Close Encounters - any reason to keep the LD? (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

this is certainly a valid position, but why bother to couch it in language of intent?

Nobody's trying to "couch" anything. This thread needn't become an argument of semantics.

I apologize if I chose my words poorly. It's always good to get a movie that represents the director's intent 100%, but as a fan of film, I'm sure you know that such a thing never happens.

What I want from Close Encounters, just as I want from any other film, is the version Speilberg was originally happy with. Maybe it didn't meet his "intentions" 100%, but that's no different than any other movie ever released, and a version that meets his "intentions" in 1997 is no better than a version that doesn't meet his "intentions" in 1977.

 

[Raymond Johnson]

This type of debate always comes up......some argueing for the director's intent..no matter how much he wants to tamper with the film(decades later)..others who would prefer the original version first released & also made avalible..a version(s) the director is happy with. That way everyone is satisfied.

+ look at it this way...some movies have troubling productions. They do the best they can & alot of times come out with a much better film.

It happened with Jaws in case you forgot. But what if Spielberg decided to go back,and add in much more footage of the shark(probably CGI to among other things) as he originally planed?

Not only would it be alot less-impactful & frightening. The film would severly be altered as well. But i guess thats alright because thats what he wants right?

This is what i feel has happened with Close Encounter's....the film was already a masterpiece. Just plane awe inspiring incredible. Then he had to go back...hack out aton of footage(mostly great scenes & lines)...re-shoot some new stuff & add back in & in my opinion really screwed the film over.

I really hated the Dreyfuss breakdown scene..that was just laughably bad & annoying. I can see why was cut in the first place or was it shot for the SE? I don't know..but either way...it didn't turn out as powerful as it was supposed to. then i would'nt have a problem with the scene..but as it is now...unintentionaly funny & irritating.

The only good things i did like about the first SE was the fly-over shadow shot(should stay in the film no matter what now) & the Mongolian(?) desert sequence.

Other than that i hated the SE...and dislike the new cut which is just merly ok..but still not the same.

Another good recent example of less being more.......

Jeeper's Creeper's.....it's mentioned on the documentary that the Creeper was never meant to fully be scene. Yet the director was so impressed with the FX/costume......they showed more of him as the film progressed.....thus ruining the mystique & scares.

Did they do the right thing? it's been debated over & over before & most people seem to agree....the first half of the film was great....while it suffered greatly in last half,one reason was showing to much of the Creeper.

Anyway....some films are great as is. Close Encounter's was one of them,but sadly just isn't the same film anymore(to me)....& if all 3 versions where kept in print & avalible. I would have no problems what so ever,but being forced only one version of the film. That i do not agree with!

I'm not the only who feels this way...just go read the reviews at dvdempire.com(+ other places). Most hate the new cut of the film & prefered the '77 version.

But i guess that does'nt matter right? Whats going to happen if he goes back & re-edits the film yet again years from now? Still agree with him?

 

[Damin J Toell]

a version that meets his "intentions" in 1997 is no better than a version that doesn't meet his "intentions" in 1977.

but: is a version that didn't meet his "intentions" in 1977 better than a version that meets his "intentions" in 1997? if both versions are deficient from an original intent standpoint, why prefer one over the other? assuming we're unable to break down original intent to a mathematical number (e.g., the 1997 cut meets 87% of his intentions while the 1977 cut meets 82% of his intentions), it seems to me that in order to prefer one over the other, it would require a standard that has no reference to original intent. for example, one might argue for preference of the 1977 version by having a "standard of originality," which might state that a film's original release, warts and all, is always preferable over a later version (this is the standard i think you're applying - i hope you see why it doesn't rely on intent). on the other hand, one might argue for a "standard of artistic freedom," in which it is always preferable for a director to, at any time, further work on his/her film as it continues to reach a desired level of completeness.
i'm not trying to change the debate from film to mere semantics; we're stuck with the fact that we're communicating using text-based software and therefore words, and their meanings, are of great (if not ultimate) importance. when i question your usage of "intent," it isn't to be picky; it's to better understand you.
and i'm unsure why you objected to my usage of "couched" as a description of your words. in that sense, "to couch" means (according to Merriam-Webster) "to phrase or express in a specified manner." did you not phrase or express your opinion on CE3K in a specified manner (i.e., with regard to intent)? again, i was trying only to clarify your position. clarification seems productive to me in these sorts of discussions, especially when a disagreement exists. this isn't changing the discussion to semantics, it's improving the discussion.
DJ

 

[Philip Hamm]

As the thread starter I'm asking this debate to end here. If you want to discuss the different versions of CE3K, "director's intent", etc., please start another thread. Those subjects are interesting, for sure, but most people who are interested in those subjects aren't going to open this thread and even see what you're discussing if they're not interested in the LaserDisc since that's what this thread is about.

The thread was about the LD, specifically what I'm missing going to the DVD. The question has been answered. This debate has nothing to do with the thread title.

 

[Anthony_D]

Accordingly, the version of the film I want is the version Speilberg intended to be seen in 1977.

You werent even born in 1977...how on earth could you possible want the version that was intended to be seen in theaters when you have never seen it in the theaters yourself???

 

[Patrick Mirza]

I wasn't born in 1942... does that mean I can't want to see the original Welles version of The Magnificent Ambersons??

 

[Trace Downing]

...while missing alot of the great original scenes like the one with Carl Weather's.

Actually, that was my fault. I wrote a heartfelt letter to Steve (that's what I call him) and explained that everytime I see Carl Weather-or-not-he-can-act is on the screen, I get into epilectic fits. So, he cut that scene just for me.
But, seriously...Any removal of Carl Weathers automatically improves a film IMO. Now, if I can get McTiernen to make Weathers die before Predator's opening credits roll, I'd be inclined to buy that one too.

