Prometheus: The Restoration Cut

I have been saying this for a looong time, Ridley always makes his movies better over time, with changes in soundtrack and the addition of cut scenes. Remember the first version of Blade Runner? No one liked that movie but after years of edits it has become a masterpiece.

One can only hope, folks... This/that stinks of a money-grab, however, which REALLY turns me off.

Svanya, [i]Legend[/i] was also screwed with by the studio. What is WRONG with those people?! They go off and hire him and then consistently second guess his artistic vision and up-phuck their own income potential in the process. It don’ make no SENSE! [i]Blade Runner[/i] is, of course, as you've pointed out, the ultimate example. That voice over sadness in the original theatrical release is devastatingly pathetic compared to the "real" film. Tragic!

I was going to add "Legend" to the list but he had only released two separate soundtracks, not extra scenes. **( I wasn't sure how many Sci- fi fans would have seen the movie, it's a fairytale, so I went with the safer "Blade Runner" reference as an example. ) If you have ever watched the Documentary "Dangerous Days", you will freak at how STUPID the studios were with Ridley when he made "Blade Runner".. Here is part of that documentary-->[url=http://youtu.be/rvMvHqy_G4M]Dangerous Days - Making Blade Runner (2007) - Incept Date - 1980 - Screenwriting And Dealmaking - 01 [/url]

crappy cut for the theatres - MONEY good cut on the BR/DVD - MORE MONEY [and a better version of the story]

Without doubt, the soundtrack should be improved ... Ok is no so but it's nothing compared to the work of Jerry Goldsmith IMHO

@Shambhala dreaming in R'lyeh; The soundtrack was probably my biggest peeve with "Prometheus", it made it feel like a Star Trek episode. :(

@Svanya Absolutely true, is very similar to Star Trek soundtrack and that's pretty disappointing in fact ... because it is assumed that this is a movie and a different style to that kind of science fiction. PD: I thought that in the end a narrator would say "And the adventure continues" :p

I've been singing the praises and defending the Kingdom of Heaven DC forever. Here's a thread I started recently to try and get people talking about it. Haven't had much time to post recently but I hope we can get people watching it because it is a great film. Here's the [url=http://www.prometheus-movie.com/community/forums/topic/8933]link to the thread.[/url] I've pointed out a hundred times the paralells between the KoH DC and the version of Prometheus we are yet to see. CAn't remember which thread but I pointed out all kinds of things in the KoH DC that could compare with things like Weyland being in the scene in the trailer when they are battling infected Fifield. Basically, when Scott filmed KoH there were certain scenes he shot with and without a pretty major character. This character being in or out of the film made a major difference. Much like Weyland might if there were a version of the film where, say, he was never hidden from the crew in stasis. Not saying they filmed that. Just saying that the KoH DC and evidence of a lot of different "versions" of things that we veiwed in the tralier leads me to believe there's a much different cut of this film than Scott and Fox has let on. I don't really believe that Scott's films get better with age. I think it's more the audience catches up with his ideas as time goes on. A non-Scott film that I think will have the same outcome is Southland Tales. Great film that's a bit ahead of it's time and audiences. I don't mean the general movie going public. I don't want to call them lovers of cult cinema either. I guess "intelligent film loving audiences" kinda describes what I mean well. Not that the films I'm talking about can't be classified as "cult" films. I just wouldn't call all of them that. When I say "intelligent" that could refer to the film and/or the viewer I guess.

The thing about the crappy cut for the theaters, David 1, is that it then jeopardizes the future of the franchise. With something that is a ONE OFF, I can *almost* see taking that risk, but with a deal like Prometheus in which the movie DOES NOT stand alone very well, I just think it's bordering on ludicrous. In the case of [i]Avatar[/i], FOX milked the audience 4 to 5 times depending on how you look at it. There was the initial Christmas season release which had a forced length limitation by 70mm-film IMAX theaters, so the film was cut down due to the physical limitation. I can see that. That's a practical decision. That was released on media without bonus materials. Then there was another theatrical release (without 70mm IMAX reels) that added a bit to the backstory. A few scenes in the film then made a BIT better sense with the other material added back in, but the few extra minutes of footage did not really radically change the story in any way. Finally there was the Über-Edition Blu-Rays etc. with all the versions, making of, etc. Even more footage was added in to an actual version of the film then. That had a bit more impact on clarifying Sigourney Weaver's character's behavior (and made her more human and "relate-able" to the audience), but again, it didn't *really* change anything critical. 3D Blu-Ray came after that, but it was unavoidably in holding pattern due to the proliferation of consumer technology at the time. Essentially, another physical constraint. I don't begrudge Hollywood studios’ wanting to make money off of their franchises one bit. But, I feel that there are clever ways to do it and not-so-clever ways to do it. Other than David 8, the Engineers are the core value proposition of this franchise (so far), IMO. And, I do not feel that even "basic justice" was done to them in this initial theatrical release. I believe that this content was conceptualized, written, rewritten, manufactured, shot and then quite intentionally REMOVED from this cut. AND if, like [i]Kingdom of Heaven[/i], this was done due to studio pressure and at the expense of the sacrifice of the better cinematic product, I mourn for that loss—because it not only likely robs fans of the chance to see in theaters, but also creates an ostensibly "rebooted" franchise that could be seen by the studio execs themselves as an "underperformer." And if that happens, [i]Prometheus[/i] goes the way of [i]The Golden Compass[/i], and we never hear from the Engineers again. [i]Paradise[/i] will be officially [i]Lost[/i]. David 8 wept.

