Amadeus - Theatrical release

[boe]

I just saw the BBC series The Genius of Mozart. I had to look yet again only to find there is no theatrical BR available. It frustrates me greatly that they still only have the director's cut on BR. Usually the DC is good but in this case, I think it drags out the story and changes the nature of the characters.

When I bought my first BR player many years ago the very first movie I was hoping to get was a BR edition of Amadeus but I still can't get it. I'm not against having a dual pack where it bypasses the DC depending on how you start the BR. To me this is like getting Blade Runner with the narrative added back in. Truly it changes the movie even more.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by boe

I just saw the BBC series The Genius of Mozart. I had too look yet again only to find there is no theatrical BR available. It frustrates me greatly that they still only have the director's cut on BR. Usually the DC is good but in this case, I think it drags out the story and changes the nature of the characters.

When I bought my first BR player many years ago the very first movie I was hoping to get was a BR edition of Amadeus but I still can't get it. I'm not against having a dual pack where it bypasses the DC depending on how you start the BR. To me this is like getting Blade Runner with the narrative added back in. Truly it changes the movie even more.

It's time for WB to issue a BD with the theatrical version. After all, the theatrical version is what won all of those Oscars back in '84. Plus, the transfer on the current edition sucks.

[Clark Kent]

It wasn't included the first time because Warner said they didn't have a suitable transfer of the theatrical cut. I have no information if that has changed since release.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

It wasn't included the first time because Warner said they didn't have a suitable transfer of the theatrical cut. I have no information if that has changed since release.

They hadn't MADE a suitable transfer of the theatrical cut yet, because they'd only restored the Director's Cut on a hi-def master for the premium 2-disk DVD release, and used that existing HD master for the Blu-ray.
They'd have to go back to source and make a new hi-def transfer of the theatrical cut from scratch, and that's assuming they weren't stupid enough to "permanently replace" it with the DC. (I'm guessing they weren't, but... )

[nagysaudio]

An Oscar winning movie. One of the best movies of all time. Turned by WB to a complete tripe, garbage.

Another falsely labeled director's cut. While the director PUBLICLY craps on this extended cash grab every chance he gets.

Shame on everyone involved.

[Atreyu]

I did see Amadeus in the theater, but I'll be darned if I can remember what was added for the DC as it as so long ago.
Can anyone here help me out as to what was actually added?

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

I did see Amadeus in the theater, but I'll be darned if I can remember what was added for the DC as it as so long ago.
Can anyone here help me out as to what was actually added?

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2234
Bookmark that homepage, it's an invaluable site IMO.

This film is one of my girlfriends all time favorites, and she hates the DC.

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2234
Bookmark that homepage, it's an invaluable site IMO.

This film is one of my girlfriends all time favorites, and she hates the DC.

I've only ever seen the DC, so what precisely makes the DC such a travesty in the eyes of those who have seen the theatrical version? I studied the Movie-Censorship article and did not find anything that would significantly alter my enjoyment of the film, but I appreciate such things are highly subjective. Even the article itself beings with "In my opinion, the newly inserted scenes of the Director's Cut are plausible and an enrichment for the movie. Salierli's commencing madness and his fixation to God and faith are much more authentic in the Director's Cut."

Guess I'll just need to check out the theatrical version myself someday.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2234
Bookmark that homepage, it's an invaluable site IMO.

This film is one of my girlfriends all time favorites, and she hates the DC.

Mine too. Won't watch the DC at all, saw it once, hated it.

[HD Goofnut]

As much as I want the theatrical as well this thread belongs in the Wish List section.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

An Oscar winning movie. One of the best movies of all time. Turned by WB to a complete tripe, garbage.

Another falsely labeled director's cut. While the director PUBLICLY craps on this extended cash grab every chance he gets.

Shame on everyone involved.

Silly question, how do they get away with calling it the director's cut without the director's approval? Are they just relying on the word "director" being used as a generic term i.e. "it could be any director, it isn't meant to indicate Milos Forman, and therefore we can get away with it"?

Otherwise, couldn't Milos Forman prevent them from releasing it for misrepresentation? One could argue that Warner are making a profit trading on his reputation (by implication)

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=2234
Bookmark that homepage, it's an invaluable site IMO.

This film is one of my girlfriends all time favorites, and she hates the DC.

