Avengers (movie) Director's Cut (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

Great link, Julian..but I'm afraid I found myself dozing off halfway through the SYNOPSIS, which doesn't bode well for my interest in a new version. Good luck to all who want it though!

 

[Jim Barg]

After finding a library copy of the aforementioned Bart book, it fills in a lot of the film's production details.

Apparently the film got greenlit without the heads of WB even reading the script, and when they saw the original cut... unhappy would be an understatement. With three big stars, WB had figured on it being a Bond-type summer action flick and slotted it into a June release date. Instead, it was 'highly stylized, somewhat surreal and distinctly nonlinear', something along the lines of the show Chechik grew up with.

So, not exactly brimming with confidence, the studio researchers decided to test the film with a 'working-class audience' in Phoenix, and well, you know the results. The film gets recut and dumped to August, and the Avengers property has been dormant ever since.

I am officially intrigued in seeing that cut now...

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Are you talking movies, cause DVD's of the TV show were released well after this film tanked, I mean, left the theaters?

 

[Jim Barg]

And the VHS sets were out about a month after the movie disappeared... just new/updated Avengers in general. It doesn't have to be another film, a new TV show might have had potential.

 

[Mark Oates]

I'll admit I'm an Avengers fan, and I was looking forward to the movie when it was coming out. I picked up both the making-of book and the screenplay from Titan Books and in spite of some misgivings I waited to see the movie.

Misgivings: Ralph Fiennes is a fine actor. He makes a terrific Nazi. He gives great Lounge Lizard. John Steed he isn't. He's too thin, doesn't suit a bowler (derby if you prefer) and he lacks that perky geniality that Patrick Macnee's got. That "You'll pay for that" line when he fends off the darts with his bowler is too outraged school bully. Macnee's Steed would have raised both eyebrows and said: "I'd hate to have been stuck with those!"

Uma - look at her in Kill Bill - she looks amazing. Look at her in her Emmapeelers - she's a skinny biker chick. Diana Rigg only wore leathers once, and they didn't look right on her. The Emmapeelers were early tracksuits, and she only wore them on occasion. Diana Rigg also had that mischievous air. Uma floated through the movie with a slightly stunned air - like the director whacked her in the back of the head with the script at the start of each scene.

Connery - steals every movie he's in. You want him to win even when he's the baddy, so you wind up with mixed feelings in his battle with Fiennes. He was brought on board by his golfing buddy producer of the movie as the big star name. Big Star Mistake. If he'd been playing Steed and Fiennes playing the baddie I'd have bought it.

The script - very erudite, very stylish. Written by somebody trying to sell how witty, stylish and erudite he is. There's a lot of visual plot exposition and storyline excised from the final print, which has been hacked to ribbons.

The effects - with the exception of the disappointing big bang at the climax, all the big pyrotechnics involved in the Prospero project (not least in the missing opening teaser) are cut. All of it was shot, because there are bits of the missing material in the theatrical trailer, and there are production stills as well. The missing effects might only add up to maybe ten minutes of screen time tops, but they're most of the effects work completed for the movie and a great chunk of the budget.

I'd say in its initial cut, the movie came in around 100 - 110 minutes rather than the 86 it wound up at, if the script is anything to go by.

 

[Jim Barg]

I swear I read an interview with her a couple months later in People magazine where she mentioned that they actually sewed her into the leather costume. She was still bitching about how tight that was... I know that would give me a 'slightly stunned' air.

Thinking back on it, Fiennes seemed like a good choice, having not seen the show at the time. But the humor and genial (good term) nature in Macnee's Steed stuck out like a sore thumb when I had a chance to compare the two weeks later.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I would say it made a HUGE lasting impression!

 

[Sam Favate]

So what would you say to someone who is a fan of the original show and has never seen this movie? Is it worth the $9 and/or 90 minutes?

