I really don't mean to threadcrap

Mod note... then you shouldn't do it

But they did take him to the looney bin...

So end the mystery for us already--was the Heinz scene in the original theatrical exhibition or not?

thats all he ever really wanted...forget the money, fame, women...as long as that dude on the internet respects me...

Well the first Ace film was a bit better with its story and just the overall construction of the film. Ace was an over the top kind of guy, but it was only meant to be a silly comedy to showcase the likes of Jim Carrey but ended up being well written and put together for the type of comedy it was. The second film was way more over the top and much more along the lines of simply trying to make it a scene for scene Jim/Ace showcase and it was put together pretty loosely but still warranted many good laughs. I don't know how one could like the second film and not the first one bit, considering half of the movie was stolen from the first to begin with.

Anyways, enough with the questions of 'did the dolphin thingy appear in theaters'... IT DIDN'T. I should know, I had seen it in the theaters and recall clear as day seeing the new scene on VHS for the first time and saying to myself 'so that's the new scene' and thinking it was quite funny. I was a little skeptical being it wasn't the 'theatrical' version on VHS but it didn't ruin the film at all... it was a good scene.

Having watched "the scene" on YouTube.com, I'd have to say, eh, not bad--the part where he simulates dolphin speak is pretty choice--but hardly worth the fervor many are making over it, and as far as these assertions that the scene makes for one of the, if not the, funniest scenes in the film are concerned, give me a break...

Directors don't always have final cut over their films. A prime example of this would be Born In East L.A., which has an entire 3rd act cut from the film in the theatrical (and DVD) version. 20 minutes was added to the TV version, which makes the ending actually make sense, unlike in the theatrical version where LA is right on the Mexican border.

Since Cheech Marin starred, wrote and directed the film, I can't imagine him cutting so much of the film out willingly, unless the studio had a running time clause in the contract.

This is obviously the exception to the rule, but it's time that these alternate versions were preserved. Let's face it, many films have run much longer in their TV cuts than their theatrical ones. I'm not saying do that all the time, but at least give us these deletec scenes.

Not to take this thread away from the original topic, but, damn, I never knew there was a longer version of Born In East LA.

I knew there was a reason why I hadn't puchased the DVD yet...

Stupid Wikipedia knows everything...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_in_East_L.A.

With all due respect, those assertions may hold no truth for you, but they do nonetheless for those who have made them, including myself. I got so much joy from that moment of the film. If it was included as an extended scene, no problem. As long as it was available on the disc.

Having said that, and having seen the new transfer compared with the old, I might pick this up, anyway. It looks really good, and does tempt me. Then just record the TV version from whatever network airs it again sooner or later.

--THX

Thank you for defining an opinion for me, you've really made my day. I stand by "give me a break"...

Come on. Everybody has their own opinion about the scene. It matters not though, again, it's all about what the 'correct' version of the film is.

I can't argue about it not being listed as a deleted scene though, that would have been nice, but again, for 12.99 for all you get...

You'll get no argument there.

I've actually never seen that scene. I saw Ace Venture theatrically and never saw it in home video.

True, but that doesn't apply here. There's no evidence that the theatrical cut of Ace was contrary to what the director wanted or was happy with, and there's no evidence that either the P&S home video or Network versions constitute a "director's cut" of the film.

It's actually hard to determine just from different cut what the director's happy with. The extent of the footege cut doesn't mean it was against what the director wanted. The 40-Year-Old Virgin has more than 20 mins of deleted scenes, some of which was added back to an "unrated" version of the film. However, Aptow makes clear that the unrated version is not a director's cut, but merely an alternate cut with more scenes. Peter Jackson added back 35-50 minutes of additional footage back to his Lord of the Rings films, but has said that if he had to choose, the theatrical cuts are his preferred versions. Luc Besson created a cut of the film Leon that was 20 minutes longer, but states that it isn't a director's cut, merely a longer version. In the commentary for the "original director's cut" of Army of Darkness, Bruce Campbell quips that the longer the film is, the more sense it makes. Yet Raimi makes it clear that he cut a lot of scenes, even those that help make the story coherent, because of pacing reasons; even this cut of the film is missing scenes that add logic to the story.

So, the mere absense of some scenes, even scenes that help the film make sense, doesn't mean that the theatrical is not the director's preferred cut, nor does it make any alternate longer cuts a director's cut by default.

The question is: which alternate versions? The first rough assembly? The last edit before whole scenes were removed? The alternate TV version which was worked on after the theatrical cut was finished?

In any case, the P&S version of Ace with the extra scene is preserved, there's a DVD of it that's been out for years now.

I don't know about that. A lot of TV edits of films contain additional scenes, but this is typically because they've edited out other scenes from the film, and need to pad the time of the film back out.

Deleted scenes are nice, and it's a shame they weren't included. However, I don't think a studio or DVD should be slammed for finally presenting the correct theatrical version of a film. If anything should be "preserved" and made available to the public, it should be that.

