I guess it depends on whether or not that ending is part of Penny Marshall's vision for the director's cut of the film. Hopefully they'll supply both the director's and original cut on the DVD, whatever the changes.

However, I am a little surprised how quickly people are dismissing the alternate ending as "illogical." How logical is it for a kid in a man's body to get a job with no credentials and a made-up social-security number? How logical is it for him to be able to find and rent a loft apartment with no credit history? Or cash a paycheck? Or get promoted from data entry so fast? The movie's obviously a fantasy, inserting the need for "logic" into it would invalidate a lot of what happens, even outside the big fantastical event.

I get really annoyed when they call extended editions "Director's Cut". For my money, that should be reserved for cases when the director has turned in a finished film that is then taken away from them and re-edited without their approval (Alien 3, Blade Runner, Superman II .. that sort of thing). Otherwise, it's an extended edition and that should be how it's identified.

And that alternate ending is super-creepy. An adult woman in a child's body stalking a ten-year old boy? How can that be considered "sweet"?

Not to start another Ferris Bueller, Sloane naked thread, but I've seen this alternate ending. I havent seen the movie since the theaters (unless I saw it on TV), but I remember the ending....although I don't remember it being explicitly pointed out that the littler girl in questions is Susan.

But I have, in fact, seen the ending. And since this isnt a cult classic like Star Wars or Ferris, this could not be an imagined memory.

Sure, next thing you're are going to tell me is that Greedo shot first or that the fbi agents had guns. I don't believe you!!! -screwy-

Is it any more creepy than an adult woman having sex with a 13-year old boy? Cause that happens in the film, even though he's in an adult body at the time.

No, because she was hot.

Heres the new BIG trailer if anyone cares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbgV9d1xWWU

:rotfl:

Is this coming? There is no online listing for it.

It appears that Fox's initial announcement may have been early. I'll ask my source at the studio when the new street date might be.

:rotfl: :lol: :lol:

That was soooo sick and twisted........it was funny :lol:

Here's to hoping for good news. I have been looking forward to this release.

Say it ain't so!

First Hudson Hawk. Then Scrooged. Now THIS!

Three replacement disks I was looking foward to gone by the wayside. Here's hoping the new Home Alone release doesn't follow suit.

I am so disappointed! I was looking forward to getting this on Tuesday Nov. 7th. Has anyone heard on a new date or anything?

Any news on this release? Any new date? Anything?

That was awesome..i almost puked up my sandwich

From davisdvd:

"20th Century Fox Home Entertainment will release That Thing You Do! Director's Cut on March 27th, 2007. Tom Hanks' 1996 directorial debut film arrives with a new anamorphic widescreen transfer, DTS Surround, Dolby Digital 5.1 & 2.0 tracks. Also due the same day is the previously announced (and then delayed) Big: Director's Cut. Look for a new anamorphic transfer on this one, with Dolby Digital 5.1 &2.0 tracks. Extras have yet to be announced for either. Retail is $19.98 apiece."

thats good news...2 great movies!!!

That is good news. I never thought I'd see a better version of THat Thing You Do! (though I don't have any real problems with the current almost bare bones edition), but I'll definitely grab the Director's Cut. Here's hoping to a Hanks commentary. I'm pretty sure he has never done a commentary.

I don't know how accurate this is, but according to the amazon.com preorder page the Big: Director's Cut runs 120 minutes which would make it about 12 minutes longer than the theatrical. Also of some interest in the Director's Cut of That Thing You Do, again according to the amazon.com preorder page, runs 155 minutes which means that the director's cut is over 45 minutes longer than the theatrical.

-eek-

If "sweet" is the term you'd use to describe a middle-aged woman willing to give up life as she knows it in order to stalk and rigorously fuck a pre-teen boy, then yes, I suppose this situation would qualify. For most, though, "creepy" would certainly be a fitting adjective.

This chick is in her 30's, right? One would assume she's become accustomed to fucking. I doubt she'll want to wait the half a decade or so until
little Josh is legal. So a thirty-something gal (mentally, even if she's in the body of a younger girl) will be trying to shack-up with a pre-teen kiddo (both mentally and physically, mind you).

Only in Michael Jackson's world is that not even a little bit creepy.

-JP

I think it speaks more on your state of mind than on any possible intention by the director that you assume that they'd continue having sex. People have given up sex for less.

After all, what enamored her in the first place was when she slept over at his place without having sex.

I'm not sure the intention was to think about it in quite the detail that you have here but... I will point out that people most certainly do stop fucking for years at a time. Sometimes even voluntarily. :)

Waiting 5 (or whatever) years until he's emotionally ready for the physical stuff isn't exactly a stretch. You're telling me that she's willing to give up her life as it is and become a 12-year-old girl for him... but she's not willing to lay off the salami for a few years?