LAND OF THE DEAD dvd (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

No, because:

-- The U.S. theatrical cut is already available on DVD for anyone who wants it.

-- I already have both versions of EYES WIDE SHUT on DVD, so from a personal point of view, I don't care what they do with any future DVD releases of the film.

 

[Damin J Toell]

No, that's not all you're saying. You're also saying that if Universal does not release the theatrical cut in OAR, you won't buy either cut.

DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Yep, but that's me, though.

The bigger issue is the theatrical version's proposed fullscreen only release.

 

[JeffMc]

I think that DOTD analogy is a little far-fetched considering that cut R-rated version was a re-release and NOT the way the film was originally released in theaters. That's like saying you also want the network TV edit on there because you happened to see a movie on TV first. How about the airplane edit? Maybe the Super 8 one-reel release? I understand your argument, but that example just doesn't hold much water. Even though I agree that fans are basically getting the "best" version in this situation and fans should basically be happy with all of this, I also do understand some of the frustration on some people wanting the original theatrical cut of a film.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least one theatrical version I prefer over the restored longer "director's cut" version - DRESSED TO KILL. I feel the extended scenes in the uncut version of DTK are just "too much" - the opening shower feel-up scene goes on so long it's almost comical, and the elevator scene loses impact because the gore efx look so fake. It would appear that DePalma prefers the longer version so who are the fans to say that they want the film that was originally in theaters? I'm glad we have both versions on the WB DVD release so you can choose which version you like, at least. I saw DTK in theaters several times at the time of its original release and, back then, there was no sign whatsoever of ever seeing some 'longer director's version'. That theatrical cut WAS the film. The example of DRESSED TO KILL is from an entirely different time period, though, where a theatrical release usually WAS the final EVER release version of a movie. These days, practically every theatrical release out there has a good chance of some alternate cut showing up on DVD. Most of the mystique of an "original theatrical release version" is gone because most of the time these alternate cuts or director's versions are planned in advance of the theatrical release. So I can somewhat still see the other side about wanting to preserve the theatrical release of a film, even today, although boycotting does seem a bit overboard, but everyone can choose what they want to do with their money and that's all cool.

As far as LOTD, I don't really care either way since I found the "theatrical version" to be pretty terrible in all senses of the word (and this is coming from a long-time Romero fan). And I don't think 6 measly minutes is going to help it much. But you never know...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Jeff brings up a good point, what if someone watches the director's cut and finds that they don't care for it and they prefer the theatrical one, what are they to do now? They're screwed.

 

[TravisR]

Personally, I'd say too bad. The director wanted the movie a certain way and if someone doesn't like it, I guess they don't like the movie anymore. I don't want to come off like a dick but I think that the director should have the final say for the movie.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Were you wanting the theatrical cut and not the director's cut?

It would seem more people would "boycott" a theatrical cut only release since it is missing footage. In last years F13 box debate, which I honestly believe is the reason we're not getting ANY horror titles this year, people were "happy" with their open matte videos because Paramount released the theatrical cuts (in OAR) but not "uncut" versions. Here we're getting the uncut version, in OAR so I personally can't see how anyone would be unhappy. In fact, I'm not sure how many would even buy the "cut" version.

I personally think it would be best to not release ANY theatrical cut but this here would cause lower sales due to certain stores not carrying the film at all.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Travis,
that point that Jeff raised and that I commented on, is just indicitive of how this whole thing could be avoided if they released both in OAR. If someone didn't like the DC, they could, or in this case would, have normally been able to fall back on the theatrical one that they may have seen in theaters.

This isn't a question of respecting the director's preferred cut of the film, heck I may like the DC better myself, this goes to the basic need of an OAR and film purists right and desire to watch either one in their OAR. They BOTH deserve to be in OAR, not just one because the other may not be preferred by the filmmaker.

Furthermore, it goes to the issue of preserving cinema for archival reasons, and i'm very disappointed that many here aren't recognizing that, especially here at the HTF of all places.

Michael,
I wanted to own BOTH, but now that's not possible. The corruption of a film's theatrical OAR, whether that version of said film is preferred by the filmmaker or not, is not something that I take lightly and merely dismiss as "ah well, we still have the DC in OAR so all is okay".

It's not okay, not even close.

 

[Vincent_P]

John,

I'm wondering if you take a similar position re: David Fincher reframing SEVEN for the special edition release?

Vincent

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, i'm not a big believer in reframing things, but it's recently been brought to my attention in another thread that perhaps a filmmaker's hand may or may not be forced by outside influences to keep another AR in mind (1.78:1) while composing their theatrical one because they know that the film will be seen more at home than at the theater.

Now, this may be true, however without any sources to find out just what a film's true AR is on a film by film basis, I still firmly believe that a film's AR, as projected at the theater, is it's intended one because that is where movies were made to be shown in the first place.

It's our first view of a film, hence the term Original Aspect Ratio

I mean, we have to go with SOME AR, and it may as well be the theatrical one until proof is provided to suggest something different.

