Likely cuts made to The Dark Knight DVD.

[thelostdragon]

I can only speak for Germany and the film was uncut at the theatres over here. I've seen it twice at the theatre as I said and I don't recall to have seen how the knife goes through White's cheek. I remember that moment clearly, because I remember thinking "What an odd sudden cut to the back view of White".

So unless Scotland had some kind of alternate (extended) version running at the theatre, Mark is remembering an illusion. Maybe too much Scotch?

[Markgway]

I've just *ahem* "acquired" a camcorder copy of Dark Knight

The UK cinema version?

I can only speak for Germany and the film was uncut at the theatres over here. I've seen it twice at the theatre as I said and I don't recall to have seen how the knife goes through White's cheek. I remember that moment clearly, because I remember thinking "What an odd sudden cut to the back view of White".

You mean you saw Michael Jai White's back as the knife cut occurs? That's the uncut version. The cut version has the Joker standing in front (cvering sight of MJW) and no arm movement; the sound plays over a CU of the wincing henchman.

[Shingster]

The UK cinema version?

Fuck knows! Doubt it though, I'll have to go through it tomorrow and see if I can hear the audience!

You mean you saw Michael Jai White's back as the knife cut occurs? That's the uncut version. The cut version has the Joker standing in front (cvering sight of MJW) and no arm movement; the sound plays over a CU of the wincing henchman

And then you see MJW falling back, the knife slash clearly having already taken place, you see no arm movement at all on the Joker's part.

[Markgway]

The UK cinema version?

Fuck knows! Doubt it though, I'll have to go through it tomorrow and see if I can hear the audience!

Listen out for any 'cor blimey g'vnors'

PG-13 version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5dP_83 ... re=related

[thelostdragon]

Mark, let's pretend you have no erroneous memory when it comes to remembering seeing the Joker slit through White's cheek, how in the world would White's character die from cutting through his cheek anyway? I suppose the Joker actually slit his throat.

[Markgway]

You don't have to pretend...

1. It wouldn't kill him.

2. The knife was in his mouth.

[thelostdragon]

1. But he is being killed according to the storyline.
2. There is a cutaway to the thug on his knees making a face at which moment the Joker could have pulled the knife out and do whatever else with it.

[Markgway]

1. But he is being killed according to the storyline.

Maybe he's killed later or maybe the filmmakers wrongly assumed that a 'smile' would be lethal or maybe his 'friends' buggered off and left him to bleed to death SLOW-LY...? Who knows?

2. There is a cutaway to the thug on his knees making a face at which moment the Joker could have pulled the knife out and do whatever else with it.

That's really not how I remember it. Look- if it was JUST me I'd say 'you're right I'm cracking up (again)'. But on several other forums this issue has been raised - we can't all be wrong.

[thelostdragon]

Maybe he's killed later or maybe the filmmakers wrongly assumed that a 'smile' would be lethal or maybe his 'friends' buggered off and left him to bleed to death SLOW-LY...? Who knows?

OK, this is only a film after all, but still, if he wasn't supposed to be dead straight away, wouldn't he be screaming like hell? I mean the guy just cut through his cheek. In my opinion the Joker slit his throat.

That's really not how I remember it. Look- if it was JUST me I'd say 'you're right I'm cracking up (again)'. But on several other forums this issue has been raised - we can't all be wrong.

I know that other people assume that. I even have friends over here, one of whom actually saw the film with me at the theatre, later claiming the home video releases were cut at that knife scene. I don't know exactly why that is. The only reason I can think of is because that scene was really suspenseful/thrilling and it has a huge impact on our imagination, because the Joker talks intensively about the scars that were created on his face while he has the knife in White's mouth. The sudden use of loud music combined with the thug's sudden grimace makes us believe that something certain happened, something that was built up by the story the Joker told, the knife in White's mouth and the music. However, we don't actually see it. Whatever the Joker actually did to White's character, that moment is just built up very well and when it happens it let's everybody believe to know what happened. It does so very well and it is one hell of great filmmaking supported by wonderful acting. However, we can only assume to know what happened, because we didn't actually SEE it happen.

So the reason why I ASSUME that the Joker cut the guy's throat instead of cutting through his cheek is because:
1. The guy doesn't scream
2. He passes out totally lifeless and you don't faint right away when a knife has just cut through your cheek.

