Crocodile Dundee: The Encore Cut (1986) 4K UHD (Signature Entertainment)

[nicwood]

British label Signature Entertainment is preparing 4K Blu-ray and Blu-ray releases of Crocodile Dundee: The Encore Cut (1986). The two releases are scheduled to arrive on the market on October 13.

Description: Mick's back… in CROCODILE DUNDEE: THE ENCORE CUT.

Paul Hogan is the legendary Mick Dundee, a larrikin bushman with a unique philosophy, rugged charm and easy humour. American journalist, Sue Charlton, travels to the wild Australian Outback to investigate the tall tale of Mick's croc attack survival, but bites off more than she can chew.

When Mick saves Sue's life, sparks fly, opposites attract, and the adventure really begins. She entices her unlikely hero to New York City, where he conquers the confusing complexities of the concrete jungle. Fall in love all over again with Mick Dundee, in the encore of Australia's most iconic film.

Starring Paul Hogan, Linda Kozlowski, John Meillon (Walkabout), David Gulpilil (Rabbit-Proof Fence) and Ritchie Singer (Dark City), Crocodile Dundee: The Encore Cut is written by Hogan, Ken Shadie, John Cornell and directed by Peter Faiman (The Don Lane Show)

Trailer: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhp3D...cJCRsBo7VqN5tD

October 13. Major bad news. I put all my hopes in Arrow for this one.

[Kyle15]

I feel like even if Arrow got it they'd be putting up a losing fight for the original cut. This is one of those moments it's clear the big people involved envision this new cut as default for the time being!

[cooey]

Easy pass!

[garyd97]

No thank you.

[Bill-Carson-80]

There are a lot of identical complaints about this in the news section. There is an enormous difference between censorship and a filmmaker deciding to re-edit his own film. The latter is what happened here.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Bill-Carson-80

There are a lot of identical complaints about this in the news section. There is an enormous difference between censorship and a filmmaker deciding to re-edit his own film. The latter is what happened here.

Shoo

[Bill-Carson-80]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Shoo

What does "shoo" mean? "Go away, stop speaking?" Sounds like censorship.

Censorship would be deporting someone for speaking their opinion, as just one example. Someone being embarrassed at the racist content in a film they made and then deciding to re-edit is nowhere close to actual censorship. It seems to be one more thing for privileged media buyers to complain about.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Bill-Carson-80

What does "shoo" mean? "Go away, stop speaking?" Sounds like censorship.

Censorship would be deporting someone for speaking their opinion, as just one example. Someone being embarrassed at the racist content in a film they made and then deciding to re-edit is nowhere close to actual censorship. It seems to be one more thing for privileged media buyers to complain about.

Shoo

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by Bill-Carson-80

What does "shoo" mean? "Go away, stop speaking?" Sounds like censorship.

Censorship would be deporting someone for speaking their opinion, as just one example. Someone being embarrassed at the racist content in a film they made and then deciding to re-edit is nowhere close to actual censorship. It seems to be one more thing for privileged media buyers to complain about.

Films are a time capsule which is a wonderful thing! It reflects where we were as a society at the time the film was made that being 1986. The film was no more offensive then than it is now. Art is subjective and if you don't like it, don't watch it! Nobody is forcing you to. We have this thing called Freedom of Speech and it is portrayed wonderfully in this film! In many ways where we were in 1986 was vastly superior to where we are as a society now! People actually talked to each other face to face and socially interacted instead of being buried into their phones all day. People weren't constantly complaining about achieving nothing in life while never even attempting to achieve their goals and always blaming society for their problems instead of themselves and their perpetual victimhood mentality. We were also less racist back then as there wasn't this constant emphasis on skin tone as if that has any relevance on anything! Mick Dundee shared that very value with us in the film! We were far more color blind back then and now than the media would have us believe. Spare me your privilege comments, we don't need the WOKERATTI messing with our beloved films as they try to push their newfound values on everyone else. Speaking of WOKE enjoy it while it lasts, because much like the milk in your fridge its expiration date is coming up fast! Lastly no one has been deported for speaking their opinion. That is abject nonsense, and you know it!

This is coming from your own party! The ‘woke’ words Democrats should cut from their vocabulary
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/0...5-541b8475fc13

[jmilo61]

Originally Posted by Bill-Carson-80

There are a lot of identical complaints about this in the news section. There is an enormous difference between censorship and a filmmaker deciding to re-edit his own film. The latter is what happened here.

Eh, I don't know. I'm not as hard on filmmakers for revising their work a bit for newer releases as most people on here. But this isn't a case of a director wanting the pacing tightened up, using CGI to fix a goof or adjusting the color timing.

It's an edit only done specifically to remove something that wasn't considered offensive in time it was made but would be today.

That's at the very least censorship adjacent if the original version isn't also being included, even if it's voluntary and not forced on them.

It's reasonable to not want to support this type of editing and holding back the original version even if it isn't true "censorship" because it wasn't forced.

Edit: oh, it's one of the socks trying to pick a fight. I should have paid more attention.

[RossyG]

Originally Posted by Bill-Carson-80

There is an enormous difference between censorship and a filmmaker deciding to re-edit his own film. The latter is what happened here.

The film’s director is against the cuts.

