which DIRECTOR'S CUT, EXTENDED or SPECIAL EDITION sucked?

Betamax and beyond

Postby havocSchultz on Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:45 am

tapehead wrote: with the VO's charm (Ford is world-weary and beaten, rather than disinterested, IMO)


See, that's my opinion too...

It seemed to fit into the whole noir thing...

Because most of those dudes are world weary - and if they sound disinterested - well - it's probably cause life, for the most parts, seems to disinterest them...

I like both versions...

It's one of those things where I can enjoy both for what they are...

And what's is it with Ridley and Director's Cuts...

I watched the documentary on the Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut (arguably even more interesting than either version of the film) and it said that he doesn't fight the studios too much when they try and fuck with his vision...
He knows why they're doing it - even if he doesn't agree - he realizes that it's their money, and they should have a say in it.

But he also knows that he'll get his opportunity to showcase his vision at some point...

And it's weird - apparently the whole Kid storyline in Kingdom of Heaven, was hotly debated back and forth even when they were trying to finalize the script...

Either way...

Andybody who checks out that Director's Cut, needs to watch the doc - I love seeing Ridley behind the scenes...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Pacino86845 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:52 am

I have the Director's Cut version of the film... watched it twice already but haven't checked out any of the behind the scenes stuff. I just friggin' love that movie!!
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby unikrunk on Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:52 am

tapehead wrote:
unikrunk wrote:I would not say the director’s cut of this sucked, but I like the studio cut better - Bladerunner -

The VO work was great, and lent a real gum-shoe sensibility to the film.

I prefer it to the director's cut, and will probably like it better than the Ultimate cut or whatever-the-shit they are calling the latest version.


I agree with you regards the voice over - it added the noir and pulp elements Scott was aiming for. However, without going into spoilers, don't you mind the fact the the DC has a totally different (and in my opinion, much better, if stark and depressing) conclusion?


I like both endings, I guess it depends what kind of mood I am in - the original cut had that tacked on Kubrick fly-over footage, and the sun finally shining on their faces, and it is kind of uplifting.

Scott's finale is good as well, for the reasons you have outlined; it leaves the door open (although it ends with a door closing) on these two individuals - you don’t know if they are going to even make it out of the building. Pretty good both ways - the scale of goodness is balanced here.

The one thing that has always stuck out like a boil is the dove flying into sunny skies; from reading reviews on the mother site, it seems that this has been addressed in the new cut. That I would probably like.

But, this brings me full circle to Ford's VO work - it has a lot of impact during Roy Batty's death - to know that Deckard knows what this man, this extraordinary creature has given him by saving his life is just a real kick in the heart - it goes so well with Roy's goodbye speech.

Someone mentioned Ford sounding uninspired in the VO - I think that was the point - the man is uninspired, he is just going through the motions of life in a nasty place. It’s no secret that Scott basically tortured Ford when filming; trying to always ensure that Han Solo or Indiana Jones did not make an appearance. I have read, somewhere, that at times he would have Ford waken up with cold water thrown on him, then rush him to set to capture his pissed-offness.

I digress; the endings, for unikrunk, are equally good.
He can't' love you back...
Image
User avatar
unikrunk
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4845
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 am

Postby tapehead on Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:00 am

unikrunk wrote:
tapehead wrote:
u nikrunk wrote:I would not say the director’s cut of this sucked, but I like the studio cut better - Bladerunner -

The VO work was great, and lent a real gum-shoe sensibility to the film.

I prefer it to the director's cut, and will probably like it better than the Ultimate cut or whatever-the-shit they are calling the latest version.


I agree with you regards the voice over - it added the noir and pulp elements Scott was aiming for. However, without going into spoilers, don't you mind the fact the the DC has a totally different (and in my opinion, much better, if stark and depressing) conclusion?


I like both endings, I guess it depends what kind of mood I am in - the original cut had that tacked on Kubrick fly-over footage, and the sun finally shining on their faces, and it is kind of uplifting.

Scott's finale is good as well, for the reasons you have outlined; it leaves the door open (although it ends with a door closing) on these two individuals - you don’t know if they are going to even make it out of the building. Pretty good both ways - the scale of goodness is balanced here.

The one thing that has always stuck out like a boil is the dove flying into sunny skies; from reading reviews on the mother site, it seems that this has been addressed in the new cut. That I would probably like.

But, this brings me full circle to Ford's VO work - it has a lot of impact during Roy Batty's death - to know that Deckard knows what this man, this extraordinary creature has given him by saving his life is just a real kick in the heart - it goes so well with Roy's goodbye speech.

