The theatrical, which I actually liked quite a bit. I may Netflix the "director's cut" at some point for the curiosity factor, but I think it's unfortunate that that Stone felt the need to cater to the red staters (especially since his belief that the film bombed because of its gay content is probably misguided).
Trevor
07-31-05, 05:57 PM
Maybe you need a 'both' and 'neither' option in the poll.
I'll probably rent one (or both) before I decide, and will probably use this poll as a gauge as to which to rent first.
ThatGuamGuy
07-31-05, 06:09 PM
I may Netflix the "director's cut" at some point for the curiosity factor, but I think it's unfortunate that that Stone felt the need to cater to the red staters (especially since his belief that the film bombed because of its gay content is probably misguided).
I think it's funny that so many people believed one out of context quote instead of waiting for the actual release.
From Entertainment Weekly this week:
"[W]hile eight minutes have been snipped from the wayward epic, rumors that the Macedonian conqueror would emerge miraculously hetero prove unfounded. ... No, as Stone himself explains in his painstakingly informative/discursive/batty commentary, the intent was to restructure Alexander so that the hero's fraught Greek childhood with battling parents runs more clearly in parallel with his later conquests of Babylon and on and on."
That said, if you watched the theatrical cut and were told that the homosexuality had been severely cut back, you'd believe it, because it's barely there. That's what made it so funny when Stone blamed that for the movie's failure.
My answer to the poll: I'm mildly curious about the director's cut, enough that if somebody offered to pay me to take a copy and put it on my shelf, I might consider it. Otherwise, nothing, thanks.
Dazed
07-31-05, 06:11 PM
i may rent it to see what its about, but wont be buying it as there are far to many other movies i want first
garmonbozia
07-31-05, 06:13 PM
i'll probably get the theatrical version from CH some day just in order to be able to see it........
Geofferson
07-31-05, 06:21 PM
I'm going to go with the theatrical cut.
fryinpan1
07-31-05, 06:36 PM
I will probably give the director's cut a chance.
Mike Lowrey
07-31-05, 07:03 PM
The theatrical, which I actually liked quite a bit. I may Netflix the "director's cut" at some point for the curiosity factor, but I think it's unfortunate that that Stone felt the need to cater to the red staters (especially since his belief that the film bombed because of its gay content is probably misguided).
It's unfortunate that <b>flaming Blue Staters</b> like you continue bring up this issue, ESPECIALLY after the DVDTalk review of the director's cut actually says that the director's cut has MORE "gay" stuff in it than the theatrical cut.
The irony, and thus the problem here, is Stone's politics. Oliver Stone hasn't made a good film since, I'd argue, Platoon. JFK was about as realistic as Jet Li's ability to pull off his moves without wires. Alexander started to get bad press right off the bat from all the critics, NOT because of the gay material, but because the movie was a mess (according to the critics). I'll hold judgment until I see in a couple weeks whenever I get the DVD. Oliver blamed the failure of his movie in the American demographic because of his politics.
BTW, I live in a Blue State, but in a RED region. If it weren't for Chicago and Cook County, Illinois would have probably went Red. We in the rural sticks don't need government assistance to wipe our ass, like the city slickers apparently do.
<i>Mod edit: Come on Mike you've been here long enough to know generalizations like that are discouraged. You're free to state your opinion on the topic but please leave the needless rhetoric out of it.<i>
...though at times I get the harder gin/vodka version....
Pro-B
Vandelay_Inds
07-31-05, 07:58 PM
will I still catch teh gay from the director's cut?
Cameron
07-31-05, 08:06 PM
no neither option...its rigged
Josh Z
07-31-05, 08:48 PM
It's unfortunate that flaming Blue Staters like you continue bring up this issue, ESPECIALLY after the DVDTalk review of the director's cut actually says that the director's cut has MORE "gay" stuff in it than the theatrical cut.
I suggest you read that review again and pay attention to what is actually said in it.
