 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Workprint” has a specific definition: it is a copy of the footage that the editors work on.
It can be rolled over with your wheeled desk chair, there can be scratches on the frame, it can get caught in the Steenbeck and get all crinkled, it doesn't matter because it will never be seen by anybody but the people working on the film. There will be splices everywhere, areas where the splicing tape is coming off, and grease pen marks to denote where wipes and lap dissolves should occur.
After an assembly is achieved, it is sent to the lab for conforming, which they do based the frame numbers on the side of the film footage.
(obviously, this process has changed because hardly anybody ever edits on film anymore)
But the “workprint’ of Blade Runner is not what was screened at Duart, and not what is on the “Final Cut” set; that's a specifically struck 70mm preview print. It is called “workprint” because it was an earlier version of the film, but the only reason why it was in anything even remotely presentable is because there was a copy struck for an engagement and screened twice.*
The actual workprint of Blade Runner, or Alien, or most films for that matter, are most likely long lost, and wouldn't really be easily playable if they were; they have probably disintegrated. Most of the time when you see workprint footage on a DVD or Blu-ray special feature, it was sourced from a video reference copy, and not the film itself.
* — The “Director's Cut” of Blade Runner isn't a “director's cut” as defined by the D.G.A. either… it seems that this film has a chronic nomenclature problem. There should be an after school special or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And surprisingly enough, neither is the 'Director's Cut' for ALIEN.
This is also true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
* — The “Director's Cut” of Blade Runner isn't a “director's cut” as defined by the D.G.A. either… it seems that this film has a chronic nomenclature problem. There should be an after school special or something.
The actual Director's Cut of Blade Runner is according to Ridley Scott what is now known as the "Final Cut", the previous director's cut was merely okayed by Scott (since it was more to his vision than the theatrical cut).
And while we're at it: the actual director's cut of ALIEN is, also according to Scott, actually the theatrical cut. That is the real director's cut. The home video releases of the "director's cut" of ALIEN have added some scenes, and Scott was involved and allowed the use of "director's cut" for marketing purposes and so there could be an expanded version of ALIEN, but he has repeatedly stated that his preferred cut and the actual director's cut for ALIEN is actually the original theatrical cut. (And I can see why; I like the theatrical more as well.)
The director's cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, on the other hand, is really the director's cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, a vast improvement over the theatrical cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC Cameron had the same issue with calling the longer version of The Abyss The Director's Cut. He had final cut on the theatrical version, so that was The Director's Cut too.
Zarquon knows what you'd call the various versions of Close Encounters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC Cameron had the same issue with calling the longer version of The Abyss The Director's Cut. He had final cut on the theatrical version, so that was The Director's Cut too.
James Cameron has often said that those films that are available as Special Editions — Aliens, The Abyss, T2 — are called thus and not “director's cuts” for that specific reason; the theatrical cut is his director's cut, they aren't for general audiences, but are specifically for people who want to go deeper.
The director's cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, on the other hand, is really the director's cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, a vast improvement over the theatrical cut.
An important exception — the theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven doesn't make much dramatic sense, but the extended version explains why the characters do what they do.
Zarquon knows what you'd call the various versions of Close Encounters.
What I have usually seen:
Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Theatrical Version (1977)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Special Edition (1980)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Collector's Edition (1998)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Cameron has often said that those films that are available as Special Editions — Aliens, The Abyss, T2 — are called thus and not “director's cuts” for that specific reason; the theatrical cut is his director's cut, they aren't for general audiences, but are specifically for people who want to go deeper.
However he has since gone on to claim the Special Edition of Aliens is his preferred version of the film, and what they would have released had Multiplexes been more widespread in 1986.
As much as I love the scenes on the colony, they dilute the mystery of when the Sulaco shows up. Other than that, give me the automated machine guns!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 7, 2018 - 10:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thgil
(Member)
|
James Cameron has often said that those films that are available as Special Editions — Aliens, The Abyss, T2 — are called thus and not “director's cuts” for that specific reason; the theatrical cut is his director's cut, they aren't for general audiences, but are specifically for people who want to go deeper.
However he has since gone on to claim the Special Edition of Aliens is his preferred version of the film, and what they would have released had Multiplexes been more widespread in 1986.
As much as I love the scenes on the colony, they dilute the mystery of when the Sulaco shows up.
Is there any mystery though? I mean, it's called Aliens, is a sequel to Alien, and the main character is Ripley. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Cameron has often said that those films that are available as Special Editions — Aliens, The Abyss, T2 — are called thus and not “director's cuts” for that specific reason; the theatrical cut is his director's cut, they aren't for general audiences, but are specifically for people who want to go deeper.
However he has since gone on to claim the Special Edition of Aliens is his preferred version of the film, and what they would have released had Multiplexes been more widespread in 1986.