Someone mentioned Ford sounding uninspired in the VO - I think that was the point - the man is uninspired, he is just going through the motions of life in a nasty place. It’s no secret that Scott basically tortured Ford when filming; trying to always ensure that Han Solo or Indiana Jones did not make an appearance. I have read, somewhere, that at times he would have Ford waken up with cold water thrown on him, then rush him to set to capture his pissed-offness.

I digress; the endings, for unikrunk, are equally good.


Sure, but in the DC, Deckard is a replicant and Gaff is the human Detective who has been on the case the whole time. It's a pretty different take, which also affects all that precedes it, no?
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby havocSchultz on Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:04 am

Pacino86845 wrote:I have the Director's Cut version of the film... watched it twice already but haven't checked out any of the behind the scenes stuff. I just friggin' love that movie!!


Then you'll love the extras...

There's a bunch of them - but mainly - a feature length documentary that pretty much follows Ridley and his team from conception to the film's release...

And if you're a fan of Ridley - I recommend it even more...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby unikrunk on Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:21 am

@tape - absolutely, I agree with you 100% - it makes for two fairly different films in their entirety.

I think the uplifting and hopefulness of the original cut is in a man becoming human again, feeling again, and finding love by changing his internal definition of what it is to be human - He loves Rachel, and that love is so great it surpasses the physical attributes of her, literally he does not care if she was constructed rather than born, and this, again is testament to Deckard’s personal growth.

The DC ending and film, presents us with a different kind of love, a love of two of a kind finding each other and holding out against the odds of both of them getting 'retired'. The Deckard as a Nexus 6 is very cool.


Like I said, both endings are equal on the scales of goodness, but I prefer the original cut.
He can't' love you back...
Image
User avatar
unikrunk
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4845
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 am

Postby Pacino86845 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:28 am

havocSchultz wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:I have the Director's Cut version of the film... watched it twice already but haven't checked out any of the behind the scenes stuff. I just friggin' love that movie!!


Then you'll love the extras...

There's a bunch of them - but mainly - a feature length documentary that pretty much follows Ridley and his team from conception to the film's release...

And if you're a fan of Ridley - I recommend it even more...


Ok, I will comply!! Next time I go home I'll prolly pick up the Final Cut Blade Runner disc-set...
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby Fried Gold on Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:29 am

havocSchultz wrote:And what's is it with Ridley and Director's Cuts...

I watched the documentary on the Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut (arguably even more interesting than either version of the film) and it said that he doesn't fight the studios too much when they try and fuck with his vision...
He knows why they're doing it - even if he doesn't agree - he realizes that it's their money, and they should have a say in it.

But he also knows that he'll get his opportunity to showcase his vision at some point...

He isn't shy about bringing over his thoughts about director's cut versions.

On the Alien Director's Cut, in his introduction, he talks about the reasons for it being called a "director's cut" and that the original version was his cut - he removed the extra material for good reason.

And, again, puts across his understanding of the way studios work and that he tends not to fight them as they are ones making his job possible in the first place.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13919
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby The Vicar on Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:42 am

unikrunk wrote:I would not say the director’s cut of this sucked, but I like the studio cut better - Bladerunner -

The VO work was great, and lent a real gum-shoe sensibility to the film.

I prefer it to the director's cut, and will probably like it better than the Ultimate cut or whatever-the-shit they are calling the latest version.


Initially I liked the sort of Phillip Marlowe sensibility that the voice over brought to the project - but after I saw the director's cut, I never wanted to hear the VO again. Firts, it offended me that the studios figured we were all too stupid to fiollow what was going on, but second it offended me that some studio suits forced Scott to impose this VO on his film.
Fuck studio suits.
They are almost always wrong.
They were wrong when they fucked over Magnificent Ambersons, and they were wrong this time.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby pheadx on Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:03 am

I agree, both endings (and the VO) make two different films. But I think that the DC ending fits into the overall film better. The Voice Over gives a Noir and Pulp feel, but the film doesnt need references to genres or works of others. A film, where you can directly look into the head of deckart (as with the VO) doesn't make sense to me and it doesnt contribute to the characterisation of the main character. It's just a gimmick, something to show that this is a noir film, but it doesn't help the film in general. Without the voice over, the audience is free to explore the world on their own, without any help. They might get lost, and that is why the film is often refered to as "designer porn", but if they manage to follow the story and get an insight into the world and its rules (it makes total sense that deckart could be an android), it is much more satisfying. It's like the question, if you wanna have a title saying "1874" in a period piece or if you want the film to explain itself.
pheadx
STEAK-A-BABY
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm

retort and opinions

Postby sonnyboo on Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:54 am

I like the differentiation from director's when the explain the difference between a "DIRECTOR's CUT" and a "SPECIAL EDITION".

