The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The idea that there is some perfect cut of TGTBATU which was Leone's unique original vision is probably flawed.

I don't think anybody thinks that way, but there is *one* cut of the film which was prepared by the director in his own language for theatrical release in the country that he lived in and produced films in. That cut has been ignored and supplanted by a recut version prepared long after any of the creative people involved were dead, which restored an entire sequence which were removed by the director after a preview. To act as if those two cuts are equivalently not "Leone's unique original vision" seems to be disingenuous; of course all cuts that directors work with editing teams to prepare are marred by the unique circumstances that surround the specific film, that is no reason to come along and randomly put scenes back in years later and say "Hey, no vision is perfectly realized anyway, so what's the difference?"

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Pecker

You've only to look at Blade Runner. Often criticised for the 'studio imposed' voiceover. What few care to mention is that, when prompted by the studio, Ridlet Scott agreed that film needed more exposition and did the voiceovers of his own free will.

.........

That's not to say that we shouldn't want to see the film asthe director wanted us to see it, just that it's not as simplistic a situation as many discussions imply.

I agree in principle. However, in the case of the Blade Runner voiceover, Ridley Scott did try a few versions of it during the post-production process, but he had virtually nothing to do with the actual final VO that appeared in the film. Still, as you said, it's hardly ever as simplistic as we fans tend to make it out to be.

Often, directors themselves may change their minds about their "original vision" during the process. I remember a Mel Brooks interview in which he talked about addressing a preview audience for Young Frankenstein, saying they were going to help turn a two-hour disaster into an hour-and-a-half masterpiece. And I think Gene Wilder had to convince him to even do the "Puttin' on the Ritz" sequence.

As for TGTBATU, I really don't know what Leone's preference was, but as drush9999 pointed out, he did approve the International Cut at the time of its release, so it does at least have some historical value. I've actually never seen the original Italian cut, and I'm not sure why those behind the 2003 version felt the need to stray from it. That grotto scene is pretty useless.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by BNex99

And I think Gene Wilder had to convince him to even do the "Puttin' on the Ritz" sequence.

I don't think that's right -- Gene Wilder's draft of the script is available, and it's very similar to the final version; a little more fat all through out, and a lot of Igor isn't there because it was either improvised by Feldman or inspired by him. But the one major scene it doesn't have at all is "Puttin' on the Ritz". Maybe at some point Brooks wanted to cut it and Wilder convinced him to keep it, but I'm pretty sure it was the one big contribution Brooks made to the shooting script.

I've actually never seen the original Italian cut, and I'm not sure why those behind the 2003 version felt the need to stray from it. That grotto scene is pretty useless.

The problem with the beating scene, apparently, is that the song is being sung with actual lyrics and there is no "full" English version, and quite possibly the dialogue dubbed into English doesn't exist separately from the song track. It seems like some sort of better approximation of the original version *could* be done there, but I understand that no matter what, they'd be compromising somewhere.

But restoring deleted scenes that were cut pre-theatrical release by the director after he's dead and can't say anything? I don't get it when they do that, that just seems like meddling. Fortunately, it's rare; you can still get the theatrical cut of "Topaz" from some other countries (just not in the USA), and Criterion released both versions of "Red River" rather than get in the middle of that argument.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

But restoring deleted scenes that were cut pre-theatrical release by the director after he's dead and can't say anything? I don't get it when they do that, that just seems like meddling. Fortunately, it's rare; you can still get the theatrical cut of "Topaz" from some other countries (just not in the USA), and Criterion released both versions of "Red River" rather than get in the middle of that argument.

The grotto scene was the only one cut by Leone himself; all the others were cut by US & British distributors. So Leone had intentions of keeping almost all the 14 re-inserted scenes. And he originally intended to keep the grotto scene, since Italian sound was recorded for it, and it was included in the print that played in the Rome premiere.

[eurospec19]

Books and interviews confirm that both the Italian cut and the International Cut were approved by Leone.

Excerpt from Conversations Avec Sergio Leone (french book):

Q: WHY are the different versions in countries?

A: The French version is the longest. I supervised dubbing in English and French, I choose all the actors, from the largest to the smallest role. I fully assume the responsibility of the finished work.

