Psycho (1960) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And as I said before, the US version he released was his approved cut and has been that way for 50 years. Most likely this and that, but it means absolutely nothing. He was also "forced" to cut the flushing toilet, but he didn't.

And yet again, tirelessly, EVERY movie has cut scenes for many reasons, so calling something "cut" is completely ridiculous and just semantics to perpetuate a non-existent argument. So let's start a thread for every single movie now saying they are ALL cut and demand uncut versions, because that's basically what some of you are doing here.

And this is a gem: "Whether the cut footage changes or improves the film (and I'm sure it doesn't) is irrelevant." It's completely relevant, because the footage adds nothing, therefore it's inclusion would satisfy non one or offer ANYTHING new to a classic 50-year-old film. Therefore, it's unneeded. If it were relevant footage you might have an argument.

I wouldn't mind seeing the edited fragments back in-even if there inclusion is negligible.At the very least any scrap of unused footage (especially from such a classic film as this) should be included as supplemental material.

[PrimusD]

I'm surprised to learn about Germany having a slightly different cut of the film only now, despite being a fan of the film for so many years.

I have to agree with those who are saying that simply because the footage exists in one version of the release, that doesn't mean the version with more footage is the definitive version. I'm sure that there would be some sort of comment by Hitchcock if he had felt like his true vision for the film was never released in the States.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

I wouldn't mind seeing the edited fragments back in-even if there inclusion is negligible.At the very least any scrap of unused footage (especially from such a classic film as this) should be included as supplemental material.

Not every scrap" of shot footage was meant to be seen.

For the 100th time, EVERY film has shot footage that is cut before release for a variety of reasons. Maybe its because the filmmaker doesn't like how it turned out, maybe its the censors, maybe it just doesn't work like it did in the script. EVERY film. So again, by that logic, every film is cut, and no - nothing "should" be included as supplemental material just because it exists. This whole entitlement era of people who think everything belongs to them, or should belong to them just because they want it, is getting out of hand.

Originally Posted by PrimusD

I'm surprised to learn about Germany having a slightly different cut of the film only now, despite being a fan of the film for so many years.

I have to agree with those who are saying that simply because the footage exists in one version of the release, that doesn't mean the version with more footage is the definitive version. I'm sure that there would be some sort of comment by Hitchcock if he had felt like his true vision for the film was never released in the States.

Yep. There were films released that didn't pass production code, like Baby Doll. If Hitchcock really thought those few seconds were necessary, he could've released it that way. He was also notorious for overshooting the objectionable stuff because he knew the censors would make him cut it. So he overshot stuff he never really intended to include, just to see how much the censors would make him take out. That's pretty common knowledge for anyone interested in Hitchcock and his methodology, so it's more than likely he overshot those sequences to see what he could get away with. The cuts were of no importance to him, because he released the film he wanted to make.

[TheHutt]

Originally Posted by PrimusD

I'm surprised to learn about Germany having a slightly different cut of the film only now, despite being a fan of the film for so many years.

I have to agree with those who are saying that simply because the footage exists in one version of the release, that doesn't mean the version with more footage is the definitive version. I'm sure that there would be some sort of comment by Hitchcock if he had felt like his true vision for the film was never released in the States.

The German cut is actually an older version which has found its way onto VHS and/or TV stations (last time it was aired on Bavarian TV digitally in SD). Not only does it contain additional bits & pieces of violence, but also localized inserts (like letters in German) which were characteristic of that time period. So this version has not experienced cut downs which happened to the US version over time.

[Bobbyjoe766]

[QUOTE=Bates_Motel;12540917]Not every scrap" of shot footage was meant to be seen.

For the 100th time, EVERY film has shot footage that is cut before release for a variety of reasons. Maybe its because the filmmaker doesn't like how it turned out, maybe its the censors, maybe it just doesn't work like it did in the script. EVERY film. So again, by that logic, every film is cut, and no - nothing "should" be included as supplemental material just because it exists. This whole entitlement era of people who think everything belongs to them, or should belong to them just because they want it, is getting out of hand.


Yep. There were films released that didn't pass production code, like Baby Doll. If Hitchcock really thought those few seconds were necessary, he could've released it that way. He was also notorious for overshooting the objectionable stuff because he knew the censors would make him cut it. So he overshot stuff he never really intended to include, just to see how much the censors would make him take out. That's pretty common knowledge for anyone interested in Hitchcock and his methodology, so it's more than likely he overshot those sequences to see what he could get away with. The cuts were of no importance to him, because he released the film he wanted to make.[/QUOTE

Deleted scenes/outtakes and behind-the-scenes footage are a main selling point for some.They add to the enjoyment of the main feature.How is wanting to see this stuff being entitled?They want our cash;fine,so give us something we haven't seen before.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And as I said before, the US version he released was his approved cut and has been that way for 50 years. Most likely this and that, but it means absolutely nothing. He was also "forced" to cut the flushing toilet, but he didn't.

