Which Version Should I Watch Thread

[Prequel]

Let's make this a general thread about this question.

I'll start.




The film is: The Last Emperor (1987)

TV (DC) version is almost 1 hour longer.

A user on IMDb says:

I will agree that the Theatrical version has a much better almost lyrical pacing but the longer version goes more in depth for the story and characters.
I like both versions and would be hard pressed if I ever had to pick definitively between the two!

This seems quite a tough choice. I'm not very sure about longer cuts except, obviously, LOTR. I generally think films aren't the best medium for an ideally long storytelling, but a longer version doesn't automatically mean a better film. So, which one do you suggest and why? No spoilers please. This will be my first watch.

[AdamH]

I haven't seen that film but, funnily enough, I was just asking people what version of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid to watch.

[Gershwin]

An extended version currently available on DVD runs 218 minutes; cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and director Bernardo Bertolucci have confirmed that this version was created for television and does not represent a "director's cut".

In other words, the extended version is just a random stretching of the film, just for commercial reasons. I'd recommend watching the shorter, theatrical release.

[Prequel]

An extended version currently available on DVD runs 218 minutes; cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and director Bernardo Bertolucci have confirmed that this version was created for television and does not represent a "director's cut".

In other words, the extended version is just a random stretching of the film, just for commercial reasons. I'd recommend watching the shorter, theatrical release.

Oh. I've "read" exact same thing on IMDb, but seeing DC in it I didn't really read the rest and thought the opposite. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Gershwin]

Well, just my interpretation, of course ...

In this case, I'd watch the shorter version first, and if you feel like "this story is great, need more of this!" you could always watch the longer TV version later. That's what I would do, anyhow. But I haven't seen the extended version, so I can't tell for sure.

[Prequel]

What about A Fistful of Dollars? I'm watching it right now in English, it's been 30 mins and I feel uncomfortable. Lips are in synch but language feels artificial. Not so much emotions.

I know it's dubbed, but in "original" Eastwood is dubbed. I also heard that the cast also have people who speak other languages like Spanish. I guess those also are dubbed in original? Don't you think this is a problem? Is this feeling just because of English or is it the film?

[Gershwin]

According to its Wikipedia page: "Similar to other Italian films shot at the time, all footage was filmed silent and the dialogue and sound effects were dubbed over in post-production." So there are only dubbed versions available ...

[metaller]

In the nearish future, I want to watch Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage.
What is the verdict: Would you guys watch the theatrical cut or go for the TV version?

[funkybusiness]

In the nearish future, I want to watch Bergman's Scenes From A Marriage.
What is the verdict: Would you guys watch the theatrical cut or go for the TV version?

TV version but watch it an episode at a time. Take a day or so between episodes. It helps a lot. (kind of spoiler: it is a disintegration of a relationship over the course of several(?) years but each episodes takes place within a smaller time frame with the time skips being between the episodes. I don't think I'm doing a very good job describing it but just take my advice. Take a break between episodes.)

[brokenface]

3 hours of relationship disintegration seemed sufficient to me!

edit: but yes I could see Funky's point that it might be more palatable split into episodes..

[Gershwin]

These were three really long hours indeed. Not my favourite Bergman.

[joachimt]

We've discussed about this a while ago. Kind of a similar thread to this one:
viewtopic.php?t=937&1/#new

[agrimorfee]

Let me answer a question before it is asked.
If confronted with Criterion's excellent package of Fanny & Alexander, start with the theatrical film first...but then definitely watch the 5 hour miniseries one episode at a time later. There are some great additional sequences that should not be missed.

[burneyfan]

Let me answer a question before it is asked.
If confronted with Criterion's excellent package of Fanny & Alexander, start with the theatrical film first...but then definitely watch the 5 hour miniseries one episode at a time later. There are some great additional sequences that should not be missed.

I went straight for the long version (absolutely loved it) -- I haven't gotten around to the theatrical version yet. I don't think most people watching the miniseries would be sorry or bored.

And hey...Scenes from a Marriage (TV version!) is often my favorite Bergman! There's a bit of shuffling between 2-3 titles, depending on the day, but SfaM is waaaaaaay, way up there. I devoured it in one long, devastating stretch, and it was fantastic.

Just to complicate things...

[funkybusiness]

I'm with burneyfan on Fanny and Alexander. Start with the long version. The theatrical version seems to remove the magical realism elements which make the second half so potent. Also, the pre-credits opening of episode one.

[Ralf]

What about "Dune" (1984)?

Runtime:
137 min | 190 min (special edition) | 177 min (extended cut) | 314 min (Extended Edition)

Because of the film's reputation, I've never been entirely comfortable with the idea of seeing the 190 minute version and I won't even talk about the 3.5 hour one!

[St. Gloede]

Wouldn't it be wiser to just ignore it until it goes away?

[Armoreska]

What about "Dune" (1984)?
314 min (Extended Edition)

really? such a thing is around? *drool*

[3eyes]

Blade Runner (1982): Netflix has a) Final cut (117m); b) Theatrical and director's cut (234 m) - which I guess means 2 versions @117m each. The info given about the differences is pretty much Greek to me. Alternative endings, with or without voiceovers.... ???

[funkybusiness]

I prefer the director's cut from 1991 but it should be noted the Final cut is the only one "Ridley Scott had complete artistic control" over. The theatrical cut isn't bad though.

[Armoreska]

Blade Runner (1982): Netflix has a) Final cut (117m); b) Theatrical and director's cut (234 m) - which I guess means 2 versions @117m each. The info given about the differences is pretty much Greek to me. Alternative endings, with or without voiceovers.... ???

someone's rating from IMDb

1. Final Cut
2. Workprint
3. International
4. U.S. Theatrical
5. Director's Cut

I've only seen 2 versions years apart and about 5 hours worth of documentaries later

I guess you don't expect to watch it twice, go straight for the Final Cut. That's the real dir. cut. A lot of goofs also got fixed

The International is the theatrical version with less censorship. These versions are waaaay different from the rest with the inclusion of a studio-imposed voiceover from Harrison Ford. What I've seen of it made me facepalm a lot.

