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.
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 didn’t "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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Griffith said:
Better still, here's some side by side comparisons of the changes and new shots (SPOILERS obviously):
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.
Eluvei said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cameron's involvement with the T franchise felt promising in the beginning but I didn't pay attention to anything until I saw this trailer ... credited just as a Producer and not Director. Maaaaaaaaaaan ...
Cameron's involvement with the T franchise felt promising in the beginning but I didn't pay attention to anything until I saw this trailer ... credited just as a Producer and not Director. Maaaaaaaaaaan ...
Yeah, it's like the umpteenth sequel reset and doesn't look qualitatively different from any of the other crap that's come since T2. This franchise is more snakebit than Alien, so it doesn't matter if Cameron comes back at this point, especially in some ancillary role, unless he was directing a screenplay of his from the 80s or 90s. =)
Speaking of Alien, there's word that Ridley's still involved (somehow!!) and is currently penning a script for the 3rd prequel. Dear lord ... at this point, he needs to step back, far away. I wish he stuck to his guns with Prometheus and written the next movie in line with it. "Not enough xenomorphs? You want more, I'll give you more and scare the shit out of you" ... but it felt flat and Covenant was so bad, it made Prometheus look good.
Speaking of Alien, there's word that Ridley's still involved (somehow!!) and is currently penning a script for the 3rd prequel. Dear lord ... at this point, he needs to step back, far away. I wish he stuck to his guns with Prometheus and written the next movie in line with it. "Not enough xenomorphs? You want more, I'll give you more and scare the shit out of you" ... but it felt flat and Covenant was so bad, it made Prometheus look good.
Yeah, I read an article where he talked about the future of it under Disney and how they need to change it up, do more variety and not just repeat the formula, and the only good one is the first one, etc. Except... Aliens did all that and was a classic in its own right in a different genre, and Scott just DID a derivative soft reboot/remake basically that bordered on self-parody, but also already threw a bunch of random alien design crap against the wall too. It just came off really deluded and self-serving considering the guy is now just as complicit in what's gone wrong here (and after wisely staying away for like 30+ years). Ridley apparently hasn't learned the lesson George Lucas did the hard way and James Cameron is about to; you can't go home again.
I did enjoy the 2014 (15) Godzilla. Even though it felt like they were embarrassed to show Godzilla. King of monsters was not great. I still like the OG Japanese films the most and I’ve heard good things about shin Godzilla. This movie could be okay. I agree it won’t capture any specific audience. New comers or classic Godzilla fans.
I gave up trying to figure out these massive budget cgi shitfest "blockbusters". At times it looks like it's aware of it's ridiculous premise and trying to have some fun (that's probably just the trailer). But then you just know that it won't have the balls to go there and most of it will be super serious and needless backstory with overdramatics and maximum sentimentality with what appears to be an incredibly uninspired and dull sublot involving a little girl who can "communicate" with Kong for the humans. Bring a book.
Can't they at least commission their own original Godzilla Vs. Kong hip hop song like during the credits of every 90s movie? I mean, this gold was already available:
I feel some of the poetry is cleary lost in the English translation, though.
I'll still go watch this movie although KotM really didn't do it for me…
The only great Godzilla movie that came out recently was Shin (imo), but I'll give this one a fair chance.
That fucking music seriously... They really have no shame. I'll still watch it just out of curiosity.
I haven't watched Shin Godzilla yet, but that's the one I really wanted to see... I dig Godzilla's design in that one.
Look at how absurd, and ridiculous that entire aircraft carrier fight scene is ... that's gotta be the best freaking ship ever made to be able to carry BOTH of their weights and not topple. I honestly wish we got a movie following Godzilla underwater for 15/20 minutes like a nature documentary and having him come up to fight these monsters, then cut to Kong and go through whatever he's going through. Screw the whole human dialog and human story - eliminates bad acting/ bad dialog. I just wanna see these monsters fight, uninterrupted. I'm a bit sad I won't get to enjoy this on IMAX like the previous 2 films.
At least this time they picked trailer-music befitting of the trash that is shown on screen.
The way they tried to sell KotM as an arthouse-movie by putting Clair de Lune in the trailer was even more cringeworthy imo.
I honestly wish we got a movie following Godzilla underwater for 15/20 minutes like a nature documentary and having him come up to fight these monsters, then cut to Kong and go through whatever he's going through. Screw the whole human dialog and human story - eliminates bad acting/ bad dialog. I just wanna see these monsters fight, uninterrupted.
This is a fine idea as the real problem with these movies is the human characters are just a drag, the focus on whom sinks the dramatic action because I don't give a fuck if Godzilla kills or saves these people or not, so get them out of the way. Of course, it would be even better if they could have some good characters and dialogue actually enhance the film, but I don't think that's a realistic option here based on previous history. I'll probably check out the fight scenes just because I get HBO MAX.
So it's the long-rumored and awaited Sopranos prequel film. I put it here because it's got a great cast and pedigree, but by the same token is also in serious danger of trampling sacred ground, personified by young Michael Gandolfini taking on his late father's iconic character. He obviously looks like his dad, which helps, but can he sell young Tony and how much will the character's involvement enhance or detract from the movie in any case (worst case, it'll be like we see where AJ Soprano got it from =)? Is the story going to be compelling on its own merits or just an excuse to see young versions of old gang in a generic mobster story? See, lots of questions! It also didn't help my mood that they subtitled it "A Sopranos Story" like fucking Disney Star Wars.
Unrelated to the film's quality, but Jon Bernthal has also finally reached his destiny by literally becoming Fred Ward in this movie. I honestly wondered why they were using de-aging tech on Fred Ward ala The Irishman!
! Lets goooooooo!! 
