that is some sweet cover art. i too would like to know if this will be anywhere easy enough to get?
http://images.dvdempire.com/gen/movies/746073h.jpg

I wonder if that "special" image made it onto the insert.

Awesome,I'll definitely be picking up this release immediately:)

This set is going to rule :)

> <i>"Limited to 10,000 sets"</i>

:hscratch:

I thought the same thing. All the delays and crap they went through for this and they are only going to sell 10,000?
Also, they keep touting it as uncut, complete, unexpurgated, etc yet they are going to include an optional "edited" version - strange. Sadly, I'm a sucker for Limited Editions, so I'll probably double dip on this one.

I've tried emailing the people at Grindhouse about that "10,000" units... I found it odd as well that they go to all the trouble for such a low print run.

Maybe it's 100,000 units...? Or maybe it truly is going to be a collector's item at just 10,000. Hopefully they'll get back to me with an answer.

Well just place my pre-order copy from The Laser's Edge. Anyway I have the VCD version will just give it a go to refresh the movie first.

Since Grindhouse is a very small company with a very limited budget. Maybe this is all they could afford to make?

They released I Drink Your Blood in an extremely limited 500 print run. But then months later,or about a year later. Fangoria picked up the distribution rights and made it more widely available.

Maybe the same thing will happen with this film?


Though I wonder who will actually choose to view the film without the animal violence? I'd find that hypocritical since there is still some real human deaths shown durring the 'Road To Hell' documentary footage section. Any sensible person would either A-close there eyes durring the sequences..or B-not watch the film in the first place.

I'm sure I'm full of crap, but I thought that I read somewhere (or maybe heard it on a foreign commentary) that the animal violence was added after the fact, without the director's permission. If what happened is anything like that, maybe it's worth skipping the tacked on scenes.

I really doubt that a film like this could sell anything close to 100,000 units. The fans of this type of film really represent a niche market. Sure all of us in this thread are chomping at the bit to buy this, but we are truly in the minority. It could probably do better than sales of 10,000, but not 100,000.

You'd be surprised about how many people who are fans of extreme/gory horror films but are sensitive to real animal violence. I've read more than one review of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST where the reviewer (who normally reviews films like this) admitted that he had to look away during the animal scenes. For me, it's easy to watch a woman impaled on a stake and know it's a cleverly done fake, but seeing a big turtle ripped apart for real is more problematic (although I can watch it). I guess it's probably even worse if you're an animal lover.

Nah, you're full of crap. ;) Deodato was involved in the filming. It's kind of clever actually. By having scenes of real animal violence, it possibly disorients the audience, and makes the rest of the film seem like it is depicting real events. One might start thinking "Wow, if that animal scene is real, scenes involving human violence could be too". Especially in this day and age, where you just don't see scenes of animals getting hurt or killed for real in films.

Is he serious? There have been "Chinatowns" and the like in Western cities for centuries. He talks as if it's some weird new phenomenon to have large ethnic subcommunities in existence in metropolitan centers. Ancient Rome was full of them. It's hardly a boldly original concept first presented to the world in Blade Runner.

Cult the thing I do not get regarding peoples reactions to the animal violence is as I mentioned. You still see real humans being murdered for [/B] real durring the 'Last Road To Hell' segment!

How can that be more 'tolerable' to view than the animal violence? Since that stuff will still be intact even if the animal stuff is deleted if they choose to watch the 'non-animal violent' version.


I myself find both real animal violence,as well as real violence against humans just as disturbing and terrible. Yet it seems other people are more 'ok' with seeing real dead bodies,than they are animals. Let alone an animal being killed,over a human being. I find that rather disturbing and very wrong.


A good example of how easy it is for me to get upset over real human death is Hurricane Katrina. When I was getting ready for work yesturday and eating dinner. My mom had Oprah on and they were showing plenty of footage the news networks didn't cover since it was 'upsetting'. They showed rotting dead bodies laying in the street,young and old people,dead bodies floating in the flood waters contaminating it. Graphic descriptions from a doctor what rigimortis is and so forth. Then add in the footage of young months old babies dehydrated,as well as older people starving,with great chances of dying sooner or later. It was very heart breaking to see,and disturbing,but I think it should not be 'censored' by the news networks.


Anyway after all the graphic violent films I have seen since a young age. I am still not 'desensitized' to real violence/death. It always upsets me no matter how 'tame' it may look.