[Ben_UK]

Originally Posted by RossyG

The film’s director is against the cuts.

Well how does that work then, because I thought studios had to get alterations signed off by the director of said works? I've read it time and time again that "master for X film had to be signed off by director joe bloggs" yadda yadda etc

[RossyG]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Well how does that work then, because I thought studios had to get alterations signed off by the director of said works? I've read it time and time again that "master for X film had to be signed off by director joe bloggs" yadda yadda etc

I think that's often a courtesy rather than an obligation. Many directors don't own their work.

As far as I know, Irwin Kershner didn't have any say in the Empire Strikes Back special edition, for example.

[The Hornets]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Well how does that work then, because I thought studios had to get alterations signed off by the director of said works? I've read it time and time again that "master for X film had to be signed off by director joe bloggs" yadda yadda etc

You need to be a very powerful director to have that type of contract.

Even someone like Ridley Scott didn’t have that clout back when Blade Runner was released hence the original “happy ending” tacked on by the studio. It was only years later he had the influence to go back and tinker. Don’t think he even fully input to the Director’s Cut and it was only the Final Cut he got pretty much what he wanted.

Back to Crocodile Dundee as sure it’s not a Director’s decision, it will be the producers and rights owners although thought those were split Australia and Rest of the World. But this new cut from Australia has now appeared in the U.K.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by The Hornets

Even someone like Ridley Scott didn’t have that clout back when Blade Runner was released hence the original “happy ending” tacked on by the studio. It was only years later he had the influence to go back and tinker. Don’t think he even fully input to the Director’s Cut and it was only the Final Cut he got pretty much what he wanted.

The thing with Sir Ridders is that he's every bit producer-brained as he is director-brained. The voice-over in the theatrical version, for example, was his idea cause he was spooked by the poor test screenings. He's always been very malleable and reactionary. Which is not to say there wasn't producer interference in the case of Blade Runner, obviously, but by Ripley's own admission, he's about getting "bums on seats" and sometimes I wish he trusted his instincts more.

But yeah, he was busy when the DC was being done and he gave notes to Michael Arick who oversaw it.

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Well how does that work then, because I thought studios had to get alterations signed off by the director of said works? I've read it time and time again that "master for X film had to be signed off by director joe bloggs" yadda yadda etc

I think you are referring to DGA contracts that were ratified in the age of home video. Unless it has changed in the years since I was more involved with this industry, DGA contracts require a studio to notify a film's director or his/her designee when a film is being transferred to video and they must be given the opportunity to supervise that process. I know that applied to the first time a film is transferred. I don't know how that applied to subsequent transfers.

What happened to Crocodile Dundee would not fall under that DGA contract because a) it happened in Australia and b) the film is owned by the production company in Australia (Rimfire Films, Hogan), so the decision to alter the film in Australia was with the production company. It is safe to assume this holds true for the UK release.

What the situation would be for a US release is anyone's guess since that has not been announced by Paramount. It can be pointed out that previous video releases by Paramount and streaming versions in the US are the original version. That should also be pointed out that that does not preclude Paramount from aceeding to Rimfire's wishes on any new release.

[Ben_UK]

Originally Posted by Robert George

I think you are referring to DGA contracts that were ratified in the age of home video. Unless it has changed in the years since I was more involved with this industry, DGA contracts require a studio to notify a film's director or his/her designee when a film is being transferred to video and they must be given the opportunity to supervise that process. I know that applied to the first time a film is transferred. I don't know how that applied to subsequent transfers.

What happened to Crocodile Dundee would not fall under that DGA contract because a) it happened in Australia and b) the film is owned by the production company in Australia (Rimfire Films, Hogan), so the decision to alter the film in Australia was with the production company. It is safe to assume this holds true for the UK release.

What the situation would be for a US release is anyone's guess since that has not been announced by Paramount. It can be pointed out that previous video releases by Paramount and streaming versions in the US are the original version. That should also be pointed out that that does not preclude Paramount from aceeding to Rimfire's wishes on any new release.

Great post, thanks for being so succinct.

Cheers.

[DawnShadow]

Originally Posted by Bill-Carson-80

There are a lot of identical complaints about this in the news section. There is an enormous difference between censorship and a filmmaker deciding to re-edit his own film. The latter is what happened here.

There's a difference between a filmmaker having their own intention to re-edit their film, and an elderly man (who isn't the director) being coerced/targeted by those around him to make him feel like it's what he needs to do.

Originally Posted by The Hornets

This seems to be very much Hogan’s decision to make the cut and not anyone else associated with the film. Wants it perceived as family film with today’s morales mainly to sell to that audience when getting cinema screenings as a legacy film. What he ignores is disc buyers today aren’t those families seeing the cinema reissue but an older age group who saw this in their youth and want that version on disc.

You need to do more research. Hogan is staying very silent on the issue and it's everyone else around him who is pushing this and throwing his name around. The distributors and other people interviewed are throwing around misinformation, shifting blame onto Paramount and all kinds of other unprofessional antics.

[NeilZ]

No excuse for censorship. It doesn't matter if the filmmakers are involved. It's clear why they cut the content, not cause they thought it didn't work but because they were worried it was offensive.

[Streetlight]

At least the Star Wars Special Edition adds scenes.