OldBoy

I am pretty sure this is true that both the Criterion version and the MGM movie only version are exactly the same in movie content correct? Meaning all the X-rated gore in the Criterion 103 min release is in the 103 minute MGM release correct? Thanks for help.

Robert

Wrong. The MGM dvd has the theatrical version only with just a trailer and none of extras on the criterion version.

OldBoy

then how are they both 103 minutes? is the Criterion version the ONLY version with the X-rated (extra gore)content? I am talking just movie stuff only..nothing bonus material related, I guess there is an MGM and Image with movie only DVD. Thanks for your help.

Robert

The gory parts are only seconds in length. The X-rated version has been rereleased as a special edition in other regions.

DonnachaOne

Also, the Criterion is non-anamorphic 1.66:1 while the MGM disc is anamorphic 1.85:1.

Scott, check out the "alternate versions" entry for Robocop on the IMDb. Also, check out www.dvdcompare.net for a rundown of features worldwide.

Pants

The added gore makes a big impact and really is essential, but it only makes the X-cut less than 20 seconds longer

Jackskeleton

yeah, ED-209's extended scene really drives the point home..

Well worth getting CC's version.

DonnachaOne

Where's that picture of John Ashcroft with the Ed-209, just when we need it...

cross

I don't quite remember the movie. What point was being driven?

Tarantino

That it was vicious, that it was a deadly non-stop killing machine.

baracine

By my estimation, the "extra footage" is only six seconds long. "Robocop" is gory enough as it is. I own both versions (MGM and Criterion). But when I want to watch the movie, I go for the anamorphic MGM edition. Despite the different names, the sound is basically the same basic Dolby Surround. The CC edition is 1:66, as per the director's preference, so you get a little extra picture surface but it has to be either cropped of compressed to fit a 16:9 widescreen TV. I gave the Image non-anamorphic version away. It is completely redundant. The Criterion edition being OOP though, it is a very valuable object.

chanster

The MGM's coloring is all messed up. Someone went through and totall messed with Verhoeven's color scheme.

Gyno Rhino

Anyone have a link or access to the X-rated footage?

I thought that the ED209 scene was intensely gory as is (the MGM version). I have to wonder what else they did.

baracine

I just did a point-by-point comparison of the two editions - Criterion and MGM - for sound and picture...

What I said still holds. Both versions use the same elements of what was basically a simple Dolby surround soundtrack but the criterion presents it in a 3.0 format (Dolby Pro Logic I) and MGM rechannels it in a Dolby 5.1 format, which means stereo effects in the surrounds and lots of sub-woofer activity, which makes some scenes absolutely poignant (all robotic noises, 209 noises, Robo breaking down a door, bullets ricocheting, etc.). The gunfire comes mostly from the front speakers. The dialogue is non-directional (center speaker).

Image-wise, the fact that the MGM is anamorphic 1:77 makes the colours more brilliant and vivid and the picture sharper without the annoying slight edge enhancement in the Criterion, all with very minimal ratio loss. This makes a noticeable difference if you own a widescreen TV.

If you love this film like I do, you still need to own the Criterion for its OAR of 1:66 - even though it was never shown that way in theatres and for the only reason that the director prefers it , its resale and collectibility value and its priceless extra features, including the director commentary, an innovative multimedia presentation on the graphics used and, of course, the six extra seconds of gut-ripping firepower.

Oh, and the MGM version has French and Spanish tracks, both in Dolby 5.1, which are works of art in themselves. And subtitles, totally absent from the English-only Criterion.

chanster

The image is over-colored on the MGM. Do a search on the forum and you will find a thread about this..instead of the steely washed out colors, MGM is way over-saturated.

baracine

You can say that again. Case in point: the first commercial of the film about an artificial heart is a puddle of blurry, lazy, muddy browns in the Criterion whereas it is halfway realistic in the MGM.
The anchorwoman's makeup in the opening scene looks patchy - more like a skin condition, actually. It's smooth and subtly graded in the MGM. That's not oversaturated, that's better. Architectural elements that are dull in the Criterion are shiny in the MGM. The MGM also shows things like stars in the sky during a motorcycle ride of the villain on his way to rob a gas station and the white gleam in Robo's eyes when he is repairing himself, all subtle details that simply do not register in the Criterion. It is not overblown, it is sharper.

Horror Dude

the only differences in the film are the few extra seconds of the ed-209 shooting the dude in the office, and more gun shots to murphy as he is getting killed in the hideout.

fumanstan

The video quality is debatable. When i was researching the difference between the two versions, i read several comparisions. I saw a lot of posts saying that the "steely look" of the Criterion version is meant to be like that. Personally, i think it was just a matter of time spent on restoring the picture. I prefer the clean look of the MGM, but i like my uncut Criterion