And yet I'm sure some people would be 'ok' viewing the graphic hurricane aftermath footage,meanwhile cry foul if they see a dead animal..or animal killed.

Another good example of this backwards 'sympathy' is when I took a film class last semester. When viewing a documentary on war films and being shown some real graphic WW2 Holocaust,as well as Vietnam footage(including real death). The class was ok with nary a reaction.

But when we watched Hearts of Darkness,and they showed the villagers slaughtering some elk for food. The class vocally cried out in horror and disgust "That is cruel,sick,how dare they!". And then when they show the sequence from Apocalypse Now where the animal is killed for real. They were again disturbed and screaming out how 'disgusting' 'offensive' and 'wrong' that was. They also said they would never dare see that film(which the teacher praises highly) because of the one real animal death scene!


So basically they put animal life above human life,and that's just twisted in my honest opinion.

I know Rock,but it's still real which is the point. Thus people should be just as against that,as they are the animal violence.


I can't wait to hear what Robert Kerman has to say about the film though. Since the vague information I can find out about him. Some claim he hates the film and tried to distance himself from it after release. That he hated Deodato who he claims was a 'sadist' and didn't tell him about the animal violence until filming. Yet the majority of this info comes from highly negative reviews of the film. And they never state what interviews the Kerman comments came from.

Didn't Anchor Bay do the same thing with Grindhouse's The Beyond?

If so, then this wouldn't be the first time where you hear an actor bash a movie released by Grindhouse! Check out John Morghan's commentary in Cannibal Ferox.

Even though I have always been somewhat of a gorehound, I have always avoided this film since I hate animal violence in any form. There is just NO point to it. Back when Traces of Death first came out, I could watch scenes of people getting slaughtered over and over and over and over and laugh with my friends, but scenes like the pig's skin being blowtorched off of it while its alive and squealing was too much for me to take....

AND I LOVE BACON!

That's just wrong dude.

-eek- WOAH!!! -eek-

Here's the official specs given to Dread Central a.k.a. The Horror Channel early from Grindhouse! :banana:

http://www.horrorchannel.com/dread/i...stdvdcover.jpg

DDD now has it up for Pre-Order for $19.92/ free shipping.

http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/redir...fier=GRH990003

SWEEET!
It's been a long wait but it seems it was well worth it.
Glad I held out for it.
The bonus features sound awesome, especially the Italian documentary.


ILSA

That is interesting Rock,and now that I recall. It was either Chas Balun in a cult/splatter film review book he released,or the Sleazoid Express book. But that is where after bitching about the film,they tossed in some supposed 'comments' by Robert Kerman and his dislike for the film and Deodato.

Yet it could be themselves attempting to act 'morally superior' and make up rumors about the star(s) to say "See even he,a porn star had some common decency!".

Kerman gives a substantial interview on Shriek Show's Eaten Alive (1980) disc. You can find about much about his thoughts on the adult and Italian genre work he did.

DJ

I went back and checked and it was a different movie - Deodato's "Jungle Holocaust" - that I was thinking of. Oops!!

In the subtitled/translated commentary, he says: "I must say that this film also include killing of animals... ...however it is not my fault. It's the producer who decided to insert the... ...animal scenes for the East Asian market, which required this type... ...of shock. At the time I was against it, because I didn't want to have any animals killed. In fact, all these added scenes are the work of the producer." A minute or so later, he re-iterates that the producer had gone on and inserted the animal scenes.

About 44 minutes into the film, he specifically says of a scene of a snake being killed: "The scene where they kill it was shot later on by the producer." Shortly after, he points out another scene shot by the producer involving a bat being killed and eaten by a snake. When asked if it is symbolic, he says: "Well I don't know. I think the producer might have been somewhat of a maniac about this."

Was he lying? He sounded honestly disturbed when questioned about the scenes. Or did he really change his mind and make him comfortable with filming similar scenes in "CH"? I haven't rewatched the entire "JH", so I'm not sure if he addresses this in the commentary. He says that later Massimo accused him of accepting the addition of the scenes but as a young director he didn't have any say on it.

That's exactly the type of irrational contradiction Julie was pointing out. Why on Earth would you and your friends be laughing at Traces of Death? That's just really sick, imo. I don't mind violence and gore when I know it's all fake, but I abhor the real stuff - animal or human.