One could argument that "The Dark Knight" isn't supposed to be a realistic movie (billionaire in a batsuit attaching himself on an airplane in midflight etc.), but I believe that Nolan is convinced by an old film rule: Films don't have to be realistic, but believable.

[Shingster]

This wouldn't exactly be the first time people have had a collective memory over a shot that suggests violence rather than shows it, all you have to ask yourself here is why would the distributors go to the bother of arranging a new cut of the film just for UK release when we're talking about milliseconds of film-time? It had the same rating in both the US and UK, and we know that the American PG-13 usually allows for more violence than the UK 12A, and is there any indication anywhere that the MPAA cut the film? If Nolan prepared the sanitised cut before submission to the MPAA, would he really care enough about this one shot to insist its return for worldwide releases?

[Markgway]

all you have to ask yourself here is why would the distributors go to the bother of arranging a new cut of the film just for UK release when we're talking about milliseconds of film-time?

The same thing happened on Charlie's Angels and Mission: Impossible II, both of which were edited for a PG-13 rating, but were uncut for their UK cinema releases. The DVDs and BDs were mastered from the PG-13 cut worldwide, thus the last time anyone saw those uncut was at the cinema. The Dark Knight isn't a one-off example.

[bradavon]

I wish I'd never asked now. All I want to know is, if there are definitely 100% different cuts and if the UK/USA BDs feature an alternate cut to the one I saw in UK cinema.

Can anyone answer this? Thanks.

p.s - What's cut on the home versions of MI2?

[Markgway]

p.s - What's cut on the home versions of MI2?

Sound of the neck break from the pre credits sequence, few frames from Richard Roxburgh being kneecapped, a CU of Cruise being kicked in the face on the beach. That's all I remember.

[Shingster]

The same thing happened on Charlie's Angels and Mission: Impossible II, both of which were edited for a PG-13 rating, but were uncut for their UK cinema releases. The DVDs and BDs were mastered from the PG-13 cut worldwide, thus the last time anyone saw those uncut was at the cinema. The Dark Knight isn't a one-off example.

They're not comparable though! Charlie's Angels/MI2 had multpile cuts/edits made to make them a PG-13, we're talking about an (almost certainly imaginary) cut of milliseconds to a single shot in Dark Knight! There was actually a point in going for an uncut release in the UK for charlie's angels, what was the point in going to the trouble for at most one second of arm thrust in Dark Knight? We're not talking about a snip from an action sequence, which could disrupt the flow of a sequence, and it's not like Joker slicing the guy's face was a pivotal moment in the film that demands the harsher cut.

I just see no burning reason for either the MPAA to cut it in the first place within the PG-13 rating, nor for anyone to bother re-instating it later.

[Markgway]

They're not comparable though! Charlie's Angels/MI2 had multpile cuts/edits made to make them a PG-13, we're talking about an (almost certainly imaginary) cut of milliseconds to a single shot in Dark Knight! There was actually a point in going for an uncut release in the UK for charlie's angels, what was the point in going to the trouble for at most one second of arm thrust in Dark Knight? We're not talking about a snip from an action sequence, which could disrupt the flow of a sequence, and it's not like Joker slicing the guy's face was a pivotal moment in the film that demands the harsher cut. I just see no burning reason for either the MPAA to cut it in the first place within the PG-13 rating, nor for anyone to bother re-instating it later.

They're exactly comparable. I really don't see where you're coming from on this. Because you don't remember the cut it therefore never happened and everyone else is crazy? I don't know how long the cut made to The Dark Knight was - a few frames or a couple of seconds? It's really beside the point. The debate is whether it was cut not by how much. I'm not sure how you can justify - and in fact you haven't - uncut cinema versions of Charlie's Angels and M:I2 but not for some reason The Dark Knight. What is it about that film that makes an uncut release so impossible? Does it only count as cut if there's more than one cut made? Surely if there's a difference based on censorship then that's classified as a cut version. The why and the who is irrelevant. I'm really surprised to see you come up with such a weak, misguided argument, Shingster. When I saw TDK in the cinema that scene had a more sadistic edge because you could see The Joker thrust his arm - even without detail it made a difference and proved (to me anyway) that even a few frames can alter the impact of a scene. Why else would any censor cut frames from a violent scene? Why did the BBFC cut 2 secs (48 frames) from The Expendables (a film they otherwise treated very leniently)? Obviously they felt that a single tiny snip made a difference - and clearly so did the MPAA with regards to TDK (it made LD think it was a throat cut). I think it's less that the cut for TDK was restored as much as it had yet to be made to export versions. For all we know the locked print had been shipped globally before last minute MPAA wrangles. This has happened on numerous occasions. What have you done with the real Shingster?

