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

[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.