Revisionism: the director can alter his work... and I can hate it!

[Grubert]

Greedo shooting first. Walkie-talkies for guns. New scenes (French plantation anyone?). New aspect ratios (gotta love Storaro). New color palette (The French Connection). Color where there wasn't any (Sinbad - now improved in color!). Director's cuts up the wazoo. New VFX, new foley

It turns out, we aren't watching the movies as they were released, appreciated and rewarded with Oscars and other awards.

Yes, filmmakers have every right to alter their work. But at the very least, they should include the original, as we got with Blade Runner, Dark City or the Harryhausen films. On the other hand, we can't see Amadeus or The Last Emperor as we saw them on the theater.

What do you think?

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Greedo shooting first. Walkie-talkies for guns. New scenes (French plantation anyone?). New aspect ratios (gotta love Storaro). New color palette (The French Connection). Color where there wasn't any (Sinbad - now improved in color!). Director's cuts up the wazoo. New VFX, new foley

It turns out, we aren't watching the movies as they were released, appreciated and rewarded with Oscars and other awards.

Yes, filmmakers have every right to alter your work. But at the very least, they should include the original, as we got with Blade Runner, Dark City or the Harryhausen films. On the other hand, we can't see Amadeus or The Last Emperor as we saw them on the theater.

What do you think?

It's their "art" so they can make any changes they feel are appropriate. But they should also respect the fans and at least give us the option of the theatrical release.

[quexos]

Most of the time I go for the Director's cut or extended edition or whatever but I can understand that some people prefer the theater cut.

So it seems honest to say that both versions should be available for everyone to choose.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Greedo shooting first. Walkie-talkies for guns. New scenes (French plantation anyone?). New aspect ratios (gotta love Storaro). New color palette (The French Connection). Color where there wasn't any (Sinbad - now improved in color!). Director's cuts up the wazoo. New VFX, new foley

It turns out, we aren't watching the movies as they were released, appreciated and rewarded with Oscars and other awards.

Yes, filmmakers have every right to alter your work. But at the very least, they should include the original, as we got with Blade Runner, Dark City or the Harryhausen films. On the other hand, we can't see Amadeus or The Last Emperor as we saw them on the theater.

What do you think?

Well, that's why Spielberg released the original cut of E.T. on the same disc (though both versions are still missing the "terrorist" line), and all three versions of Close Encounters on the same Blu-Ray. I think he agrees with you. Ridley Scott and James Cameron may as well (see The Abyss, T2, Legend, Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven).

Hell, even Lucas finally relented and released the original cuts of Star Wars onto DVD.

[atomik kinder]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Well, that's why Spielberg released the original cut of E.T. on the same disc (though both versions are still missing the "terrorist" line), and all three versions of Close Encounters on the same Blu-Ray. I think he agrees with you. Ridley Scott and James Cameron may as well (see The Abyss, T2, Legend, Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven).

Hell, even Lucas finally relented and released the original cuts of Star Wars onto DVD.

I just watched E.T. on HBO HD this past week. I was surprised to see the guns instead of the walkie talkies, and the terrorist line was included also.

[anomynous]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Greedo shooting first. Walkie-talkies for guns. New scenes (French plantation anyone?). New aspect ratios (gotta love Storaro). New color palette (The French Connection). Color where there wasn't any (Sinbad - now improved in color!). Director's cuts up the wazoo. New VFX, new foley

It turns out, we aren't watching the movies as they were released, appreciated and rewarded with Oscars and other awards.

Yes, filmmakers have every right to alter your work. But at the very least, they should include the original, as we got with Blade Runner, Dark City or the Harryhausen films. On the other hand, we can't see Amadeus or The Last Emperor as we saw them on the theater.

What do you think?

Are you talking about Watchmen?

[P@t_Mtl]

I usualy don't mind the re-work director's cut if they added scenes just work well with the originals (like for example Lord Of The Rings) Most of the time I will prefer watching the director's cut over what was offered in the theater.

I was glad however that Lucas did release the original Star Wars in DVD (even if the quality is so so)

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I usualy don't mind the re-work director's cut if they added scenes just work well with the originals (like for example Lord Of The Rings) Most of the time I will prefer watching the director's cut over what was offered in the theater.

I was glad however that Lucas did release the original Star Wars in DVD (even if the quality is so so)

I drew the line at Apocalypse Now Redux. To this day I refuse to watch the longer cut.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Grubert

I drew the line at Apocalypse Now Redux. To this day I refuse to watch the longer cut.