On the ALIENS : SPECIAL EDITION Laserdisc, later turned into DVD, James Cameron wrote on the liner notes that this was NOT a director's cut because contractually, he had the final cut and what was shown in theatres WAS his director's cut. This is a "special edition" because of those contracts. The same is said by Peter Jackson in regards to the longer versions of the LORD OF THE RINGS. This may not be DGA bylaws, but it seems that if a director has contractual "final cut", then the term "special edition" applies. If the studio has more control over the cut than the director, it's a "director's cut".


So much else to respond to...

RE: DONNIE DARKO, I have never seen the original cut, only the director's cut, so I can't speak as to the original, but having never seen the old version - the INXS song was a killer way to open the movie and establish the late 1980's feel (when I was in high school no less). The placement of the ECHO & THE BUNNYMEN song later in the movie carried a lot of impact to me as a viewer. Of course, I had no basis of comparison, just telling the the haters how it felt to someone who never saw any other version of the film. I can't imagine a shorter version of that film making ANY sense. The sound mix in the DC is amazing.

RE: BLADE RUNNER - I am in agreement with most posters - I like both versions, with or without voice over. I am jaded because when I see the DIRECTOR'S CUT, I know what he was saying in my head and I already have that information, so it's impossible to divorce myself entirely from what is already there. I do like the additional nod to Noir detective films and there is also enough spatial silence minus voice overs (like when he examines Leon's photos on the machine scored so perfectly by Vangelis) that the movie's atmosphere is not damaged irreparably.

RE: ALIEN THE DIRECTOR'S CUT - This is one where I much preferred the old version. As great as the scenes with the eggs and what happened to her additional crew - I believe more what Ridley Scott himself had said in the interview for the 20th anniversary LASERDISC (later released as a DVD) introduction/interview had said - it kills the pacing of the film. RIDLEY SCOTT says that she goes from running, running, panic, running -let's stop and slow down for 5 minutes, then goes to running, running, panic. It's arrhythmic and jolting to me as a viewer, no matter how great the material, performance, and revelatory the information - it should have been placed somewhere else in the movie where it wouldn't kill the momentum. Or the plot points & Alien procreation info saved & used in the next movie - which it was.


=--=-=-=-=-=-

What about these allegedly "extended cuts" of crap ass movies like GONE IN 60 SECONDS (the Nic Cage version) or CON AIR? Is adding less than 3 minutes really an "extension"?
User avatar
sonnyboo
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Hollywood, Ohio USA

Postby The Vicar on Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:13 pm

Of our pain.....
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby godzillasushi on Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:33 pm

I have one of the 80 Close Encounters of the Third Kind releases. I wish they would make one that has EVERYTHING. I was just reading over at Wikipedia about all the different releases and even now they pick and choose scenes that I would at least want to see.

Wikipedia wrote:The Special Edition features several new character development scenes, the discovery of a lost ship, the SS Cotopaxi, in the Gobi Desert, and a view of the inside of the mother ship. The interior of the mother ship is deleted from the "Collector's Edition". (Spielberg added this scene as a concession to be allowed to make the Special Edition. He decided it was a mistake and removed it in the later edition.)


I haven't seen all the versions like most of us.

Wikipedia wrote:Sony Pictures Home Entertainment is planning to release the film on Blu-ray Disc on November 13, 2007. This 30th Anniversary "ultimate edition" will feature three cuts of the film — the 1977 original cut, the 1980 special edition cut, and the 1998 director's cut. In addition, only available on Blu-ray, a storyboard-to-scene comparison to the original 1977 Watch the Skies short feature is included.


That sounds great except it's Sony and Blu-Ray.

It sucks that there have been so many releases, but no definitive version. I want one that has everything, plus the interior of the ship, etc.

Maybe this doesn't fit into this thread as much but I do think it's interesting...I should add that I do think each version hurts the other and there has never been a good opportunity to decide. So im wiggling into the whole "takes away from the original" guidelines.
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
godzillasushi
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Destroying Sony Headquarters in Japan

Re: which DIRECTOR'S CUT, EXTENDED or SPECIAL EDITION sucked

Postby Nordling on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:07 pm

sonnyboo wrote:Obviously the SPECIAL EDITION of THE ABYSS had some great special and visual FX work, but that movie was NOT better than the theatrical cut.


Wrong.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Re: which DIRECTOR'S CUT, EXTENDED or SPECIAL EDITION sucked

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:09 pm

Nordling wrote:
sonnyboo wrote:Obviously the SPECIAL EDITION of THE ABYSS had some great special and visual FX work, but that movie was NOT better than the theatrical cut.


Wrong.


