When do we accept revisions in movies?

[cwon]

A thought occurred to me, when you consider the revisionism that's going on in a lot of DVD releases in the form of extended editions or director's cuts, why do the changes to the original Star Wars generate so much heat?

Do his changes alter the meaning or feeling of the film?

Do they just mess with our past whereas changes to recent movies don't? (Would we accept a director's cut of Casablanca? We do with Blade Runner.)

Should there be a statute of limitations - after so many years, no one is allowed to change a movie without also preserving and including the original version?

Just throwing this out for discussion.

[Ed Bishop]

Well, first of all, DVD editions of modern movies tend to be, typically, extended versions of the theatrical cut..and this is factored in when filming is done. The LOTR trilogy is a classic example: Peter Jackson knew he couldn't have the full-length films he wanted, but he also knew he could get back something closer to what he envisioned as ideal with the DVD cuts. He hasn't left anything out of the original theater versions of any significance, just added or extended scenes he was forced to cut for exhibition purposes.

That's a far cry from genuine revisionism, which is what Lucas is doing. A few extra scenes in the SW movies, in and of themselves, wouldn't elicit the hue & cry. What's depressing is his needless alteration of so many things, not least existing scenes. Really, now, did Mos Eisley need all that extra activity in the background, and other stuff, to make it seem more exciting? 'Course not! Do we need the 'new' Vader at the end of JEDI? Nope, the ending was stupid enough to begin with without changing it in any way. Did some of the music in JEDI need to be replaced? No...and perhaps that's the worst crime of all, since anyone who saw the original film is used to everything as it was, and to alter any of that is just the height of creative arrogance. Lucas cannot hide behind the 'if I'd had the money and technology back then, I'd have had all this stuff' logic, since the fact is, he's had all these years to decide upon those changes...not one of which really adds anything to those movies except proving that less is more and more is less. He just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone. I'm sure the HD-DVD edition--which can't be more than a few years off--will have further changes to delight us...:rolleyes:


:ed:

[macready]

I believe the problem with the STAR WARS situation is not so much that Lucas made changes, but that he now refuses to release the original theatrical versions. That position is a slap in the face to millions of fans and to the history of motion pictures. Give us the choice of which version we want to watch.

[Corey]

Interesting bringing up Blade Runner, because I always thought the "Director's Cut" is widely regarded as inferior.

For me it breaks down to 3 categories:
Good changes: Items restored to the film that were cut (but originally intendes) for length or ratings purposes.

Indifferent: Correcting a technical glitch - like the snake reflections in Raiders of the Lost Ark, or adding a few incosequential extra scenes to movies like Kingpin or American Pie.

BAD: Pointless, vanity changes that directly affect the story for films of interest (Greedo shoots first, walkie talkies in ET, director's cuts that radically change the story, etc).

[poweragemk]

As long as the original versions remain in print and easily available in the medium du jour (dvd).

[Oatsdad]

As long as the original versions remain in print and easily available in the medium du jour (dvd).

I'm in that camp. I couldn't care less what changes they make - as long as I can get the original as well. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen.

Part of the reason the "Star Wars" changes create such a hubbub is because they're so beloved by so many people. Roland Emmerich can do what he wants to "Independence Day" - not many will care. But "Star Wars" is a friggin' way of life for lots.

And I won't even get into the "raping one's childhood" issue!

[Tim Casey]

I've never seen a director's cut that was better than the original release. Even the director's cut of "Cinema Paradiso" had some cool extra stuff in it that actually took away from the original.

Restoring a film to what it was at its original premiere is good (except for the 1925 "Phantom Of The Opera", which is as slow as molasses), but all other attempts at re-editing a movie have turned out badly in my eyes.

[Oatsdad]

I've never seen a director's cut that was better than the original release.


The most common example: "The Abyss". I definitely prefer the longer version of this film.

I also think the extended takes of the first two "Lord of the Rings" movies are better than the theatrical ones.

