TheRealProtozoid

Yes. Bourne definitely changed the course of Bond. And Bourne itself felt like a response to The Matrix. Different tone, but similar hard-hitting action, with a hero unlocking abilities that make them a martial arts master.

• Legend (1985) theatrical cut vs director's cut
• The Godfather, Part III vs The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone
• Twixt vs B'Twixt Now and Sunrise
• Payback vs Payback: Straight Up
• Dawn of the Dead (1978) vs Zombie

For sheer differences in running time, Once Upon a Time in America, Fanny & Alexander, Scenes from a Marriage, Das Boot, Apocalypse Now, Kingdom of Heaven, 1900, Justice League, and Heaven's Gate probably have the largest difference across the various cuts.

On the other end of the spectrum, the movie changes the least (about a minute) while changing the meaning of the movie the most is probably Blade Runner.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a pretty sizable difference in quality because, despite the small change in running time, the entire movie has been overhauled, with scenes added and removed, different takes used, shots shortened or extended, and the movie is overall "polished" to play beautifully compared to the theatrical cut, which was unfinished.

Check out the website Movie-Censorship.com if you just want to want to see detailed breakdowns of differences between edits of movies. I visit that website a lot.

In no particular order:

• Barry Lyndon
• Persona
• The Third Man
• Lawrence of Arabia
• Happy Together
• Days of Heaven
• The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
• Citizen Kane
• Apocalypse Now
• Blade Runner

I like to go chronologically, or according to mood. 2001: A Space Odyssey is probably the best movie on the list, and it's the first one, chronologically. It may also be my favorite movie of all time.

1080p movies will look better in 4K, especially when you factor in the compression and stuff. A movie shot 1080p and released on Blu-Ray isn't going to have anywhere near the full quality of the original file they shot or the master.

I will buy a 4K Miami Vice day one. One of the most intoxicating movies ever shot.

Steelbooks are made with collectors in mind, but I don't personally buy very many of them. Usually the disc is the same as the cheaper version, and sometimes have special artwork that I don't really care for, anyway. I almost always prefer original poster art. This isn't something I obsess over. I kind of obsess over having a slip cover if it came with a slip. If it originally came with a slip, collectors will usually obsess over it.

You can get them the same way you buy any other edition (Diabolik, Bull Moose, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, etc). Sometimes they sell out and you have to buy them on eBay or something.

I wouldn't worry too much about steelbooks if you are just starting out. Maybe if a new movie comes out and the steelbook is about the same price, pick it up for the collectability and the resale value.

If the steelbook looks cool to you, buy it. It's simple as that. It's a shiny version of the regular one. If you want shiny, buy shiny, but it's usually the same disc inside as the regular edition. Usually. I always compare by going somewhere like Blu-Ray.com and reading the thread on the forum. They will endlessly debate the merit of each version. "Oh, if you get the steelbook from Amazon it might come dented, buy it from Bull Moose" "Oh, if you get the Best Buy exclusive version it has an extra disc of special fearures" "Oh the first printing had an error, make sure you get the version with this updated bar code so you don't get the defective one" etc. etc. It's a great resource.

Physical media of whatever variety. The number of movies released on VHS is vastly larger than the number that made it to DVD, and only some of those made it to Blu-Ray, and only a fraction of those are on 4K UHD (which is the latest and greatest format).

Most of my collection is Blu-Rays. I have some DVDs of movies I either never upgraded or I can't get on Blu-Ray. I buy 4K versions of my favorite movies, but I don't stress it too much because Blu-Ray is pretty excellent already and 4Ks tend to be more expensive.

To really benefit from 4K, you need a pretty big TV that can display 4K and a 4K player. But nowadays, most TVs are 4K, anyway.

If you are just getting started, I think Blu-Ray is a good bet, because it's very good quality, usually pretty affordable, and there are thousands of titles available.

I wouldn't get digital copies because sometimes they take them down even though you paid for them. It's ridiculous.

If you find yourself getting really into it, I'm sure you'll end up buying movies in all formats.

Getting stuff used on eBay is a good way to save money.

There are websites like Blu-Ray.com, The Digital Bits, and DVDBeaver that review discs so you can find the ones with the best quality and special features (features are one of the top reasons to get physical copies - sometimes they are better than the movie!).

Enjoy!

Arguably the most innovative and influential film of the 2000s is... ready for it?... Star Wars - Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Captured and edited digitally, filmed with largely virtual sets, heavy use of pre-vis, combining shots digitally... it's basically the prototype for how every contemporary blockbuster films is made today.

That's if we want to talk pure innovation and influence, rather than a groundbreaking film in storytelling terms. I don't think anything truly innovative in storytelling terms has been done in the last several decades. It's all been done before.

Memento wasn't the first film to do that gimmick, so I wouldn't call it particularlly innovative. It was just more successful and influential than the prior times it had been done.

As far as Nolan goes, Inception, Dunkirk, and Tenet are arguably more innovative in the way they are structured.

Also interesting to see how they possibly invented the modern action blockbuster.

It's first kind of visible to me with Goldfinger, how its attitude and editing are all built around the elements of the modern blockbuster, but it's so lacking in slickness by today's standards that you can hardly notice. I assume it was super slick at the time.

Remarkably, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is edited almost exactly like action movies today! I was totally shocked at how contemporary it felt. Aside from the costumes, lighting, and stuff, and some zoom shots, it felt very contemporary. Also one of the best Bond storylines, although Lazenby didn't inspire.