Well...ok then.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby tapehead on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:10 pm

It's a concise and compelling argument, you must agree.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Nordling on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:12 pm

Some things you just don't want to waste time discussing. I could go into how the director's cut of THE ABYSS is Cameron's finest work as a filmmaker, or how KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is Ridley's third finest, but hey, it ain't my job to educate the world.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby tapehead on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:13 pm

Actually wasting time discussing stuff like that is pretty much why I frequent the forum we are currently posting on.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby sonnyboo on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:16 pm

tapehead wrote:It's a concise and compelling argument, you must agree.


I'm stumped. I've been proven wrong with this word-poem of a debate.


Nordling wrote:Some things you just don't want to waste time discussing. I could go into how the director's cut of THE ABYSS is Cameron's finest work as a filmmaker, or how KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is Ridley's third finest, but hey, it ain't my job to educate the world.


#1. It was not and never will be a "director's cut" of THE ABYSS. See my earlier post about James Cameron's own stance on that - ever since PIRHANNA II THE SPAWNING, he has contractually had final cut on every film he's ever made. What was in theatres IS his Director's Cut.

#2. Aside from some great scenes regarding character development with the marriage, the whole wave sequence was a giant bore with some of the cheesiest and mundane crapfest ever to come from a Spielbergian wannabe moment - and that's exactly why he cut it out of the damn movie.
User avatar
sonnyboo
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Hollywood, Ohio USA

Postby Nordling on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:24 pm

Some things aren't debatable. Some things are just wrong. I can debate BLADE RUNNER Theatrical vs. Director's Cut without any problem (and honestly, I don't know which one I like more, there's things about both that I appreciate).

But THE ABYSS's added scenes make the film so much more improved, and it puts an accent on the relationship between Bud and Lindsey. In fact, the whole relationship of Bud and Lindsey on screen, I'd say, is one of the most compelling and true romances in screen history. It came from a time where Cameron was having difficulties in his own marriage with Gale Hurd and feel so true that it seems like Cameron lived it. That's one of the reasons I'm not so keen on AVATAR - because Cameron got human relationships so right in THE ABYSS that I'd like to see him try something again in that vein. I'm married, and I see many things that I recognize in that relationship. It's grown-up and honest, and that's why I think it's Cameron's finest work as a director.

As far as KINGDOM OF HEAVEN goes, the extended cut felt like a David Lean film, and I loved it so much I never went back and saw the original edit. There was no point. I think when Ridley Scott's on, he's one of the most amazing filmmakers on the planet. And I'm so pleased that he's continued in that aspect in his later years. We should cherish directors like Scott, who even when they're off still manage to make interesting work (if nothing else, G I JANE looks amazing visually, and the battle scenes are heavily ripped off by other filmmakers, imo). I can't wait to see AMERICAN GANGSTER, which I've heard from trusted sources is amazing too.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Nordling on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:29 pm

sonnyboo wrote:#1. It was not and never will be a "director's cut" of THE ABYSS. See my earlier post about James Cameron's own stance on that - ever since PIRHANNA II THE SPAWNING, he has contractually had final cut on every film he's ever made. What was in theatres IS his Director's Cut.

#2. Aside from some great scenes regarding character development with the marriage, the whole wave sequence was a giant bore with some of the cheesiest and mundane crapfest ever to come from a Spielbergian wannabe moment - and that's exactly why he cut it out of the damn movie.


So what if it's his cut or not? Lucas prefers his cuts of the Original Trilogy, that doesn't make them better.

As far as the wave thing goes, I prefer the "special edition" because it came from Cameron's heart. We deal with three conflicts in this film - Bud and Lindsey's, the US and Russia's, and the aliens with everyone. Cameron wraps things up much better in that version. I found it compelling and moving.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby havocSchultz on Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:11 pm

Nordling wrote: It came from a time where Cameron was having difficulties in his own marriage


Umm...

That's kinda non-stop with Cameron though...

He's been married like 4 or 5 times...at least...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Tyrone_Shoelaces on Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:41 pm

There's no way in hell I'll ever see it but someone decided that we needed Brian Levant's director's cut of Jingle All The Way. 20 minutes of extra footage guaranteed to piss me off even more. I hate this movie so much that I seriously became angry when I saw it in the store and had to prevent myself from punching the DVDs.
Last edited by Tyrone_Shoelaces on Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Tyrone_Shoelaces
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3946
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Northern Frontier

Postby Nordling on Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:42 pm

That's very true, but he used it for this film to create a very compelling relationship.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby wonkabar on Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:57 pm

Let me just say that if the Director's-cut of AMADEUS had been released in 84....I seriously don't think it would have won best picture.

Man, I have never seen extra footage so drastically fuck up a movie I loved.

