Yet another cut of The Last of the Mohicans (1992) when it comes to Blu later this year (2010) (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

From http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4444

"All-new Director's Definitive Cut"


I suspect this will be closer to the previous Extended Cut rather than the original Theatrical Version (of which I prefer). Should be interesting...

 

[PaulDA]

So I still need to hold on to my widescreen VHS copy?

 

[Walter Kittel]

Well, I know that the importance of the theatrical version was communicated previously here on the HTF to someone from Fox (sorry, can't recall the poster ID) so I guess we'll see if the request was taken seriously or not. I guess I'll hold onto my LD version if this version does not include the theatrical cut.

- Walter.

 

[joshEH]

Someone over on another forum posted an interesting analysis as to why Mann keeps doing so many Mohicans re-cuts:

The North American DVD adds tedious marching/battle scenes and cuts some memorable dialogue. If you take a look at the writing credits at the beginning of the film, you'll see that his and C. Crowe's names are as far apart as they can be. Apparently, Mann wanted only his name listed, but the WGA said "no."

So, with each cut, he's seemingly taking out more of Crowe's dialogue, and putting in unnecessary filler.

 

[Walter Kittel]

This is the thread I was thinking about...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/296434/vam

- Walter.

 

[Vincent_P]

From the IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/trivia):

"The film was originally scheduled for a Summer 1992 release, as the teaser posters said, but when Michael Mann's first version clocked in at three hours, he was told by Fox to cut the film down and the release was postponed to September. Mann was never happy with the resulting two hour version, feeling he had not had enough time to properly trim it, and so Fox allowed him to re-edit it entirely for the 1999 DVD release. Although only a few minutes longer, the new version features minor changes throughout the film. It is Mann's preferred version and the only one available on DVD in the US..."

I wonder if this new "definitive Director's Cut" might be closer to that original 3-hour version? Perhaps the earlier DVD recut comprises what Mann would consider to be the best 2-hour version of the film, and this time we'll get a chance to see what his actual original intentions were?

Vincent

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'd like all of the cuts. I too prefer the theatrical.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer

I'd like all of the cuts. I too prefer the theatrical.

It's been so long since I've viewed it that I don't remember what the theatrical cut was? I've watched nothing, but the director cut in the last several years.






Crawdaddy

 

[Walter Kittel]

Re: the differences - found this via google...

http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo06036.html
Beating a dead horse here, I know; but the most egregious change for me is the soliloquy at the conclusion of the film. The original version is spare and elegant and perfectly fits the mood of the scene and offers up a near perfect conclusion to the film. The revised version is too long, and states the obvious in such a condescending manner that they should have CGI'd in a yellow covered "Dummies" book into the scene. When I watch the current DVD release I have to stop the film before this scene as it completely ruins the film for me now.

- Walter.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Being that this is Blu-ray, wouldn't the right thing for the
studio to do is offer both cuts of the film via branching?


That is, unless, they are meeting opposition from the Director.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
That is, unless, they are meeting opposition from the Director.

Fox seems pretty good with offering the theatrical cut so that would be my guess.

 

[WillG]

That is, unless, they are meeting opposition from the Director.

That's probably it. Mann is known for being controlling of how his films are viewed. For example he's had "No Pan and Scan" clauses regarding home video release for some of his more recent films (even on VHS). He had his name taken off the televison version of "Heat" It's likely that if no Theatrical version is offered, he had a major hand in the decision.

 

[JonZ]

I dont even remember the difference between the Theatrical and Dir Cut

 

[Jim_C]

Originally Posted by Walter Kittel

Re: the differences - found this via google...

http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo06036.html
Beating a dead horse here, I know; but the most egregious change for me is the soliloquy at the conclusion of the film. The original version is spare and elegant and perfectly fits the mood of the scene and offers up a near perfect conclusion to the film. The revised version is too long, and states the obvious in such a condescending manner that they should have CGI'd in a yellow covered "Dummies" book into the scene. When I watch the current DVD release I have to stop the film before this scene as it completely ruins the film for me now.

- Walter.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The ending is the major reason I prefer the theatrical to the directors cut.