Movie Revisions: Fad or Fact? (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

I'm curious what the HTF crowd thinks: Do you think that the fairly new phenomenon (AFAIK) of directors to re-cut their movies (e.g. Star Wars, E.T., Aliens, Bladerunner) is a fad, like "colorization" was? Or is it a new fact of movie-dom?
Or is this "new" thing actually a long-standing practice in cinema? Or, for that matter, are old movies still "colorized"?

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think it's wrong to compare director's cuts to colorizations.

Director's cuts are exactly what they are while colorizations are done just to "prettify" a film to please those who can't stand to see black & white.

Director's cuts are great for a simple fact...would you call the restored version of Lawrence of Arabia inferior to the version that was released in 1962? Sir David Lean finally got to perfect his film.

I think director's cuts are a great thing because they allow us to get closer to the intended vision of the film.

 

[Terrell]

Well, not every movie is necessarily made better by revisions. Many think Star Wars was worsened by Lucas' revisions. I myself prefer the original theatrical versions of Star Wars, although I actually like a lot of the new CGI editions. ET looks like it's been made worse by the revisions. However, I think TPM was better with the small added in scenes of the podrace.

However, having said that, I don't mind revisionist think at all. In fact, I kind of enjoye recut films. But one thing is a must. When you put out a DVD of the film, the original theatrical cut of a film must always be included first and foremost. Then, I'll be happy to watch whatever director's cut of the film you want to add in as well. It' very simple to add both versions of the film on DVD, either by seamless branching, or two seperate discs. Whatever the case, I hope Lucas can be persuaded to include the originals, if he actually had no intention of releasing them. Fans were able to persuade him to put out TPM on DVD through a lot of protests. Because he probably would have waited for all 3 films to be finished. Hopefully, through protests or whatever, he will include the originals on the eventual DVD. Hopefully Spielberg will include the original of ET in whatever new DVD of the film is produced. And hopefully, every director will make a habit of this.

 

[RobR]

[Director's cuts] allow us to get closer to the intended vision of the film.

In some cases, that may not be true. Especially if a director cuts the film 20 years later when he or she might hold a different vision or be a different person.

 

[WoodyH]

I think part of it may be whether a film is re-cut to create an actual "director's cut", an "extended cut", or some entirely other beast.
For instance, if I'm remembering correctly, James Cameron was actually quite fine with the original theatrical versions of 'Aliens' and 'The Abyss', and created the "extended cuts" to please fans (I'm more sure of this on 'Aliens' than 'The Abyss', and could be completely off base, but that's what my lil' brain's bringing to the surface). These, then, while created and authorized by the director, aren't "directors cuts" as much as they are "extended cuts" - the "directors cut" was the original released cut of the film.
What was marketed as the "directors cut" of 'Bladerunner' is fairly well-known to have been no such thing - though it was overseen by Ridley Scott, the final result wasn't what he was aiming for, due to studio pressure and a looming release date. I wouldn't put it in the camp of an 'extended cut', either, because rather than just expanding and fleshing out the story, substantial artistic changes were made. The true "directors cut" of 'Bladerunner' won't be seen until the upcoming (someday) DVD release.
The ultimate (and you had to know this would get brought up) example of a "directors cut" that I can think of today is the 'Star Wars' trilogy, even though we've yet to see the actual final 'directors cut'. Much as we may dislike his choice, Lucas has made it quite clear that the original releases of the original SW films were not what he wanted them to be, and he is (constantly, it seems) in the process of creating the final 'directors cut' of these films (which, if I'm lucky, I may be able to watch in some form of home video format by the time I want to introduce my grandchildren to them ). We may not like or respect his choice, but (unfortunately), we don't seem to have much say...but I'm digressing. The point is, when (if) these come out, they will be a true 'directors cut'.
I'm not sure how 'new' of a 'trend' this is. The earliest example of post-release re-cutting I can come up with off the top of my head is 'Close Encounters', but not being a film historian and being a tender 29 years of age, it's almost a given that there are earlier examples. I do agree with Patrick about it not being analagous to colorizing, though.
In the end, I enjoy directors cuts, and while I'd often prefer the original released cut to be available, I can accept if the director's cut is the only available release, as long as it is a true director's cut. Shoud a film be released as an extended cut (or that third category) when the director has made it known that the originally released version was the final director's cut, than I'd definitely prefer that both versions be made available - a sore spot with "Aliens".

 

[Terrell]

Much as we may dislike his choice, Lucas has made it quite clear that the original releases of the original SW films were not what he wanted them to be, and he is (constantly, it seems) in the process of creating the final 'directors cut' of these films

Great point Woody. I've argued this many times in debates with many disgruntled fans over the revisions and special editions. Lucas had some struggles with the stuido just as Scott did with Bladerunner, although not to the same extent. He's also always maintained that the originals were as close to his vision as technology allowed, but were never fully his entire vision. Again, like many I prefer the originals. But I understand that he never had the ability to truly create Star Wars as he wanted. That's why he waited so long to make the prequels. He wanted to be able to realize his every imagination. But please include the originals George. Or I'll just make DVDs of my THX Definitive Collection.

However, with the advent of the DVD format, this is not a fad. I expect numerous directors to put out revisions of many of their films. We'll see a lot more of this in the future.

 

[Dave Barth]

The earliest example of post-release re-cutting I can come up with off the top of my head is 'Close Encounters'

DW Griffith recut The Birth of a Nation. It's not an exclusively recent practice. However, recutting may be much more frequent today...

