Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Benelux (Results), 1944 awards (Sep 23rd), 1964 (Sep 28th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Silent Era, 21st Century, Japan
Film of the Week: Reindeerspotting - pako Joulumaasta, October nominations (Sep 27th)

Sholay (1975)

Post Reply
User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

Sholay (1975)

#1

Post by Ebbywebby » September 9th, 2019, 2:17 am

I'm confused. "Sholay" is one of the most renowned non-English films I haven't seen. And it was recently added to Amazon Prime. I started watching it today but it seems to be this re-release (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5157836/), which is a different length, has a separate IMDb page and has a few 3D effects added. And it doesn't even have a corresponding ICM page!

I didn't realize the film had a whole different IMDb page until I already watched over half of this 195-minute monstrosity. Does it "count" or what?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6546
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#2

Post by xianjiro » September 9th, 2019, 2:53 am

Well, they're only five minutes different and the fact that there isn't a corresponding iCM page only means no one has bothered to watch and add the 3D thing. From what little I've read, the fact that someone created an IMDb page doesn't really negate the fact it's a rerelease. I'd say it should have been listed as an alternate version (and one might argue it already is https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073707/alternateversions). If you finish watching the cut you've got access to, I'd say you've watched Sholay - for better or worse. We've never argued that only one cut of Blade Runner is 'legal' for the purpose of checking Blade Runner. I see this as much the same thing. It's not a remake, it's just a different cut with 3D thrown in because people have 3D TV now. Silly. Sure. Annoying? Youbetcha. A crime? Nah.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13060
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#3

Post by brokenface » September 9th, 2019, 3:13 pm

In my experience, Amazon prime has more than a few misleading listings and iffy versions of things (e.g. wrong aspect ratio, or just terrible public domain copies). Seems they like to just pad out the selection with chaff.

User avatar
weirdboy
Donator
Posts: 3474
Joined: Jan 03, 2016
Contact:

#4

Post by weirdboy » September 9th, 2019, 6:08 pm

You'd think that since Amazon owns IMDB there would be a bit more consistency between what's on Prime, and what is listed on IMDB in terms of details. My biggest pet peeve is stuff like Amazon Prime showing release dates of e.g. 2019 for a movie made in 1923. My second biggest pet peeve is looking up a movie on IMDB, seeing a link to that movie on Amazon Prime on the IMDB page, and then discovering it is not the same movie.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#5

Post by Ebbywebby » September 9th, 2019, 7:19 pm

Sure, I've noticed old Amazon Prime films with modern release dates. Though the mistake always has been obvious.

I finished the film and checked it off on ICM -- with a certain amount of guilt. There were a few moments where CGI items were obviously added for a 3D effect (a fake barrel flying at me amid an explosion...fake lemons rolling at me) and I suspect some of the backing music was re-recorded with modern tech. There were extra, lo-fi credits added at the beginning and end, and they suggested additional work in these areas. And I still don't know what to think about the length. This version was 195 minutes...the original's IMDb page cites varying lengths including 162min, 198min, 204min and 246min. And I just looked it up on KG, and there was a 205-minute version.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29386
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#6

Post by joachimt » September 9th, 2019, 7:28 pm

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 9th, 2019, 7:19 pm
I finished the film and checked it off on ICM -- with a certain amount of guilt.
I won't report you. ;)
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

blocho
Donator
Posts: 1962
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#7

Post by blocho » September 9th, 2019, 7:46 pm

You can never a trust a movie on amazon to be the full-length version. There are plenty of bowdlerized movies on there. I always check to see if the running time is right.

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#8

Post by Ebbywebby » September 9th, 2019, 7:48 pm

I tend to verify the length if it's something foreign and esoteric. I recall being excited to find "Eros Plus Massacre" at one point (still near the top of my watchlist), but it was significantly shorter than the complete version. I also recall having this problem with the spaghetti western "Day of Anger."

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#9

Post by Ebbywebby » September 10th, 2019, 12:10 am



Interesting...this version has a different ending than what I saw. The bad guy meets a different fate. If you've only seen the other version, watch the last five minutes or so of this.

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6126
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#10

Post by RBG » September 10th, 2019, 1:15 am

Image
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#11

Post by Ebbywebby » September 12th, 2019, 9:49 pm

Oh, I forgot to mention another wacky aspect of Amazon Prime's version of this film.

Four or five times during the film, a character is smoking. And every time this happens, a little white-font caption appears in the lower-left corner saying "Cigarette smoking is injurious to health." And it stays there for a minute or two. Heh.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6546
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#12

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 1:05 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 9:49 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention another wacky aspect of Amazon Prime's version of this film.

Four or five times during the film, a character is smoking. And every time this happens, a little white-font caption appears in the lower-left corner saying "Cigarette smoking is injurious to health." And it stays there for a minute or two. Heh.
Actually, I thought that was required by law - though I admit I just assumed that being the case since I've also noticed such disclaimer any time a character is seen smoking. I've also seen something to effect, "this is a computer simulation, no animals were harmed while filming (this scene)".