 

[Raymond Johnson]

lol....well i guess then Stallone should go cut him out of Rocky....there'd be no ending then!

Seriously i liked the scene..it showed more of the evacuation,had a tense atmostphere...& you just knew something was'nt right...as the other soldier's slowly head over to where Roy & Weather's are. + its only around 1 minute long!..so i don't find it such a big deal that it needed to be cut.

Anyway..i rented the dvd this weekend to give the newest version a shot. I only made it 45mn into the film since the disc kept screwing up,pausing,pixelating & skipping over scenes!...this is what iate about renting dvds & hardly ever do,no one knows how to take care of them!

It was a shame to as i was really getting into the film. Sure i don't agree with most of the cuts,but it was still intersting though i did feel a few scenes where cut to short & abruptly...such as the great globe rolling sequence which really added to the excitement of the scene,now the entire scene is cut & just goes to them lifting it on a table to look at it.

Since we are stuck with this version only now(for now possibly)...i can handle it & just stick with my Criterion LD as well.

Though i do feel the deleted footage was a mixed bag & very disapointing since only a few of the scenes where actually in either the original version or 1980 SE. Then in the documentary which was great....they talk about the SE for less than 5mn + don't show any of the other footage cut or added for it & then it's over. That was disapointing + no mention of the newest cut as well.

A real deleted scenes section would have included all of the footage cut & or added for all 3 versions since there is alot!

 

[Trace Downing]

.this is what i hate about renting dvds & hardly ever do,no one knows how to
take care of them!

Tell me about it! Off topic, but I loaned out my new copy of Rat Race to a friend at work. So then, other people wanted to borrow it after her. So Rat Race went through 4 people before I got it back (they all asked me, and what am I supposed to say..."NO!"? ) So, after 3 weeks I finally got it back, and it was scratched all to hell. I don't know who did it, since it changed hands so often.
I don't mind loaning my DVDs out, but for the love of God, take care of them!

 

[John Berggren]

I try not to loan DVDs. I have 3 discs out now. They've been out for longer than I'd like them to have been, and no end in sight. I'm not quite sure how to approach the people and say "now would be a good time to return my DVDs".

Since having some of my packaging destroyed in a borrow, I got back to loaning again, but loan in a thin CD-holder rather than the DVD packaging, and still I think I offended a friend because I wouldn't loan him the full QAF season 1 box. 1 disc at a time seems reasonable to me...

 

[Raymond Johnson]

It's always happened before when we first got a dvd player & rented The Last Boyscout from BlockCensor Video to see it in WS finnaly!

I could'nt wait...was watching the film with my little brother,both big fans of it...it was just amazing since we could finnaly see the whole picture & scenes amde sense now since we had only been stuck with a cruddy P&S video since it first came out + i refused to watch for the past 5yrs because of that(another reason for refusing to watch Close Encounters for years til a WS version was avalible!)

Then durring the freeway chase...it starts pixelating,chunks of different scenes are paused & jarbled together with static & the sountrack from earlier or further on in the film is jumbling around.

So we were disapointed...took the disc out,looked at the bottom which was scratched & scarred wth spots ect all to hell. So we tryed the P&S side to see if that worked...+ my brother wanted to see the end of the film since it was almost over. It worked fine...but really sucked gonig from awsome WS to crappy P&S...so i saw like 90% of the movie in WS for the first time,lol.

I may buy the dvd soon since it's only $9 at most places..but who knows a SE may be released sometime?

+ i can't afford to buy every movie i like &/or want to see......but that seems the only other option since to many times the discs have been ruined because stupid idiots do not know how to handle them & the video stores do nothing about it!

So i hardly rent & when i do...i ususaly don't bother with Hollywood or BlockCensor because i'm sick of them for various reasons...i go to another video store that actually carries tons of films..including many rare,out of print video's(that are not on dvd yet & may not be for along time!) that i can't find anywhere here at the major chains...so i usualy spend my time renting OOP VHS movies that i've been wanting to see for years,they also have a dvd section...i may give them a try.

I also don't like borrorwing out dvds or cds for the obvious reasons.

Though last week i borrowed a dvd out to a friend for the first time ever.

He wanted to see The Door's,so since he was over i said he could borrow my SE dvd if he wanted to. So he did,watched it,loved it...but still has'nt returned the dvd yet!

I should be hanging out with him later today & he promised to give me the dvd back,i hope it's not scratched up..though i doubt it may be since he seems to know how to take care of cds & such.

 

[Mark_Wilson]

So whats the difference between the Criterion CAV and CLV versions? Other than the lack of extras? Is it just the 1977 version of the movie, nothing else?

 

[Damin J Toell]

So whats the difference between the Criterion CAV and CLV versions? Other than the lack of extras? Is it just the 1977 version of the movie, nothing else?

yes, it's just the 1977 version on the CLV release.

note that it's not a perfect 1977 version (on either the CLV or the main feature portion of the CAV); it has one very brief shot from the 1980 SE (a UFO shadow passing over Roy's truck) and is missing some very brief trims (which were included as additional unmarked chapters at the end of the appropriate side of the CAV release).

DJ

 

[Mark_Wilson]

So the CLV version also has some 80s 'stuff' at the end of each side or is it all at the end of the movie?

 

[Damin J Toell]

So the CLV version also has some 80s 'stuff' at the end of each side or is it all at the end of the movie?

the CLV version doesn't have any of the additional 1980 scenes (with the exception of the one brief shot i noted earlier that is included within the film). the additional scenes are included, however, on the apprpriate side as extra chapters on the CAV version. the CLV is just the 1977 version, no additional scenes, no extras.

DJ