"Intended version" vs. theatrical release (1 Viewer)

[Steve Enemark]

I'd like to hear from Steve Enemark. Here is a quote from the chat transcript

Here I am!
This is my pet issue. Directors should NOT be allowed to go back after 20+ years and change a movie around, then deny the fans access to the original. Go on about "director's intent" all you want. Richard Donner in 2000 is not the same guy as Richard Donner in 1978. Check out his recent movies to see how much he's changed.
And even if those changes to SUPERMAN were in his head all along, and if this version of the film is what he wanted all along, then the original should still be an option for home viewing. I have no problem with seamless branching letting everybody have the option to view what they prefer.
And the soundtrack? Don't even get me started about THAT. Donner himself was unaware that it was changed so much.
Anyway, I don't mean to pick on Richard Donner, these comments can be expanded to include any other washed-up directors who want to endlessly recycle their past glories with "director's cuts", "special editions", or "the version you never saw before" (groan).
Sometimes a movie is pulled from a director too early and his vision is never realized until the "director's cut" is released. BRAZIL is the best example of this, and I wouldn't give up my Criterion laserdisc for anything. However, we need to remember that Gilliam's cut was completed in 1985, not last week. He said so himself that he would never go back to one of his older movies to recut it, he realizes he's a different man now, and would only screw it up.
------------------
"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible" - Alfred Hitchcock

 

[RobertR]

Directors should NOT be allowed to go back after 20+ years and change a movie around, then deny the fans access to the original

Exactly what do you mean by "should not be allowed"? What instrument would you use to disallow the changes?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Exactly what do you mean by "should not be allowed"?

I think it translates into something like: "Artistic freedom is fine and dandy until it results in something I object to, and then it's not."
M.

 

[Matthew_S]

quote: Richard Donner in 2000 is not the same guy as Richard Donner in 1978. Check out his recent movies to see how much he's changed[/quote]
ABSOLUTELY!! This is a great point. In regards to that other revisionist, Lucas has had 25 years of head-swelling praise of his beloved Star Wars films to cloud his judgement. Don't think for a second that he's even sure what the hell he was thinking back then.
[Edited last by Matthew_S on October 23, 2001 at 01:46 PM]

 

[RobertR]

I think it translates into something like: "Artistic freedom is fine and dandy until it results in something I object to, and then it's not."

Yes, so very, very similar to the all-too-often expressed attitude about freedom of speech....

 

[Jeremy Anderson]

Remixing 5.1 for "near field" playback isn't unique to the Se7en Platinum Edition. It's done on many DVDs, including nearly all DVDs produced at the Sony facility. Again, what's exceptional about the Platinum Edition is that these changes were documented.

Again, being picky... I know that many DVD's have near field remixes of their theatrical soundtracks for home theater presentation. However, Se7en Platinum Edition wasn't just remixed for near field playback, which normally implies a change in the equalization, etc. The original effects stems were actually remixed to change levels, placement between channels, the addition of center rear channel data for EX/ES systems, etc. It is a completely new soundtrack from the ground up using the original elements.
And where are all the people bitching about wanting the original soundtrack of that title? Heh...

 

[Michael Reuben]

Hey, nothing wrong with being picky! And as I think about it, you're right -- a soundtrack remixed for EX/ES is undergoing more than just a nearfield adjustment, which opens up all sorts of new and interesting possibilities. OTOH, I also suspect significant remixes occur far more often than the average listener realizes. How else to explain the numerous threads that have appeared over the years noting major differences in the LD vs. DD (or DD vs. DTS) soundtracks of the same film?
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 23, 2001 at 02:10 PM]

 

[MarcD]

Yet another movie that can be added to the mix is Star Trek: The Motion Picture. From what I gather this will be an example where the 'intended version' should actually be an improvement over the theatrical release. The added CG should enhance the movie though we can't tell at this point in time. Can't wait to judge for myself.
MarcD

 

[Greg_S_H]

I'm with Jeremy Anderson. People love to shout "hypocrisy!" when people support one changed film and not another, but it's all case-by-case. Sure, 20 years after the fact, Chaplin wanted the Gold Rush to have narration, no intertitle cards, and a different ending. Though he is the director, that doesn't change the fact that I prefer the silent version and wish it was available on DVD in that form. And, I don't hate the idea that Lucas tinkered with Star Wars, but I hate the inept way he did it. I don't care if Lucas now thinks Greedo shot first; it just looks plain stupid the way it was implemented. And, CGI Jabba is plain bad. Had he simply added more x-wings to the final battle scene, would I be upset about it? Not as much. But, the original battle scene is just fine without the extra ships.
Then, you have ET. I think the walkie-talkie change sucks. Sure, Spielberg has the right to do it, but it's a shame we can't have the original version. Even worse is the CGI ET. As I said in the other thread, it's a total insult to the original SFX team. They did a magnificent job bringing ET to life (I just watched it again a few months ago, and the effect still works), and now that's all been swept away.
Finally, how do those of you who support the director in all cases justify Lucas changing Return of the Jedi? Richard Marquand has been dead since 1987. And, if you maintain that Marquand was simply interpreting Lucas's vision, and thus Lucas has the right, then I would say that Melissa Mathison should have final say on whether the walkie-talkies stay or go (not that I could see her going against Spielberg anyway).

 

[Michael Reuben]

quote: Finally, how do those of you who support the director in all cases justify Lucas changing Return of the Jedi? Richard Marquand has been dead since 1987. And, if you maintain that Marquand was simply interpreting Lucas's vision, and thus Lucas has the right, then I would say that Melissa Mathison should have final say on whether the walkie-talkies stay or go (not that I could see her going against Spielberg anyway).[/quote] Well, as you say, it's all case-by-case. Even if you believe in the auteur theory, it isn't always the director who's the auteur. (For a non-Lucas example, see Poltergeist.) Does anyone doubt that Jedi is Lucas's vision?
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 23, 2001 at 04:20 PM]

 

[Jonathan Burk]

Does anyone doubt that Jedi is Lucas's vision?

