****The bottom line for Hunt was that after 20 years of his picture being truncated, he was willing to suffer the rest to get Cool Men back. Ten years later, having had to live with all that was wrong for a decade, it was time to put the picture back where it had been when it was first "locked" in 1972.
You see Moe, here you go again with rhetorical items that IMO totally add to the picture of denigrating those of us who enjoyed the LD presentation. You depict Hunt as having "suffered" somehow as a result of this LD cut being presented and when you then talk of "all that was wrong" for the decade after that LD release when ALL of who were watching it were enjoying the film in a way we never had before, I call that insulting and condescending to viewers like me. Hunt should be grateful for the fact that an audience found a new and exciting way to appreciate this film on a fundamentally different level from the theatrical cut and to hear him say he was "suffering" and that some great injustice to him had been committed is a perspective I can not relate to at all beacuse like it or not, it assumes that I and others should be ashamed for having derived so much enjoyment from the LD presentation.
*******It's not a matter of hating the overture, it's a matter of this film was never meant to have one. Should longing for the "golden age of roadshows" mean that we Frankenstein other films into having them simply for nostagia's sake?
We're not talking about Hunt's version any longer. If you're going to now include things that were not supposed to be in the film in a "home viewing cut" that has stuff Hunt doesn't like or didn't think should be there, then we are talking about the version for the home viewer and I'm sorry but I don't see the argument for why my *home viewing* version of this should be tied to Peter Hunt's inner sense of secureness regarding the presence of an Overture/Intermission that just for the record has been part of *every* stage production of this musical I have seen in venues like the Paper Mill Playhouse in New Jersey (Twice) and the 1997 Broadway revival (and these are not exactly high school venues). This has been a matter of discretion in the individual staging and insomuch as this home viewer version is now in effect an alternate cut that I fully recognize should not play on TV or on large movie screens, why is there such negativity regarding its potential presence?
I'll just add this. As one who thinks we have enough idiotic nuisance lawsuits in this country, if anyone ever *did* sue over the presence of the Overture in a home viewing cut, then that person would not have my sympathy whatsoever and he would require the services of a first-class ambulance chaser for a lawyer to push forward with that kind of thing and wasting the taxpayers money in the process. I have heard Williams music re-edited and reused in different ways for the Richard Donner cut of Superman 2 and I have heard similar music re-edits to create "new" things, and I have also seen the absurdity of a new score commissioned for a movie decades later. The notion that using existing material from the production for an Overture would be a legal crime is as absurd to me as the idea that using the *same* material as underscore for a documentary on the movie (another technique we are accustomed to seeing in the home video era).
******Again dancing around things I can't talk about, but Hunt is not the reason why Betty Buckley is not in the film. If you read the stage script, you will see as you have experienced that a provision is made for an Intermission, but it is not the recommended way of performing the play, and that is according to Hunt, Stone and Edwards.
If a "provision" is made for it, then that means some versions can have it and others don't have to. Hunt's "official" version doesn't have one, so fine and good. Now let the optional "provision" be there for the version that I doubt Hunt would want to watch again over his version and leave it at that. All sides come out the winner.
I'll be happy to be proved wrong on the matter of why Buckley wasn't in the film, but let's just say that at this stage a simple denial with no explanation is no longer enough for me on that point. I won't belabor it though.
*****Proper? The DVD is the proper version. You want it restored to an alternate version that you've been used to.
No Moe, I want the tower scene restored to the *original theatrical version* that was *in* the movie for 30 years. Here again, we get back to what comes off to me as trying to have both sides of the same argument. You argue at one point about how a bunch of trims in the LD messed up the better cuts/angles in the theatrical one and argue for the need to "restore" those but then all of a sudden on an aesthetic point of concern to others, Hunt can suddenly alter something that has always been there from the beginning and which is for many an integrated part of the viewing experience. And in this case, it’s not in Hunt’s version but the "kitchen sink" version so why in heaven’s name must it be the altered version in *that* cut? That makes no sense whatsoever. For the home viewer, this scene should be back to what it was before and it shouldn’t matter to Hunt.