Never seen the Redux, only saw the original and once only at that, once was enough for me I suppose if the added scenes and the recut just mess up the flow of the movie and the story, there is just no point in doing it. I also have problems when they add scenes that were cut to older movies. Scenes that were not finish at the time, with sometimes sound just a mess. For example The Good The Bad & The Ugly. Nothing added to that movie was worht it, IMO the original cut is the best one.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Grubert

I drew the line at Apocalypse Now Redux. To this day I refuse to watch the longer cut.

+1
Redux is simply horrible. No point to all that extra nonsense.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

+1
Redux is simply horrible. No point to all that extra nonsense.

Well, there was a point, actually. There has been a 5-hour workprint of this film available on bootlegged video for years, fueling the notion that there was a lot more to Apocalypse than we were allowed to see-- one of the great "What ifs?" in recent cinema. (It's the same kind of myth surrounding David Lynch's Dune, by the way.) The Redux obviously is a way to quell that demand with an official product rather than a shoddy bootleg, and that's about it.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by anomynous

Are you talking about Watchmen?

He's referring to E.T. How could Watchmen be revised already? The theatrical cut isn't even out. LOL!!

[anomynous]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

He's referring to E.T. How could Watchmen be revised already? The theatrical cut isn't even out. LOL!!

Because they edited out guns for walkie-talkies in the trailer

[DanFan]

Originally Posted by anomynous

Are you talking about Watchmen?

In the trailer for Watchmen, a gun was replaced with a walkie talkie. Apparently you can't show someone pointing a gun at someone else in an approved for all audience trailers. So, with a nod to E.T., they replaced the gun with a walkie talkie. This according to Zack Snyder. I can't remember where I read that, but I did somewhere on the internet so it must ne true.

[Revolution9]

When wondering why film-makers seem to be reluctant to release the original versions of movies along with the revised versions (and Lord knows that's easy enough) the only logical conclusion I've reached is that some film-makers must suffer from some sort of a God-complex about their works, and willingly repress the original versions of their movies of fear of them being subjected to "fan-editing", where someone takes both versions and combines them to make an entirely new version. Why this should not be okay with them is beyond me, but it's the only logical conclusion I've been able to draw.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Revolution9

When wondering why film-makers seem to be reluctant to release the original versions of movies along with the revised versions (and Lord knows that's easy enough) the only logical conclusion I've reached is that some film-makers must suffer from some sort of a God-complex about their works, and willingly repress the original versions of their movies of fear of them being subjected to "fan-editing", where someone takes both versions and combines them to make an entirely new version. Why this should not be okay with them is beyond me, but it's the only logical conclusion I've been able to draw.

Unless we're talking about filmmakers like Spielberg and Lucas {who control the rights to most of their movies} the filmmakers themselves don't have much of a choice in the matter, it's the studios that determine which versions get released with which DVD/Blu-Ray/Laser disk/etc. etc. etc. releases.

Logan

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Yes, filmmakers have every right to alter your work. But at the very least, they should include the original, as we got with Blade Runner, Dark City or the Harryhausen films. On the other hand, we can't see Amadeus or The Last Emperor as we saw them on the theater.

What do you think?

spot on

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

spot on

+1

Both please. Its their material, but as a consumer I appreciate having a choice.

[SDon1969]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Yes, filmmakers have every right to alter their work. But at the very least, they should include the original, as we got with Blade Runner, Dark City or the Harryhausen films. On the other hand, we can't see Amadeus or The Last Emperor as we saw them on the theater.

What do you think?

I agree with the part I made bold, I don't mind them tinkering with their work as long as they continue to provide us with the original material as well.

[bferr1]

I don't think I mind a Special Edition or Director's Cut when the additions were scenes that either couldn't be finished or fully realized back in the day but somehow could now (the Jabba scene or X-Wing flyby in New Hope, French plantation in Apocalypse), or they were scenes trimmed against the director's wishes for completely arbitrary reasons (Lawrence of Arabia). I think I do object to revisionist tinkering, such as Greedo shooting first, walkie talkies in E.T. and the new color pallette in French Connection.

By the way, with the changes Friedkin's made to The Exorcist and now The French Connection, why isn't there as big a backlash against him as there continues to be with Lucas? Friedkin also is withholding the original versions in favor of the newer ones.