And yet again, tirelessly, EVERY movie has cut scenes for many reasons, so calling something "cut" is completely ridiculous and just semantics to perpetuate a non-existent argument. So let's start a thread for every single movie now saying they are ALL cut and demand uncut versions, because that's basically what some of you are doing here.

And this is a gem: "Whether the cut footage changes or improves the film (and I'm sure it doesn't) is irrelevant." It's completely relevant, because the footage adds nothing, therefore it's inclusion would satisfy non one or offer ANYTHING new to a classic 50-year-old film. Therefore, it's unneeded. If it were relevant footage you might have an argument.

I completely disagree with your entire post. But, hey, that's what opinions are for... let's leave it at that.

[steve_dave]

Geez, I wondered if anyone listened to Mel Gibson's commentary on Braveheart because he talks about a lot of deleted footage that hasn't been seen outside test screenings and the editiing room.

Especially how the drawn and quartered scene was far more graphic... and Gibson has no desire to even show that footage because "women ran from the room." But c'mon, everyone bandwagon on for studios to include scenes a filmmaker doesn't want to be showcased.

Its not like anyone had a rational thought that the scenes were inserted to pad out the running time and maybe Universal doesn't have access to that material. But let's demand that stuff be included because it needs to be seen in Blu-ray HD glory.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Geez, I wondered if anyone listened to Mel Gibson's commentary on Braveheart because he talks about a lot of deleted footage that hasn't been seen outside test screenings and the editiing room.

Especially how the drawn and quartered scene was far more graphic... and Gibson has no desire to even show that footage because "women ran from the room." But c'mon, everyone bandwagon on for studios to include scenes a filmmaker doesn't want to be showcased.

Its not like anyone had a rational thought that the scenes were inserted to pad out the running time and maybe Universal doesn't have access to that material. But let's demand that stuff be included because it needs to be seen in Blu-ray HD glory.

I love seeing deleted material,especially from my favourite films.Even if this stuff wasn't meant to be seen by Hollywood outsiders,why let these cinematic treasures rot in some film vault never to be seen?There's clearly a desire by film enthusiasts to experience previously unseen moments from their favourite films.I say preserve as much material as possible for future generations to enjoy by getting this stuff out there,to the fans who would cherish this stuff before it's lost forever.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

I love seeing deleted material,especially from my favourite films.Even if this stuff wasn't meant to be seen by Hollywood outsiders,why let these cinematic treasures rot in some film vault never to be seen?There's clearly a desire by film enthusiasts to experience previously unseen moments from their favourite films.I say preserve as much material as possible for future generations to enjoy by getting this stuff out there,to the fans who would cherish this stuff before it's lost forever.

Deleted scenes and material on the disc is cool stuff, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. What Bates is saying is that putting stuff back into the movie to create a new cut is necessary, since it's a classic as-is and was released the same way theatrically around the world (or was it?). If it was released elsewhere with a longer cut THEN I could see the US version being labeled as a "cut version" and would support the longer overseas cut being on BD.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

If it was released elsewhere with a longer cut THEN I could see the US version being labeled as a "cut version" and would support the longer overseas cut being on BD.

It was... in a little territory called Europe!

It seems to me that there are some on this forum who think that unless it happened in America it didn't happen.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Markgway

It was... in a little territory called Europe!

It seems to me that there are some on this forum who think that unless it happened in America it didn't happen.

Why the hell would you say that when I posted very directly that it could have been released elsewhere in longer form? I stated the possibility, then you declare I didn't think of it? Does that make any sense to you? Hell man, I lived in Europe for 2 years, I'm pretty sure I know it exists.

If Psycho had a longer cut in Europe that was Hitch approved but not released here due to content then yes, that should be released here and is an uncut version. Surprised I never heard of it before, and surprised Bates argues against it. When we debated about Nighthawks it was a completely different situation since that movie was never released anywhere with a different cut than the US'. It's all about what was released theatrically.

[PrimusD]

Exactly how many countries got the extra footage, I wonder?

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by PrimusD

Exactly how many countries got the extra footage, I wonder?

One.

Germany.

[funkymonkey]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

One.

Germany.

This slightly longer version was released on VHS by CIC in the UK in the 80s. I know. I had it.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Bobbyjoe766

Deleted scenes/outtakes and behind-the-scenes footage are a main selling point for some.They add to the enjoyment of the main feature.How is wanting to see this stuff being entitled?They want our cash;fine,so give us something we haven't seen before.

Because 50 years later people are calling out Universal like it's some obligation that they release a few seconds of extra footage Hitchcock KNEW was going to be cut anyway. Just because the Internet gives everyone a voice doesn't mean everyone knows how to use it properly.