I'm sure there are other superior DCs out there - can't think of them off the top of my head, though.

[Jimbo]

I didn't even like Brazil in the chopped-up studio-approved version, while Gilliam's director's cut made it a great movie.

[Ken_McAlinden]

I agree that the director's cut of "The Abyss" is a marked improvement over the theatrical cut. The "director's notes cut" (for lack of a better term) of "Touch of Evil" is also very good. I think the first "Star Trek" movie plays better in the director's cut, as does the currently circulating version of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". It still bothers me that the original theatrical versions of the latter three are not in circulation, though.

Films that were cut for ratings purposes are often better in their "unrated director's cut versions".

I saw an R-rated cut of John Woo's "The Killer" one time, and many of the key action scenes were just about impossible to follow.

"Spartacus" is better with the Oysters & Snails scene and the violence re-instated.

Regards,

[-=Rudy=-]

For kicks, let's discuss "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." It's on, what, its third or fourth revision and it STILL drags? I like this movie...when it is "on". But when it's not, it's sleep inducing. I mean, do we really need a five minute approach shot of the Enterprise in space dock? I'm not saying it should be hacked to bits, but I still think it could have benefited from a little more razor blade and tightened up considerably. It is slow paced to begin with.

This movie's deluxe edition also had some scenery changes. However, they made it clear in the documentary that they only used effects that match the FX technology that was available at that time when the movie was filmed. That is one sticking point with me regarding the Star Wars films--the new bits do not exactly fit the older films. I don't mind watching them (my girls are turning into second-generation Star Wars fans :) ), but you know that feeling...it just doesn't feel "right".

[AKA]

Who here agrees with me that the "Untitled" cut of Almost Famous is lightyears better than the theatrical cut (which, itself, was great)?

[Oatsdad]

Who here agrees with me that the "Untitled" cut of Almost Famous is lightyears better than the theatrical cut (which, itself, was great)?

Not me. I prefer the theatrical cut - I think it's tighter. The extra footage in "Untitled" is fun, but I don't think it adds anything. In fact, I think it slows the movie and takes away from it...

[jjhunsecker]

Not me. I prefer the theatrical cut - I think it's tighter. The extra footage in "Untitled" is fun, but I don't think it adds anything. In fact, I think it slows the movie and takes away from it...

I kinda agree here. I thought the Theatrical cut was better, even though I also enjoyed "Untitled"

[Pinknik]

For kicks, let's discuss "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." It's on, what, its third or fourth revision and it STILL drags? I like this movie...when it is "on". But when it's not, it's sleep inducing. I mean, do we really need a five minute approach shot of the Enterprise in space dock?

Yes actually, I like that bit, and the other plodding bit inside V'ger. Nice eye candy. Nice score. I'm not sure you can edit the content to improve the story of WHERE NOMAD HAS GONE BEFORE, er, ST:TMP. You might be missing padding, but I'm not sure it becomes any more compelling.
I tend to like director's cuts just fine, when it's the first version, or only version, I've ever seen. Some, at least, have compelling reasons for existing, like BRAZIL or BLADE RUNNER, where the director was prevented from completing his vision at the time by external forces. Most of the time, I wish they'd leave well enough alone. CONAN THE BARBARIAN is cheese, that I love for what it is, and I got a hack job DVD version, that didn't add anything, but did annoy me that it wasn't what I was used to.

[VeeDub]

Speaking of Star Trek, the latest release of VI is a new director's cut. I don't believe the theatrical has ever been on home video, with the initial releases having the 2-minute longer home-vid version. You'd think with all the "trekkies" out there this wouldn't have slipped by relatively unnoticed (at least compared to Star Wars). On the other hand, I'm not sure that the changes significantly impact or detract. (I think Colin's got them itemized on his site.)

Generally speaking, I don't mind "longer" cuts--depending on how long, and what the scenes are--as opposed to those that heavily mess with the original footage. If the original theatrical version is "contained" within a longer cut, I'm good. Otherwise, hit and miss.