Like, it actually became a bad movie IMO
Image
User avatar
wonkabar
CHIEF OF THE BEEF
 
Posts: 6219
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: The Double Douche

Postby sonnyboo on Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:12 pm

Nordling wrote:So what if it's his cut or not? Lucas prefers his cuts of the Original Trilogy, that doesn't make them better.


Okay, but you called it a "director's cut" and it is not a director's cut.
User avatar
sonnyboo
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Hollywood, Ohio USA

which DIRECTOR'S CUT, EXTENDED or SPECIAL EDITION sucked?

Postby bastard_robo on Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:23 pm

Wasnt a Huge fan of the Original Cut of Mallrats.

Though I do prefer the DC of Donnie Darko.
Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everyone is gonna die. Come watch TV
— Rick and Morty

Image
User avatar
bastard_robo
SCANK BARON
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:59 am
Location: Hello Kitty Adventure Island

Postby Fried Gold on Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:39 pm

What are people's thoughts about the "assembly cut" of Alien3 that was in the Alien Quadrilogy set?

I know a lot of people can't see any good in the film, but I do like it. The new cut, while not having any direct involvement from David Fincher, was constructed using his editor Terry Rawlings (who also edited Alien for Ridley Scott) and features quite a lot of alternate or additional material.

- the Alien is formed by attacking an ox, not the dog. (I thought either concept was interesting, as it's the only time we've seen a non-humanoid-gestated Alien)
- we get to see the "super facehugger"
- Golic's worship of the Alien as a godlike figure is developed and Golic is shown to release the creature after the inmates have trapped it.
- the relationship between Dillon and Ripley is given more focus and development
- the chestburster doesn't pop out as Ripley descends.

Even if you don't like either cut, it at least shows what might have been were it not for the over-interference of Giler & Co.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13919
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby sonnyboo on Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:18 pm

I still didn't like ALIEN 3 much. I read several alternate and early drafts. The whole ALIEN as "satan" angle was actually William Gibson's conception and that rocked, but even in this version it wasn't played out as well. It seems they never committed to any of the angles and storylines fully.

Similarly from the ALIEN QUADRILOGY, I thought the "special edition" of ALIEN RESURRECTION sucked too. They added those few seconds at the beginning of the movie and called it extended. What a sham!

Again, Joss Whedon's screenplay was so much better and darker than the movie that got made. In his screenplay Ripley was a lot more of a "bad guy" and the ambiguity of her character's loyalties and intentions were a lot more interesting. In the final movie, her character just goes into generic action heroine mode and I didn't give a shit, as it was unmotivated.
User avatar
sonnyboo
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Hollywood, Ohio USA

Postby RogueScribner on Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:46 pm

RE: The Abyss

For years and years, the only version I had ever seen was the special edition on DVD. I finally got around to watching the theatrical cut and realized why it bombed in theaters. The theatrical cut doesn't make any sense! And it's so choppy and lacks the nuance of the longer cut. The longer cut is a great movie. The shorter cut . . . meh.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Re: which DIRECTOR'S CUT, EXTENDED or SPECIAL EDITION sucked

Postby tapehead on Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:19 am

bastard_robo wrote:Wasnt a Huge fan of the Original Cut of Mallrats.


Pretty sure the extended cut is a new version, not an 'Original Cut' which, according to Smith on the commentary, pretty much includes virtually everything they shot (like Clerks, it's mostly just static master shots with no cutaways or close-ups). The newly added fifteen minutes at the start is just fucking awful, and the rest of the additions just serve to make the film more boring.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Fievel on Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:33 am

RogueScribner wrote:RE: The Abyss

For years and years, the only version I had ever seen was the special edition on DVD. I finally got around to watching the theatrical cut and realized why it bombed in theaters. The theatrical cut doesn't make any sense! And it's so choppy and lacks the nuance of the longer cut. The longer cut is a great movie. The shorter cut . . . meh.


Yeah, I remember only mildly liking the theatrical cut (but LOVING the special effects) and not even wanting to watch the special edition DVD that much. But when I saw the extended version... it became a MUCH better story and that's the only version I really care to see again.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 11951
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Re: which DIRECTOR'S CUT, EXTENDED or SPECIAL EDITION sucked

Postby sonnyboo on Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:40 pm

tapehead wrote:
bastard_robo wrote:Wasnt a Huge fan of the Original Cut of Mallrats.


Pretty sure the extended cut is a new version, not an 'Original Cut' which, according to Smith on the commentary, pretty much includes virtually everything they shot (like Clerks, it's mostly just static master shots with no cutaways or close-ups). The newly added fifteen minutes at the start is just fucking awful, and the rest of the additions just serve to make the film more boring.