 

[Damin J Toell]

DVD is not a serious archival/preservation format for film, so the lack of a DVD of Land of the Dead's R-rated cut means nothing.

What's so special about the original theatrical presentation of a film, anyway? Who makes movies: theatres or directors? Movie theatres, despite our romantic notions, are not magical. A film does not get special properties from having been projected inside one. People make movies. And the people who make them should be the ones deciding what those movies are going to look like. Their artistic moral ability to do this does not suddenly transfer to a movie theatre the first time their movie is shown. Even after a film premieres in a theatre, the filmmakers are still the ones who should be deciding what is and is not correct for their film. They don't owe anything special to theatres. They don't owe anything special to people who sat in those theatres. The filmmakers are still the filmmakers.

DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Damin,
I don't even know where to start with what you just said, except to say that I disagree with you on a good portion of it, in the extreme.

 

[Kevin M]

:that doesn't sound like a "me" proposition, sounds like you are trying to rally "We" in to it as well.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

No, no, Kevin, you misunderstood me, but I can see why, though, let me clear it up...

When I said "it's just me", I mean that it's my choice and my choice alone to pass on both releases, I didn't mean to imply that everyone do the same.

Then, when I asked "are we going to do nothing?", I meant that nobody is going to complain to Universal, or try to find a way to get it turned around if we can?

Hey, if others choose to do the same and pass on both of them, great, but it seems that i'm destined to be alone in my decision. But hey, that's represenative of the extent of my love for OAR, and if i'm labled a nut for my decision, I guess i'm a nut, i've been called worse in my day.

 

[Kevin M]

Ok John, that isn't how it reads out to me, IMO it seems like you waffled a bit in the face of unexpected opposition to the "cause", but....Ok.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, if by "unexpected opposition" you mean was I surprised that some people are actually okay with this, after all of the bitching and moaning the HTF does against fullscreen releases? Absolutely.

I still can't figure this place out, sometimes everybody want's someone's head on a stick when they hear that film is going to be fullscreen only, they start petitions, threads etc, and then other times they don't seem to care. I don't know.

And, Kevin, as far as "waffling" or changing something to mean something else, I would never do that, I always mean what I say, if i'm not always clear about it.

 

[Vincent_P]

I will try and make this clear, John-

The reason so many of us are not up in arms over this is because THE DIRECTOR'S CUT WILL BE PRESENTED IN ANAMORPHIC WIDESCREEN. We all knew that Romero had to compromise the theatrical cut to get an R-rating, and the vast majority of us Romero/LAND OF THE DEAD fans were anxiously awaiting the chance to see his TRUE vision via the unrated DVD. And guess what? We will, and it will be in anamorphic widescreen. I don't care what Universal does with the R-rated theatrical version, because that was always a COMPROMISED version and not Romero's prefered cut.

And Damin is correct. In the end, what the filmmakers want is what matters. That's why I brought up the SEVEN reframing. David Fincher personally supervised that transfer, and he reframed the image up-and-down throughout so the framing on the DVD is different than the anamorphic 35mm theatrical prints. Was there ever a thread here where people were up in arms over that?

Vincent

 

[JeffMc]

I'm surprised no one has brought up George Lucas yet. Uh-oh!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I know all of that, Vincent, but what about all of the other film's that get to theaters that were also compromised for running time, violence, nudity or whatever, if those films were announced as fullscreen only dvd's, we'd be pissed, am I right?

Now, the ONLY distinction here is that Romero is releasing his DC in OAR, so we have a luxury not usually afforded us by the studio or filmmaker for most other film's when they hit dvd. Simply because the alternative is there, doesn't mean that the theatrical version should be given lesser attention because that is the version we're usually given on dvd anyway.

Also, the fact remains that there are many who WOULD want the theatrical cut in OAR, despite what Romero want's as far as content goes.

This decision makes no sense in the slightest, why not an OAR version of the R-cut if it means so little? Where's the harm? Nowhere that's where, and the only one's who are inconvenianced are the one's who actually care about such matter's, like me, and one's who actually would have liked to own both, like me.

So Romero prefer's his cut, cool, that's great, but the fact remains that there is no justification whatsoever for not releasing the R-cut in OAR on dvd, none.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Actually, Jeff, you bring up something very interesting, there are about, oh, I don't know, a few THOUSAND Star Wars fans right here in the forum who swear their lives to getting the original theatrical version's correctly on dvd, despite having knowledge that Lucas prefers the new one's.

How would they react if tomorrow they wake up, log into the forum and discover to their amazment that Lucas has announced that he is releasing the original unaltered trilogy on dvd...but in fullscreen only.

This analogy is NO different in regard's to the current situation in which we find ourselves at odd's, the only difference is that those film's have a larger fan base than 'Land'.

And finally, how many of those SW fans haven't bought the new dvd's because they feel so strongly about that issue? I lost count of all of the "No original's = No sale" posts here over the years. How is that any different from what i'm doing?