[Michael]

If they want to fuss with the original, the available retail copy should always have the original version either as a bonus disc or vise versa...

[ZIPGUN99]

I remember seeing and liking "The Wild Bunch" in the early 70's, but not quite understanding the whole story. The much longer DVD release is more coherent, and a way better movie. Great movie!

I saw the Criterion Unrated director's cut DVD's of Andy Warhol's "Flesh For Frankenstein" and "Blood For Dracula" recently. The main difference is some gratuitous nudity and sex scenes. Yay!

Howard Hawks' "The Big Sleep" sat on the shelf for a period of time during the end of WWII while Warners released all their War-related movies. In the meanwhile, some scenes were re-shot to enlarged Lauren Bacall's part and the movie was re-edited.
The DVD has the pre-regular release version, which I dug big time.
I thought it was a much better version, even though it doesn't have the famous scene where Bacall asks Bogart to hold her hand, than slaps his paw with her glove.

[MikePh]

In an effort to get more a$$es in the seats nightly, theater owners have encouraged, if not insisted on movies that don't exceed 90 mins. in the past 8-10 years. I agree that the older films are left best alone, but I appreciate the xtra footage in these new films, many of whose theatrical versions seemed rushed to me...

[JonUrban]

Depite the changes in the "new" release of E.T., they at least left the original version on a seperate DVD in the same package. This way, it's the viewers choice if they want to show the kids the FBI guys with guns or not.

This is the way to do it.

[Ed Bishop]

Which is the smart way every time! Wish the studios and directors would take this method to heart and make it a habit....

And the same with the sound...offer the original sonics, and then the futzed or remixed stuff...

:ed:

[John Oteri]

A thought occurred to me, when you consider the revisionism that's going on in a lot of DVD releases in the form of extended editions or director's cuts, why do the changes to the original Star Wars generate so much heat?

Do his changes alter the meaning or feeling of the film?

Do they just mess with our past whereas changes to recent movies don't? (Would we accept a director's cut of Casablanca? We do with Blade Runner.)

Should there be a statute of limitations - after so many years, no one is allowed to change a movie without also preserving and including the original version?

Just throwing this out for discussion.

I think what happens is that creative people often wonder what they could do to improve a project. So after time, if something passes into the culture (like a great film or recording) there's a tendancy to tinker with it. As the creator/director gets older they see things they could have done better, things they could've cut and blah blah, and since they have the technology to do it now they start monkeying around. As far as Casablanca goes, I did get a chance to see several different cuts that were still available, ages ago when I took a film editing course at UCLA. We saw three different versions of the final scene that were actually put together for test audiences way back when those things were done, cut three ways, and it was a real eye opener. The theatrical version was the best by far. Sometimes it's just best for creative people to leave well enough alone.

[levi]

I didn't see Once Upon a Time in America in its original theatrical release. but even though the director's cut runs more than three and a half hours, I can't imagine cutting much.

Apocalypse Now Redux, on the other hand ...

[Bobo U2]

I have a friend who is a big Godfather fan who refuses to obtain the current DVD release. He is waiting for the Godfather Saga to be released. Does anyone here think Coppola(sp) will ever release it??

[Oatsdad]

I have a friend who is a big Godfather fan who refuses to obtain the current DVD release. He is waiting for the Godfather Saga to be released. Does anyone here think Coppola(sp) will ever release it??

Maybe, but I think it's silly to wait for a product that may never see the light of day. Do people really get that uptight about "double-dipping"? DVDs are so cheap - I've never understood the massive angst people invest in the concept they may "have to" buy something a second time.

You can get the "Godfather" boxed set for $80 at Amazon - tell your friend to spend the money and live a little! Sell it on ebay later if the "Saga" ever hits the streets. It's been three years since the boxed set release - your friend needs to move on with his life!