Conference bookie::movies

Bladerunner
The Last Picture Show
Brazil

    Most versions of "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" being sold these
    days have some additional footage.
    
    					--Eric--

    All of the supermans
    all the star Treks
    Sparticus
    Lots of recut r's come out with uncut unrated versions.
      Basic Instinct
      Body of Evidence
      Wild Orcids
                  Jeff Peters 

    Fatal Attraction (original ending)
    Terminator II (new coming THX LD release)
    JFK
    

    Of those listed, it would be interesting (and helpful) to know if they
    are available on VHS, LD, or both (I guess that could get confusing,
    since it may differ in various countries, and change over time) ...
    
    	Jim

    I'm interested also . The STAR TREK films I-V what extra footage do
    they have . The ones I have seen say un-cut but they seem to be just as
    long as the ordenary pan and scan versions .
    
    other listings are:-
    
    ALIEN
    BLADERUNNER
    AIRPLANE I&II
    JFK
    DANCES WITH WOLVES
    CONAN THE BARRBERIAN
    STAR WARS sage
    
    ......./ED...
    

Depends on how you define special edition of course. There are hundreds fitting
your description on laserdisc, including most of the Criterion Collection.
LD's are a different market than tapes and special editions are much more
common because of that.


Randy

Re: .4

>    Terminator II (new coming THX LD release)


any idea what extra bits this will have in it ?

re .8

I was given a 8" preview disc at my local laserdisc store. It shows various
bits from the restored material. Among other things it includes what looks
like a dream sequence with Conner.


I picked up the new _Star Wars: The Ultimate Collection_ set the other day.
It's really, really nice (as it should be for $250). It comes in a terrific
black box, the three films are individually packaged and theres a nice 
pamphlet describing the film contents and a hardback book on George Lucas. The
films themselves are THX remastered and the video and audio are incredible.
They are CAV of course and include lots of extras, including interviews with
Lucas and other creative personnel.


Randy

    
    
    
    Now this is a person who loves the movies. I bet Those disks would look
    great on my 48 inch surround sound tv.
    
    
                -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    Basically, I think these are a mistake.
    
    While it is interesting to see the extra footage, more often than not
    it ruins the pacing and structure of what was already a good movie. For
    example, although I think the scene in which we learn about Ripley's
    daughter in 'Aliens' adds considerably to the emotional impact of the
    film, none of the rest of the scenes do. They're interesting, but not
    vital. The same goes for the interior of the spaceship in 'Close
    Encounters'. The film peaks with Roy deciding to go in; anything after
    that is just decoration. And as for releasing 'Godfathers I, II and
    III' in one huge chronological movie, all I can ask is why? The
    structure of the original films (especially II) very precisely
    positions scenes in relation to each other. So if in the original, Vito
    does something cruel, this is played off against an equally cruel act
    of his son. Put them all into chronological order and you lose a huge
    chunk of the films' impact.
    
    I like to see the extra footage, and I don't mind paying the extra cash
    for the films (which is probably what the studios had in mind in the
    first place), but I'd like the chance to see the original film without
    necessarily having to see the additional scenes. Put them at the end,
    as has been done with 'Fatal Attraction', 'Alien' and 'The War Of The
    Roses'. Put them at the end with all the extras. Or do what The Criterion 
    Collection have done with 'Close Encounters': make the laserdisc 
    programmeable. In other words you, the viewer, can decide whether you want
    to see the extra footage or not.
    
    It used to be that I sat in the cinema and wondered what a
    widescreen movie was going to look like on TV when half the picture was
    missing and the network censors had hacked it to pieces. Now I sit
    there and wonder whether I'll be able to buy a copy of what I'm seeing
    or whether I'll have to put up with what somebody else has decided to
    add for my 'increased viewing pleasure'.
    
    Nick
    
    

>                     <<< Note 340.11 by 51219::GARLICK_N >>>
>                  -< Where's the movie I saw at the movies? >-

All movies are contrivances, balanced by compromises among artistic, 
commercial, technical, and other considerations.
Why is the movie you saw at the theatre *>THE<* movie?  It's just *>A<* version
of the raw materials that were available and useful to the creators 
of the endeavor at the time.

Movies go into pre-release and get changed based on early audience reviews.
Which is the real movie?

Movies get edited for pace and panorama for the change from large to small
screen.  Why can't the director re-edit a large screen version to optimize it
for the small screen? 
Which is the real movie?

- tom]

    
    
    
    I would think that most Extended versiions are the the directors
    cut or in other words, what you would have seen if the studio bosses
    had not snuck they're weasel noses in.
    
    
                -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    Not to mention that often the movie that comes out in video is an
    edited version, a few seconds cut here and there, which don't seem like
    much but shorten the amount of tape used. Superman The Movie was one, I
    hadn't realized it until I happen to go to see it on the big screen
    again a couple of years ago that the helicopter scene was considerably
    longer, not additional scenes, but a few seconds added to spots, and
    since I have noticed the same thing in several video's I've seen. So
    the "origional version" is really in the eye of the beholder. You can
    figure "origional" to be the unedited footage before they chop it up
    for the movie, the video version, the edited version which "adds" the
    origional footage that was cut out, or whatever. 
    
    My personal opinion is I accept the version I see in the movie theater
    as the origional version, the video as the "public release" version, and
    additional added footage as the "origionally intended" version.
    
    To each his own. 
    
    MBH

    Forgive my spelling of original as origional, a fallback of years past.
    

    Points taken. 
    
    'Where's the original movie?' is a good question and, as we're sitting
    on the edge of interactive video, one that may become even more
    academic. (I've heard that 'Demolition Man' had an extra two days
    tacked onto the schedule to cover footage for the interactive version,
    which, if I understand the whole business correctly, I'm not going to
    see in the cinema.) 
    
    And if we're talking about films restored to the way they were 'meant' to
    be seen, I have to admit that I think Sergio Leone's first cut of 'Once
    Upon A Time In America' is brilliant. I originally saw the US 2 hour
    'chronological' version and it was atrocious. The 3+ hour version he
    delivered to the studio (and which was shown in Europe) is superb. I
    also like the restored version of 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'The Abyss'.
    I do admit that there are times when the practice works.
    
    But, as I said originally, I think it's not a good idea. Chopping,
    changing and adding often leads to less satisfactory versions than the
    original. Just because it was shot doesn't mean that we have to see it.
    'Dances With Wolves' is great at 3 hours. At 4 I'm ready to jump out
    the window. The rejigged 'Godfather' saga gets to be an endurance test,
    not a treat. And 'Blade Runner', while losing that terrible narration,
    has added shots that change the whole direction of the plot. (I don't
    want to get into the details and spoil it for people who haven't seen
    it.)  One last example. In 'Aliens' (the special edition) we get to see
    LV-426 before the aliens attack. We see Newt as a little girl. When the
    marines arrive, after a journey so long it required them to go into
    hypersleep and which they started only after there had been no messages
    from LV-426 for some time, Newt is exactly the same age. How can she be
    the same age? In the original version, the question never arose: the
    marines arrived, they found Newt, the story unfolded.
    
    At the risk of arguing myself in a circle, I do admit that some
    special/extended versions are worth it. But I also think that more is
    sometimes a lot less, and I have a feeling that as the 'Special
    Editions' pile up, we're going to see a lot less.
    
    Nick
    
    

    On the subject of edited versions, I heard over the radio that the
    movie THE PROGRAM will now not have the scene with the football players
    lying down in the middle of a highway, apparently some high schoolers
    saw the preview scenes, and tried it. One kid was killed, the other
    seriously injured. Disney for some reason takes a very dim view of
    copy-cat stupidity, and ordered the scene removed.
    
    MBH

    
    
    
    How can you protect people from they're own stupidity??????
    It's just like TV violence, if you don't want your kids to
    watch it, TURN IT OFF or remove the TV, it's just that simple.
    
               -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    The best Director does not always make the best Film Editor.  There are
    many films out there that failed because they were too long.  Now, they
    may have been 90 minutes, but should have been 60, but who's gonna pay
    to see a 60 minute movie?  Shoulda been a TV show, maybe?  
    
    Many directors don't have a clear vision of their movie going in; that
    vision should include "How can I state this plot in 90 minutes (or 2
    hrs. or whatever) without losing essentials?"  
    
    The definitive version of the film should be the one that asks the
    highest price; the first run theatre release.  If the studio cuts the
    film to fit the time slot, the Director, and Producer have
    miscommunicated the project.  
    
    Carl

    
    
    
    I saw a show last night that relates to this topic. This show was
    about T2: Terminator 2 and had an interview with James Cameron
    the director. In this show they showed scenes that James had cut
    out of the theatrical release. He said that when putting a movie
    together, it's a learning expierence. He said not until he saw
    the whole movie did he realize that he didn't need those scenes
    for continuity. It was a facinating look into how a director
    makes choices about what goes in/out of a movie. He said
    the cut scenes would be added to the end of the LD for informational
    purposes. James said a lot more about how a movie is put together
    in this show but I don't remember it all.
    
    
               -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

    I just got through watching that myself. Very facinating insights and
    info.
    
    MBH

The restored version of Lawrence of Arabia was actually the original theatrical
release.  When it was re-released in the '70s they cut about 20 minutes.  

    
    Not exactly special but a bit of an anomally
    
    I've seen two versions of Home Alone: When Kevin is in the supermarket
    in one version he is quized by the check-out operator and in the other he
    gets quized by the store manager.
    
    
   

>>Does anybody know of any other specail edition , directors cut movies
>>    that are available. 

These days there are lots of them in the US that typically add back in scenes
that were cut to get an R rating.  But in terms of the intent of your note, two
of my favorites that pop to mind are:  Bladerunner and The Last Picture Show