Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

> I disagree on all 3 of those (the originals are superior), and also 
find we
> get into a lot of revisionism when it comes to altering content later on.
> Are you sure that's how Cameron wanted his films?  Or did he decide that
> later, once they were successful and he knew he had the clout to 
needlessly
> expand what was once tightly edited?  What about George Lucas? 
Didn't his
> regret at having Han Solo fire first come later?  Didn't Spielberg 
express
> regret about men carrying guns in E.T., years later?  That's revisionism,
> and I don't abide by it - that's why I say "a film the way it was 
released"
> (and under ideal projection conditions).  There are a couple of 
exceptions
> to that, where the studios truly butchered an otherwise great film to the
> point of mediocrity (Blade Runner, Brazil), and the director's cuts 
restore
> an *original* vision without revisionism, but mostly I don't care for
> so-called "director's cuts", which are for the most "revised films".

Quite surprised, really, that you found the originals to Aliens, The 
Abyss and T2 "superior" to the extended versions. In these 3 versions 
especially, I found the extended versions had much more depth and helped 
fill in some of the gaps - as well fulfilling the intention of the 
director. Cameron did not revisit/revision these films - the scenes 
added were done during the original production.

On the other hand, I 100% agree with you about Lucas and Speilberg - 
they are/were revisionist (remember the "special edition" of Close 
Encounters?!). And the silly release with new digital effects that Lucas 
did with Star Wars? These 2 people specifically took perfectionism to a 
new low. In the case of Speilberg (and others) they essentially tried to 
"change" the story line. The directors I spoke of tried to "enhance" the 
story line.

However, enough rambling, we're off topic here - this subject is worthy 
of its own thread...


>
> Having said all of that, I don't dismiss your point entirely.  I know 
that
> many films aren't released as the director truly intended.  But this is
> well-known and worked around by most directors.  It's not uncommon 
for art
> of all kinds to be compromised by outside factors and factions, and it's
> just the nature of things.  For the most part, great art still 
remains great
> art, and the rest of it remains crap.  :)  I think most directors 
probably
> get what they want for the most part and aren't quite as restricted 
as many
> of us imagine.


Mike Kohary wrote:
> "Cujoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > Fortunately for me, that's not the argument I use.  I'm a purist - I
> >
> > want to
> > > see a film the way it was first released.  It's that simple.
>
> Directors'
>
> > > intentions mean little to me, whether that be about displaying their
>
> film
>
> > > full-screen on TV a la Kubrick, or wholesale revision a la Lucas.
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > I don't want to get too far off subject AND I realize that the
> > discussion has been about aspect ratio, but...
> >
> > I don't think we can use the term "a film the way it was released" as a
> > guideline.
>
>
> That's the short version, but let me elaborate a bit and put it another way:
> I want to see a film the way it would be displayed in an imaginary theater
> where everything is ideal - ideal aspect ratio, ideal brightness, ideal
> color saturation, etc etc etc all as intended by the director for theatrical
> display.
>
>
> > If you want to include the film's "content", it's not that
> > simple.
> > Many films original theatrical release was not what the director wanted
> > due to Hollywood's 2 hour "limitation" and other factors such as
>
> censorship.
>
> > Jim Cameron's long versions of "Aliens", "The Abyss", and even
> > "Terminator 2" were much better than the original theatrical release.
>
>
> I disagree on all 3 of those (the originals are superior), and also find we
> get into a lot of revisionism when it comes to altering content later on.
> Are you sure that's how Cameron wanted his films?  Or did he decide that
> later, once they were successful and he knew he had the clout to needlessly
> expand what was once tightly edited?  What about George Lucas?  Didn't his
> regret at having Han Solo fire first come later?  Didn't Spielberg express
> regret about men carrying guns in E.T., years later?  That's revisionism,
> and I don't abide by it - that's why I say "a film the way it was released"
> (and under ideal projection conditions).  There are a couple of exceptions
> to that, where the studios truly butchered an otherwise great film to the
> point of mediocrity (Blade Runner, Brazil), and the director's cuts restore
> an *original* vision without revisionism, but mostly I don't care for
> so-called "director's cuts", which are for the most "revised films".
>
> Having said all of that, I don't dismiss your point entirely.  I know that
> many films aren't released as the director truly intended.  But this is
> well-known and worked around by most directors.  It's not uncommon for art
> of all kinds to be compromised by outside factors and factions, and it's
> just the nature of things.  For the most part, great art still remains great
> art, and the rest of it remains crap.  :)  I think most directors probably
> get what they want for the most part and aren't quite as restricted as many
> of us imagine.
>
>
> > You can also include many more movies in this category (Leone's "Once
> > Upon a Time in America" for example).
> > I realize that this 2 hour thing has been greatly relaxed in recent
> > years, but the point is: I'm not sure we can use the original release as
> > gospel anymore. What with extended versions (I know, some are just crap)
> > and new scenes (e.g., Lord of the Rings)and deleted scenes, etcetcetc...
>
>
> The LOTR trilogy is a good example of films that are conceived in two ways
> simultaneously, in a theatrical version and an expanded version, and all
> versions are made readily available.  That's exactly how it should be.  My
> complaint is when films are altered, and then only the altered versions are
> made available, a la Kubrick and by all reports Lucas.
>
> Mike