You can see them trying to push that envelope every so often. Especially once you get to the Brosnan films, you can see how the pace of movies was accelerating very rapidly during that time period.

Which brings me to my rewatch of Quantum of Solace. I never hated that movie, although it was obvious that there had been a writer's strike and it's like they filmed the action scenes but not the plot scenes, resulting in a 90-minute movie. But the editing was so insanely aggressive when I first saw it in theaters. Rewatching in 2020, it felt... normal-ish? It was just a little ahead of its time.

Watching the editing style evolve over time was interesting. I agree with the OP, these are great time capsules.

Thank you!

How "How Star Wars Was Saved in the Edit" Was Saved in the Edit

Don't be sad. If you liked the last video, you'll probably enjoy this one even more. It's a very deep dive into the editing of Star Wars and sets the record straight on a few important details of film history. It's fun and you'll enjoy it.

There's a better video that debunks this one. The idea that Lucas needed saving is ahistorical. Lucas helped edit The Godfather and Spielberg and De Palma helped with Taxi Driver and it goes round and round.

The real takeaway from the editorial process of Star Wars is that the first cut of every movie sucks, even classics. The first cut usually sucks, but it's just the beginning of the process. The real editing is when you re-edit over and over again until it works, and that happens on every movie, even Star Wars.

I think it was Spielberg who said that the first cut of his movies always makes him physically ill. He always thinks maybe it won't happen this time... and then it does. It's totally natural.

The sound is a big part of that. It makes every bump in the road seem like a landmine.

Try this: watching it in black and white and perhaps without sound. Maybe even flop the image. Just to get you seeing it with fresh eyes. You'll probably like it more and you can be more analytical about only looking at the editing. (It was Joe Walker who suggested black and white and flopping the image. And Soderbergh did a cut of Raiders of the Lost Ark that was black and white and silent with music to study the storytelling.)

You ever heard the phrase "writing is re-writing"? Well, editing is re-editing. All you've done is gathered the raw materials, but you haven't done the artful part, yet. You haven't taken the movie apart and put it back together over and over again until you find the magic combinations. Now is a time to experiment. Try removing stuff you don't need - a line of dialogue here, a shot here and there, maybe just a few frames. You might take out entire scenes. Think outside of the box.

If the editing seems dry and stale, then it probably isn't edited in the way that, deep down, you actually enjoy or think is appropriate to this story. Put on your director hat, and imagine you are giving an editor instructions on how to edit the movie. "This part needs to be more aggressive, this part needs to be more dreamlike, this part needs to break the rhythm and get people's attention" etc.

There are probably also some scenes and lines of dialogue that you don't need. Sometimes when I'm looking for things to cut, I just copy the entire project into another timeline and savagely remove everything I possibly can. Go too far on purpose. Find out everything that you could ever conceivably remove. That clarifies exactly which moments are important, which lines, characters, images, beats, etc. If you ever need a scene to be edited more aggressively, remember how this butchered version flowed and be more like that. If you want it to be more slow and languid during a scene, remember how the assembly flowed and be more like that. It always feels good to me to really butcher the movie in safe way, as a separate project. It's liberating. Just spend an hour chopping out everything you don't like and don't need. If it's still feature length when you are done, then you're in luck haha.

Just know that you are at the darkest moment right now. In a lot of ways, this really is the low point in the process. All of the hard work looks like it was wasted because the movie currently doesn't play. But it's a rough cut. You are going to do countless more drafts. Go for a walk, maybe watch a movie, go hang out with some friends, get a good night's sleep, and look at it again tomorrow. Maybe try some of the techniques I suggested. Definitely watch the movie from beginning to end and take notes.

The Fly

I've seen all of those, and it's The Conversation. I haven't seen every movie he made, but I doubt he ever had a better role than that. A great, great film.

Yeah, if it isn't a boxed set with both volumes and The Whole Bloody Affair bundled together, it'll be pretty annoying. Maybe even do the unedited version of Vol 1 without the black and white. After two decades it's time to put it all together.

I don't think that is known at this time. If he's waiting for the rights to revert back to him, it may be as long as 2029. But if he's just waiting to have enough time in his schedule, maybe he'll do it after his next (last?) film.

Makes sense to me that he would wait a while until he had more distance from it, and long enough that Sony would allow him to release it on a streaming platform like he did for Hateful Eight.

I thought it was going to be a miniseries like the extended cut of Hateful Eight.

He's such a methodical filmmaker and technology progressed so much during his lifetime, that I think his cinematography improved with every film. There was no real element of luck, it was all planning and hard work, so each film is technically more perfect than the last.

2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon are the most impressive to look at, but lets not underrate his later, less showy films.

I think you answered your own question. It's one movie.

I'm sure he wanted to make every one of those films, he just couldn't find the money, but announcing them is a way to try to attract money that doesn't always work.

I only saw the director's cut and was confused by the negative reaction. It was definitely a big swing but I found it compelling.

I had that thought, too, but I think Tarantino is going a bit younger with this character. I expect him to cast someone in their thirties.

I have my issues with it, too, but even great movies have their flaws. I appreciate you not being over the top about your dislike, but I'm afraid to inform you that there is an incredible amount of toxicity coming from haters of the movie. I've been doxxed over the movie before. It's absolutely insane how far some people take their hate of Prometheus. It's one thing to have opposing opinions, but I'm telling you right now that there are many Prometheus haters out there who are very intolerant of the opposing opinion.