works. This is because there's a big difference between frame rate and refresh Rate. The frame rate describes the real "material" speed of a movie. If a film is shot in 24 fps and played back in 26 fps, the real "material" speed has changed in the viewer's eyes because now more frames are played in one second. However, if this 24 fps film is played with a refresh rate of 48 Hz the film does not run faster due to this change - only more pictures per second are displayed.
For example; 24 frames are displayed in one second while a frame is displayed in approx. 41.67 ms. If the film is now played with a refresh Rate of 48 Hz, 48 pictures per second must be displayed. Each picture is displayed twice in series but only in a time of approx. 20.83 ms in each case. The frame rate did not increase and there was no change of the real material speed of the film. Also, 2:3 Pulldown makes a difference, too.
Might be worth doing a bit of reading to understand the subject better because it can take a while to fully explain but if you can't be bothered, you can trust the 4% rule of thumb.
What we see as spectacle is in fact a ceremony
Thanks for the clarification. I was completely unaware of the way in which refresh rates are involved in displaying visual content over time (I've seen reference to "pulldown" in video conversion software, but have happily ignored this as a technicality that doesn't concern me). I'm happy to accept the 4% rule regarding the difference between PAL and NTSC, but would like to know more about how these things work. If you have any pointers, to either online material or to old-fangled printed books that offer suitablly simple explanations of what appears to be a complex set of related phenomena, I'd be grateful for the recommendations.
shareHi ejmd-2
I'll have a crack but this will be far from definitive as there's so much to this topic but going from memory (back in the days when this subject fascinated me and I was replicating the same sums you made and scratching my head because I knew it didn't make sense), there are a few things to consider.
Movies the world over are shown at a frame rate of 24 fps - that is 24 images are projected onto the cinema screen every second. Movie film is a very high resolution format, far higher in resolution than the DVD format. Accordingly, the movie itself is not the limiting factor in deciding between PAL and NTSC format DVDs, as the same source material is usually used to create both the PAL and the NTSC versions of a particular DVD. Therefore, the limiting factor in resolution is the DVD itself, with PAL inherently higher in resolution than NTSC.
The general rule of thumb when considering the time differences between PAL and NTSC formats is a simple one. Assuming no cuts have been made and the features are identical, the NTSC format runs 4% longer than PAL.
When converting NTSC to PAL, two things need to be accomplished. Firstly, 480 lines of resolution have to be up-converted to 576 lines of resolution, and 30 images per second have to be down converted to 25 images per second.
The resolution up-conversion does not actually add any real picture information to the image because you cannot create real picture information where none existed before. It does, however, make the picture viewable on a PAL display often resulting in a superficially better-looking image, however, if both transfers have been taken from the same source and the conversion process has been correctly applied, the differences between the two are indistinguishable to the naked eye.
The frame rate conversion actually results in a loss of temporal resolution, as PAL has a lower frame rate than NTSC.
Some people have claimed that PAL sources sound speeded up and claim to be able to tell the difference between a PAL and NTSC print. Personally, I can’t tell the difference but then I’ve got chronic tinnitus so my hearing’s not what it used to be.
When converting PAL to NTSC, the converse situation applies with 576 lines of resolution being down-converted to 480 lines of resolution, and frames need to be inserted to go from the 25 frames per second of PAL to the 30 frames per second of NTSC.
Once again, the resultant image is of less actual resolution than the original image, as information is discarded spatially and made up temporally.
Complicating this issue is the fact that more and more programming is being created in high definition and these high definition formats can usually be converted down to PAL or NTSC equally well, with both formats having their respective disadvantages.
It has been established that a PAL DVD has 20% more resolution than an NTSC DVD. This does not necessarily translate into a superior image.
The DVD format relies on a video compression format (MPEG-2) to allow a reasonable length of programming to fit onto a single DVD. The longer the programming, the higher the compression ratio needs to be, and the more likely it is that visible compression artefacts will be present. If an additional 20% of resolution needs to be compressed, then this can potentially result in a lesser quality image if the programming is over-compressed. Fortunately, many PAL DVDs are being produced as dual layer discs, whereas NTSC formats tend to be produced as single layer discs, thus providing the necessary room for both versions to look their best.
Movies on PAL DVDs play back 4% faster than their NTSC counterparts. The great majority of people will never notice this but strangely for a small minority it's an intolerable artefact.
In conclusion, PAL is a higher resolution format for DVD than NTSC. All else being equal, a PAL DVD of a movie should look significantly better than the equivalent NTSC DVD. If a PAL version of a movie DVD is not 16x9 enhanced and the NTSC version is 16x9 enhanced, then the NTSC version will be the preferred version, all else being equal.
For video-based material it's generally better for the DVD to remain in the same format as the source material. Do your homework before purchasing a DVD! Check as many resources as you can in order to determine which version of a particular DVD is the most appropriate one to purchase.
This book is an amazing resource. It's extremely in-depth but it contains information for the layman, too.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Read-Film-Multimedia-Language/dp/019532105 7
I hope this helps.
What we see as spectacle is in fact a ceremony