 

[ShawnC]

It depends, Sam. Many posters here who are fans of the original loathe the movie. I don't fall into that category. Even without the lost scenes, I found it fun. Of course there are plot holes so huge you can drive a truck through, hence my desire for a director's cut dvd. I am a HUGE fan of the old series (esp the Rigg episodes)and I love the movie. Just keep in mind that no matter how hard anyone tries, it would be very difficult, in my opinion, to replicate the dynamics that Macnee and Rigg displayed together. To me, that is what made the Avengers tv series great. That being said, I thought Thurman and Fiennes did a great job with the material they had, at least from a character interaction standpoint, and that is what I liked about the movie. Also, about the Connery teddy bear suit thing. I just chalked that up to quirkiness. The old series had some very unusual things in it as well (maybe just not that weird, though!). Perhaps a rental would be best before you buy, but the dvd can be had for around 10 bucks, and at the very least you get Uma in a leather catsuit for about an hour if you hate the movie!

 

[Grant H]

I would have been in college when I first saw that and a bit less cynical than I am today, but it was the first time watching a movie that I shook my head "no" at the start of a scene. I kept thinking "What the hell is this? Did they change reels to the wrong movie? I hear Sean Connery, but what's this shit?"

As it is now, they'd have been best to cut it to 5 or 10 mins and market it as a short film, "Steed."

Funny, the mention of more FX being in the previews. I remember that the preview for the film was very impressive. I was actually looking forward to sequels based on the preview for what ended up being only one bad film.

 

[Mark Oates]

For me the picture's one of those illicit pleasures. You know you shouldn't like the picture, but you do. Maybe there's a masochistic side to me, but I enjoy (very) occasionally running the film just to marvel at how far removed from the classic tv series the movie is. I proudly keep my copy of the movie alongside my collection of the Rigg/ Thorson/ Lumley episodes, and perversely I'd be sorry not to have a copy of it. It's a salutory lesson that a big budget and star names aren't a substitute for style. If you can pick it up in a bargain bin, do by all means. The picture's not completely awful, it's just an enormous disappointment. I think a Director's Cut would be great - it would certainly settle a lot of arguments about the movie.

I'm sorry if this offends Fiennes fans, but personally I'd rate him marginally more irritating in the movie than I found Jar Jar Binks.

 

[Sam Favate]

Well, the diversity of opinion in this thread made me curious, so for $5.99, I decided to see for myself and get the disc from DDD. That's less money than it would have cost me to see it in the theater six years ago.

If I hate it, well... hey, I need a new doorstop.

 

[James Reader]

Well, it's not as big of a perversion from the original series as Warners' Scooby Doo and Catwoman films.

See a pattern here? Warners' making films of existing properties and totally screwing them over. I mean, why bother to make the film in the first place!

(At least their idea of a Jack Black slacker comedy Green Lantern has been shot down).

 

[Osato]

I SIGNED IT!!
Thank you!!!

I did not understand why the film didn't have the footage put back in for home video release. Yes they knew it was going to bomb and cut it down to 90 minutes to squeeze in as many showings the first weekend before the reviews hit. I actually read a favorable review in our local paper. Yes, it bombed. Yes, no one went to see it, but for video complete the film!!
I liked the movie and would pick up a full cut. It should've been done originally for video as I said.

The Saint should also be released with the alternate ending as well. Just a plug for that one.

Oh and yes by the way, both of these films got me into the old shows and I am a fan of those now as well!!

 

[Osato]

JulianK - Thanks for the link to the site. Interesting read on the deleted scenes. I also remember many scenes in the trailer not ending up in the film.

Sounds like a lot of the fighting scenes were toned down for the edited cut they released.

I found this one interesting:

16) In this notorious torture sequence, we are introduced to the Teddy Bear suit , for the first time, in which Sir August rhythmically slices up a scientist's face, set to Pavorotti (?), with his sharp baton. This is a scene still. Those who saw the test screenings months ago may have forgotten details, but this "over the top" sequene is rarely forgotten. Perhaps a key sequence that prompted many respondents to claim that the film was "so strange that it made them feel uncomfortable".