The "extended cut" of MALLRATS was basically a slightly cleaned up version of the ASSEMBLY EDIT, which is simply a collection of every scene roughly cut together and played sequentially. In the video intro, Kevin Smith talks about abandoning the re-edit and then letting someone else finish it off and it still resembles more of an assembly than an actual cut. There are some whole frames missing from the scene extensions and other similar such things to emphasize the unfinished nature of that cut.
User avatar
sonnyboo
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Hollywood, Ohio USA

Re: which DIRECTOR'S CUT, EXTENDED or SPECIAL EDITION sucked

Postby tapehead on Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:48 pm

sonnyboo wrote:
tapehead wrote:
b astard_robo wrote:Wasnt a Huge fan of the Original Cut of Mallrats.


Pretty sure the extended cut is a new version, not an 'Original Cut' which, according to Smith on the commentary, pretty much includes virtually everything they shot (like Clerks, it's mostly just static master shots with no cutaways or close-ups). The newly added fifteen minutes at the start is just fucking awful, and the rest of the additions just serve to make the film more boring.


The "extended cut" of MALLRATS was basically a slightly cleaned up version of the ASSEMBLY EDIT, which is simply a collection of every scene roughly cut together and played sequentially. In the video intro, Kevin Smith talks about abandoning the re-edit and then letting someone else finish it off and it still resembles more of an assembly than an actual cut. There are some whole frames missing from the scene extensions and other similar such things to emphasize the unfinished nature of that cut.


You're right, he did do a video introduction.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby judderman on Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:19 pm

I actually saw the assembly cut of A3 before I saw the original. And I think that the assembly cut is the superior version, if only because it completes Golick's story arc and develops the rationship between Ripley and Clements.

I didn't like the director's cut of Alien. Actually hearing the alien signal was great, but the cocoon scene was rightly cut from the theatrical version; it made the finale too long.
User avatar
judderman
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 4:24 am

Postby Nordling on Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:38 pm

I prefer the original edit of ALIEN myself, although there's one 2-second shot I'd absolutely add: the alien, hanging in the chains, above Brett in the air conditioning room. When I saw that for the first time I jumped.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby unikrunk on Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:07 pm

Fried Gold wrote:What are people's thoughts about the "assembly cut" of Alien3 that was in the Alien Quadrilogy set?

I know a lot of people can't see any good in the film, but I do like it. The new cut, while not having any direct involvement from David Fincher, was constructed using his editor Terry Rawlings (who also edited Alien for Ridley Scott) and features quite a lot of alternate or additional material.

- the Alien is formed by attacking an ox, not the dog. (I thought either concept was interesting, as it's the only time we've seen a non-humanoid-gestated Alien)
- we get to see the "super facehugger"
- Golic's worship of the Alien as a godlike figure is developed and Golic is shown to release the creature after the inmates have trapped it.
- the relationship between Dillon and Ripley is given more focus and development
- the chestburster doesn't pop out as Ripley descends.

Even if you don't like either cut, it at least shows what might have been were it not for the over-interference of Giler & Co.


FG, you deliver the goods yet again - I am in the very small 'loved it' camp for Alien3 - and I did not know there was a different cut out there - now I must track this down, sounds very interesting.

This sounds closer to the shooting script I read about in...<cough>Starlog<cough>....years ago.

Yeah, I read it. And Fangoria. I was fucking 15 (through 18 )! Cut me some slack.
He can't' love you back...
Image
User avatar
unikrunk
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4845
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 am

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:56 pm

unikrunk wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:What are people's thoughts about the "assembly cut" of Alien3 that was in the Alien Quadrilogy set?

I know a lot of people can't see any good in the film, but I do like it. The new cut, while not having any direct involvement from David Fincher, was constructed using his editor Terry Rawlings (who also edited Alien for Ridley Scott) and features quite a lot of alternate or additional material.

- the Alien is formed by attacking an ox, not the dog. (I thought either concept was interesting, as it's the only time we've seen a non-humanoid-gestated Alien)
- we get to see the "super facehugger"
- Golic's worship of the Alien as a godlike figure is developed and Golic is shown to release the creature after the inmates have trapped it.
- the relationship between Dillon and Ripley is given more focus and development
- the chestburster doesn't pop out as Ripley descends.

Even if you don't like either cut, it at least shows what might have been were it not for the over-interference of Giler & Co.


FG, you deliver the goods yet again - I am in the very small 'loved it' camp for Alien3 - and I did not know there was a different cut out there - now I must track this down, sounds very interesting.

This sounds closer to the shooting script I read about in...<cough>Starlog<cough>....years ago.

Yeah, I read it. And Fangoria. I was fucking 15 (through 18 )! Cut me some slack.