It took nearly 2 years for me to find a digital copy of a France 3 TV broadcast from the 90s that proves the French theatrical version is the International Cut with French credits and onscreen character titles. It is identical to the US version (i.e. no further censorship cuts were made), which contradicts what SL said.

One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that we know some countries like the UK did their own censorship in addition to the cuts made to the International Cut but the French and the US left the International Cut "as-is". Since he lived in Europe, the English cut that Leone might have seen released or been familiar with is the UK Version, which was was censored.

The main point is that Sergio Leone, not US or British distributors, was responsible for the International Cut.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by eurospec19

Books and interviews confirm that both the Italian cut and the International Cut were approved by Leone.

Excerpt from Conversations Avec Sergio Leone (french book):

Q: WHY are the different versions in countries?

A: The French version is the longest. I supervised dubbing in English and French, I choose all the actors, from the largest to the smallest role. I fully assume the responsibility of the finished work.

It took nearly 2 years for me to find a digital copy of a France 3 TV broadcast from the 90s that proves the French theatrical version is the International Cut with French credits and onscreen character titles. It is identical to the US version (i.e. no further censorship cuts were made), which contradicts what SL said.

One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that we know some countries like the UK did their own censorship in addition to the cuts made to the International Cut but the French and the US left the International Cut "as-is". Since he lived in Europe, the English cut that Leone might have seen released or been familiar with is the UK Version, which was was censored.

The main point is that Sergio Leone, not US or British distributors, was responsible for the International Cut.

The International (US) cut is my favorite version of the film. It's got the perfect pace. I'm glad this absolute classic film will finally be available in HD with the best cut. Lets hope they turn down the yellow!

[rille]

Hey,

First post on the forum. Huge fan of this movie.

Just ordered this Nordic version of the movie:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-G...Blu-ray/14365/

The specs on this site says 178 min, but the back of the case says 161 min. Should be the international cut, right?

[mogwai_macabre]

This seems like a perfect opportunity for Kino to step up their game and release a "select" line like Olive did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I only know Kino from their noir releases, but they seem to put in minimal effort and no special features (except for carry over features/commentary from DVD). I'm very surprised they were able to secure the rights to a big name movie like this.

I'll gladly pay $20-25 for a premium package. New special features, and non-yellow transfer. Nice packaging, maybe a 20-30 page booklet. Maybe a slipcover even.

I just hope Kino steps up their game. This has been released twice already on Blu-ray, we don't need another budget substandard release.

[Supermartyoh]

I wouldn't count on the yellow tinge being at least worked on at all. Unlike Shout! and Arrow, who have transfer resources and funds set aside for special cases, Kino doesn't really any transfer work themselves save for a few small and cheaply acquired titles that only had old SD masters available and desperately needed new transfers to be presentable. Like TT and Olive, KL relies on studio provided HD masters as dated and problematic as they can be, just to have enough product to satisfy the demands and make ends meet.

Even if they do get permission from the resto team and MGM, the latter is severely crippled financially and probably wouldn't pick up the tab that Kino needs to do the required work (Twilight Time's Moby Dick made tweaks to an existing master in hopes it was good enough, all because MGM didn't want to lay out the cost for a new transfer and TT couldn't ether with their limited finances).

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by mogwai_macabre

This seems like a perfect opportunity for Kino to step up their game and release a "select" line like Olive did.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I only know Kino from their noir releases, but they seem to put in minimal effort and no special features (except for carry over features/commentary from DVD). I'm very surprised they were able to secure the rights to a big name movie like this.

I'll gladly pay $20-25 for a premium package. New special features, and non-yellow transfer. Nice packaging, maybe a 20-30 page booklet. Maybe a slipcover even.

I just hope Kino steps up their game. This has been released twice already on Blu-ray, we don't need another budget substandard release.

I could do without paying $25 for a booklet.

[mogwai_macabre]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

I could do without paying $25 for a booklet.

That's not at all what I said. I want a definitive release of the movie. Not standard Kino fare. I don't want to spend $10-15 on a budget release, and then turn around and buy the movie for the forth time on Blu-ray a few years down the line.

I figure someone who choose Arch Stanton for their username would be clamoring for the best edition possible?

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I don't think that's right -- Gene Wilder's draft of the script is available, and it's very similar to the final version; a little more fat all through out, and a lot of Igor isn't there because it was either improvised by Feldman or inspired by him. But the one major scene it doesn't have at all is "Puttin' on the Ritz". Maybe at some point Brooks wanted to cut it and Wilder convinced him to keep it, but I'm pretty sure it was the one big contribution Brooks made to the shooting script.

The way I heard it. - Wilder wrote the musical number in and Brooks didn't think it was funny and kept taking it out. The argument went on right up till shooting when Wilder became so animated about it that Brooks acquiesced and let Wilder an Boyle do it. Mel was still convinced it wasn't funny but sensed that if Gene was so upset about leaving it out then maybe he was on to something.

You can kind of see Brooks point. The scene (like all of them) is crammed with brilliant gags - "Both famoos, and in-famoos", the "My fellow scien (SSSSS!) tists." , and "We are not children here!" and the whole scenario is pretty daft already that a musical number (which is not funny on the page) might have seemed like a waste of energy. But Wilder and Boyle absolutely nailed it and how else could they have justified Europe's scientific elite having rotten vegetables to throw at a symposium?

Back on topic.

Some Kino titles look different from other releases sourced from the same master. So there is the possibility of a another revision of the colour scheme.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And he originally intended to keep the grotto scene, since Italian sound was recorded for it, and it was included in the print that played in the Rome premiere.

Right, and then he cut it out because he watched it with an audience. That's what I'm saying, restoring a scene like that is meddling, it is a weird critic thought that somehow the director has a purer artistic vision before seeing how the film plays for an audience. That can make sense if you're talking about Tarkovsky, but Leone or Hitchcock or Hawks work with the audience for their entertainment.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Martoto

The way I heard it. - Wilder wrote the musical number in and Brooks didn't think it was funny and kept taking it out.

That is certainly a more interesting story. I'm not sure I buy it, because to me the scene seems like much more Mel Brooks humor than Gene Wilder humor (when looking at the '70's scripts that they did without the other one), right down to the rotten vegetables. [I believe that the draft that I read merely had the light bulb flicker/break during the regular symposium, same basic beat but without the music number, and in reading it, I realized that it was such a good scene that I had never realized how superfluous it really was.] Whether I believe it or not, it's a great story.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by mogwai_macabre

That's not at all what I said. I want a definitive release of the movie. Not standard Kino fare. I don't want to spend $10-15 on a budget release, and then turn around and buy the movie for the forth time on Blu-ray a few years down the line.

I figure someone who choose Arch Stanton for their username would be clamoring for the best edition possible?

Entailing what though? A fancy cover and a booklet? Doesn't exactly justify the cost.

[mogwai_macabre]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Entailing what though? A fancy cover and a booklet? Doesn't exactly justify the cost.

And proper color grading and new special features, as I already mentioned.

[grim_tales]

There might well be some new extras as the press release says "More To Be Announced" besides the ones already there (for the theatricak version at least).

[Markgway]

I know that Kino usually accept whatever masters they're given, and don't do any further tweaking, but in this instance, it would be wise to make an exception. Isn't there a software program that could tweak the colours without great expense? What did Shout use for the Bruce Lee films? I'm sure there are users here who have undertaken such fan projects.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I know that Kino usually accept whatever masters they're given, and don't do any further tweaking, but in this instance, it would be wise to make an exception. Isn't there a software program that could tweak the colours without great expense? What did Shout use for the Bruce Lee films? I'm sure there are users here who have undertaken such fan projects.

No. They would have to go back to the original scan and start from scratch. The colors and incorrect gamma/white clipping are too baked in to recover it all. You can make it look pretty good in some scenes (I've tried), but other shots, especially ones like the final shot of the film, are way too far gone.

I already took the far superior 2012 Mondo disc and added the US original mono, and that's the closest version to the original IB print I saw screened a while back in LA. No green/yellow/teal in that original print.

[MifuneFan]

I think for the most part, people would accept a digital color regrade, even if it weren't perfect, or they had to leave some of it as inferior looking. Just as a test, I took this screenshot, and just hit the "auto-color" option in Picasa's photo editing program, and it came out looking much better. I'm not saying it's accurate, but certainly would be more welcomed than the current one, I'm sure. If I could do that with one button from a basic program, I'm sure the professionals could certainly do even better with expensive software (again, working within the limitations that Bates mentioned above).