Thanks so much for the info.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Silly question, how do they get away with calling it the director's cut without the director's approval? Are they just relying on the word "director" being used as a generic term i.e. "it could be any director, it isn't meant to indicate Milos Forman, and therefore we can get away with it"?
Otherwise, couldn't Milos Forman prevent them from releasing it for misrepresentation? One could argue that Warner are making a profit trading on his reputation (by implication)

Yeah, c'mon, this's Forman; he's sued every OTHER time someone tried to touch his movies, what's shut him up now?

Originally Posted by Variable_Star

I've only ever seen the DC, so what precisely makes the DC such a travesty in the eyes of those who have seen the theatrical version? I studied the Movie-Censorship article and did not find anything that would significantly alter my enjoyment of the film, but I appreciate such things are highly subjective. Even the article itself beings with "In my opinion, the newly inserted scenes of the Director's Cut are plausible and an enrichment for the movie. Salierli's commencing madness and his fixation to God and faith are much more authentic in the Director's Cut."

Guess I'll just need to check out the theatrical version myself someday.

We can take the piano-lesson scenes, and longer speeches for Salieri--
But the PG theatrical version of the scene where Constanze comes to beg for Mozart's job takes the much more drastic but thematically focused tone of keeping it off the "It's good to be da Composer" sex-harrassment, and more on Salieri's obsession with Mozart's music itself:

Amadeus - Constance & Salieri - YouTube

Salieri is left speechless, Constanze asks, "You will not help us?", and Salieri walks out of the room--Cut IMMEDIATELY to "We are enemies, You and I..." Any more questions?

(The DC tried to keep Schaffer's idea that Salieri was motivated by his good Catholic sexual-frustration, which is why he was also first angered that his opera singer was having an affair to get into Mozart's "naughty" Seraglio opera. Stanzie's nude scene in the DC does clear up why she's so cold to him at the end, and karmically spoiling his big plan, but it's not essential to the TC to know that.)

The TC made it EVEN CLEARER that Salieri was angry at God, and not simply just because he wasn't getting any.

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

That wasn't a theatrical cut laughing at me.....IT WAS GOD.....

[The Peanut Monkey]

DC really detracted. Less is not always more.

Having said that, we need a seamless branching Blu, please.

[Ernest Rister]

My understanding is that the "director's cut" helped pay for the restoration and preservation of the movie, and that perhaps explains why Milos got on board.

The extended cut is interesting, but the theatrical cut is far superior.

[MaskedRider]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

An Oscar winning movie. One of the best movies of all time. Turned by WB to a complete tripe, garbage.

Another falsely labeled director's cut. While the director PUBLICLY craps on this extended cash grab every chance he gets.

Shame on everyone involved.

And yet he did a commentary on it.

I've never heard him say he dislikes it. But, I could be (and probably am) wrong.

This is my favorite movie of all-time and honestly I love the director's cut, it doesn't take anything away from it for me. I saw the play a few years back and was surprised to see some of the things in the director's cut came directly from the play, so that was nice.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by MaskedRider

And yet he did a commentary on it.

I've never heard him say he dislikes it. But, I could be (and probably am) wrong.

This is my favorite movie of all-time and honestly I love the director's cut, it doesn't take anything away from it for me. I saw the play a few years back and was surprised to see some of the things in the director's cut came directly from the play, so that was nice.

The commentary for Blu-ray was the old commentary he did for the theatrical cut. In which he said how absolutely terrible some of the scenes were and how he hated them and had to cut them.

So what happened is, these terrible scenes were re-inserted for the supposed director's cut and the commentary was altered to remove the negative comments from the director regarding the added scenes. New portions of commentary were recorded to fill in these blank spots.

This is how pathetic this entire situation is.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

The commentary for Blu-ray was the old commentary he did for the theatrical cut. In which he said how absolutely terrible some of the scenes were and how he hated them and had to cut them.

So what happened is, these terrible scenes were re-inserted for the supposed director's cut and the commentary was altered to remove the negative comments from the director regarding the added scenes. New portions of commentary were recorded to fill in these blank spots.

This is how pathetic this entire situation is.

This is correct, although Milos didn't say the scenes were horrible, just wrong for the movie, and they degraded Salieri's character and made him look "silly". He clearly didn't like the Constanze/Salieri's subplot.

[boe]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

I did see Amadeus in the theater, but I'll be darned if I can remember what was added for the DC as it as so long ago.
Can anyone here help me out as to what was actually added?

All the slow moving scenes that look terrible and often don't have any musical accompaniment as well as the part about Mozart's wife doing the wild mambo with Salieri. She has wonderful tatas but it doesn't add to the story line, it actually debases the story line.

Replace one line and there is diminishment. Replace one scene and the structure falls. The original had just as many scenes as were needed - neither more nor less.