What's new

New Kubrick SE's (1 Viewer)

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink

Because that's the way it was originally exhibited in theaters in the U.S., and that's the way that millions of people originally saw it. There was a great deal of controversy of the film at the time and like it or not, the R-rated version is a major part of the film's history. I, for one, would like to see it preserved as such.

I don't expect anyone to prefer it over the unrated version, but there's no reason that both versions couldn't be included--in fact, that's exactly what is listed on the pack of the packaging!
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I guess I can see for the sake of completeness that someone would want that.

However, even if it was on the disc, I'd never watch it so I couldn't care less if the edited version never saw the light of day again.
 

JeffMc

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
529
Location
Antarctica
Real Name
jeffmc
Did Warner resubmit the uncut version to the MPAA and get an R? If not, and the cut R version isn't on the disc, then to have the R rating logo on the packaging could get them in trouble (although I doubt the MPAA really cares). There have been quite a few unrated cuts showing up lately where the packaging still indicates R even though the films are the pre-censored versions.
 

Jonathan Peterson

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
292
Real Name
Jonathan Peterson

Exactly my feelings as well. I have waited patiently for years for the unedited version. I refused to purchase the edited copy and if it was included here, it would never be watched. Mr. Kubrick would have placed extras in the frame if he wanted the action censored. He did not, so I do not want to see them either.
 

Travis Brashear

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 31, 1999
Messages
1,175

I'm not very satisfied with this counter-argument, in the sense that, taking your BLADE RUNNER example, for instance, between the theatrical and Director's Cut(s), there are actual narrative variations between the different versions. This is not the case with EYES WIDE SHUT. The only difference whatsoever between the theatrical and international releases is the digitally inserted figures over images of nudity and sexual conduct. Considering the subject matter with which the entire film concerns itself, if one is repelled or offended by such imagery, this wouldn't be their film of choice anyway, so I stand by my assertion that there is no satisfactory defense in retaining the American version, not even from a "historical preservation" angle, like cafink (over)asserts.
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink

The edited American version of the film is a part of the history of Eyes Wide Shut--a rather controversial film from one of the most important American directors. If one believes in "preserving" the history of a film on DVD, then of course the American version of EWS must be included, because it is a part of the film's history. What about this line of thought do you find "unsatisfactory"?
 

Travis Brashear

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 31, 1999
Messages
1,175
As I stated, it only exists as a "veiled" version of the original edit--it has not been narratively altered, just cosmetically, so I believe informed discussion of the two edits can continue to be made in the years to come without Warner Bros. feeling obliged to actually produce discs no one will ever care to watch again.
 

Martin Teller

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
2,414
Real Name
Martin Teller
Jeez, what next? Are people going to start whining when the edited-for-TV version isn't included? I swear, some people just love to hear themselves bitch.
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink
If a director was contractually obligated to deliver a film fit to air on network television, finished a too-explicit cut of said film, then died before having the opportunity to instate the appropriate edits, only to have the studio integrate his already-planned edits into the film posthumously, then yes, I would expect whining should that film later be released on DVD without the originally released version of the film, despite that version being listed among the press materials and on the actual DVD packaging.

But I don't know of any film where that's the case, so I don't think that's a very apt comparison.
 

Frank@N

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Messages
1,718
I'm not really bummed about the missing American cut because 1) I don't have any interest in watch it and 2) Adding it to the disc could have caused some technical issues (branching glitches or over-compression).

However, I hope the censored cut is discussed in the extras and clips are shown of the digital changes.

As far as FMJ goes, can anyone speak to the new transfer and extras.

No one seems to be reviewing the disc.
 

Travis Brashear

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 31, 1999
Messages
1,175

I think he's making a comparison of a type of movie edit that no one would give too shits about with a type of movie edit that no one should give two shits about; ergo, I think it's most apt of a comparison.
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart

The new FMJ transfer looks A+. The parts of the commentary I listened to are good. It's a little awkward to hear R. Lee Ermey speak over his scenes with complete calmness.
 

MorganP

Agent
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
29
This box set has some of the worst packaging in recent memory. I could care less about the theatrical cut of Eyes Wide Shut, but if it's not included it shouldn't be advertised on the packaging. I hate sloppy rush jobs, especially for films such as these. Also the covers are awful. Why is the spine of The Shining different to the others? Why is "Eyes Wide" on one line and "Shut" on the next? Awful...
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink

That was his point as I understood it, as well. Since an edit planned by the director but ultimately completed without his participation due only to his untimely passing--the type of movie edit about which one might "give too shits"--is nothing like an edited-for-TV version--about which most would probably not give any shits--the comparison is quite inapt.
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink
As long as you're interested in acting like it's a "pissing contest" rather than as an actual discussion in which you contribute something more to the discourse than snide remarks, then no, I don't think there's any reason to continue.
 

Travis Brashear

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 31, 1999
Messages
1,175
cafink, you have yet to bring a single defending point to the discussion, other than your "historical" argument, which I've already addressed and, furthermore, isn't even an issue since the American release is still in wide release on the original DVD for the three people on the planet who might still want it. I maintain that there is no compelling reason for Warner Bros. to continue being obligated to press a version of the film virtually no one will be interested in owning or watching now that the true version of the film is available in all regions. You want to have an engaging discourse, then bring something to the table, man.
 

Mark Hawley

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 18, 2000
Messages
418
While I don't agree that the TV version comparison is apt, and I think it's entirely justifiable to be a bit ticked that the U.S. cut isn't on it as said on the case.

But I don't see the need for it to be on there anymore than the Casino Royale version should have the edited British censored version, or any other movies that have been have been censored in other countries.

The digital people were there for only one reason, to get an R rating in the States. In most other countries, they weren't there and were allowed the pleasure of seeing the uncut versions.

Would it make sense to demand that Anchor Bay (or someone) release the censored versions of Dario Argento's movies just because that's the way they were first shown in the U.S. and it's important that they be preserved, or how the many other countless movies that have been censored to appease the review board of whatever country (as the aforementioned Casino Royale cut)?
 

Vincent_P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,147
I wonder why you aren't arguing as vehemently for the inclusion of the European edit of THE SHINING, which runs some 25-minutes shorter than the U.S. release? After all, it was released in European movie theaters and all and is an important part of the movie's history...

Vincent

 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink

Good question.

I agree that it's an important part of the film's history, and I believe that the European version was edited by Kubrick himself, was it not? Accordingly, I would indeed like the European version of The Shining to have been included on its respective DVD release, probably even more so than the domestic version of Eyes Wide Shut, since the changes are much more profound.

The reason I am not arguing as vehemently for its inclusion is two-fold. The first reason is that I'm simply not that interested in The Shining. I know it's supposed to be a great classic, but it's just never really done it for me, so I don't own any version of it, whereas I love Eyes Wide Shut and this latest DVD release is the third version of that film that I've purchased.

The second reason is that nobody in this thread has asserted that the European version of The Shining is without value or that nobody could possibly be interested in owning it, so I didn't see any reason to bring it up. On the other hand, that has been said about the domestic version of Eyes Wide Shut, so it seemed appropriate to respond to Travis's query with my thoughts on the subject.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,552
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top