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

[jkwest]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Are you sure you're not holding something?

whoa.....that who has my bong.....

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

So basically, the point of the Redux cut was to appease fanboys and make some extra cash. Brilliant.

I think so. Why else would they release a 5-disc Blade Runner set, a 2-disc Dune with that God-awful television version, the Star Wars SEs with the original LD transfers in 4:3? To release official product, thereby undermining bootleggers. Now, when will the Star Wars Holiday Special come out offically?

[Jeff Kleist]

Now, when will the Star Wars Holiday Special come out offically?

Never. In fact Lucas had the National Archives Ark it. If you think that getting even 4:3 of the original cuts out was hard, you ain't seen nothing yet

I did suggest about 5-6 years ago that they hire the MST3K guys to tear it to pieces and give them carte blanche to say whatever they want, but Lucas is quoted as saying if he coudl find every bootleg and finally erase it from the earth, he would

[JamesKurtovich]

I agree. I think it's ridiculous when a director goes back and drastically changes his films.

You can't compare Lord of the Rings with Star Wars or E.T. because Lord of the Rings wasn't altered. There were scenes omitted from the theatrical cut which were released in an extended version. Lucas went back to Star Wars and totally changed some scenes (and they look horrible and make the movies cheap like the prequels).

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

There's a slight difference between physics altered for effects. And CGI nonsense put in there that isn't even remotely physically possible.

Jumping out of a plane on an inflatable raft, IS possible, unlikely but possible. Getting nuked and surviving flying through the air in a lead lined fridge. You do the math.

Logan

Wait, aren't you defending a movie where a man punctures a second man's chest with his fist, rips out his still-beating heart and then shows it to him?

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by bferr1

Wait, aren't you defending a movie where a man punctures a second man's chest with his fist, rips out his still-beating heart and then shows it to him?

(Cue Tweety Bird) "HE IS".. "HE IS".

[jdc115]

Personally, I would like both or all version available but I would understand if the director restricted it to what ever version he wants. Though in many cases, I would not but it if that is my only choice.

I remember this being raised before in another thread, should the director by able to acclaim his film as being Academy award winning if he choose to release only his director cut and not the theater release which actually one the award?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by bferr1

Wait, aren't you defending a movie where a man punctures a second man's chest with his fist, rips out his still-beating heart and then shows it to him?

And there is the irony of the Indy 4 bashing, surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge is stupid and so lame and so Lucas like, not reality, so stupid. But the old Lucas in Temple Of Doom with a guy looking as his own ripped out heart still alive that was so realistic, so cool, so fun Some people just plai refuse to admit that the movies are the same but they have change by growing up and don't see them with the kids eyes they use to have and want to blame the director for it.

[vanishingpoint]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Some people just plai refuse to admit that the movies are the same but they have change by growing up and don't see them with the kids eyes they use to have and want to blame the director for it.

Yeah, what he said.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

And there is the irony of the Indy 4 bashing, surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge is stupid and so lame and so Lucas like, not reality, so stupid. But the old Lucas in Temple Of Doom with a guy looking as his own ripped out heart still alive that was so realistic, so cool, so fun Some people just plai refuse to admit that the movies are the same but they have change by growing up and don't see them with the kids eyes they use to have and want to blame the director for it.

That's very true and i think that's what has happened with me and Star Wars. Some of it is just plain horrible on its own, but putting a young CGI Annakin next to Obi Wan and Yoda at the end of Jedi is just inexcusable. Just slipping it in there huh Lucas? I guess he really thinks these are good ideas?

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

...putting a young CGI Annakin next to Obi Wan and Yoda at the end of Jedi is just inexcusable. Just slipping it in there huh Lucas?

That wasn't a CGI Anakin, that was the real Hayden Christensen. Hard to tell 'em apart, I know.

[GGX]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

And there is the irony of the Indy 4 bashing, surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge is stupid and so lame and so Lucas like, not reality, so stupid. But the old Lucas in Temple Of Doom with a guy looking as his own ripped out heart still alive that was so realistic, so cool, so fun Some people just plai refuse to admit that the movies are the same but they have change by growing up and don't see them with the kids eyes they use to have and want to blame the director for it.

I don't know about that. For example, I'm no mega fan of Star Wars like some people. I never really grew up with the original trilogy and I've only seen it a couple of times. Same as the prequel trilogy. The original trilogy is outstanding to me. I can see why people like it so much. The prequel trilogy on the other hand just seems really lame, cheesy. With terrible acting and dialogue. Thats the best way I can describe it.

[Grubert]

French Connection cinematographer labels the recoloring 'atrocious,' washes his hands off the Blu-ray transfer:

Last night renowned French Connection cinematographer Owen Roizman trashed William Friedkin's bleachy, grain-heavy Blu-ray transfer of his 1971 Oscar-winning film, which many DVD and Blu-ray aficionados have already savagely dismissed. Roizman called the transfer "atrocious," "emasculated" and "horrifying." He said that he "wasn't consulted" by Freidkin and he "certainly wants to wash my hands of having had anything to do with [it]."

Roizman was speaking to Aaron Aradillas on a blog-radio show called "Back By Midnight." Thanks to Some Came Running's Glenn Kenny for the tip-off.

Roizman "had only heard about the new Blu-ray version [of The French Connection] when Aaron was booking his appearance," Kenny informs. "He went out and bought a Blu-ray player and the disc and did not at all like what he saw."

I transcribed some of what Roizman said so here's a fuller version: "Billy [Friedkin] for some reason decided to do this on his own. I wasn't consulted. I was appalled by it. I don't know what Billy was thinking. It's not the film that I shot, and I certainly want to to wash my hands of having had anything to do with this transfer, which I feel is atrocious."

He later called it an "emasculated" and "horrifying" transfer, and said "it would be a travesty to see The Exorcist [which Roizman also shot] transferred in this fashion."

Link

Listen

[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

[Kryptonic]

It's their movies, I'm just along for the ride...

[PGW]

rebfandan said: "I usually always default to the director's cut if there are two versions available. I like being able to see the director's original vision."

The problem with that is that the "director's cut" is not always "the director's original vision."

For instance, decades after the fact, Chaplin deleted scenes from his films to make them more "contemporary" [these were restored for the Image DVDs, but once again omitted for the more recent issues].

Also, several decades later, Peter Weir chopped about 7 minutes out of "Picnic At Hanging Rock." Anne-Louise Lambert put it well when interviewed in the extras for the DVD, complaining about the edits and pointing out that, at this point, the film no longer belongs to the director, but to all the people who have loved the original version of the film all these years.

[dmb70]

Originally Posted by Grubert

There should be. In The Exorcist, all the subtlety in the original was replaced by in-your-face shocks.

+1000


I'm all for extended versions & directors cuts as long as the original cut is also available.

It's a bigger deal to me with a classic movie that I've loved & been watching for 30 years & now all of a sudden that version isn't available. With something new that I might have seen once in the theater I'm more open to a extended version.