@Sukal; I agree it seems they cut a lot out. It is like making a painting and only finishing it when a person buys it to display. I would happily have sat through a much longer movie. I don't know why the studio has to meddle so much in artistic affairs. Again, I will refer to the "Blade Runner" scenario where Fox meddled to much they messed up Ridley's original idea. If we just sit back and let studios edit everything according to how much money they will make and not according to how good a script or idea is then we lose as viewers. :(

i agree with the general thought that films should not be chopped up to make them generically palatable to a wide audience or trimmed down time wise just for the sake of doing so, and i eagerly look forward to seeing any additional prometheus footage. i agree with many of the comments here as generally applied to films and greed and studios ruining films to try to make them more commercial etc... however i dont think the theatrical cut of prometheus was bad at all. i dont see the incompleteness that people keep referring to. i dont see it as being in any real way sub par. in my (apparently addled mind) i put prometheus on the shelf directly next to 2001 A Space Odyssey. ill probably be assassinated for saying that. but i think its very much on par with that film in a lot of ways. its a completely differently paced and planned film but in many ways i think its very similar. i would have loved to see a 3 hour prometheus if it was the right edit for the film- and maybe it would have been. but i really feel that the theatrical version was spectacular and not just visually. i cant wait to see what extras the home release will have but i simply dont find this version to be flawed. i thought the film had a really excellent over all feel and look to it and unlike many critics i enjoyed most of the characters and the way the events played out on screen. i also really enjoy the rich symbolism and depth that it contains, and the ambiguity about WHY but never WHAT. i also look forward to a sequel but i dont think the sequel is necessary to "explain, clarify or justify" the film thats already been released. i do agree that the soundtrack doesnt compare to Goldsmith but i think its more than ok. im actually rather fond of parts of it. this is just my opinion and everyone's is welcome but i felt the urge to share it, so dont hate me for speaking my mind ;P

@Svayna...Quality is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think Scott would cut anything out which he felt made the quality of the film better unless he was forced as was the case with KoH. Fox made him make the cuts because they thought the material "went off on a tagent" and made the film boring. They felt the film would be more commercial and have a wider appeal without the material. I don't really blame them. I was going to say that Fox needs to quit underestimating Scott's fanbase and their ability to comprehend and enjoy films that are less commercial but I think some of the reactions to Prometheus might show otherwise. As far as Prometheus goes, it's going to be interesting to see how they handle any significant extra material as far as the sequels go. If another cut of the film comes to light and it is deemed to be significantly better than the theatrical will they take notice and change things in the sequels to make things fit? Or do you think differences between the cuts wont have that much bearing on the actual story and other elements?

[quote=Engineering][i]I don't really believe that Scott's films get better with age. I think it's more the audience catches up with his ideas as time goes on.[/i][/quote] I agree with you to the extent that the audience catches up with the BETTER CUT versions of his films, but it is the Director's Cut of Blade Runner that everyone so cherishes across time, not the "I Deckard (because of my contractual agreements) must sit here and explain to you, moronic audience, in voice over what's going on 'cause you ain't smart enough to get it otherwise" cut. This is often what the producers and directors are dealing with when it comes to the "influencers" at the studios... Just an example... [img]http://www.ditl.org/gptz/GWhaleprobe2.jpg[/img] Ever seen or HEARD that? If not, it was the "Whale Intelligence" probe from Star Trek IV. The whole point of its showing up was that it was "utterly alien" to the Federation. Nobody in our entire galaxy had any idea what it was, where it came from, what kind of energy it used, etc. We, the audience of the 20th century (at the time), of course related to it very readily, instinctually... unless we were execs at Paramount... Nimoy (the director) got notes to, get this, "subtitle what the probe is saying." They were afraid the audience would not get it. They were afraid the audience might be confused for 20 seconds. IN.SANE.!!! Fortunately, Nimoy had the power (and intelligence) not to cave. He ignored them and their STOOPID-AS-PHUCK attempts at tampering with his film. That has not always happened in Ridley's history. :(