 

[Michael Reuben]

Or, for that matter, are old movies still "colorized"?

It was a short-lived fad that didn't catch on. No one does it anymore. If not for its frequent appearance in the "parade of horribles" when people start debating the wisdom of such things as director's cuts, no one would even remember colorization.

M.

 

[Hendrik]

...Abel Gance recut his 1927 silent Napoléon for a 1934 sound re-release...
...Sergei Bondarchuk's 1967 four-part, 507-minute War And Peace was cut down to two c. three-hour films for consumption in countries outside of the Iron Curtain...
...the WB DVD of John Huston's 1945 The Big Sleep also features the 1944 'original' cut (which was never released theatrically, but only shown to the military overseas)...
...and on and on...
. . . . . .

 

[John Thomas]

Director's cuts are exactly what they are while colorizations are done just to "prettify" a film to please those who can't stand to see black & white.

...concerning E.T. and the removal of the guns, wouldn't you say the same thing: to 'prettify' a film to please those who can't stand to see them?

Ridiculous; Special Interest Group lobbying alters film making/editing (art, in general) - aka revisionist history.

Believe it or not folks, this ain't good.

 

[Jason Seaver]

It's not new, not by a long shot. I've been going to a Fritz Lang series for the past few weeks, and looking at these movies on the IMDB, the number of different versions is unreal - M has multiple endings and running lengths, and next Sunday's show, Spies is 175 minutes but the version most commonly seen for most of the 20th centure was only 88 minutes long! And then there are some which are totally cynical, like Charles Chaplin adding incessant voice-over narration to The Gold Rush, apparently so that he could get control of the copyright, despite how it makes the film almost unwatchable.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I believe you mean Howard Hawks. (Not sure about the year either; by the time the reshoots were complete, I think the film had been pushed into 1946.)
M.

 

[Hendrik]

...ahh... I knew that!
(Note to self: check your facts/dates first, i.e. get up and get the damn DVD off its place on the shelf you lazy b@st@rd!))
. . . . . .

 

[Damin J Toell]

It was a short-lived fad that didn't catch on. No one does it anymore. If not for its frequent appearance in the "parade of horribles" when people start debating the wisdom of such things as director's cuts, no one would even remember colorization.

although perhaps no one is colorizing films anymore, previously colorized films still get released; Fox recently released some colorized Shirley Temple titles.

DJ

 

[DaveF]

It was a short-lived fad that didn't catch on.

I'm glad to hear that "Turnerization" didn't get revived.
The arguments that colorization, not being done by the film's creators, is a different thing from a D.C., done by the film's creators, is interesting.
But they share the important trait that they are both about re-working a finished product, long after the original creation.
Those who have brought up older examples of post-release cuts: do you think film re-workings are more common today (or not)?
In answer to my original question: I think this is here to stay. Unlike colorization, these modifications don't generally change the entire appearance of the movie (Star Wars notwithstanding), and are being done by the films' creators. Thus, they don't shock the fans as tramatically as colorization did; and they have a semblance of "artistic integrity" since the artist is the one making the changes.

 

[WoodyH]

(Colorization) was a short-lived fad that didn't catch on. No one does it anymore.

Thank goodness...for a while I heard that Turner had purchased the Beatles catalog and was going to be re-releasing it all, starting with their famous 'Plaid' album!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Those who have brought up older examples of post-release cuts: do you think film re-workings are more common today (or not)?

What's different today is that home video offers a market for reworkings that didn't exist throughout most of film history. Before the late 80s, the only way to make money from a re-working was to release it to theaters, with all the attendant expense. That's why the scenes inside the spaceship were filmed for the special edition (the first one) of Close Encounters -- Columbia made that a condition of giving Spielberg the money to redo the film, because they believed (rightly so, IMO) that the only way to get people into theaters was to promise something completely new.
Today, a director can rework a film (e.g. Cameron Crowe with Almost Famous), and the studio can still make back its money on video sales.
M.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Colorization has it's place.
The ONLY times I've seen it actually work out is a handful of Looney Tunes Warner had colorized in 1995. (Their colorized versions have a 1995 Colorization copyright on the opening)
The color choices are very well done and the programming is extremely Technicolor-like. (Meaning it looks like real color...not obviously fake looking).
If anyone has seen the computer colorized version of the Looney Tune, "You Ought To Be In Pictures," you might not even believe it was shot in B&W. There's numerous shots involving live-action footage that looks real. Even a great scene showing Porky Pig speeding down a busy street has so much attention to detail, it looks like the real thing.
But it's not with the aid of the original director or animators, so it's probably not what would have been if it WAS made in Technicolor.
Bottom line: If it's by someone involved with the production (Such as the director, producer, cinematographer, etc) it's fine.
If it's OK'd by Mr. Exec-who-cares-nothing-about-film, it's

 

[TheoGB]

I wouldn't give up on the idea of colourisation entirely. While it could hardly be considered necessary it would be interesting to see what could be done in a few years time with the technology we have.

I remember seeing in a documentary a scene from a film shot in early colour (we're talking 20's or 30's here). I think they said the whole film had never been done this way but the director tried it out.

Very peculiar to see the scene start in B&W and suddenly flick to colour, and what a difference it made to what you saw.

Also, I wonder how many old films could have been filmed in colour but processed in B&W due to cost? I know that for the World War II in Colour series, there was definitely footage they 'recovered' in this way because for years only B&W prints had been available and used...