[Shingster]

Who is "everyone" else? Are you trying to to claim that everyone else who watched The Dark Knight in the UK remember it the other way now, or that the internet is awash with swarthes of fans demanding to know where that 1second of footage went? Christ you can't even get support from the people on this forum (and we all know how HK film fans love to beat their anti-censorship drum)! Your entire argument in this thread boils down to "I remember it this way, so everyone else is wrong!" despite the fact that brad has posted a link to a the melonfarmer guys' stating the following:

On another website someone has compared the UK Blu-ray with a screener copy and they are the same so the version shown in UK cinemas is the version on the Blu-ray.

Melonfarmers, who are not known for their lack of zeal when hunting down the censorship status of films, backed down on the matter ffs!

I'm arguing that because I don't remember the cut, it never happened? No Mark I went out and downloaded a camcorder rip from inside a cinema (I couldn't verify the locality of the cinema, but I did check up on the rip and I think the group/person who put it together is from the UK) and actually attempted to gain an objective opinion on the matter! You see the difference* between you and me is that I don't have the sheer arrogance to think my memory of a "blink and you'll miss it" moment in a 152min film I watched over 2yrs ago is so flawless that I can argue based purely on that. Your argument is entirely subjective, that's the weakest kind of argument there is!

* There is of course one other difference, I can sit through screen violence without getting into a reactionary huff like you seem to do!

Why else would any censor cut frames from a violent scene? Why did the BBFC cut 2 secs (48 frames) from The Expendables (a film they otherwise treated very leniently)? Obviously they felt that a single tiny snip made a difference - and clearly so did the MPAA with regards to TDK (it made LD think it was a throat cut).

The pont i'm making is that this isn't about whether a censorship body applied cuts or not, IF the MPAA did demand a cut to that scene and it was then released in the UK uncut and not from a locked print, then it means that the original distributors or filmmakers felt it was important enough to warrant reinstatement, which seems highly unlikely to me personally considering it's both: 1. A completely non-important fleeting moment in the film, 2. Not part of an ongoing fight sequence so the cut doesn't disrupt the flow of the scene, and 3. Implied in the editing and the other character's reaction anyway (and any intelligent filmmaker/viewer knows implied violence is always more powerful). It's also debatable whether the MPAA would cut the scene or ask for that cut for a PG-13 in the first place considering they're infamous for not giving a toss about context in the first place (and without that "air of menace" as you put it, the knife cutting isn't remotely graphic.)

It's definitely true that it could possibly be a locked print, but the circumstances for it to boil down to last minute MPAA interjection for the removal of just that one (millseconds long) shot from a locked print would also have to be pretty exact. If so, why was there never any reports of the MPAA asking for last minute cuts? Why has the cut never resurfaced in any other form on home video/piracy/awards screeners (which wouldn't have been made from theatrical prints) across the world? Also, are all these people that "back up" your version of events from a cinema viewing only from the UK? Any Americans that claimed to have seen the cut at the cinema? When did it become determined that the US definitely got a different print to the UK in the first place?


Oh, and back to objectively analysing the scene from my camcorder rip, we're not talking about just a snipped shot, the way the scene is presented here it doesn't go "why so serious" > goes to slice mouth > shot of henchman's face. It goes: "why so serious" > shot of henchman's face for a couple of seconds, then reaction to the slash. If it was just a simple cut then that means Nolan jumped back to the Joker for the actual cut, and back to the henchman's face in a heartbeat (or it was originally presented with that couple of seconds delay from the henchman's reaction), which seems like clunmsy editing to me. So it's possible that IF censorship took place here then it wasn't just a cut, but also an insert from a different angle (lingering on the henchman's face before the slice occurs).

[gasteropod]

To add my minor opinion to this, I feel that something was missing from that scene when I watched it on Blu-ray compared to the cinema release, I don't have the exact memory of it like others do though.