Lugz, Kirk & I were talking about it at weekend. Alien3 is definitely a flawed in many ways...but it gets put down far too often and many times for ill reason (OMGZ THEY KILLED OFF NEWT & HIGGS HOW COULD THEY.....and so on)
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13919
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:00 pm

Nordling wrote:I prefer the original edit of ALIEN myself, although there's one 2-second shot I'd absolutely add: the alien, hanging in the chains, above Brett in the air conditioning room. When I saw that for the first time I jumped.

I prefer the original cut too. It is perfection.

That hanging shot is marvellous, but perhaps gives slightly too much away too soon. On subsequent viewings, maybe it works better. I personally like the cocoon sequence near the end, it is extremely shocking and genuinely horrifying. However, I do understand why it was ultimately removed from the film.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13919
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Postby Chairman Kaga on Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:43 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
unikrunk wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:What are people's thoughts about the "assembly cut" of Alien3 that was in the Alien Quadrilogy set?

I know a lot of people can't see any good in the film, but I do like it. The new cut, while not having any direct involvement from David Fincher, was constructed using his editor Terry Rawlings (who also edited Alien for Ridley Scott) and features quite a lot of alternate or additional material.

- the Alien is formed by attacking an ox, not the dog. (I thought either concept was interesting, as it's the only time we've seen a non-humanoid-gestated Alien)
- we get to see the "super facehugger"
- Golic's worship of the Alien as a godlike figure is developed and Golic is shown to release the creature after the inmates have trapped it.
- the relationship between Dillon and Ripley is given more focus and development
- the chestburster doesn't pop out as Ripley descends.

Even if you don't like either cut, it at least shows what might have been were it not for the over-interference of Giler & Co.


FG, you deliver the goods yet again - I am in the very small 'loved it' camp for Alien3 - and I did not know there was a different cut out there - now I must track this down, sounds very interesting.

This sounds closer to the shooting script I read about in...<cough>Starlog<cough>....years ago.

Yeah, I read it. And Fangoria. I was fucking 15 (through 18 )! Cut me some slack.

Lugz, Kirk & I were talking about it at weekend. Alien3 is definitely a flawed in many ways...but it gets put down far too often and many times for ill reason (OMGZ THEY KILLED OFF NEWT & HIGGS HOW COULD THEY.....and so on)

I think it rightfully gets put down. Worse than killing off Newt and Hicks was the glaring retread of Ridley's far superior take on the "Gothic haunted house story in space". Kill off those characters if you must but don't do that and simply half ass Alien again. Gawd that movie is terrible.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby wonkabar on Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:55 pm

Yeah, the Quadrilogy-cut of Alien-3 is/would have been a better film. But it's shabbily put-together kind-of....like the Donner-Cut of SupesII only worse. There are scenes where you actually can't hear the audio cuz it's not ADRed and the ambient noise/music on the soundtrack cuts out and the film has aged. It's a 'just to give you an idea of what could have been' type of deal. And what could have been is definitely better....not a whole lot, but better.

Oh yeah, and as I've already mentioned on the PAYBACK Straight-Up thread

....the director's cut the lesser version IMO
Last edited by wonkabar on Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
wonkabar
CHIEF OF THE BEEF
 
Posts: 6219
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: The Double Douche

The Warriors (The Ultimate Director's Cut)

Postby TheButcher on Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:26 pm

The Warriors Ultimate Director's Cut
The addition of the comic book panels just threw the pacing all to hell. The worst scene has to be the introduction of the Baseball Furies.

In the original movie the Warriors rush out of the subway and right into the waiting Baseball Furies. Now they rush out and the movie cuts to a comic panel then to the other warriors and finally back to the Baseball Furies. It totally destroys all of the tension that was in the original cut.

I wouldn't have any problem with this if the orignal cut had been included as a seperate disc.
Last edited by TheButcher on Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17405
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Postby Lady Sheridan on Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:03 pm

The new special edition of Braveheart is a repackaged ripoff. I'm still waiting for a Director's Cut of Braveheart. I've always wanted to see the cut that made test audiences puke. It must be awesome. Or awesomely bad.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby The Vicar on Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:17 pm

TheButcher wrote:The Warriors Ultimate Director's Cut
The addition of the comic book panels just threw the pacing all to hell. The worst scene has to be the introduction of the Baseball Furies.

In the original movie the Warriors rush out of the subway and right into the waiting Baseball Furies. Now they rush out and the movie cuts to a comic panel then to the other warriors and finally back to the Baseball Furies. It totally destroys all of the tension that was in the original cut.

I wouldn't have any problem with this if the orignal cut had been included as a seperate disc.


