Crash (2005): 2-Disc Director's Cut - 04/04 (1 Viewer)

[Elijah Sullivan]

deleted

My past posts on this thread have seen self-deleted; I hate thread-crapping and hate being the thread-crapper himself even more.

 

[Harold Wazzu]

Updated artwork at dvdactive:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/crash4.html

no suprise, but I am surprised they kept the word's "director's cut" like the movie that won an Oscar for Best Picture wasn't good enough or something? I still haven't bought this and am leaning towards buying a used single disk version.

 

[Mike*Sch]

So it looks like the Director's Cut is actually a couple minutes longer than the theatrical version? That's quite disappointing. I rewatched the movie after it won Best Picture, and I really truly believe that it could be fixed with a few trims. They probably wouldn't even need to cut out a whole 11 minutes. 5 would probably do it.

I was really excited to see a shorter version of the movie, but I have absolutely no interest in a longer version. While it may improve some aspects of the film, adding footage cannot fix its fatal flaws.

 

[Tino]

The current theatrical version of Crash is a perfect cut of this tremendous film and I wouldn't change one frame. If it's good enough for the Academy to award it Best Picture, it's good enough for me.

I will view this "directors cut" as just a different version, lioke so many other directors cuts.

 

[Robert Harris]

A link:

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/

 

[PaulP]

I've seen an alternate cover that said "2-Disc Special Edition" instead of "Director's Cut".

 

[Richard M S]

I have to pay more attention, all this time I though the Directors Cut was going to be a longer cut, not a shorter one. I guess we will know soon enough as to what version is released - if they even decide to release a "directors cut" of some varying length at all.

A longer cut would make Crash seem even more like a tv miniseries though, IMO.

 

[Magnus T]

Why would Paul Haggis fuck with a film that won an academy award for best picture? And why are Lions Gate letting him? I understand that film studios are greedy and want to double dip as much as possible, but this is ridiculous.

 

[Mike*Sch]

I guess I don't see the problem here. How is this director's cut different from any other? Maybe Haggis realizes that the Oscars are BS, and he feels that he can make his movie better. Good for him.

Could it be a marketing thing? Maybe. But I don't get that vibe. Sure, releasing another DVD is. But the fact that it's a director's cut? No.

Also, even if he thinks that the Oscars are a true measure of quality, and that his movie is the best of the year, I still don't see a problem. There are plenty of fantastic movies which have been made even better with some tinkering.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Y'know, Crash isn't the only Oscar-winner to come out in an altered version on DVD: Gladiator, Return of the King, Dances With Wolves...

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

None of those versions were marketed as "Directors Cuts" they were all "extended editions" or some variation of the term.

Regards,

 

[Mike*Sch]

And actually, only RETURN OF THE KING is considered to be an improvement by the director. But that just validates Colin's point even more. Those were marketing ploys. CRASH is not.

And regardless, an Oscar does not make a film untouchable. The Oscars are stupid and pointless. The fact that GLADIATOR, RETURN OF THE KING, and DANCES WITH WOLVES all won them is proof of this. If a director is serious about his craft (which I'd assume all of these guys, including Haggis, are) he's not going to let public opinion, good or bad (Lucas?), stand in the way of doing what he thinks is best for the movie.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Okay - what's your point? I responded to a guy upset that they would "fuck" with an Oscar-winning movie - his complaint didn't deal with the terminology involved...

 

[Brandon Conway]

Amadeus

 

[Robert Harris]

Unless what I'm seeing isn't final packaging, the release of this "Director's Cut" still reeks of greed and not art.

If the cut of the film that ran in Toronto is the preferred cut, and you honestly believe that its better, then why change it for final release, if you still have months to tinker with it?

In regard to the packaging, I'll note, once again, that this film, Crash, is not only an unknown, has never been reviewed, has never been nominated for an award, and has never won an award, as opposed to Crash.

As such, there should be no mention of being the winner of Anything on the packaging.

Unless, of course, this is the Toronto cut. Which means that it has been reviewed here at 112 minutes:

http://www.variety.com/ac2006_review...&display=crash

But it doesn't seem quite that simple.

Crash has been reviewed by different publications at far different running times. As an example:

Variety Toronto: 112

Chicago Sun Times: 100

Boxoffice: 114

NY Times: 107

Deseret News: 110

Philadelphia Enquirer: 100

NY Post: 107

To add to the confusion, the DVD already in release lists the running time at 122, which is probably a typo, as the actual running time is 112.

The "Director's Cut" DVD is listed at 115, which if that figure is correct, adds three minutes in length.

The reality of the situation however, is that this film could have little to do with the "real" Crash and could have entirely different footage, plot, etc.

Could the "Director's Cut" be 115 minutes of people just getting along?

Stay tuned.

RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

In fairness, Lions Gate is not alone in such actions as just about every studio is guilty of doing similar marketing ploys. The whole trend of releasing a different cut of film that has been previously viewed and accepted in it's original theatrical version by the general public is darn right discouraging and should be done only in special circumstances. However, it's obvious the studios bean counters view altered dvd releases as another revenue stream that unfortunately, will continue until the general public stops buying them. In short, the onus is on us to stop this practice.




Crawdaddy

 

[Mike*Sch]

I think that saying that this is not the movie which won the Oscar is a bit extreme. Quite honestly, we're not that lucky. The number of times a film has been altered so dramatically from its initial release that it essentially becomes a different movie can probably be counted on one hand.

And where do you draw the line? The sound has been remixed into 6.1 channels for this DVD. If that was the only change, would they still be justified in putting their Best Picture label on there?

 

[Robert Harris]

I don't believe that my thoughts are extreme. I believe them to be accurate.

As a film is virtually a different experience on each specific home theater system, I don't believe that adapting audio to a home theater environment negates anything.

If however, the film is anything other than what was screened for the membership of whatever group is giving an award, I don't believe that publicity or images of said award are proper.

It is a different film.

Re-cut a film, and votes might well go elsewhere.

RAH

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

My point certainly wasn't to make anyone defensive. My point was to call attention to a subtle distinction in how this new cut of a movie is portrayed via marketing. Calling it a directors' cut implies that the cut that was in theaters and won multiple Oscars was not the director's cut. This is a step beyond how other Oscar winning best pictures have been represented in their extended editions. i.e. extra "f---ing with".

I thought that was clear from my post, which was continuing a thread of discussion building on the previous post it quoted.

Regards,

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I just bought this set yesterday. I also have the old one. I just did one quick check for the time. Actually the old one has the running time wrong. It's marked 122 on the cover and it's actually 112 minutes. The new version is 115 minutes so it's actually longer for about 3 minutes. Not seen the movie yet.