Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Results), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Vinyan, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

Which Version Should I Watch Thread

Prequel
Posts: 91
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
Contact:

Which Version Should I Watch Thread

#1

Post by Prequel » July 17th, 2013, 12:42 am

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.
Last edited by Prequel on July 17th, 2013, 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

AdamH
Site Admin
Posts: 12353
Joined: May 05, 2011
Contact:

#2

Post by AdamH » July 17th, 2013, 12:44 am

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.
Talking Images, the iCM forum podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/3GhRXnb6OzOnfae2Uvkvus

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#3

Post by Gershwin » July 17th, 2013, 12:46 am

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.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

Prequel
Posts: 91
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
Contact:

#4

Post by Prequel » July 17th, 2013, 12:53 am

Gershwin on Jul 16 2013, 06:46:42 PM wrote:
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.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#5

Post by Gershwin » July 17th, 2013, 12:58 pm

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. :)
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

Prequel
Posts: 91
Joined: Jun 09, 2013
Contact:

#6

Post by Prequel » July 18th, 2013, 3:12 pm

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?

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#7

Post by Gershwin » July 18th, 2013, 4:39 pm

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 ...
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
metaller
Donator
Posts: 2856
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
Contact:

#8

Post by metaller » July 18th, 2013, 6:06 pm

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?
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#9

Post by funkybusiness » July 18th, 2013, 6:10 pm

metaller on Jul 18 2013, 12:06:05 PM wrote: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.)
Last edited by funkybusiness on July 18th, 2013, 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13535
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#10

Post by brokenface » July 18th, 2013, 6:12 pm

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..
Last edited by brokenface on July 18th, 2013, 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gershwin
Donator
Posts: 7118
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Leiden, NL
Contact:

#11

Post by Gershwin » July 18th, 2013, 6:13 pm

These were three really long hours indeed. Not my favourite Bergman.
RokP 250

Profiles: Untappd - Last.fm - iCM

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 31741
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#12

Post by joachimt » July 18th, 2013, 6:14 pm

We've discussed about this a while ago. Kind of a similar thread to this one:
viewtopic.php?t=937&1/#new
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

agrimorfee
Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 05, 2013
Contact:

#13

Post by agrimorfee » July 19th, 2013, 1:38 pm

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.
Last edited by agrimorfee on July 19th, 2013, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
burneyfan
Donator
Posts: 5945
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

#14

Post by burneyfan » July 19th, 2013, 1:51 pm

agrimorfee on Jul 19 2013, 07:38:42 AM wrote: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... :P
Last edited by burneyfan on July 19th, 2013, 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#15

Post by funkybusiness » July 19th, 2013, 8:23 pm

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
Posts: 160
Joined: Mar 27, 2013
Contact:

#16

Post by Ralf » July 20th, 2013, 3:34 pm

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!

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10854
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17

Post by St. Gloede » July 20th, 2013, 3:38 pm

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

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11870
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#18

Post by Armoreska » July 20th, 2013, 7:34 pm

Ralf on Jul 20 2013, 09:34:29 AM wrote:What about "Dune" (1984)?
314 min (Extended Edition)
really? such a thing is around? *drool*
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6975
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#19

Post by 3eyes » July 20th, 2013, 10:36 pm

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.... ???
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#20

Post by funkybusiness » July 20th, 2013, 10:41 pm

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.

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11870
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#21

Post by Armoreska » July 20th, 2013, 11:08 pm

3eyes on Jul 20 2013, 04:36:17 PM wrote: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?
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
funkybusiness
Donator
Posts: 10833
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Contact:

#22

Post by funkybusiness » July 20th, 2013, 11:16 pm

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.
Last edited by funkybusiness on July 20th, 2013, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11870
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#23

Post by Armoreska » July 20th, 2013, 11:35 pm

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
Last edited by Armoreska on July 20th, 2013, 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

Ralf
Posts: 160
Joined: Mar 27, 2013
Contact:

#24

Post by Ralf » July 21st, 2013, 1:26 am

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!
Last edited by Ralf on July 21st, 2013, 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

allisoncm
Posts: 16565
Joined: May 11, 2011
Contact:

#25

Post by allisoncm » July 21st, 2013, 2:01 am

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

User avatar
metaller
Donator
Posts: 2856
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
Contact:

#26

Post by metaller » July 21st, 2013, 10:09 am

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.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6975
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#27

Post by 3eyes » July 28th, 2013, 10:50 pm

Thanks, all, for the BR advice.
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
burneyfan
Donator
Posts: 5945
Joined: Jun 23, 2011
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

#28

Post by burneyfan » July 29th, 2013, 1:41 pm

3eyes on Jul 28 2013, 04:50:00 PM wrote: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?)

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#29

Post by Pretentious Hipster » August 9th, 2013, 8:12 am

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.
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

User avatar
metaller
Donator
Posts: 2856
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
Contact:

#30

Post by metaller » August 9th, 2013, 8:15 am

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.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

Pain
Posts: 2177
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Contact:

#31

Post by Pain » August 9th, 2013, 8:29 am

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.

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 11870
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#32

Post by Armoreska » August 23rd, 2013, 4:09 pm

Pain on Aug 9 2013, 02:29:27 AM wrote: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
Image
currently working towards a vegan/low waste world + thru such film lists (besides TV): 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Luis Bunuel, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Daviddoes
Posts: 1262
Joined: Aug 06, 2012
Contact:

#33

Post by Daviddoes » September 14th, 2013, 10:09 pm

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.

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#34

Post by Pretentious Hipster » October 27th, 2013, 2:39 pm

What's the better version of Time of the Gypsies. The 136 minute version, or the 270?
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13300
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#35

Post by Cippenham » October 27th, 2013, 4:46 pm

I think I watched the shorter version as did Roger Ebert

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/time- ... psies-1990
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
metaller
Donator
Posts: 2856
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
Contact:

#36

Post by metaller » March 29th, 2014, 10:00 pm

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!
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 4046
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Contact:

#37

Post by cinephage » April 11th, 2014, 9:34 am

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.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4266
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#38

Post by Onderhond » April 17th, 2014, 6:21 am

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?

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#39

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 17th, 2014, 6:24 am

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.

User avatar
metaller
Donator
Posts: 2856
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
Contact:

#40

Post by metaller » April 17th, 2014, 8:48 am

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... :shrug:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

Post Reply