As much as I love the scenes on the colony, they dilute the mystery of when the Sulaco shows up.
Is there any mystery though? I mean, it's called Aliens, is a sequel to Alien, and the main character is Ripley.
Not so much mystery as suspense or anticipation in terms of having to wait to see the planet and some xenomorph action. I agree that the extended cut of Aliens is pretty much perfect, except that it would be much stronger without that suspense-relieving colony scene like in the theatrical version. Great scene on its own, but the film is better off without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As much as I love the scenes on the colony, they dilute the mystery of when the Sulaco shows up.
Yes, it's a different scene when it is so preceded, I definitely agree, but think it doesn't not work so much as it works in a different way. It is not a mysterious, slow reveal, where we imagine what must have happened. It's a tragedy. We've seen the life of the place, a deliberately unsterile presentation of a base in a sci-fi program, very human.
And they're all just gone.
A L I E N S , in its theatrical cut, is a taut suspense-action movie, and I think the way people should be introduced to it. There are few movies that come close to what it sustains so well, for so long.
The extended version is a less taut, more dramatic, suspense-action movie, where Ripley's more personal loss of Amanda, and our loss of a family and a community, quickly but well introduced to us, play into the films morality questions surrounding not just getting away, but even destroying the species. It's the one I watch more frequently, but I wouldn't start with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 7, 2018 - 4:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thgil
(Member)
|
James Cameron has often said that those films that are available as Special Editions — Aliens, The Abyss, T2 — are called thus and not “director's cuts” for that specific reason; the theatrical cut is his director's cut, they aren't for general audiences, but are specifically for people who want to go deeper.
However he has since gone on to claim the Special Edition of Aliens is his preferred version of the film, and what they would have released had Multiplexes been more widespread in 1986.
As much as I love the scenes on the colony, they dilute the mystery of when the Sulaco shows up.
Is there any mystery though? I mean, it's called Aliens, is a sequel to Alien, and the main character is Ripley.
Not so much mystery as suspense or anticipation in terms of having to wait to see the planet and some xenomorph action. I agree that the extended cut of Aliens is pretty much perfect, except that it would be much stronger without that suspense-relieving colony scene like in the theatrical version. Great scene on its own, but the film is better off without it.
It works better with the scene for me. You get a tease of what's to come and the contrast between the pristine colony full of people and what the Ripley and gang find actually heightens the suspense. Where is everybody? Oh, you have to see it to believe it...
To each his own though. I'm just glad both cuts are legitimately available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 7, 2018 - 8:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeyl
(Member)
|
- The extended version is a less taut, more dramatic, suspense-action movie, where Ripley's more personal loss of Amanda, and our loss of a family and a community, quickly but well introduced to us, play into the films morality questions surrounding not just getting away, but even destroying the species. It's the one I watch more frequently, but I wouldn't start with it.
I also think the extended edition does a better job at establishing a relationship with Ripley and Newt. Not just the fact that Ripley was a mother who just lost her daughter, but showing how these two characters are so much alike. Both of them are survivors who lost their families and way of life all thanks to the company and the Xenos. Now you could surmise that in the theatrical cut, but seeing what Newt lost and how she ended up when the marines arrive to me is far more gratifying in a story telling manner.
And just to put this out there, I can't watch the theatrical edition of the film if it doesn't include that short exchange between Ripley and Hicks at the end. I know some fans don't like the scene whether it was the acting or that Ripley wouldn't stop for a short chat, but I give it a pass because it gave us a nice moment for Ripley to say goodbye to Hicks knowing that she may not survive. It added a lot to her likability knowing that even though she's dead set on rescuing Newt, she hasn't forgotten how Hicks. I LOVE these characters!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The director's cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, on the other hand, is really the director's cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, a vast improvement over the theatrical cut.
An important exception — the theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven doesn't make much dramatic sense, but the extended version explains why the characters do what they do.
Yes. when I watched the theatrical cut of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, I thought it was OK, but lacking... as if it was a missed opportunity for a really good movie. It had some moments, but it also had some issues. The characters' motivation was at times unclear, and the movie felt disjointed. When I saw the director's cut (on the recommendation of someone I knew, who advised me it would be a much better film) I was astonished how much better Scott's original cut was. It catapulted Kingdom of Heaven from so-so to one of Scott's best films, and belonged on the "best picture" list of its year.
The fact that there were studio suits out there who thought that shortening the movie by 45 minutes would be an "improvement" because audiences have low attention spans just goes to show they know or care little to nothing about movies. KINGOM OF HEAVEN is an epic, on scale in length, spirit, and ambition to classic Hollywood epics, like EL CID or BEN HUR... you don't improve these movies by cutting them down to two hours. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems that this film has a chronic nomenclature problem. There should be an after school special or something.
Well, it does come from the studio that seems to think a 4-movie set of ALIEN films is a quadrilogy. Ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