[thelostdragon]

It's so funny what people seem to remember. Here is a guy on a German forum who bought the UK DVD of TKD and claims that scene is cut. However, not the knife part. He claims to remember seeing the two henchmen actually fighting to the death for that one job the Joker offers to the winner. The funny thing is another guy backs him up saying that he could also remember the two guys fighting with that in-half broken cue.
http://www.netzwelt.de/forum/blu-ray-fi ... t-cut.html

This is another interesting quote from a member at AV Forums:

The scene in question I believe is the same as what I seen on the big screen.

However, on another scene. In the bank at the start when they are counting the shots and the Joker tells the other person that he's out. The man stands up and gets shot. I thought that when I watched this in the cinema that it showed the man fully in screen getting shot and falling over. On the blu ray the man isn't fully in screen and you don't really see him falling over.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/8422220-post17.html

Why am I posting this? Just to demonstrate how people seem to clearly remember stuff that never actually happened. It's ok. It's fine. We ain't machines, but merely human beings.

Oh, on a sidenote, I just read through that AV Forums thread about whether "The Dark Knight" was cut or not. Some guy also believes that the Joker actually slits White's throat.

[gasteropod]

Why am I posting this? Just to demonstrate how people seem to clearly remember stuff that never actually happened. It's ok. It's fine. We ain't machines, but merely human beings.

This is true, but there's a possibility that all these things were cut, the film should never have been rated 12.

[Markgway]

Who is "everyone" else? Are you trying to to claim that everyone else who watched The Dark Knight in the UK remember it the other way now, or that the internet is awash with swarthes of fans demanding to know where that 1second of footage went?

Nah, I just used the wrong term is all. I should've said "those who do remember". We're prone to exaggerate when using words like 'everyone' and 'all' and 'never' etc. Part and parcel of forum posting. I'm sure you knew what I meant and are just being a bit anal (another common forum attribute).

Christ you can't even get support from the people on this forum (and we all know how HK film fans love to beat their anti-censorship drum)!

Bullets isn't the be all of film debate. I'm sure this argument has occured on most geek forums.

Your entire argument in this thread boils down to "I remember it this way, so everyone else is wrong!"

I trust my own eyes more than the opinions of others. if I genuinely believe I saw an uncut version why should I let you and LD persuade me otherwise without evidence?

On another website someone has compared the UK Blu-ray with a screener copy and they are the same

And where did that screener copy come from? Can it being vouched for that the screener was 100% uncut? Melon Farmers are zealots, that much we can agree on, but they don't have the monopoly on being right.

I went out and downloaded a camcorder rip from inside a cinema (I couldn't verify the locality of the cinema, but I did check up on the rip and I think the group/person who put it together is from the UK)

Unless it can be confirmed that the cinema screening occured in the UK this is not evidence. I don't expect you to believe me or take my memory at word. I wouldn't if the situations were reversed. I COULD be wrong. I don't THINK I am. But if someone could find actual evidence I would be the first to say I got it wrong.

There is of course one other difference, I can sit through screen violence without getting into a reactionary huff like you seem to do!

What the fuck has that got to do with anything? Not that it's even true. Because I sometimes have a problem with certain types of violence or a lack of morality in film that makes me reactionary? Again with the name-calling and finger pointing that spread into the Creep thread - you just can't help yourself. No one was talking about The Dark Knight being too violent. You just thought you'd take a cheap shot (probably because your arguments in this thread are so weak). And I wouldn't ever say that being able to sit thru any film without it bothering me was something to be proud of. I'm sure I could sit thru A Serbian Film - but why the hell would I want to? Eh? At least it shows I think about the rights and wrongs of these films rather than just lap up whatever sickness is served to me and then spend time blindly trying to justify it. Name me one film you would criticize.

The pont i'm making is that this isn't about whether a censorship body applied cuts or not, IF the MPAA did demand a cut to that scene and it was then released in the UK uncut and not from a locked print, then it means that the original distributors or filmmakers felt it was important enough to warrant reinstatement

As I already said I don't believe the MPAA cut was reinstated here, I believe the footage was never removed in the first place from the prints shipped overseas. Ala M:I 2 and Charlie's Angels. Those weren't restored films; they just weren't cut.

It's also debatable whether the MPAA would cut the scene or ask for that cut for a PG-13 in the first place considering they're infamous for not giving a toss about context in the first place (and without that "air of menace" as you put it, the knife cutting isn't remotely graphic.)