Dr. DVD
07-31-05, 08:52 PM
My understanding is that the Director's Cut is faster paced but even more of a convoluted mess, which I find very hard to accomplish given what I saw in theaters.
FWIW, I am a liberal and can say that Alexander bombed because quite frankly, it was a bad movie. I remember being embarrassed by Stone's comments when I read them, as I knew that meant he couldn't accept either criticism or the fact that his pet project was a piece of shit, a very well shot piece of shit, but nonetheless.
That said, I will probably get the Director's Cut because I love to watch trainwreck movies under the influence of alcohol and I found the theatrical cut way too long, so I have no reason to even entertain the notion of watching that version again. As long as it's not missing a lot of Angelina, I'm fine.
IDrinkMolson
07-31-05, 09:09 PM
I'm thinking wait until they are both available for a 2 for $20 deal.
mookyman
07-31-05, 09:13 PM
It's unfortunate that flaming Blue Staters like you continue bring up this issue, ESPECIALLY after the DVDTalk review of the director's cut actually says that the director's cut has MORE "gay" stuff in it than the theatrical cut.
Can you read? I said that I thought Stone's opinion - which he has stated more than once - that the film's failure was largely due to middle America's resistance to gay themes was misguided. In other words, I don't think he's right. I was basically defending you - but you blew it.
Also, what the hell is a flaming Blue Stater? It sounds delicious.
mookyman
07-31-05, 09:25 PM
I think it's funny that so many people believed one out of context quote instead of waiting for the actual release.
From Entertainment Weekly this week:
"[W]hile eight minutes have been snipped from the wayward epic, rumors that the Macedonian conqueror would emerge miraculously hetero prove unfounded. ... No, as Stone himself explains in his painstakingly informative/discursive/batty commentary, the intent was to restructure Alexander so that the hero's fraught Greek childhood with battling parents runs more clearly in parallel with his later conquests of Babylon and on and on."
From the DVD Talk review:
"The problem is that removing many bits of important character development that were deemed "too gay" by audiences has deprived other remaining scenes of their proper context. The quasi love story between Alexander and Hephaistion is still a big part of the movie, but now the scenes they have together actually seem more melodramatic than before. Rather than the intended effect of toning down that aspect of the movie, Stone has unintentionally made it more histrionic and "gay" than it previously was."
This muddies the issue. Did Stone try to make the film less "gay" and fail? Or is the "director's cut" an intentional act of defiance against the presumed demands of mainstream audiences released under the guise of a more heterosexual cut?
Joe Molotov
07-31-05, 09:38 PM
I voted for the Director's Cut in hopes that it's a better movie than the Theatrical Cut.
buckee1
07-31-05, 09:55 PM
I'm on the fence here. I can't imagine buying it solely because the trailers looked so absolutely freakin' horrible they kept me from actually seeing the movie! I'll netflix it and decide then.
critterdvd
07-31-05, 10:01 PM
buy the theatrical, netlix the directors cut... Im in the minority, because I really enjoyed this movie.
ReduxGuy
07-31-05, 10:14 PM
As of now, I shall get the Theatrical Version.
In the future, I shall probably by the DC and find someone to make a custome DVD case to make Alexander a 3-discer.
Dr. DVD
07-31-05, 11:16 PM
Can you read? I said that I thought Stone's opinion - which he has stated more than once - that the film's failure was largely due to middle America's resistance to gay themes was misguided. In other words, I don't think he's right. I was basically defending you - but you blew it.
Also, what the hell is a flaming Blue Stater? It sounds delicious.
You try to help him out and he makes an attack;typical of a Republican nimrod. You shouldn't be surprised.
I might Netflix one version, but this is definitely a movie that is worth owning just because it's such a trainwreck, similar to Verhoeven's Showgirls.
pro-bassoonist
07-31-05, 11:58 PM
You try to help him out and he makes an attack;typical of a Republican nimrod. You shouldn't be surprised.
