KOTCS Re-Cut

indyswk

New member
Montana Smith said:
They could have had snakes anywhere in the jungle - one could have dropped off a tree during the chase, and added another dimension to Indy's involvement in the battle. It just seemed like a very cheap gag. I could even accept the vine swinging monkeys more easily than the snake.

I agree they could do away with the quicksand scene. Just have them escape unsuccessfully, have Dovchenko punch Mutt & Indy for trying to escape and burning up the tent with alien mummy corpse and they all wake up tied in the Russian truck would be OK to me.

The scene may seem necessary (to have Marion proclaim Mutt is Indy's son) but I think it was badly thought out. Having Marion tell Indy could work even better later at the part where they were surrounded by the Mayan / native tribe, before Oaxley takes out the skull. Now that would be an awkward moment for all of them.

To show Indy's fear of snakes could appear anywhere - right after Mutt encounters his scorpions, for example. It is well known that Indy has a fear of snakes, but the first 3 trilogy has shown that he took them well enough to be a fairly minor nuisance - I can't believe Indy sat with Reggie in Jock's plane, and later went into a temple full of snakes in Raiders, and yet he can't touch a snake to save himself in Skull. By that logic he would've killed himself in 1936 by jumping out of Jock's plane from Reggie already.

And the "riiiip" sound as Indy tries to free himself and Mutt's expression right after that in the truck SHOULD be removed entirely. And the bike.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Well, he wouldn't, actually...they've got the skull with them. Which would make for a nice gag - Indy, for once, confidently striding into a room with a couple big snakes - but then they'd need to come up with another way of escaping the Ugha. (Or, honestly, maybe doing away with them all together.)

Actually, that opens up another idea. It's in the Raiders script but so subtle in the film you don't notice -- The snakes in the Well of Souls stay away from the Ark because of some unknown energy. The crystal skull does the same thing, only this time we see it (it chases away the ants). Indy could go behind the waterfall, see the snakes, have a moment of fear, but then as the snakes flee the skull's energy, Indy's bond with the strange relic strengthens. He then resolves to go further, be that doing the skull's bidding or having finally turned the corner to being the fearless adventurer again -- or both.
 

StoneTriple

New member
Matt deMille said:
Indy could go behind the waterfall, see the snakes, have a moment of fear, but then as the snakes flee the skull's energy, Indy's bond with the strange relic strengthens. He then resolves to go further, be that doing the skull's bidding or having finally turned the corner to being the fearless adventurer again -- or both.

That's a very interesting idea. maybe even tweak it to a sort of a Frodo and the ring type of deal. Indy starts to become comfortable with the power it gives him, to the point of being somewhat possessive of it - but not because it told him to - but because he's protected by it. Instead of magical skull powers, we start to see Indy "falling from the pure faith" again - a sort of continuation the "fortune and glory, kid" part of his personality.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Walton said:
You mean GL and SS don't frequent The Raven?

Sure, it's an idea, one for someone with connections. And time. That's not me.
Hey, Wally, you're the one who started this thread and suggested a petition. "Sure, it's an idea", yes, a fruitless one. Anyway, a person doesn't need connections to start a petition.:rolleyes:
Walton said:
They release Director's Cut Blu-Rays and DVDs all the time. So why not a Director's Cut/Re-Cut? Why not a petition? Steven, Harrison, George...this movie is not beyond help. We like it...we want to enjoy it as much as the trilogy. You "fixed" classic Star Wars, so...actually fix KOTCS.
Didn't know Spielberg was involved in the "Star Wars" Special Editions!:p What do those re-releases or Harrison have to do with a re-cut of "Skull"? At the end of the day, it's Steven's movie. Like others have said, films aren't re-cut on demand just to satisfy the whims of disgruntled film-goers.

I'm all for seeing deleted scenes & alternate takes but this conversation has moved into fantasy/wish territory with imaginary sequences. Unless new scenes are shot, a film can't be re-cut with footage that doesn't exist. Keep it real, eh?:)
 

StoneTriple

New member
Stoo said:
I'm all for seeing deleted scenes & alternate takes but this conversation...

All our potential paths not taken aside, deleted scenes are about all I ever watch on DVDs and even then not all the time. I've listened to director\actor commentary tracks a couple of times and I almost never watch behind the scenes documentaries of films I really like.

I don't care to have the magic taken away. An occasional article is interesting enough, I suppose, but I have no desire to have the film deconstructed. That's why I'm not up to speed on all the models, paintings and CGI of the Indiana Jones series. I didn't seek out that information. Not in 1981, not now. I guess that's why I never think a film needs to be "corrected & improved".
 

Matt deMille

New member
StoneTriple said:
That's a very interesting idea. maybe even tweak it to a sort of a Frodo and the ring type of deal. Indy starts to become comfortable with the power it gives him, to the point of being somewhat possessive of it - but not because it told him to - but because he's protected by it. Instead of magical skull powers, we start to see Indy "falling from the pure faith" again - a sort of continuation the "fortune and glory, kid" part of his personality.

I like that. We've already seen how the skull can become possessive of someone (Oxley), so we'd see the fate Indy might be walking into, even if he doesn't. We'd fear for him. I guess that's one problem I *do* have with KOTCS, that the characters move from one action sequence to the next in a sort of connect-the-dots fashion. Sure, there's logical reasons they move, but there's seldom a really deep fear for the characters' fates going on. If the crystal skull were starting to overcome Indy's better sense, it would up the ante for the next sequence. Alas.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
StoneTriple said:
That's a very interesting idea. maybe even tweak it to a sort of a Frodo and the ring type of deal. Indy starts to become comfortable with the power it gives him, to the point of being somewhat possessive of it - but not because it told him to - but because he's protected by it. Instead of magical skull powers, we start to see Indy "falling from the pure faith" again - a sort of continuation the "fortune and glory, kid" part of his personality.

That would have been quite nice; a bit blood-of-Kali maybe but a nice idea.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
I think a much better place to have snakes would have been entering the temple (behind the waterfall). Indy says the crystal skull commanded him to go in, then he sees a hall full of snakes, and has to muster the courage to do so. It could also have been a good bonding moment with Mutt, to show him how to overcome things, or have Mutt even encourage Indy. In any event, the temple was pretty empty. They just walked through it. If the floor and walls had been covered with snakes, it would've been a hundred times more interesting.
Attila the Professor said:
Which would make for a nice gag - Indy, for once, confidently striding into a room with a couple big snakes - but then they'd need to come up with another way of escaping the Ugha.
How could your fantasy segment be part of a director's cut/re-cut? Was anything like this actually filmed? No? Didn't think so...:p
StoneTriple said:
Not in 1981, not now. I guess that's why I never think a film needs to be "corrected & improved".
StoneTriple, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you but, in this very thread, you're talking about tweaking the film & suggesting alternate takes on certain scenes.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
How could your fantasy segment be part of a director's cut/re-cut? Was anything like this actually filmed? No? Didn't think so...:p

***

StoneTriple, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you but, in this very thread, you're talking about tweaking the film & suggesting alternate takes on certain scenes.

I think you're conflating two different issues. Talking about the road not taken is different than actually wishing for such things to somehow be added into the film. The first is a method of critique; the second is an attempt at denying reality. And the gag idea that I tossed off was actually originally intended as a rebuttal to suggestions on how to "fix" the snake sequence as it exists. It's just happened to grow some legs.

(Stepping into moderator mode for a second: apart from Stoo's broader point, which is still up to question, he's got an implicit point here that some of the wishful thinking going on here doesn't belong in this thread. Maybe try to refocus discussion on actual questions of a recut.)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
I think you're conflating two different issues. Talking about the road not taken is different than actually wishing for such things to somehow be added into the film. The first is a method of critique; the second is an attempt at denying reality. And the gag idea that I tossed off was actually originally intended as a rebuttal to suggestions on how to "fix" the snake sequence as it exists. It's just happened to grow some legs.

(Stepping into moderator mode for a second: apart from Stoo's broader point, which is still up to question, he's got an implicit point here that some of the wishful thinking going on here doesn't belong in this thread. Maybe try to refocus discussion on actual questions of a recut.)

Since a 're-cut' is a new edit of a film, they can only use or delete film that they've already made. So, a discussion of what might have been could really only encompass ideas that 'might' already be on film, and just not used in the theatrical cut.

Re-cutting KOTCS to make it a 'better' movie for some would end up with it being a very short feature, as there would be little else to insert to make up for the missing sections. Keeping KOTCS at a reasonable length would be like that snake that grew legs and wandered off as a lizard: it would be an entirely different film, and not just a re-cut.
 

StoneTriple

New member
Stoo said:
StoneTriple, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you but, in this very thread, you're talking about tweaking the film & suggesting alternate takes on certain scenes.

Thinking there could have been different paths or ideas is entirely different to wishing they would have used them - or trying to re-edit the film as a fan cut.

Even the creators toyed with several ideas, for years, before they settled on what they wanted. Personally, I really dig what they came up and enjoy watching it regularly. I also keep a full audio rip handy (iPod, car, & work computer) - which, by the way, I just finished listening to a few days ago.

Partaking in the discussion doesn't equal disrespect or dislike of the film. In my case, it's far from it. I have absolutely zero interest in seeing any part of the film altered in any way. I would never watch a fan edit - of any film. Which goes back to my earlier thoughts. Films don't need to be "corrected" - you either like & watch them, or you don't. If you don't, then watch something else. At least that's the way it is for me.
 
Last edited:

RaideroftheArk

New member
Montana Smith said:
Re-cutting KOTCS to make it a 'better' movie for some would end up with it being a very short feature, as there would be little else to insert to make up for the missing sections. Keeping KOTCS at a reasonable length would be like that snake that grew legs and wandered off as a lizard: it would be an entirely different film, and not just a re-cut.

Well said. Like most of you in this thread, I don't necessarily agree with fan-edits. I've only ever read summaries of what fans wanted to do to a particular film, but never really watched any of it. I can agree from what I read that it drastically alters the movie into something a lot shorter or at least a lot more bland and completely not the same movie.


I remember reading about Richard Donner's Superman II about 10 years before it was released. For years, I remember hearing how fans hated the comedic elements of SMII and some of the nonsensical parts (Amnesia kiss, Cellophane S). I myself was always put off by how inconsistent it was with the first movie and how much was "missing." To say the least, I was fascinated by this unreleased footage and would have given anything to see Donner's version as close to how it was meant to be.

When it finally came to light, it had been my most anticipated movie I had ever waited for. For me, it was perfect. It was so great that I do not think I could ever watch the Richard Lester version of Superman II again. Fans however, had a billion problems with it. Here was the ironic thing...the movie starts out with an introduction by Richard Donner stating that it's not complete and that he wished he could have filmed more scenes back in the day. Further more...even a title card appears before the movie starts stating that this is as close to a Donner version as they could get it, they even go as far as stating how they had to use screen tests for certain shots just to keep it as close to the original vision as possible.

Well, apparently, even stating that it is an in complete film, is still not enough to show fans that if they had the time and money and were aloud to travel back in time, the movie would have been drastically different than what is being presented today. All I read was "They blew it....It could have been better... I would have done X, Y, and Z to make it better..." And here was an even more ironic thing...fans started to re-edit the Donner version of the film with footage of the Lester version! Yes, all the scenes they complained about, they were actually putting back into a version of the film who's soul purpose and goal was to NOT have that footage in it.


I guess my point to the whole thing is, even if a director re-cuts/re-edits there is just going to be a fan that re-cuts/re-edits that and then another fan that re-cuts/re-edits that...and so on and so on. When does it stop? Sometimes directors themselves can re-cut/re-edit their own films until they begin to stop resembling what we all know and love.

Movies such as KOTCS, Terminator 3 and the like have always been "bonus" movies to me. Clearly the the span of time separates them from the greatness we've come to expect and love. Re-editing them as you see fit just seems to be a viscous cycle that neither adds or subtracts, but just sort of morphs the film into something even more incomprehensible.
 
Top