Well, it is now...

 

[Steve Enemark]

I think it translates into something like: "Artistic freedom is fine and dandy until it results in something I object to, and then it's not."

You can believe whatever you want, just don't expect me to watch crap like the Special Editions and pretend that Greedo always shot first, no guns in E.T., etc. Artistic freedom ends when the movie is finished. After that the movie belongs to its audience. Go ahead and tinker with old movies if you must, but removing access to the original version in favor of the new one is just plain wrong.
------------------
"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible" - Alfred Hitchcock

 

[RobertR]

but removing access to the original version in favor of the new one is just plain wrong.

Now all you need to do is convince people that this is so.

 

[Bjorn Thoresen]

Don't forget that the term "Director's Cut" is now a marketing tool.
I think there should be a distinction drawn between the original idea of a "director's cut," which would apply to specific films that originally existed in one form, and then were changed prior to their theatrical releases against the wishes of their respective creative teams, and the current phenomenon of revisionism.
It seems like there can't be a theatrical revival of a film now without some aspect of that film being tinkered with. Studio marketing departments have decided people won't go to regular theatres just to see "The Wizard of Oz." It must be presented in Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound to draw the crowds. Likewise, why should people go to see "The Exorcist: The Version You've Already Seen"?
The desperation to add something, anything to a film in order to justify people seeing it again seems to be behind these changes to a much greater degree than any kind of artistic thought. Some films are just fine the way they were originally seen, and altering them to suit current tastes is pretty much the equivalent of colorization. And I think the insistence on the role of the director is overstated. A director is important in the making of a film, but he is part of a creative team: filmmaking is a collaborative art. And once a film is released to a mass audience, it really does take on a life of its own.
I'm just wondering how many of these bowdlerizations we'll have to suffer through before the Next Big Thing becomes the release of the actual, untouched, unaltered, original theatrical cut of a film.
Can you imagine a film's third re-release on DVD, this time with packaging loudly proclaiming that the film contains "No Extra Scenes! No Pointless 5.1 Remix! No Digital Alterations!"?

 

[Terry H]

quote:
Artistic freedom ends when the movie is finished. After that the movie belongs to its audience. Go ahead and tinker with old movies if you must, but removing access to the original version in favor of the new one is just plain wrong.
[/quote]
Agree. What would happen if a director changed a movie which won a significant award? Imagine if Spielberg altered Schindler's List. What would happen? What should happen? If the director changes his mind do you think the Academy has the right, perhaps even the obligation to revisit the pictures for that year?
[Edited last by Terry H on October 23, 2001 at 04:57 PM]

 

[RobertR]

Can you imagine a film's third re-release on DVD, this time with packaging loudly proclaiming that the film contains "No Extra Scenes! No Pointless 5.1 Remix! No Digital Alterations

 

[Douglas Bailey]

Imagine if Spielberg altered Schindler's List. What would happen?...If the director changes his mind do you think the Academy has the right, perhaps even the obligation to revisit the pictures for that year?

Along vaguely similar lines, I'm always annoyed that the box-office numbers for Star Wars reflect showings of the 1977 original and the 1997 Special Edition combined. To me, these are two different films and should be tallied separately. (And I'd be interested to see which one sold more tickets.)
Getting back to your point, can the Star Wars SE version claim the Best Editing and Best Visual Effects Oscars that were won by the original film? After all, the editing has been altered and some of the visual effects were replaced or augmented...
doug
------------------
"How can it be the same movie if they've changed my character from a
tightly-wound convenience-store clerk to a jittery Eskimo
firefighter?... uh huh... uh huh... uh huh. Well, that's actually a
pretty good explanation..."
--James Woods, on The Simpsons

 

[Richard Kim]

Artistic freedom ends when the movie is finished. After that the movie belongs to its audience.

Then where is all the uproar on the Special Edition additions of Aliens and Terminator 2? Why aren't people getting on James Cameron's case on these films? I've heard nothing but positive comments about the changes, that they broaden the story, and adds depth to the characters. So it's ok for the director to make changes to the film if you like them, but if you don't like them, he's desecrating it. What's it going to be, eh?
(BTW, I realize that the theatrical cut is included in the T2:UE but not the Aliens DVD. How come nobody's clamoring for the original thatrical cut on DVD?)

 

[Steve Enemark]

Then where is all the uproar on the Special Edition additions of Aliens and Terminator 2?

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, it's because James Cameron himself says the longer versions are alternates, and neither version is to be considered definitive. The T2 DVD has three cuts of the film as options, which is OK by me, though I wish I knew how to access the third!
ALIENS on the other hand should be re-released with the original cut as an option. The shorter version is better, IMHO. The added scenes weaken the film, with the exception of the scene where Ripley is informed that her daughter has died.
------------------
"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible" - Alfred Hitchcock

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

I think it translates into something like: "Artistic freedom is fine and dandy until it results in something I object to, and then it's not."

Thank you for saying what I've been thinking for a long time.
I personally believe that a director has every right to go back and make alterations to a film that he or she was displeased with in some way. I also believe that if they director wishes for us to see the new "prefered" version over the original, then we as film lovers who should above all else respect their intent the same way we respect their intent on OAR and should watch the preferred cut.
Ideally, yes we could have the original version available as well, but since this does not always happen, I will not deny myself the opportunity to see a movie simply because I can't get my hands on the original version.
However, I do object whenever a film is altered by anyone other than the filmmakers. That is why I do not own Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
------------------
-J.Fo
"Why do I always get a warped one?"