Too true, mate.
That "Ultimate Director's Cut" simply blew.
Damned disappointing.
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby sonnyboo on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:32 am

GAWD, I forgot about that. When they said "director's cut" of THE WARRIORS, I was hoping for even a single frame of new footage.... DENIED.
User avatar
sonnyboo
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Hollywood, Ohio USA

Postby CeeBeeUK on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:38 am

Chairman Kaga wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
unikrunk wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:What are people's thoughts about the "assembly cut" of Alien3 that was in the Alien Quadrilogy set?

I know a lot of people can't see any good in the film, but I do like it. The new cut, while not having any direct involvement from David Fincher, was constructed using his editor Terry Rawlings (who also edited Alien for Ridley Scott) and features quite a lot of alternate or additional material.

- the Alien is formed by attacking an ox, not the dog. (I thought either concept was interesting, as it's the only time we've seen a non-humanoid-gestated Alien)
- we get to see the "super facehugger"
- Golic's worship of the Alien as a godlike figure is developed and Golic is shown to release the creature after the inmates have trapped it.
- the relationship between Dillon and Ripley is given more focus and development
- the chestburster doesn't pop out as Ripley descends.

Even if you don't like either cut, it at least shows what might have been were it not for the over-interference of Giler & Co.


FG, you deliver the goods yet again - I am in the very small 'loved it' camp for Alien3 - and I did not know there was a different cut out there - now I must track this down, sounds very interesting.

This sounds closer to the shooting script I read about in...<cough>Starlog<cough>....years ago.

Yeah, I read it. And Fangoria. I was fucking 15 (through 18 )! Cut me some slack.

Lugz, Kirk & I were talking about it at weekend. Alien3 is definitely a flawed in many ways...but it gets put down far too often and many times for ill reason (OMGZ THEY KILLED OFF NEWT & HIGGS HOW COULD THEY.....and so on)

I think it rightfully gets put down. Worse than killing off Newt and Hicks was the glaring retread of Ridley's far superior take on the "Gothic haunted house story in space". Kill off those characters if you must but don't do that and simply half ass Alien again. Gawd that movie is terrible.



I remember being very disappointed with the effects upon original release. Following Aliens which had almost entirely physical alien effects, to go to mainly blue screen work seemed shoddy. The lighting of the alien as terrible in a lot of scenes, it reminded me of Christopher Reeves' suit in the early Supes films. Never quite chroma'd properly.
User avatar
CeeBeeUK
WAIRWOLF GAME
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:47 am
Location: nodnoL

Postby unikrunk on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:40 am

The Vicar wrote:
TheButcher wrote:The Warriors Ultimate Director's Cut
The addition of the comic book panels just threw the pacing all to hell. The worst scene has to be the introduction of the Baseball Furies.

In the original movie the Warriors rush out of the subway and right into the waiting Baseball Furies. Now they rush out and the movie cuts to a comic panel then to the other warriors and finally back to the Baseball Furies. It totally destroys all of the tension that was in the original cut.

I wouldn't have any problem with this if the orignal cut had been included as a seperate disc.


Too true, mate.
That "Ultimate Director's Cut" simply blew.
Damned disappointing.



I am currently playing through the game (again) - it sounds like for the cut you are describing they leaned on Rockstar Games for inspirado...not a sound idea.
He can't' love you back...
Image
User avatar
unikrunk
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4845
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:48 am

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:42 am

It was a more like a they hadda the idea for a the game based onna the Rock-a-Star premise, anna so's a they hadda to re-release a the movie so as a to make a the game relevant inna the minds of a the buying public, eh?

A 'cos otherwise you gonna to have alla these young putzes saying "The Warri-Who?"
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby The Vicar on Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:19 pm

DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:It was a more like a they hadda the idea for a the game based onna the Rock-a-Star premise, anna so's a they hadda to re-release a the movie so as a to make a the game relevant inna the minds of a the buying public, eh?

A 'cos otherwise you gonna to have alla these young putzes saying "The Warri-Who?"


Those cutaways to "comic book panels" looked as shitty as Boll's video game screen inserts in his turd opus House of the Dead.
Did Walter Hill approve that shit?
What in hell was he thinking?
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Postby TheButcher on Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:56 pm

The Vicar wrote:
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:It was a more like a they hadda the idea for a the game based onna the Rock-a-Star premise, anna so's a they hadda to re-release a the movie so as a to make a the game relevant inna the minds of a the buying public, eh?

A 'cos otherwise you gonna to have alla these young putzes saying "The Warri-Who?"


Those cutaways to "comic book panels" looked as shitty as Boll's video game screen inserts in his turd opus House of the Dead.
Did Walter Hill approve that shit?
What in hell was he thinking?

He was thinking:

Big Bucks,Big Bucks,Big Bucks, No Whammies
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17405
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

PreviousNext

Return to DVD / Blu-ray

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron