ChainsawAsh

Casino Royale = reboot.

Same as how Batman Begins isn't a prequel or a sequel - it's a new/alternative starting point for the series.

Erikstormtrooper said:

I've read somewhere that the theatrical cut of Temple of Doom featured slightly more gore during the heart removal, and that this was later toned down a bit for home video release. So does that mean the theatrical version of temple of doom was never released on video?

(This may have been imdb crap I read though.)

I know that this scene was censored in the UK, but I don't think it's ever been toned down in the US, including home video.

Yeah, the whole first shot on the GOUT - from the crawl to the Star Destroyer overhead - is actually a new transfer of a 1977 print (or something a 1977 print would have been made from) spliced into the 1993 transfer of the rest of the film.  So it's 100% original, and it looks much better than the rest of the film.

I hope so, but doubt it.  Why would they bother to make the new cliff shot, only to show it on TV a couple times?

If you signed a contract saying they can alter it, they can alter it.  That's all there is to it.

And it doesn't matter, anyway, as Lucas got to release his version 5 years later.

However, the 1973 cut should still be preserved for historical reasons.  The fact that the 1973 cut of American Graffiti and the 1971 cut of THX 1138 have never been released on home video in any format is even worse than Star Wars' situation.

Yeah, I'd assume this mega-set with all 3 versions of the film will be double-dipped in 3D sometime next year.

It's my understanding that the footage will not be finished, as Fox had to spend a bunch of money for Cameron to finish the 16 minutes he added into the extended-er cut, and they wouldn't shell out the cash to finish the deleted scenes.

msycamore said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Do you know if that re-edit is present in both versions, or only the extended cut?  If it's the latter, I have no problem with it.  If it's both, that bothers me.

Good question, I really don't know. If the theatrical cut is left alone it's certainly better but it's still annoying. For example, if there was a preserved '73 original theatrical cut of American Graffiti it would still bother me if I couldn't have the '78 re-release "Lucas restored Cut" untweaked. We now only have the tweaked '78 cut made for the 25th anniversary.

Wait - so even American Graffiti isn't the theatrical cut (CG opening shot aside)?!

...

I honestly don't know why I'm surprised.

If it has 120/240Hz settings, turn it off.  It makes everything look weightless and rubbery (in other words, fake).

Do you know if that re-edit is present in both versions, or only the extended cut?  If it's the latter, I have no problem with it.  If it's both, that bothers me.

Exactly.  The Yoda/Palpatine fight in ROTS is, in my opinion, possibly the lowest point of the entire PT.

Was that the only thing he changed, or were there others?

WheresBlackhawk said:

Remember: the Jedi ONLY use the force for knowledge and defense.  During the Clone Wars they would help with strategy, but I don't think they would lead assaults.

This is why I feel a distinction must be made between Jedi Masters (like Yoda) - "knowledge and defense" - and Jedi Knights (Obi-Wan), who actually do fight, but don't use the Force itself to harm others (as Sith do).

Basically, Jedi Masters don't fight at all, and don't have lightsabers, while Jedi Knights use lightsabers for fighting, but still don't use the Force itself for attack purposes.

American Graffiti, in my opinion, is a borderline case.  Only one shot was significantly altered.  It's enough (in my opinion) to bitch about, though, as it clearly separates it from the theatrical version.

Same with the CGI replacement in Raiders (the canyon shot) - if that had been the version released on DVD (it wasn't), and if that is the version released on Blu-Ray (I bet it is), I'll refuse to buy it.

But the erasing of the reflection on the glass (on the DVD) doesn't bother me enough to say it's not original.  It's a bit troubling, but not that big of a deal, like the floor replacement on the Aliens Blu-Ray.

I didn't remember the Godfather II flashbacks being so in-depth in the novel.  Which is to say, I remember that about 1/2 (maybe less) of the flashbacks seen in the movie were present in the novel, the rest being invented (by Puzo) for the second film.  I could be wrong about that, though - it's been a while since I read the book.

The "present day" stuff in Godfather II was completely movie-original, though.

That's funny, I thought 4x15-4x18, all-inclusive, was the weakest run of the entire series.  And the miniseries through 1x13 (i.e. season 1) was the absolute strongest run of the series, with the possible exception of the New Caprica arc (that is, 2x19-3x05, including the "Resistance" webisodes).

I agree, which is why I was never too terribly bothered by it in the "theatrical cut" on the 2003 DVDs.

But I'm glad that the shots are back to the way they were in 1979 in the Blu-Ray theatrical cut.

The Godfather Part II isn't a prequel.  A prequel has to be entirely set before the events of that which it's ... erm ... prequeling (hey, I just made up a new word).  Godfather II uses the young Vito story to parallel Michael's story, which is the sequel.

Look at it this way - if ROTJ had included flashbacks to a young Anakin, detailing his fall to the dark side, would we consider that to be a prequel?  I don't think so.

The first two and a half seasons of Battlestar are brilliant.  The latter half of season 3 falters a bit, then season 4 is a mixed bag, with the exception of the mutiny arc (which is brilliant) and the finale (which I loved, fuck everyone who says different*).

*not really, I understand the criticisms, I just disagree with most of them

Sluggo - you're thinking of Episode III, not the Clone Wars theatrical film.

And if I'm not mistaken, the Episode II DVD is the DLP theatrical release with the Anakin/Padme scene in the Lars garage extended even beyond that.  Is this correct?

I checked on DVDEmpire.com, and it appears that The Clone Wars DVDs are 2.39:1, not 16:9.

Droids and Ewoks took, what, 4 episodes apiece and cut them together to make a feature-length "movie" with completely re-done soundtracks?  I know that the vast majority of either series hasn't been released on disc.

Not sure about the Ewok movies - I know the title of the first one was changed.

Young Indy has been recut into feature-length "episodes" without the bookends.

Clone Wars was recut into two hour-long "films" (this I'm actually okay with).

Isn't The Clone Wars original, with the exception of the framing (aired 16:9, DVD/Blu 2.39:1)?

And I don't think Crystal Skull was altered for the Blu-Ray.

Haha, yeah - I figured, why not?  I may not have all my ideas fleshed out yet, but I can contribute to others' ideas - and maybe get inspired by them as well.

You'll be seeing more of me around here in the near future...

ImperialFighter said:

So I take it you've compared both the pre-'Quadrilogy' DVD version and 'Quadrilogy' DVD version against your Blu-ray version on the same equipment/settings to make this judgement then?

If that's the only way to really tell, I just don't get why the slight difference in color timing is that huge of an issue.

To me, color timing only becomes an issue when it's at Blade Runner Final Cut or 2004 Star Wars levels of change.  This set is nowhere near that.

As someone who's in school for film editing right now, we're told that the general rule of thumb is to follow the "rule of three" - that is, it's generally most aesthetically pleasing when things happen in threes.

Take the Falcon approach to Yavin IV - in the 1977 cut, you have three (I think) shots of it approaching in space.  Once it's in the atmosphere, it's considered a different location, so the rule resets.

However, we're also taught that such "rules" are guidelines, not rules, and things such as this are more governed by what feels right, or good, than the numbers themselves.

But once you start thinking about the "rule of three," you'll see it everywhere, especially in editing.

--edit--

And TheBoost gave a much better answer than I - it has to serve the story first, above all else.

doubleofive said:

I never liked that Obi-wan's outfit in ANH became the Official Jedi Uniform even though Owen wears the same thing. Have I said that already?

I agree, but I also don't think there should be an "official Jedi uniform."  The only uniform any Jedi should wear would be whatever uniform the Knights (yes, I'm making a distinction between Knights and Masters) wear while fighting in the Clone Wars.