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#13

Post by Ebbywebby » September 13th, 2019, 4:32 am

I don't think I've EVER seen such a warning before DURING THE FILM. In the closing credits would be routine.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29386
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#14

Post by joachimt » September 13th, 2019, 4:52 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 9:49 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention another wacky aspect of Amazon Prime's version of this film.

Four or five times during the film, a character is smoking. And every time this happens, a little white-font caption appears in the lower-left corner saying "Cigarette smoking is injurious to health." And it stays there for a minute or two. Heh.
Oh, that does it. That's proof you haven't seen the original movie as meant by the director, so I strongly urge you to uncheck this title. :folded:
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6546
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#15

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 6:10 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 4:32 am
I don't think I've EVER seen such a warning before DURING THE FILM. In the closing credits would be routine.
Didn't peg you for one with a lot of Bollywood street cred :folded:

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Ebbywebby
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep 10, 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

#16

Post by Ebbywebby » September 13th, 2019, 8:35 am

xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:05 am

Actually, I thought that was required by law - though I admit I just assumed that being the case since I've also noticed such disclaimer any time a character is seen smoking.
So when you wrote this, you meant only in the case of Bollywood?

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6546
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#17

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 9:15 am

Ebbywebby wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:35 am
xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:05 am

Actually, I thought that was required by law - though I admit I just assumed that being the case since I've also noticed such disclaimer any time a character is seen smoking.
So when you wrote this, you meant only in the case of Bollywood?
yessum - we are in a thread about a Bollywood film talking about a Bollywood film, no? Have I missed something?

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3184
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#18

Post by Fergenaprido » September 13th, 2019, 1:03 pm

xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 9:15 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:35 am
xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:05 am

Actually, I thought that was required by law - though I admit I just assumed that being the case since I've also noticed such disclaimer any time a character is seen smoking.
So when you wrote this, you meant only in the case of Bollywood?
yessum - we are in a thread about a Bollywood film talking about a Bollywood film, no? Have I missed something?
Yes, it is a legal requirement. I've seen a number of Indian films that have that warning every time cigarettes show up on screen. Sometimes it's even if they're only mentioned or insinuated. My friend and I were discussing how in some films, this draws even more attention to the smoking, because half the time the message showed up on screen, we didn't even notice that anyone was smoking until the text appeared.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6546
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#19

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 4:03 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 1:03 pm
xianjiro wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 9:15 am
Ebbywebby wrote:
September 13th, 2019, 8:35 am


So when you wrote this, you meant only in the case of Bollywood?
yessum - we are in a thread about a Bollywood film talking about a Bollywood film, no? Have I missed something?
Yes, it is a legal requirement. I've seen a number of Indian films that have that warning every time cigarettes show up on screen. Sometimes it's even if they're only mentioned or insinuated. My friend and I were discussing how in some films, this draws even more attention to the smoking, because half the time the message showed up on screen, we didn't even notice that anyone was smoking until the text appeared.
Wonder if we don't notice because it's rather obscure - especially since we're busy with subtitles and looking at the rest of the picture - or because we're so inured/habituated to the deathstick's presence on screen after so many decades.

I will say though, I do notice it more now in modern films/TV, especially those made stateside, showing characters smoking has finally fallen from favor in modern entertainment. It may be returning to bad-boy/girl status symbol. However, the studios are no longer willing or able to take product placement money for smokes. Can't say I've noticed much vaping either. Wonder if there's a reg here now too ...

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 385
Joined: May 03, 2013
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#20

Post by Harco » September 13th, 2019, 7:21 pm

In all honesty, is it really fair to check the original if you've seen a different version? I mean, the other day I watched Superman II but I'm not checking off the Richard Donner cut which has a separate IMDb page. And I wouldn't do that either if I watched them the other way around. Granted, the Superman and Sholay cases may not be entirely similar, but perhaps it's IMDb's fault. When does a re-release or alternative cut receive a separate IMDb page? I can't think of any other films right now that have a separate page for a different version. I do recall Mel Gibson's Payback having a separate page for the director's cut but it doesn't exist (anymore) so I'm not sure if it actually did in the past.

By the way, I have seen both Planet Terror and Death Proof, as well as the trailers (YouTubed them once) that make up Grindhouse, yet I haven't checked Grindhouse as the Planet Terror and Death Proof that are part of the Grindhouse experience are different cuts than the stand-alone films.

EDIT: Payback: Straight Up. So the DC still does have a separate page.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 6546
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#21

Post by xianjiro » September 13th, 2019, 8:40 pm

It's IMDb's 'fault', if we can call it that. Someone added the extra title and eventually someone else will go on Get Satisfaction and try to convince whomever that it's an alternative version, not a new film. It's just the nature of 1) IMDb's hefty contributor codes and 2) the distributed nature of those entering data.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Post Reply