What does the extended version of SIN CITY add?

Rob Babcock · « **on:** 21 Dec 2005, 03:33 am »

For $30 bucks there'd better be a lot of extra content!

The packaging alludes to extra footage and says it's recut into four distinct separate stories.

Has anyone purchased or watched the new version? Is it worth the extra money?

wshuff · « **Reply #1 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 03:45 am »

It turns out that Jessica Alba was actually nude throughout the whole movie, they just used CGI to put clothes on her for the theatrical release. The new version uses the original shots, without CGI.

Anybody have any magic to make that true?

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #2 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 03:51 am »

If that were the case $30 would be a smoking bargain!

Folsom · « **Reply #3 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 04:06 am »

Who cares? The movie sucked for me...

Cars flying breaking all four wheels off the ground and some how just fall back to the earth to go in their intended direction?

The movie had phenomial potential....

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #4 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 04:30 am »

I care, obviously- otherwise why would I have asked?

In case this isn't obvious to all, I'd like the opinions of those who 1) liked the movie AND 2) have seen the extended version.

bubba966 · « **Reply #5 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 05:27 am »

If my High-Def LD player sells soon I'll buy it and tell 'ya...

maxwalrath · « **Reply #6 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 05:38 am »

I thought the movie lived up to it's potential...I don't watch too many movies, but I thought it was very solid.

Rocket · « **Reply #7 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 06:04 am »

Hi,

I didn't mind it at all. It certainly was a different movie.

Regards

Rod

Folsom · « **Reply #8 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 08:43 am »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

I care, obviously- otherwise why would I have asked?

In case this isn't obvious to all, I'd like the opinions of those who 1) liked the movie AND 2) have seen the extended version.

Sorry.... I just find myself being the only person I know of who almost enjoyed the movie.

Here you go, better price and description of features.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BCKFWK/qid=1135154578/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9754025-3467843?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #9 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 08:57 am »

Thanks, DoS. Very informative. It doens't really sound like it's worth the extra cash, but if it goes on sale cheaper I might pick it up.

Folsom · « **Reply #10 on:** 21 Dec 2005, 10:26 am »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

Thanks, DoS. Very informative. It doens't really sound like it's worth the extra cash, but if it goes on sale cheaper I might pick it up.

If I did like the movie I would buy the directors cut, unrated, etc..... I always go for the best version. I have given away a few DVD's because Sony all of a sudden put out SuperBit version. I am picky! I however own probably about ten DVD's.

I just figure I might as well have the version I want for sure, and will enjoy much more some day when I have a widescreen and home theatre setup, some day.

Right now me buying all the special version is almost silly because many of them hardly work on two channel, that I am stuck with for now, or will choose to be.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #11 on:** 22 Dec 2005, 05:56 am »

I used to invariably buy any "director's cut," but I'm on to their game now. The term "director's cut" used to mean something, but now it's a marketing tool. Sometimes it's not as good as the original version as was the case with "Donnie Darko."

Of course, sometimes it's so much better you can't believe the original was released in the form it was, like the LotR flicks.

Folsom · « **Reply #12 on:** 22 Dec 2005, 06:59 am »

King Arthur's director cut makes the movie worth watching, even owning. They say different things and it completes the fight scenes.

I liked the Donnie Darko Directors Cut.... I was not very big on the in-between scene wannabe Davincii looking stuff, but the sound track I liked more.

In general I think directors cut are better.

The exceptions are mind boggling though.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #13 on:** 22 Dec 2005, 09:06 am »

Yeah, I thought the directors cut of King Arthur was good. Another movie that's about 1000X better in the directors cut was The Chronicles of Riddick. The extended version of Underworld was also much more cohesive and involving than the theatrical version.

Still, which is the "real" version of a film? Many purists say whatever hit the theater is the real version. Case in point- who here isn't sick of Lucas constant tinkering with and vandalization of the original Star Wars trilogy?

Folsom · « **Reply #14 on:** 22 Dec 2005, 11:20 am »

Well there is certainly a difference between not being able to show in theatres and choosing not too.... If they did that based on violence and length, the directors cut would mean a little more.

If a director firmly believes that his original is better, call it, if not then selling it is a joke. An director, like an artist, may make several cuts, takes, protraits, etc... before being done.

I own Pitch Black but would never buy any version of Chronicles of Riddick. I am interested in Underworld though, as I have no idea which version I saw.

Vampire and ware wolf movies fasinate the crap out of me when ever they are new and inventive as far as the history they explain. I just love the new stories they give for how vampires came to be etc.... Unfortunatly most of the time they suck and the movies suck.

I wish I could make movies, mine would be so gripping, disturbing, and simply far from the normal train of events....

I know we are going on and on but.... You ever watch the show Starved? I like stuff that is REALLY CRAZY, and my movies would be to the point a lot of people would have trouble watching. They would be different, interesting, new.

I thought about buying the DVD's of the original Star Wars until I found out the stuff he did.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #15 on:** 22 Dec 2005, 07:32 pm »

The Chronicles of Riddick didn't make a lot of sense in the theaters due to all the footage they chopped- it was literally half the plot points.

The extended version is much better and is much more coherent. Riddick is still more of a superhero in this one, but I still liked it.

Folsom · « **Reply #16 on:** 22 Dec 2005, 09:02 pm »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

The Chronicles of Riddick didn't make a lot of sense in the theaters due to all the footage they chopped- it was literally half the plot points. The extended version is much better and is much more coherent. Riddick is still more of a superhero in this one, but I still liked it.

I think it basically destroyed the character that was created in Pitch Black for the viewers. He seemed like a big soft teddy bear by comparison.

Again if I made a movie.... Think more like Lobo (comic book character I read a clip about, no I do not collect comics haha), not necessarily evil but out for himself and not afraid to crack skulls of young idiot kids giving him gruff. Is there really any thing that wrong with having the main character be evil?

Rocket · « **Reply #17 on:** 23 Dec 2005, 12:42 am »

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the heads up regarding 'Chronicles of Riddick' and i agree i didn't really like the theatrical version as much as i liked Pitch Black.

I too bought the Directors Cut of King Arthur (didn't see the original) and i really liked that movie.

Regards

Rod

jermmd · « **Reply #18 on:** 23 Dec 2005, 01:07 am »

I thought the theatrical release of Blade Runner was better than the Directors cut. The Directors cut was interminable.

Folsom · « **Reply #19 on:** 23 Dec 2005, 02:05 am »

Quote from: Rocket

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the heads up regarding 'Chronicles of Riddick' and i agree i didn't really like the theatrical version as much as i liked Pitch Black.

I too bought the Directors Cut of King Arthur (didn't see the original) and i really liked that movie.

Regards

Rod

King Arthur had the best non historical explination of how he could of existed, that part impressed me a lot.

You will be surprized how much was cut from Chronicles of Riddick, surprized.