Don't even bother with him...with ML's past history of blatant statements, misquoting, making false claims, and above all being utterly offensive to other members of the forum...including his derogatory "signatures"...I would not bother considering his claims.
BTW...Lowry...I do happen to live in Cook County...and your post is utterly offensive to me.
Regards,
Pro-B
speedyray
08-01-05, 01:49 AM
You try to help him out and he makes an attack;typical of a Republican nimrod. You shouldn't be surprised.
I might Netflix one version, but this is definitely a movie that is worth owning just because it's such a trainwreck, similar to Verhoeven's Showgirls.
Oh, and name calling is so very adult. Mike may be over the top and even misguided on occasion, but the opposite side starts slinging trash just the same after he posts.
Back to the topic at hand. I am tempted to buy neither. The reviews are just so bad for this film. I will probably rent the theatrical. If I don't rent it, I may buy it when it hits the <$10 mark.
Artman
08-01-05, 02:04 AM
ML supporter here! :rock2:
Oh and.... theatrical for me.
ThatGuamGuy
08-01-05, 02:33 AM
It's unfortunate that <b>flaming Blue Staters</b>
On the one hand, congratulations for not derailing the thread by bringing up Michael Moore. On the other hand, is it possible for you to disagree with somebody without insulting them? Or bringing up politics?
The irony, and thus the problem here, is Stone's politics.
Oh, I guess not.
PS: Maybe it's just because I went to one of those flaming Blue State universeries, but I'm pretty sure that somebody saying something is true based on a belief that they hold is *not* ironic.
Oliver Stone hasn't made a good film since, I'd argue, Platoon.
I'm actually kinda surprised you don't like 'Any Given Sunday'. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, but it's got a lot of good stuff in it. But from what I know of your taste, I think it'd be up your alley, if you haven't seen it. [The basic idea of the movie is that football players are the modern day gladiators.]
JFK was about as realistic as Jet Li's ability to pull off his moves without wires.
I think it's interesting when people go after JFK on the facts (but especially to say it's not realistic because you found out after watching, and enjoying, it that certain facts were false ... if you believed it while watching it, doesn't that mean it is realistic?). Granting that many, if not all, of the theories in it are absurd, I think 'JFK' does a fantastic job of capturing the mood and feeling of a pretty scary time period -- the aftermath of the first presidential assassination in sixty years, and the only one in the modern era. And it's difficult to say that a movie which states that Jim Garrison believed all these crazy things is inaccurate or untrue.
It's just too bad that Stone is completely nuts on the commentary track. I grant you that.
I'll hold judgment until I see in a couple weeks whenever I get the DVD.
I'm curious what you'll think of it, but, honestly, this is a terrible movie to blind buy.
Oliver blamed the failure of his movie in the American demographic because of his politics.
That's silly; you yourself proudly state that most of the country is intolerant of homosexuality and that any sort of expression of homosexuality on film is "cramming it down people's throats" which they're likely (not to mention "right", or at least "within their rights") to reject. I know you two don't share politics, so it can't just be a political belief that leads to that idea.
He blamed the failure of his movie on the American demographic because he's too thin-skinned to acknowledge that he made a bad movie. Reading 'Killer Instinct', I tend to think he's surrounded by yes-men.
BTW, I live in a Blue State,
I think it's unfortunate when you flaming Blue Staters cram your politics down the throats of people who want to read and talk about movies.
Mike Lowrey
08-01-05, 01:53 PM
BTW...Lowry...I do happen to live in Cook County...and your post is utterly offensive to me.
Regards,
Pro-B
You feel offended because Cook County and Chicago and its huge Democratic political machine has a state-wide effect that doesn't necessarily represent the rest of the state? During the '04 election, the only blue areas were around the urban areas and a few college towns (where much of the student body is from Chicago). So my statement stands. If it weren't for the millions of Democrats in Chicago, Illinois would be at least a swing state as it was in the past. And after the mess Blagojevich has made of it, it just may be in '08.