No one's slamming them for that. We're slamming them for omitting things that would be easy to include, as deleted scenes or otherwise. Any real fan of a movie like this would prefer to have all the extra stuff as opposed to not having it. Especially when the extra stuff has previously been available on a lesser format, and when they even included a bonus disc of stupid animated episodes no one cares about.

Those of us who are fans of the film (as opposed to compulsive collectors like the guy who reasoned, "3 discs for $13? SOLD!") would have gladly paid the few extra dollars for a more complete release.

And as the "theatrical version" is often a studio-butchered version that defies the auteur's vision, I don't see why the version released to theaters is necessarily more "preservable" than a DC.

Are you kidding? Lot's people said they refuse to buy it because the film doesn't include that scene. People who still own the original DVD are saying they're not going to buy it because of the omission of the one scene.

I agree that deleted scenes are a very nice feature, I love them, and it's a shame they're not included on the DVD as deleted scenes. However, I've never seen the lack of deleted scenes as a deal breaker in buying a DVD. Shouldn't it be about the film?

Any "real fan" would want the film as it was originally presented in theaters, with the original cut in the proper aspect ratio, instead of a cropped version with added scenes the studio made to appeal to the "masses."

Only the one scene has been available on VHS or DVD, the other scenes were only on TV.

Nobody but "real fans" of the character.

Seriously, calling up what you think a "real fan" consists of is a dangerous argument. People love films for different reasons, and different people find different aspects of films more important than others. To start to say that people with different opinions are "lesser" fans than you is really rude and not very justifiable.

There's zero evidence that anything other than the theatrical cut constitutes a "director's cut" of this film. I was saying that given this lack of director's preference for the other cuts, the theatrical cut should be given precedence.

Follow this link to a list of deleted scenes from the syndicated TV cut of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

No, I am not kidding. As I said before, we don't mind them releasing the theatrical cut, and that is not what they are being slammed for. We are slamming them for not including the extra material that they obviously have readily available.


I never argued for the old foolscreen version if that's what you're alluding to. I also never argued against the theatrical cut.


How does that make them any less desirable?


I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that the reason people love Ace Ventura is because of what Jim Carrey did with the character, not the cheap, spin-off cartoon. But thanks for the lesson, professor.


That's dandy. I was actually referring to your blanket statement regarding theatrical versions being more worthy of preservation.

Who's this "we"? You should speak for yourself, and not for others, some of whom clearly were doing the things you say "we're" not.

None, as deleted scenes at least. I just thought by "lesser format" you were talking about a home video format, like VHS. The TV scenes never appeared on a home video format.

No doubt, but you're being a bit presumptious to assume that fans aren't interested in the cartoon series at all.

I'd assumed from the context of my original post that my point was clear, i.e. I was specifically replying to TheKing's assertion that the VHS or TV edit consitute a director's cut of the film and/or are more deserving of being put on DVD. They don't, and they aren't.

I can see, however, that if you take my last paragraph out of context, it could be considered a blanket statement. So, to be clear, here's my general ranking, in order of importance, of which edits of a film deserve to be "preserved":

1) Director's Cut
2) Theatrical Cut
3) Extended, Unrated, or any other cuts of the film.

Now, 1 and 2 are very close to each other, and I'd say they almost have equal importance to a film. Also, my personal preferences for a film edit may differ from this list based on the specific film, as may my ranking of importance.

However, given that general list, as there's no director's cut of Ace, then we should defer to the theatrical.

Come to think, you're right: There was little point, really, to that post. I was seeking to defend an opinion. Quite unnecessary.

And I stand by my assertion that the German trainer scene was among the funniest in the movie, and deserved a place on the DVD.

--THX

Edited into the film, or as a deleted scene?

Deleted scene. I have no problem with the theatrical version being presented on the new DVD. I just wish there was a deleted/extended scenes section with the German trainer. That would feel like a much more complete package to me.

--THX

Then CertifiedTHX, it turns out we're in complete agreement on how the DVD should have been presented, regardless of our split on the quality of the missing scene itself; however, for those that want to act like it's a dealbreaker, though the DVD isn't all it should and could have been, I still think it's easily worth a purchase.

I was going to sell off the old one but I guess I'll hang on to it (not that it's going to be worth anything). I do wish WB added it to a deleted scenes section, oh well.

Meh.

Glad to have a widescreen version and the second movie. Glad it's the theatrical version. Glad it was reasonably priced.

Don't miss that scene one bit.

How anyone could think THAT was was the best scene in the movie is beyond me. The singing butt...the "payment" for rescuing the rat dog..."Can you feel that?!"...the shark tank...when he realized he kissed the police chief...tons of hilarious and classic stuff. That scene was so inconsequential, I had to watch the youtube clip just to see what it was.