Author Topic: Movies to ???  (Read 16677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ruhe Strom

  • Of the World
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: 10
  • Gender: Male
  • 'Moon Pie... what a time to be alive."
Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #100 on: December 22, 2016, 11:00:04 PM »
I've actually only ever seen "The Director's Cut," which is, as I understand it, basically a proto-Final Cut made in consultation with Scott, though not directly by him, with some technical issues; certain effects and scenes they fix in the Final version. I've been waiting to have a perfect Final Cut viewing, but I have to admit I kind of like the rough edges of the Director's Cut out of a natural skepticism of "Final" editions with CGI fixes, etc. But, as Ruhe testifies, I've heard nothing but good things, that the Final Cut is basically just the Director's Cut perfected.

Ah, see I'm in the opposite situation of having only seen the Final Cut, so I had no prior experience to compare it to. What I can say is that the Final Cut looks bloody marvellous.
But on the subject of the Director's Cut, Griffith: would you equate your fondness for the 'rough edges' to that of listening to music that has the crackle of a record spinning? Technically speaking, digitally processed music is of a better quality, yet somehow the 'flaw' of a record crackle adds a bit of warmth to a piece. I wondered if the same could be said of this Director's Cut, as I might prefer it for that reason.
Look! The East is burning red!

Offline Griffith

  • The Millennium Falcon
  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 9694
  • Karma: 229
  • Gender: Male
  • My posts are better.
Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #101 on: December 23, 2016, 05:24:26 PM »
Ah, see I'm in the opposite situation of having only seen the Final Cut, so I had no prior experience to compare it to. What I can say is that the Final Cut looks bloody marvellous.
But on the subject of the Director's Cut, Griffith: would you equate your fondness for the 'rough edges' to that of listening to music that has the crackle of a record spinning? Technically speaking, digitally processed music is of a better quality, yet somehow the 'flaw' of a record crackle adds a bit of warmth to a piece. I wondered if the same could be said of this Director's Cut, as I might prefer it for that reason.

Something like that, though not having seen the Final Cut I can't say that's actually the case. My guess would be probably not, as opposed to say the Star Wars theatrical vs. special/later releases that gave me these scars, because it's all an effort to try to restore it to the original vision/version, not needlessly augment it with the times just because they could. There's a couple of changes the purist in my doesn't like on principle (digital recording of Ben Ford and refilmed scenes overlayed over the originals with CGI, etc), but I can't say it's not for the better in this case. As I alluded to, a lot of my distaste for this comes from what happened to Star Wars, but in this case I might just be the Luddite holding onto an objectively inferior edition because it's the first version I saw with my dad, etc.

Better than each of us comparing our incomplete half of the puzzle though, here's some details about the differences in the Director's and Final Cuts (I've spoiler tagged specific plot points for those still contemplating which version to watch =):

Warner Bros. hired Arick, who was already doing consultation work for them, to head the project with Scott. He started by spending several months in London with Les Healey, who had been the assistant editor on Blade Runner, attempting to compile a list of the changes that Scott wanted made to the film. He also received a number of suggestions/directions directly from the director himself. Three major changes were made to the film:

    The removal of Deckard's 13 explanatory voice-overs.
    The insertion of a dream sequence of a unicorn running through a forest. (The original sequence of the dream was not found in a print of sufficient quality; the original scene shows Deckard intercut with the running unicorn. Arick was thus forced to use a different print that shows only the unicorn running, without any intercutting to Deckard.) The unicorn scene suggests a completely different ending to the film: Gaff's origami unicorn means that Deckard's dreams are known to him, implying that Deckard's memories are artificial, and therefore he would be a replicant of the same generation as Rachael.
    The removal of the studio-imposed "happy ending", including some associated visuals which had originally run under the film's end-credits. This made the film end ambiguously when the elevator doors closed.


Scott has since complained that time and money constraints, along with his obligation to Thelma & Louise, kept him from retooling the film in a completely satisfactory manner. While he is happier with the 1992 release of the film than with the original theatrical version, he has never felt entirely comfortable with it as his definitive director's cut.

In 2000, Harrison Ford gave his view on the director's cut of the film saying, although he thought it "spectacular," it didnít "move him at all." He gave a brief reason: "They haven't put anything in, so it's still an exercise in design."
the Final Cut version, including behind-the-scenes footage of Harrison Ford's son, Ben Ford, and the filming of new scenes for the Final Cut. According to the documentary, actress Joanna Cassidy made the suggestion to re-film Zhora's death scene while being interviewed for the Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner documentary, and footage of her making this suggestion is inter-cut with footage of her attending the later digital recording session.

The Final Cut contains the original full-length version of the unicorn dream, which had never been in any version, and has been restored. Additionally, all of the additional violence and alternate edits from the international cut have been inserted.