Mike Lowrey
08-01-05, 02:06 PM
On the one hand, congratulations for not derailing the thread by bringing up Michael Moore. On the other hand, is it possible for you to disagree with somebody without insulting them? Or bringing up politics?
I didn't bring up Michael Moore. I'm talking about Oliver Stone.
Oh, I guess not.
If directors and actors would leave their politics out of their work, so would I when discussing their work.
PS: Maybe it's just because I went to one of those flaming Blue State universeries, but I'm pretty sure that somebody saying something is true based on a belief that they hold is *not* ironic.
I did too and I considered myself liberal when I went there, but I couldn't wait to get out of there because it was too liberal for me.
I'm actually kinda surprised you don't like 'Any Given Sunday'. I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, but it's got a lot of good stuff in it. But from what I know of your taste, I think it'd be up your alley, if you haven't seen it. [The basic idea of the movie is that football players are the modern day gladiators.]
I have seen 'Any Given Sunday' and I really didn't care for it, not because of the subject matter, but because it was a bore of a movie. Much like 'Alexander' might be.
I think it's interesting when people go after JFK on the facts (but especially to say it's not realistic because you found out after watching, and enjoying, it that certain facts were false ... if you believed it while watching it, doesn't that mean it is realistic?). Granting that many, if not all, of the theories in it are absurd, I think 'JFK' does a fantastic job of capturing the mood and feeling of a pretty scary time period -- the aftermath of the first presidential assassination in sixty years, and the only one in the modern era. And it's difficult to say that a movie which states that Jim Garrison believed all these crazy things is inaccurate or untrue.
It's just too bad that Stone is completely nuts on the commentary track. I grant you that.
Well, to be honest, I did believe the theories set out in the movie, but once I learned otherwise, I changed my mind on the matter, as anybody should when confronted with the real facts.
I'm curious what you'll think of it, but, honestly, this is a terrible movie to blind buy.
Well, it just may be, but I'm a sucker for historical epics. I'll give it a watch to see what I think about. I'm usually pretty leenient on movies on whether or not they suck, so I'll give it a chance.
That's silly; you yourself proudly state that most of the country is intolerant of homosexuality and that any sort of expression of homosexuality on film is "cramming it down people's throats" which they're likely (not to mention "right", or at least "within their rights") to reject. I know you two don't share politics, so it can't just be a political belief that leads to that idea.
I'm just going on the fact that everytime a pro-homosexual referendum or legislation comes up in elections or in Congress, it's struck down. 11 states had gay marriage on the ballot last year and all 11 struck it down, including the very liberal state of Oregon, so again, the American people aren't ready to openly accept the lifestyle.
He blamed the failure of his movie on the American demographic because he's too thin-skinned to acknowledge that he made a bad movie. Reading 'Killer Instinct', I tend to think he's surrounded by yes-men.
That I agree with. Stone's ego has gotten the best of him and he obviously refuses to accept that he can make a bad movie. Quite frankly, when I first learned that Alexander was a Oliver Stone film, I thought, "Great, this should be good." But when it as creamed by the critics and at the box office, and he came out and made the gay "excuse", then that's when I lost all respect for him.
I think it's unfortunate when you flaming Blue Staters cram your politics down the throats of people who want to read and talk about movies.
I'm not a flaming Blue Stater. I'm a Red Voter in a Blue State.
pro-bassoonist
08-01-05, 02:23 PM
You feel offended because Cook County and Chicago and its huge Democratic political machine has a state-wide effect that doesn't necessarily represent the rest of the state?
NO!!! I feel offended because you made a very broad generalization, as you usually do, and attacked anyone that might be living there with a derogatory remark regardless of political orientation. I happen to live in the same county.
Furthermore your deliberate attempts to deliver a political punch, anytime and anywhere you can (including your mandatory offensive signatures) was what ThatGuamGuy partially addressed...if I could assume on his behalf...yet again you act like you have no clue what he is talking about. And who cares what your political orientation is. Just act like a mature person (??) and even when you wish to deliver an out of context remark...act with a tact.