*****The "Kitchen Sink" version has never been advertised to be anything as it doesn't yet exist, so how can that be false advertising? *****
To me it’s false advertising to suggest that an alternate version is meant for the "home viewer" to accomodate the fans who were not happy with the DVD cut and the changes that have been made since and then to turn around and even in *that* version impose changes reflective of the DVD cut. The more this goes on, the more it becomes clear it isn’t a home viewer’s cut but instead the Hunt cut 2.0.
******(I see hypocracy here in your argument against adding music to Dundee later, but feeling that creating music for 1776 is ok).****
Uh, no. In both cases I am consistent. I am against the creation of music that was not *composed* at the time of the film’s production for use in a new cut (I’d have no objections for instance if say, a new version of "Torn Curtain" was released with the rejected Bernard Herrmann score). The Overture/Intermission nor the tower scene involve an outside composer decades after the fact being hired to compose new music for a film from decades ago, it is simply utilizing production elements that were part of the original production. That’s the difference. See my earlier point on how the Williams cues re-edited for the Donner cut were a greater use of this concept than the use of the underscore for an Overture/Intermission.
******It is my hope that a visual essay documentary piece can be created to accompany the release, showing all the changes between all the versions, which would include presenting the scene in the bell tower with the underscore as you prefer, in the interest of illustrating how it changes the scene. ****
You mean show it with accompanying commentary on how "wrong" it was to do it this way until it was "corrected"? Sorry, that’s not going to interest me one bit. What exactly is wrong with just letting it be Hunt’s way in his official cut and the other way in the home viewer cut?
******I guess one thing that galls me Jack is your seeming position that both sides of this debate have an equal standing to argue the case. The audience has the right to like or dislike, to accept or dismiss, but the audience has no right to dictate the content of a work of art, unless that is part of the creative process of the artists involved. Your feeling over several threads has seemed to be that once something is put into the public's mind they have an irrevocable right to forever possess it in any form they deem fit.*****
Yes, I believe that once an end product has been released to the consumer in a certain way, then the consumer does have the right to offer his feedback on what would make him willing to buy a supposedly "new and improved" version of the same product. In this case, the decision to release the film a certain way was made in 1991. That means the consumer has a right to some expectations on the presentation of the material in a new format if he is going to spend his money to "upgrade" or not. If consumer/customer feedback on this is somehow to be totally ignored, then that represents a condescending attitude toward the customer that I don’t appreciate in the least. We are not asking to be part of the behind the scenes creative process in the making of a movie. If say, there had *never* been an LD release with an Overture, would I be clamoring for the creation of an Overture? No. That would be a case of butting into the process that would be wrong. But once that material has been publicly and officially and legally released to the public, then the dynamic does change when we are asked to spend *our* money on a new end product. If that can’t be understood, then all it does is come off as being condescending to the customer.
******As someone who is a filmmaker myself, that makes me less inclined to share on a DVD or Blu Ray alternate versions and deleted scenes because often these constitute embarrassing mistakes made in the course of the creative process. Sometimes they are good scenes taken out for time, or scenes that had to go out because other scenes were cut that they depend on. When an artist creates something, and that's any artist from a director to an actor to a painter to a singer to anything in between, its a moment of vulnerability and to know that you don't have the right to present to the world something that is as you feel it is best, how can we expect artists to continue to give us that peek behind the curtain?*****
Look, I do not view it as an inalienable right of the public to demand that alternate scenes be included. That is up to the discretion of the maker in the *initial* stage. But in this case, Hunt signed off in 1991 and he has to deal with the consequences of the fact that there is an audience out there that has come to appreciate that particular vision of the film just as George Lucas has to one day deal with the consequences of the fact that there is an audience that wants to enjoy the Star Wars trilogy in its original state (that is different I might add from the public having a right to demand the cut scenes from the original trilogy like the Biggs scenes. Those were never *officially* released on home video before so the public doesn’t have the right to demand them on a new release IMO. This is the difference).
I have long since been willing to adjust my perspective on this matter. If the LD vision were presented as an option for me, I could even be willing to experience Hunt’s version alongside it and not be angry about it any longer as I once was. If a new home viewing version gave me this new stuff you are talking about *with* everything that is important of the LD cut, then I could truly enjoy it even more perhaps than the LD cut because everything of importance that made that a special experience would still be there. But to paraphrase Dr. Franklin, to call this a kitchen-sink version *without* these elements might make us grateful for the concept, but we’d still like to have restored what rightfully belongs there.