What exactly makes "DC" the preferred version for you, FB?

[funkybusiness]

Probably my experience with the film has more of an impact on my perception of the different versions than anything else. I saw the director's cut first so that has something to do with it. It was the old, old dvd version. Non-anamorphic and I viewed on a crappy computer monitor. My next experience with it was a VHS (!) copy of the director's cut. Then I saw it again on blu-ray after I had watched the final cut. The original blu-ray of the Final cut was really shiny and that turned me off. Blade Runner shouldn't be a shiny film. I saw the original theatrical version on television the other day and I think it holds up. I don't think there's anything really off about it and the only complaints you could have are with the narrative elements (the ending, the implications towards the main character's background, etc.) I didn't think the voiceover was bad. I might go back to the Final cut with the new blu-ray that just came out and see if the image quality is any better. See if they toned down the shiny at all.

I haven't seen any workprint or international versions.

So I guess what it comes down to is the look and feel of the film. I think the director's cut and the theatrical cut have the right "feel" to them.

[Armoreska]

A look here
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4589
suggests the director's cut is actually the shinier version, and Final Cut looks pretty bleak

So I don't think the quality of the picture should really affect the decision. The best way to compare picture would be to get the Blade Runner Ultimate which includes all the versions

[Ralf]

The unanimous opinion seems to be that the Final Cut is the recommended version, that is also endorsed by Ridley Scott. Whereas with the director's cut, "film preservationist Michael Arick was put in charge of creating the Director's Cut." From what I remember, the people who seem to prefer the director's cut over the theatrical like the fact that it omits Deckard's voice-over. I actually have the super sexy 5 disc box. I ought to make a proper BR day!

[allisoncm]

Should I watch the 10 minute cut of The Other Side of the Wind (1972) or the whole thing?

[metaller]

On Blade Runner:
Haven't seen the Final Cut so far, but I have seen the cinematic and the 1991 Director's Cut, and that Director's Cut is one of my all time fave films (to say it exactly, it is my second favorite film). The cinematic version would perhaps just get an 8/10 from me and would be far from my top 100.
That's the difference editing can make and is an example what a negative effect bad-ish voice-overs can have on a film.
I save the Final Cut for when I'm in the right mood to get my mind blown.

[3eyes]

Thanks, all, for the BR advice.

[burneyfan]

Thanks, all, for the BR advice.

Which version did you see and what did you think?
(Or maybe you haven't actually seen it yet?)

[Pretentious Hipster]

Since a few people were just praising this here and I'm still in the mood for 20s-30s films, which version of Blackmail should I watch? So far I'm leaning towards the silent version since the lead actress was dubbed.

[metaller]

I haven't seen the silent version, but I#d defo recommend the sound version. Hitchcock did some really neat experiments with the sound recording that have since sadly been rarely used. Quite creative stuff.

[Pain]

What about Mr. Arkadin? I don't remember which version I saw the first time (was several years ago) and I think it's about time to revisit it.

[Armoreska]

What about Mr. Arkadin? I don't remember which version I saw the first time (was several years ago) and I think it's about time to revisit it.

I've been seeding all 3 of them on KAT, but only watched IIRC the Comprehensive Version
here's some reading:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048393/boa ... 9#47038959

Has anyone here seen the last year's newly restored version of Once Upon A Time In America? I'm willing to invest another 4+ hours sometime
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/boa ... /205564889

[DulceDoes]

After the discussion of Yoshishige Yoshida in <400 checks result thread I decided to watch one of his films. On KG there are two versions of Eros Plus Massacre. The original at 216 min. and a theatrical cut at 165 min. I'm inclined to get the 216 min. but I was wondering what anyone else had to say.

[Pretentious Hipster]

What's the better version of Time of the Gypsies. The 136 minute version, or the 270?

[Cippenham]

I think I watched the shorter version as did Roger Ebert

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/time- ... psies-1990

[metaller]

So, I'm reviving this thread once again.

I really bloody much want to see Mistérios de Lisboa. I heard nothing but heaps of praise and everything tells me that it will be stuff I love.

But, once again, there is a mini series version http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242503/ (clocking in at 6 episodes with 60 minutes, aka likely 330 minutes or more or real runtime) and there is the film version at "slim" 272 minutes http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1236371/. To make matters worse, I heard rumors that Ruiz himself prefered the cinematic cut.

Anyone have any opinions on this, cause at this lenght it likely will be nothing where I'll be watching both versions because of the lenght, so I would like to get to the generally "prefered" version first.

Thanks!

[cinephage]

I loved the cinematic version, and I know for a fact it was Ruiz's favorite version.
It works like a maze where the viewer gets easily lost, jumping from one story to another, whereas the series is cut into separate parts, which kind of reveals the movie's structure.

[Onderhond]

After seeing The Man with a Movie Camera yesterday, I wonder if there's a site that lists the different versions of silent films, maybe with a little sample of the soundtracks used. I saw the Cinematic Orchestra version and it was utterly dreadful, but trying to find all the info beforehand can be quite bothersome and ruins part of the fun of watching films.

Any ideas?

[PeacefulAnarchy]

For Man with a Movie Camera I watched it with the Alloy Orchestra score and thought it was terrific.

In general, I don't think there's much out there for silent film soundtrack versions.

[metaller]

I think I watched it with the Michael Nyman soundtrack originally. I just googled and youtubed some of the soundtracks (there are quite a few) and the Nyman one seems the most fitting to me, but idk...