Amadeus (1984) - wrong version

We've had the "Amadeus - Director's Cut" DVD for a few months thinking
it was the original movie version, and just yesterday I found out
about the 20 minutes for restored scenes. Did a lot of people fall
for that?

Now that there are two versions, which one is more popular, and which
one is official?

Tim923

I have not seen the original. Is it worth seeing?

Tim923

>I have not seen the original. Is it worth seeing?

the original cut is far better in my opinion. It has more ambiguity between
Costanza and Salieri and it lacks the piontless scene where Mozart teaches an
aristocrat's daughter.

plus, the original DVD allows you to watch the film with only the score.

Vlvetmorning98

Tim923 wrote:

> We've had the "Amadeus - Director's Cut" DVD for a few months thinking
> it was the original movie version, and just yesterday I found out
> about the 20 minutes for restored scenes. Did a lot of people fall
> for that?

Oh, yeah, we knew--
We just didn't know what the added scenes were, but thought, y'know,
Extended cuts worked out so well for Peter Jackson, so...

> Now that there are two versions, which one is more popular, and which
> one is official?

I tend to think the original is "official", don't know if it's more
popular though (on a flippy disk, no doc/extras, and out of print)...

The added nude scene completely destroys the point of Salieri reading
Mozart's sheet music for the audition--
In the original cut, we see Salieri drop the pages in a swoon, Constanze
asks "Will you not help us?", Salieri walks out without a word, and the
scene cuts directly to "We are enemies..."--Any questions? 0_0;;

Derek Janssen

Derek Janssen

Tim923 wrote:
> We've had the "Amadeus - Director's Cut" DVD for a few months thinking
> it was the original movie version, and just yesterday I found out
> about the 20 minutes for restored scenes. Did a lot of people fall
> for that?

Dude, it says "Director's Cut" right on the box. Why would you think it was
the original theatrical cut instead?

> Now that there are two versions, which one is more popular, and which
> one is official?

Well, they're both "official", but only one is the theatrical cut. Not sure
what you mean by this question.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Kohary

Tim923 wrote:
> I have not seen the original. Is it worth seeing?

Yes, it's the superior version.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Kohary

>Dude, it says "Director's Cut" right on the box. Why would you think it was
>the original theatrical cut instead?

To be fair, some people never saw the Amadeus movie before 2004 (and
didn't pay attention in 2002). The only new Amadeus DVD one could get
for awhile was "Amadeus - Director's Cut." And like "Animal House"
and "National Lampoon's Animal House" it seemed like just an extended
form of the title (that we didn't pay attention to). I don't think we
will buy the movie a 2nd time though.

>Well, they're both "official", but only one is the theatrical cut. Not sure
>what you mean by this question.

Which version is more popular and which version do people think of as
the TRUE version.

Tim923

In article <>,
Tim923 <> wrote:

> Which version is more popular

Neither. Some film buffs have a hard-on about the director's cut, some
have one over the theatrical release version. In this case it's not a
real big deal because the additions don't do much to change the film in
a substantial way.

> and which version do people think of as
> the TRUE version.

??? Dunno. The director thinks his cut is the true version. I've seen
them both and I'm a big fan of the film and it really makes little
difference by the end of the film. Watch the one you have and enjoy.

Reginald Dwight

Tim923 wrote:

>>Dude, it says "Director's Cut" right on the box. Why would you think it was
>>the original theatrical cut instead?
>
> To be fair, some people never saw the Amadeus movie before 2004 (and
> didn't pay attention in 2002). The only new Amadeus DVD one could get
> for awhile was "Amadeus - Director's Cut." And like "Animal House"
> and "National Lampoon's Animal House" it seemed like just an extended
> form of the title (that we didn't pay attention to). I don't think we
> will buy the movie a 2nd time though.

Speaking of movies that were ruined in the video DC, did later editions
ever switch "JFK" back to the original?

Derek Janssen (there may still be hope, once Warner switches to the
cheap reissues)

Derek Janssen

Tim923 wrote:
>> Dude, it says "Director's Cut" right on the box. Why would you
>> think it was the original theatrical cut instead?
>
> To be fair, some people never saw the Amadeus movie before 2004 (and
> didn't pay attention in 2002). The only new Amadeus DVD one could get
> for awhile was "Amadeus - Director's Cut." And like "Animal House"
> and "National Lampoon's Animal House" it seemed like just an extended
> form of the title (that we didn't pay attention to). I don't think we
> will buy the movie a 2nd time though.

Sure. I just meant that any time you see "Director's Cut" on a title, you
can be assured it is altered from the theatrical release.

>> Well, they're both "official", but only one is the theatrical cut.
>> Not sure what you mean by this question.
>
> Which version is more popular and which version do people think of as
> the TRUE version.

It's subjective, so I can only speak for myself. I far prefer the
theatrical version. The DC adds superfluous and sometimes distracting
material that was best left on the cutting room floor. The original
theatrical version is a lean and efficient cut that provides maximum impact.
(Which is not to say the original was a short movie - it wasn't - but rather
that every scene meant something in the overall context of the film. The
same can't be said of the DC.)

I've bought neither version on DVD, because I don't want a flipper
(original), and I don't care for the DC. Hopefully they'll revisit this
title someday and do it right (either the original on one side, or give the
viewer a choice between the two.)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Kohary