Regards,
Pro-B
island007
08-01-05, 03:30 PM
This entire thing started with the second post and a reference to 'red staters'.
I also take issue with many of the 'liberal' mandatory offensive signatures.
Maybe we should keep politics out of the signatures.
Edit to add: Forgot why I clicked this thread. I'll get the DC.
MrE
08-01-05, 03:46 PM
:grouphug:
JOE29
08-01-05, 05:17 PM
I'm looking to get one of these versions tomorrow, so tell me exactly what is the diffrence between the two versions? Is it only the gay content or is it more than that? Can someone explain, then i'll make my decision on which copy to get.
Mike Lowrey
08-01-05, 05:31 PM
I also take issue with many of the 'liberal' mandatory offensive signatures.
Maybe we should keep politics out of the signatures.
Better?
jmj713
08-01-05, 05:36 PM
What does the film Alexander have to do with politics and voting?
spartanstew
08-01-05, 05:41 PM
I blind bought the Theatrical from CH. I'll probably watch it sometime late this month. I know a lot of people didn't like it, but I love these types of movies and even though I'm sure there'll be parts I don't like, I know I'll probably like it overall. Everyone said Troy sucked too, but I liked it.
Stew
Mike Lowrey
08-01-05, 05:47 PM
What does the film Alexander have to do with politics and voting?
Nothing. So tell Stone that, and discussions like this about his movies would never happen.
Like I said, when directors and actors start leaving politics out of their work, I'll leave it out of discussions concerning their work. Until then...
davidh777
08-01-05, 05:52 PM
As of now, I shall get the Theatrical Version.
In the future, I shall probably by the DC and find someone to make a custome DVD case to make Alexander a 3-discer.
You'll need a 4-discer. The theatrical cut is split over two discs, but the dc is not.
Steve Phillips
08-01-05, 06:52 PM
I couldn't care less what color state I'm in. If I was so insecure of myself that I thought a movie would make me gay, I'd just rent something else.
Why do some people have to carry on about every little thing when there are so many really important issues and problems out there to solve?
BTW, the movie is a bore, the only real reason to avoid it.
Josh Z
08-01-05, 07:10 PM
I'm looking to get one of these versions tomorrow, so tell me exactly what is the diffrence between the two versions? Is it only the gay content or is it more than that? Can someone explain, then i'll make my decision on which copy to get.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=16903
mike01
08-01-05, 07:29 PM
what are the odds of both versions coming out later in a two discer seamless branching?
Josh Z
08-01-05, 09:33 PM
what are the odds of both versions coming out later in a two discer seamless branching?
Slim to none. Warner is very slow to reissue their titles.
Dead
08-01-05, 09:41 PM
Guys, drop the "red state"/"blue state" crap or I'll have to close this thread.
ReduxGuy
08-02-05, 01:23 AM
Since I have enough cash, I shall buy both versions, find a DVD case like the Back to the Future set, wait until someone makes a custom 3-disc cover, print it, transfer the inserts (if there are any), and then have my Alexander: Three-Disc Special Edition.
ReduxGuy
08-02-05, 01:31 AM
You'll need a 4-discer. The theatrical cut is split over two discs, but the dc is not.
Well, they are all the same features, so the DC bonus disc is somewhat worthless.
Peep
08-02-05, 03:04 AM
Which cut has more of Angelina?
Lemdog
08-02-05, 07:01 AM
If I were to get one I would get the Theatrical Cut.
LiquidSky
08-02-05, 08:40 AM
I'll wait for the third version with plenty of full frontal Colin and male/male lovin' :)
ReduxGuy
08-02-05, 12:38 PM
Which cut has more of Angelina?
Theatrical.