I agree about the voice over. Blade Runner is a real rare and unusual example as far as DCs go. Some people, Del Torro included, love that voice over. And while I know that the susequent better(imo)versions of BR have had a big part in the films late blooming popularity I still believe that even if there were never any other cuts of the film there still would have been a case of audiences catching up to the film and it becoming a classic. If there were never any other versions of BR to spoil me I would still think it was one of the best sci-fi films ever.

[quote=Engineering][i]If another cut of the film comes to light and it is deemed to be significantly better than the theatrical will they take notice and change things in the sequels to make things fit?[/i][/quote] We can only pray, but not count on their "taking notice" or "changing things" for the better. The formula so far seems to be tamper first, ask questions late(r) after box office is not up to par, then make a new physical media release.

We better just get used to studios forcing directors to make cuts, putting too many cooks in the kitchen and ruining films in the hopes of making them more commercial. In the end it's all about money. While I think it's sad it's a fact of life that won't change as far as big budget films go. While I don't like this fact of the business I would still rather see Scott compromise just a little and be able to make the film look as grand as it does than have Scott not compromise a bit and have to do it on a shoestring and produce something much smaller and less grand. Scott needs big bucks to play in this playground. A few rules on the playground are the price of admission.

"We better just get used to studios forcing directors to make cuts, putting too many cooks in the kitchen and ruining films in the hopes of making them more commercial." I'm sorry but I don't have to get used to that and won't accept it. Sure, it is what it is, but that I don't have to and won't comprimise in the face of it. [i]Prometheus[/i] is incomplete. It was chopped to bits and that's just sad. The music, though well written and executed, was entirely wrong for this film and I'll always be bothered by that. From as far back as Thanksgiving, with the leak of the original teaser trailer, following through to March and the release of four other trailers as well as several featurettes, we were, as an audience, sold a film with an emotional aesthetic that harkened back to the terrifying, skin crawling, ominous horror of [i]Alien[/i] by way of trailer music that was as deeply unsettling as it was beautifully conceived, recorded and edited alongside visuals meant for that affect. The score of the actual film carried with it an emotional aesthetic of an entirely different kind, one of awe, grandeur and romanticism that none of us were prepared for given the nature of the trailer campaign. Emotionally, tonally, aesthetically, we as an audience were set up for an experience we were not to have. I think that element alone hurt Prometheus' reception tremendously and I still feel robbed by it. Really, I feel as though I still haven't seen the film they were selling me and that sucks.

@craigamore: I agree with your comment 100% and you express it beautifully. I too feel that I have not seen the film that the trailer campaign was selling to me, but I remain unsure if it ever existed; that is to say, I don't yet know if it may be retrieved in a re-edited version. Ridley Scott's "I want to scare the living shit out of you" remark suggests that there may be a darker, more disturbing film to be resurrected out of this shambles. But time alone will tell.

@craigmore...I don't like it any more than you do. The only big budget film that I can remember that wasn't commericial per se that was able to buck this fact of the movie business was Inception. Nolan was obviously able to raise the funds due to the success of the Dark Knight. I'm sure having Leo on board helped tremendously. The thing about Inception was that it had Dicaprio, it wasn't rated R and it was a heist movie above all things. 3 things that are much easier to market and are much more commercial. People didn't really know it was going to be what it was going in. It was a crazy success making like $800 million on a $160 million budget. The trend can be avoided but while I like him better the truth is Scott is not as commercial as Nolan is and he's not as bankable either. Scott does have his own company though and if he's willing to throw up the dough I'm sure he can do whatever he wants. But the fact remains, with the exception of Inception(lol) that if you want to go see films with less marketable, less commercial ideas that are made on a big budget and released during the summer you're going to have to realize that sometimes there are going to be some compromises that you are not going to like or agree with. This all depends on the marketability of an idea. I'm not saying that all the cuts and problems with editing in the film are due to Fox wanting the film to be more commercial. It would be a mistake to blame everything on Fox wanting to make money on the film. For the record, I have no problem with the editing, music or anything else for that matter. I absolutely love the music. As far as editing I won't have any idea if I have a problem with it until I see extra footage and maybe, hopefully another cut.