Originally Posted by Markgway

I completely disagree with your entire post. But, hey, that's what opinions are for... let's leave it at that.

You can disagree all you like, but facts are facts. The footage was superfluous, Hitchcock knew it was going to be cut, and it was never meant to be in the film, period. Otherwise, a director of his caliber would've made sure it was in there. It's all very simple, and reading a few biographies on the man will give you the same insight into how he played the production code and censor's office to get exactly what he wanted.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Why the hell would you say that when I posted very directly that it could have been released elsewhere in longer form? I stated the possibility, then you declare I didn't think of it? Does that make any sense to you? Hell man, I lived in Europe for 2 years, I'm pretty sure I know it exists.

If Psycho had a longer cut in Europe that was Hitch approved but not released here due to content then yes, that should be released here and is an uncut version. Surprised I never heard of it before, and surprised Bates argues against it. When we debated about Nighthawks it was a completely different situation since that movie was never released anywhere with a different cut than the US'. It's all about what was released theatrically.

There were always various versions of films released in different markets. Doesn't mean one was more right than another. But considering only ONE market in the whole world got a version with a few extra seconds tells you that it was an alternate version to the one released, you know, everywhere else. Out of 196 countries, and people here are somehow claiming the version shown in ONE of them somehow trumps the version shown in all the others. Funny stuff.

Fact: The censors wanted him to cut the toilet. He didn't, and it stated in. The censors wanted to cut the shower scene. He didn't, and it was presented exactly as he edited it. But somehow, these other few seconds he cut against his will. No, all the cuts he made he approved.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

There were always various versions of films released in different markets. Doesn't mean one was more right than another. But considering only ONE market in the whole world got a version with a few extra seconds tells you that it was an alternate version to the one released, you know, everywhere else. Out of 196 countries, and people here are somehow claiming the version shown in ONE of them somehow trumps the version shown in all the others. Funny stuff.

Fact: The censors wanted him to cut the toilet. He didn't, and it stated in. The censors wanted to cut the shower scene. He didn't, and it was presented exactly as he edited it. But somehow, these other few seconds he cut against his will. No, all the cuts he made he approved.

Which country got the longer version?

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Because 50 years later people are calling out Universal like it's some obligation that they release a few seconds of extra footage Hitchcock KNEW was going to be cut anyway. Just because the Internet gives everyone a voice doesn't mean everyone knows how to use it properly.



You can disagree all you like, but facts are facts. The footage was superfluous, Hitchcock knew it was going to be cut, and it was never meant to be in the film, period. Otherwise, a director of his caliber would've made sure it was in there. It's all very simple, and reading a few biographies on the man will give you the same insight into how he played the production code and censor's office to get exactly what he wanted.



There were always various versions of films released in different markets. Doesn't mean one was more right than another. But considering only ONE market in the whole world got a version with a few extra seconds tells you that it was an alternate version to the one released, you know, everywhere else. Out of 196 countries, and people here are somehow claiming the version shown in ONE of them somehow trumps the version shown in all the others. Funny stuff.

Fact: The censors wanted him to cut the toilet. He didn't, and it stated in. The censors wanted to cut the shower scene. He didn't, and it was presented exactly as he edited it. But somehow, these other few seconds he cut against his will. No, all the cuts he made he approved.

I never said i preferred the extended edit over the theatrical version;only that i would like to see the longer cut released also.If adding supplemental material to discs sells more units for UNIVERSAL or any other film company,why not release it? If an alternate version of a film exists-however obscure,why not release it alongside the theatrical cut too?

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by sa5150

(new sound FX) , I did not know that , distracting like how ? is it stuff that should not be there or is the original sound enhanced to hear everything louder ?

It's been years since I watched the film, but I remember distinctly that the sound FX for the storm as Marion is exiting the freeway and pulling up to the Bates Motel are completely different on the 5.1 track and mono track.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

You can disagree all you like, but facts are facts.

You're the one ignoring the facts and the evidence presented because it doesn't suit your position.

1. Paramount required the MPAA seal of approval.
2. The MPAA wouldn't give it without minor changes being made.
3. This wasn't an issue in Europe where Hitchcock could show his director's cut (except in the UK where cuts were made to the shower stabbing).
4. The director's cut has shown up on TV and VHS in Europe.
5. All currently available disc editions are sourced from the cut US version.

If you refuse to accept these facts there's nothing more I (or anyone) can say...

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by funkymonkey

This slightly longer version was released on VHS by CIC in the UK in the 80s. I know. I had it.

Was it this pre-cert tape?



It's here if you have £26 to spare...

http://www.nostalgiastore.co.uk/?615...960-ultra-rare)