Giles
08-02-05, 12:53 PM
I'll wait for the third version with plenty of full frontal Colin and male/male lovin' :)
woohoo!
cajun_junky
08-02-05, 10:25 PM
TC for me as well.
marty888
08-03-05, 09:24 AM
It's unfortunate that <b>flaming Blue Staters</b> like you continue bring up this issue, ESPECIALLY after the DVDTalk review of the director's cut actually says that the director's cut has MORE "gay" stuff in it than the theatrical cut.
<i>Mod edit: Come on Mike you've been here long enough to know generalizations like that are discouraged. You're free to state your opinion on the topic but please leave the needless rhetoric out of it.<i>
Other reviews have a different take on the changes made for the "director's cut", including this from the NY Times:
<i>"The cover copy describes "Alexander Director's Cut" as "Newly inspired, faster paced, more action-packed!" But <b>Mr. Stone has mostly concentrated his energies on cutting back his portrayal of Alexander's bisexuality</b>, though probably not to the point of earning an endorsement from Focus on the Family. Alexander may no longer invite his lifelong love, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), to join him in bed, but the smoldering looks remain."</i>
Geofferson
08-03-05, 09:42 AM
I went to rent this last night and they only had copies of the Director's Cut. Disappointed, but I rented it because I wasn't in the mood to track down who might have the theatrical cut available.
davidh777
08-03-05, 03:19 PM
Well, they are all the same features, so the DC bonus disc is somewhat worthless.
Yes, that's a good point I didn't think of. Still a pain to have the theatrical split though.
animalmother
08-03-05, 11:35 PM
i'll go with director's cut, because i've already seen the theatrical in the theatre.
Artman
08-04-05, 12:22 AM
Wal-Mart has a bonus disk but it was only attached to the DC, just in case anyone was interested, it was $3 more. Something about a Colin-transforming-into-Alexander featurette.
Wayde
08-04-05, 08:46 AM
Hey Nemein
Is this the Alexander discussion?
I just want to do the right thing for this message board. I find it helpful at times. But I wanted to read thoughts on the movie Alexander and maybe even post an opinion (not a formal review per-se) but in a search on the film this is the closest I could find.
This looks like a poll to me, one that has degenerated into a quasi-political schoolyard mess.
Is there an Alexander discussion? I'm sorry if I offended anyone by posting an attempt at an Alexander discussion on this board (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=432829&highlight=alexander).
Please point me to the actual discussion if I am mistaken and this isn't it.
...though at times I get the harder gin/vodka version....
Pro-B
:rimshot:
BTW, a little more cream, a little bit less creme.
lamphorn
08-05-05, 03:54 PM
I won't buy either, as I can't stomach the thought of putting any change in Stone's pocket. And that's for artistic as well as personal reasons (I'm Cuban). If I ever decide to watch this film, it'll be the theatrical cut so I can laugh at the worst-reviewd film of the year.
Artman
08-05-05, 04:29 PM
If I ever decide to watch this film, it'll be the theatrical cut so I can laugh at the worst-reviewd film of the year.
Not really, there are many others (20 to be precise) with a worse % of postitve reviews:
Was the Director's Cut any better that the theatrical?
I never saw the theatrical and I just finished watching the DC. That had to be one of the gayest, most God-awful movies I've ever seen. I may even ask for my rental fee back. :mad2:
SuckaMC
08-14-05, 05:06 AM
As far as I'm concerned; if you know that Alexander was Bi, then none of the movie should suprise anyone. There's like 2 guy kisses and Alex getting in bed naked in the Theatrical Cut. Whatever. I liked the Theatrical Cut ad thought it was a fine movie. And Rosiario Dawson is hot.
Snowmaker
08-14-05, 10:15 AM
As far as I'm concerned; if you know that Alexander was Bi, then none of the movie should suprise anyone. There's like 2 guy kisses and Alex getting in bed naked in the Theatrical Cut. Whatever. I liked the Theatrical Cut ad thought it was a fine movie. And Rosiario Dawson is hot.
The gay stuff didn't suprise me. It was just how bad the movie was that I was suprised about.
Buy: