Randy Miller III

I realize this could easily be in the Movie Talk forum, so feel free to move it if necessary.

Anyway. Many fans of Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver are aware of the "washed out" colors during one of the film's final sequences (the "shootout"). I'm fairly certain the colors were desaturated by order of the MPAA because of the amount of blood depicted, and I believe the original negatives were also destroyed.

Here's my question: if the negatives are indeed lost forever, do you think we'll ever see a corrected version on DVD (or HD-DVD) through the use of computer coloring technology? I don't even know if it's possible, but it would certainly be something to see. Any thoughts?

AsmodeusVice

I'd think that if they can make a digital master, they can manipulate the colors like the Coen Bros. did on "Oh Brother, Where Art thou?".

but considering that the title is owned by Columbia (and seeing how they mucked up Boyz N the Hood) , I would doubt it.

I'm really beginning to think that Columbia has absolutely NO respect for the films they have in their library.

PopcornTreeCt

Corrected version? If the MPAA ordered it to be changed then it never would've been released. Could you provide more information on the topic?

Randy Miller III

I'm no expert on the matter, but I believe it was mentioned during the documentary on the DVD. Basically, the "powers that be" (either the MPAA, or perhaps the studio) felt the scene was far too graphic to be released in its existing form---in essence, the colors were desaturated because of the amount of blood shown (I guess the red was too red!). It seemed like a pretty stupid "fix" to me, but it was done nonetheless. If anyone else can offer some insight, feel free to chime right in.

SFranke

Scorsese does not allow the release of films that have been altered from the theatrical version. If it was washed out in the theater, it will be washed out on DVD too [as long as Scorsese has the final say, at least].

ViewAskewbian

I certainly don't mind it as is as I get to tell the tale of why it is washed out like that each time I show the film to somebody new.

Yocke

Actually, he says in the documentary that he wanted to use the original color film for the Criterion laserdisc, but they never found it.

Patrick Mirza

Scorsese mentions in the laserdisc commentary that he's grown used to the brown tone the finale has... I don't think he ever has any intention to change it back. Besides, I'm sure he has other priorities.

Chris777

that's strange, oh well. just gotta hope for the best

Mr. Salty

The MPAA has no power to order changes to a film, period. As a DVD Talk reviewer, I'd think you'd know that.

The MPAA gives a movie with whatever rating it deems appropriate (using a set of standards it won't fully explain to anyone). The studio or filmmaker can then choose to either release the film with the rating given, appeal the rating in hopes of getting it reduced, release the film unrated, or make changes to the film in order to receive a softer rating.

ThatGuamGuy

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but 'New York, New York' says you're wrong. I'd like to believe he's not responsible for restoring that atrocious sequence, but he is.

ThatGuamGuy

If the MPAA gives your film a rating, I don't think you're allowed to release it unrated without making at least some token change. I'm sure it's more flexible with independent studios, but I'm pretty sure MPAA signatories have to accept the MPAA rulings.

You also could do what John Carpenter is alleged to have done (I believe the film was 'Assault on Precinct 13'), which was submit a tamer version in order to get the rating reduced, but then release the stronger version anyway.

djtoell

Yes, and then you can get sued, like Mier Zarchi did with I Spit on Your Grave.

DJ

SFranke

Scorsese said in an interview that the director's cut of Gangs of New York would not be released because he did not think that there should be releases other than the original theatrical release.

ThatGuamGuy

Are you at all familiar with 'New York, New York'? Because it's been released in three different cuts, and the theatrical release has not been available for more than twenty years. If he actually said what you're saying he said, he was being either forgetful (since he's also expressed at times his desire to release the unsaturated 'Taxi Driver') or, more likely to me, didn't want to revisit 'Gangs' and was just giving a reason nobody would argue with. It's also possible that he didn't want to appear as if he'd re-cut 'Gangs' to placate Weinstein, since I'm sure he had final cut in his contract, but am also sure Weinstein pressured him into doing some trimming.

We can speculate on why he said something which is definitely false, but, factually speaking, Scorsese has released a cut of 'New York, New York' which is not the theatrical cut, and the theatrical cut is unavailable.

Cygnet74

recently, The Passion: Recut was submitted and received an R rating but was release 'unrated'.

djtoell

The MPAA website lists no entry for The Passion: Recut. The only rating the film has gotten is an R for the original version.

Independent studios, at least, can reject ratings. Requiem for a Dream was given an NC-17 by the MPAA. Artistan rejected the rating, and it was released unrated. This rating is listed as "Open" on the MPAA website with a notation that the rating was surrendered.

DJ

ThatGuamGuy

The stories I read were that it was unofficial, seeking their advise rather than an official submission [although I had thought the MPAA wasn't supposed to do stuff like that either ... they seem to have gone out of their way to be kind to Christ anyway], but, either way, 'The Passion of the Christ' wasn't released by an MPAA signatory.

Cygnet74

MPAA + WWJD = TPOTC?

Jack Torrance

In "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" Author Peter Biskind mentions that Scorsese surprisingly liked the altered version better because he thought it was even more violent than the first version.