Better still, here's some side by side comparisons of the changes and new shots (SPOILERS obviously):

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4589

Like I said, without seeing how these changes/inserts potentially change the feel and pacing of the film, I can't say they look worse, because in almost every case they look equal or better. I think Ford made a good point about the Director's Cut being an exercise in design, but there's even something about that, working only with what you've got in a restoration, versus essentially making a reproduction of certain parts, that appeals to me. Not like it's cheating or something, but I almost prefer the authentic flaws that come with the real history and limitations of the work as opposed to a perfect reproduction. Like, if the footage is lost or bad, like is the case in many classic films, that's just the way it is. On another level though, that's obviously stupid, particularly in a medium where that can be remedied (maybe whether that's true or not is the real argument). I don't know, there's an invisible line it crosses to me where I guess I actually prefer a curator reassembling what's left of a work, almost as a historical document, than even the original artist repainting the piece, even if one argues they're simply finishing it, years later. I guess what I'm really discovering is how much I separate the art from the artist. :ganishka:

Offline Eluvei

Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #102 on: December 23, 2016, 07:03:53 PM »
From my experience, the thing that seems to really bother people about the Final Cut is that it's been color corrected to look a lot more teal/bluish, while the original and the DC have a more neutral color scheme. I personally prefer the new look, but it's the first version I watched.

Offline Ruhe Strom

  • Of the World
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: 10
  • Gender: Male
  • 'Moon Pie... what a time to be alive."
Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #103 on: December 24, 2016, 12:09:35 AM »
the Star Wars theatrical vs. special/later releases

I was hoping to get through at least one conversation about movie alterations without mention of those travesties. The year of their release was also the year of my birth, and to this day I have never seen the original theatrical cuts. It feels like I'm missing an organ. One day I'll be able to appreciate all the beautiful miniature work in the space battles without fear of a jarring CG alien popping up for a musical number. It would have looked better if they'd just stuck in a musical sequence from The Muppet Show.  :mozgus:

Also, is it some sort of rite of passage for all fathers to show their sons Blade Runner?
To this day I don't think I've met a woman that genuinely likes the movie...

Better still, here's some side by side comparisons of the changes and new shots (SPOILERS obviously):

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4589

Wow, those differences are WAY bigger than I expected. That sky shot at the end of the DC seems like it would be incredibly jarring. I'd definitely like to play the two different versions of the Zhora scene side by side though. The neon lights achieved a sort of pulsating effect when filmed at a certain frame rate, so I wonder how the retouch affects them in that scene, since they're so prominent.

From my experience, the thing that seems to really bother people about the Final Cut is that it's been color corrected to look a lot more teal/bluish, while the original and the DC have a more neutral color scheme. I personally prefer the new look, but it's the first version I watched.

The blue tint adds a very cold artificiality to it, which suits the general tone of the film I feel, while also complementing and contrasting with the ethereal golds and oranges of Tyrell's building. But the neutral look sounds like it could bring out all the vivid neon and tonal variety that world would have... it seems I may have to hunt down a copy of this Director's Cut.
Look! The East is burning red!

Offline Salem

Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #104 on: April 10, 2017, 02:15:46 PM »
https://youtu.be/F7ayGFHGqeQ

Among other things Cate is playing Hela and very likely will be "death" of the MCU.  Which means it's romance time for Thanos and his ambitions.  This film will tie up significantly with Avengers 3. 

Offline Johnstantine

Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #105 on: April 10, 2017, 07:01:48 PM »
https://youtu.be/F7ayGFHGqeQ

Among other things Cate is playing Hela and very likely will be "death" of the MCU.  Which means it's romance time for Thanos and his ambitions.  This film will tie up significantly with Avengers 3.

Not sure why this is in this thread. I think it looks fun and can't wait to see it.

Offline IncantatioN

  • Falconian
  • Of the Abyss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3398
  • Karma: 59
  • Gender: Male
Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #106 on: October 06, 2017, 06:43:42 PM »
Pacific Rim 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EhiLLOhVis

It looks cool but something is off ... reminiscent of Michael Bay's Transformers line of movies. Maybe it's the way the camera pans or angles sideways or the fluidity/ choreography of the action. The jaegers in this one look sophisticated, clean, less robust or mechanical.
At the end of time, a moment will come when just one man remains. Then the moment will pass. Man will be gone. There will be nothing to show that we were ever here... but stardust.

Offline Skeleton

  • Falconian
  • Of the Nexus
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • Karma: 71
  • Gender: Male
Re: Movies to ???
« Reply #107 on: Today at 03:37:20 AM »

I donít know anything about the movie, but telling from the poster I assume itís a combination of Predator and Poltergeist 3.