The Four Word Film Review Fourum - Apocalypse Now (Redux)

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

FWFR Related

Reviews

Apocalypse Now (Redux)

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Send Topic to a Friend

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."

Posted - 08/01/2006 : 05:02:33

I just watched Apocalypse Now (Redux), never seen it or the shorter version before. About time I watched it.

Anyway, I just submitted a heap of reviews for it, but wasn't sure where to submit them. Both versions are listed here on FWFR but only one version on IMDB. The IMDB link from Apocalypse Now (Redux) on FWFR goes to Apocalypse Now (1979). Should they both be on FWFR?, If so, why not extended versions of other movies...ie..LOTR Trilogy etc.?

MM0rkeleb
"Better than HBO."

Posted - 08/01/2006 : 17:19:38

I think the distinction is that Apocalypse Now (Redux) was released in theaters, while the extended versions of LOTR, for example, were not.

That said, it does seem like an odd distinction to make, given how closely this site follows imdb, which considers both versions of Apocalypse Now to be the same movie. Benj?

Warzonkey
"Seriously Lo-Res"

Posted - 08/01/2006 : 18:21:38

I though I read somewhere that a director's cut would be given a separate entry on FWFR if the new cut was significantly different from the original. Although, as far as I can see, this is very subjective.

As to whether the criterion is a cinema release, the special editions of Alien and Blade Runner were definitely released in theatres but don't appear to have multiple entries.

Also, I think I remember that in the case of the director's cut being given its own entry, any reviews for the new edition must be specifically relevant to THAT version, otherwise they should be submitted for original. (Although if you've only the seen the later cut, how are you to know?)

As to what constitutes 'significantly different', I can think of several examples where the director's cut completely alters the overall perspective on the film (as opposed to just adding in a few deleted scenes) that don't have multiple FWFR entries. Cinema Paradiso leaps to mind.

MM0rkeleb
"Better than HBO."

Posted - 08/01/2006 : 23:08:19

quote:
Originally posted by Warzonkey

I though I read somewhere that a director's cut would be given a separate entry on FWFR if the new cut was significantly different from the original. Although, as far as I can see, this is very subjective.

...

As to what constitutes 'significantly different', I can think of several examples where the director's cut completely alters the overall perspective on the film (as opposed to just adding in a few deleted scenes) that don't have multiple FWFR entries. Cinema Paradiso leaps to mind.

That subjectivity is a problem. To my mind, "just" adding in a few scenes is enough to completely alter the overall perspective on the film. This isn't really surprising since a handful of scenes can easily add up to 5% of the film's running time. I'd point to Blade Runner and Donnie Darko as director's cuts that are far different (amd far worse) than the originals, even though numerically the changes are few.

Edited by - MM0rkeleb on 08/02/2006 15:03:24

benj clews
"...."

Posted - 08/02/2006 : 00:39:12

I'm having second thoughts about Apocalypse Now Redux having a separate entry at all. Certainly, it does potentially open the floodgates for Director's Cuts, etc... getting their own listing on the grounds that one film has already been afforded this luxury.

I think at the time, someone suggested that it was a suitably different enough film that it warranted a separate entry but, much like with the film/ mini-series debate, I'd much rather leave it up to the imdb to settle so I don't have to figure out the rules on this.

Anyone have a major aversion to me merging the two into one?