Also, I think the film would've been more interesting with the way it started actually seeing the bad Emma breaking into Prospero Labs.

I still don't see the logic of NOT putting the extra footage back into the film for video release.

 

[Ian Beazley]

The Avengers movie is a greatly misunderstood and hugely underestimated piece of 90s cinema. It's visually stunning, incorporating marvelous costumes and amazing retro set designs. The look & feel of the film recaptures the spirit of the original 60s series completely, recreating the sterile 'Avengerland' enviroment in which John Steed and Emma Peel act out their adventure. It's true the chemistry between the two leads doesn't match that of originals Macnee and Rigg, but Ralph Fiennes & Uma Thurman on a stand alone basis were superb as the British secret agents John Steed & Mrs.Peel. The movie deserves to be seen as the director and producer originally intended us to see it. It was literally butchered in the editing room at the 11th hour. No other movie deserves a director cut more than The Avengers. I have spent the last six years devoted to supporting this film and I have no intention of giving up my fight to see the movie in all its full glory now. I loved this film the day I first saw it in 1998 and feel as passionately about it now as I did six years ago. Please visit 'The Avengers 98' website & PLEASE sign the director cut petition. The petition will eventually be printed off and believe me I will hand deliver it to Warner Bros. personally !
Ian.

 

[Will Krupp]

Ever hear of a little movie called THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS?

I'm just teasing you. I wish you the best of luck with this.

 

[Sam Favate]

I watched my $5.99 copy of the film last night, and I observed a few things which I think contributed to the film's failure.

The biggest problem is that the film is too dark. Like every movie these days, everything is dark. Whereas the original show was bright (even for B&W) and often took place in daylight. When the show changed to color, bright, primary colors were used which were eye-catching and interesting to look at (a staple of many 60s shows that were introducing color to audiences). The movie looks drab and too similar to every other movie of its era for it to stand out or be memorable. Same goes for all the computer screen imagery -- there were lots of glowing computer screens in dark rooms to give the movie that "techno" look. But it looks dated and strains for atmosphere, when the old show used clunky computers and big rooms for a futuristic look, which still looks more engaging that the glowing computer imagery and dark rooms of the movie.

(The latter day Star Trek projects are guilty of the same dark atmospheres. The original show and TNG were bright, optimistic shows that were visually interesting. Voyager and Enterprise were drab exercises in bleak surroundings where everything was in shadow.)

The much-discussed edits really ruin any chance the story had to be engaging. The way the film is cut, situations change abrasively and characters don't develop. Worst of all, you never get a sense you really know what is going on.

Lastly, much as I liked Fiennes and Thurman, they didn't have much chemistry, which is essential to this movie. Fiennes lacked Patrick Macnee's charm and his ability to always have a smile and a chuckle ready to diffuse a situation. Fiennes' character was sullen more often than not.

Overall, I'd say I enjoyed seeing it because I am a fan of the original show, and I can trace some of the elements in the movie to the show, but it doesn't have enough in common with the show for it to really be worthy of the name. As such, it is simply another Hollywood exercise in putting a famous brand-name on a product movie and hoping people will buy. Given the movie's dark tone and the show's bright optimism, I'm not surprised it failed.

 

[runnersdialzero]

I have to defend this movie as well. I saw it in the theater and bought the DVD back in 98 or 99. I think the movie is very funny actually. British humor doesn't always go over well here in the States. That might be another reason for it's box office demise.

I think the cinematography is a bit underrated as well. I love the colors of movie. They stick out in my mind very well.

Anyways, I would rather watch this any day over Van Helsing, The Hulk or Daredevil.

 

[Ian Beazley]

I think visually the film is stunning, from the grubby exterior of the ministry underground HQ to the colourful splendor of Sir Augusts vast home. I don't find it dark at all and i'm glad they didn't go over the top with those 'dated' 60s Batman & Robin style techno colour schemes - fine for the 60s but not now.