It was 50 years ago today and I'm so glad that QT did not recreate the actual events that took place on Cielo Drive that night. I was worried when I initially heard about the film. Charles Manson Family and Sharon Tate-Labianca Murders | Cielodrive.com
That’s not the story I read. In the story I read in a news article, McQueen and his girlfriend were supposed to go, but McQueen met a groupie and split on her for some action , as he was wont to do.
There was a subplot with noted character actor Tim Roth, who is actually in the credits but his role is designated as "<cut>". So I suspect it is as you describe: longer sequences, and yet also with entirely new ones that diverge from the main story. If you think it's self-indulgent and too long, don't watch it. I won't know until I see it. People often don't understand that movies frequently start off very, very long. I know of films that were 5 hours long in a first cut, then 4 hours after studio executive feedback, and after months of additional work and rethinking, they managed to whittle it down to 3 hours and get a preview or two, figured out what worked and what didn't, and then the final release version was a (much tighter) 2-1/2 hours. That's a normal part of the process. It's not so much a "director's cut" as it is "multiple versions." Neither of them is right, neither is wrong, it's just that each successive version got shorter. Tarantino has said before, "there's really only one 'director's cut' of my films, and that's the one you see in the theater. Anything else is just something we decided to let people see as an extra, that's all." So don't think the longer version is what the director preferred. They often understand that the long versions were too slow, didn't move the story along fast enough, and bored their audiences.
The real tip off is the first time we see Rick Dalton's home, and the camera cranes up and we see a big street sign that says CIELO DRIVE. Anybody who remembers history will know that street in Benedict Canyon in LA. And that's in the preview as well.
I don't necessarily have a problem with artists taking liberties with the historical record the in service of their vision, as Arthur Penn did in Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man. But whereas Penn used that revisionism to raise interesting questions about crime, celebrity, myth, et al., I just don't find the same depth and resonance in Tarantino. I didn't feel purged, or teary, or wiser at the end of Once Upon a Time...: just a little queasy that an audience that would have been justifiably upset to watch violence perpetrated against a woman playing Sharon Tate seemed to enjoy watching a woman playing Susan Atkins get her face beat to pulp. I say this with some sadness. After the one-two punch of Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, I had high hopes that Tarantino would become the next great American auteur. While I've still liked parts of the films he's made since then, none of them has really worked for me as a whole.
Gotcha, thanks. Well, I'd say streaming is a form of distribution. It looks like a good film but I know NOTHING about it.
I understand movies better than you think I do (despite not working in the industry like you). If something else comes out that is longer, great. If not, I’m happy with what I got. /out
You're right that streaming is a form of distribution, but I thought you believed a studio financed "Irishman" and dumped it onto Netflix because they didn't have confidence to run it in theaters. Ergo the distinction that Netflix financed it with the intention of streaming it. It'll get some theatrical run ala "Roma" to qualify for awards, though - and kick up a big stink just like "Roma" did!
I'm merely saying, sometimes making a movie longer just makes it longer. It's not necessarily better. I think it's an interesting idea, but generally when a longer version comes out, I wind up thinking, "well, that scene didn't work out. Oooo, that was great -- I wish they'd kept that one! Oh, this is new. God, this one sucks." So it kind of goes all over the map. I can't think of a case where I said, "wow, the longer version is better in every conceivable way." Sometimes you just want the meal as it's served at dinner. Maybe more meat and more potatoes and more vegetables winds up being too much.
I have to say, I am a fan of longer versions for films I really like. Maybe the best way is branching, where you can choose different versions in the opening disc menu: 1) Theatrical version; 2) TV version; 3) longer version; 4) unrated version. It's all possible -- all the studios and director has to do is to want to do it and spend the money. (The sound mix is sometimes the biggest issue.)
Oh wait. I like the extended Godfather where it’s all stitched together. But maybe not better. Just fun because it’s different.
I usually don’t like the longer versions and generally, and readily, see why it was cut. One interesting thing for me, however, was watching the longer version of That Thing You Do, one of my all time favorites. I just loved the longer version (by about 30 minutes) as it really fleshed out a couple characters and scenes. However, after thinking that would be my definitive version I found that the second viewing felt way too long and drawn out, so now I’m back to the original. I bet editing is harder than making the movie itself. Would be so difficult to cut scenes you put so much work into filming, but what an important process!
I didn’t realize there was one, and I bet it’s on my deluxe super duper blu-ray version! Glad you mentioned it.
Yes, that's a good observation. There's a terrific expression in creative writing: "first, kill your darlings." And that basically means, avoid using your favorite little moments that might not necessarily move the story and characters along. If the story works without those scenes... cut them out. Otherwise, it's just self-indulgent. The Godfather Saga was just rebuilt in HD and shown on HBO, and that took both Godfather I and Godfather II and combined them together as a single 434-minute film, and cut it together in chronological order (with some new segments and a new audio mix that made it more cohesive). I'm not aware of it coming out on Blu-ray.
If it comes out, that will be the umpteenth time I will be buying it yet again! That sounds fantastic to me.
I'm interested in seeing a longer version but I know it will be a one-and-done. I just want to see more of Tarantino's attention to detail about that time and place. More of the music and commercials and radio, and, hopefully, more Cliff ass-kicking.
I think that was AMC who did that, in chronological order with all the out takes that were previous DVD releases. I wanted it and email AMC and asked if they sold it and they said it was broadcast only. It seems like it was 1998-2002 time frame
Another random neat thing I just realized ... Rick is listening to "Snoopy vs the Red Baron" shortly before Brandy the pitbull is sicced on Tex.
No, it was done originally in 1977, then again in 1981 for NBC. Longtime Coppola collaborator Barry Malkin supervised the editing. The additional list of scenes is interesting, a lot of linking footage to tie it all together... The Godfather Saga - Wikipedia Yes, and this new conform used the updated 4K restoration done by Warner Bros. MPI. What I'm not sure about is how and where the mix was done, because getting the sound pieces to fit was problematic. But Coppola's American Zoetrope people are actually pretty well organized: they were doing computerized editing and record-keeping long before anybody else was.