It's extreme for a PG-13. I don't ever recall having seen a scene with someone's mouth being sliced open (graphic or implied) in that rating. The MPAA are lenient - but it's not uncommon for snips to be made to avoid an 'R' anymore than 'R' films are snipped to avoid an 'NC-17 (though since Rambo that's become somewhat moot). Truth is had the uncut version of the scene not had greater impact than it's cut variant then it's unlikely I would've registered it. I still can't remember what the cuts to Charlie's Angels are! But that scene in TDK was shocking enough to register (I saw the film before the media furore and didn't expect the Joker's sadism - there were gasps in the theatre at 'the pencil trick').

If so, why was there never any reports of the MPAA asking for last minute cuts?

The MPAA never refer to cuts on their website only if a rating has been changed or appealed. Occasionally a press officer will leak a story to the media about 'how our film was cut' but mostly they go unnoticed, unless an uncut version turns up elsewhere (as in this case) or an 'unrated' edition hits DVD. That the cut is so brief is I'm sure partly why few have noticed (but I did).

Why has the cut never resurfaced in any other form on home video/piracy/awards screeners (which wouldn't have been made from theatrical prints) across the world?

All home editions seem to be mastered from the exact same print (to the point where the BDs are ports of the US edition). The materials are all arranged and mastered in Los Angeles. The international film prints (presumably all shipped back to Warners) wouldn't have been consulted for anything.

Also, are all these people that "back up" your version of events from a cinema viewing only from the UK? Any Americans that claimed to have seen the cut at the cinema? When did it become determined that the US definitely got a different print to the UK in the first place?

Asking me to remember everything I read on other forums is a tall order. I forget half the shit posted here. From what I remember it was only UK based posters who made the 'that bit went missing' comments. No idea about European or Asian forums as I don't speak ze languages.

So it's possible that IF censorship took place here then it wasn't just a cut, but also an insert from a different angle (lingering on the henchman's face before the slice occurs).

I would imagine it was a re-edit rather than just a blunt slice. But since neither of us can prove out theories there's not much point bitch slapping each other any further.

[Shingster]

Agreed, there's no point debating the issue of locked prints and worldwide releases anymore as we simply do not have enough information to make anything like an informed opinion on the matter. My last point is just this, there's a good probability that the likes of awards screeners and early Russian DVD releases would not be struck from the same print as the DVD/BD (which may have been taken from an IMAX print).

I don't expect you to believe me or take my memory at word. I wouldn't if the situations were reversed. I COULD be wrong. I don't THINK I am. But if someone could find actual evidence I would be the first to say I got it wrong.

You what? Well isn't that some amazing back-pedallng from the man who a few posts back was so confident in his own opinion that he said this:

If this is the version shown on the Blu Ray then I can confirm it's cut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5dP_83 ... re=related

Your absolute insistence that the UK/US BD is definitely cut is what started this debate in the first place, at least you now acknowledge that your argument is based completely on a subjective memory - and hence it is no stronger or weaker than my own argument, which also ultimately boils down to a subjective memory!

I think in his last post LD did a good job of highlighting how inconsistent a memory can sometimes be when it comes to fast-paced suggestive thrillers like The Dark Knight, I too have seen posters talk about seeing the knife slice from a front view in their screening!

[bradavon]

He claims to remember seeing the two henchmen actually fighting to the death for that one job the Joker offers to the winner.

That never happened . Funny though.

It sounds like to me, there is no actual evidence for Dark Knight ever being cut, just hearsay. Is there?

Sound of the neck break from the pre credits sequence, few frames from Richard Roxburgh being kneecapped, a CU of Cruise being kicked in the face on the beach. That's all I remember.

Thanks.

[Markgway]

My last point is just this, there's a good probability that the likes of awards screeners and early Russian DVD releases would not be struck from the same print as the DVD/BD (which may have been taken from an IMAX print).

I would imagine that they would be struck from the US theatrical print(s) which is/are the same as the gloobal Blu Ray and DVD versions. Only a non-US theatrical print has a chance at answering this question (and a UK one for definite). I'd be happy if I was wrong because that would mean that all current editions were uncut - I don't believe I am wrong though.

You what? Well isn't that some amazing back-pedallng from the man who a few posts back was so confident in his own opinion that he said this:

If this is the version shown on the Blu Ray then I can confirm it's cut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5dP_83 ... re=related

Your absolute insistence that the UK/US BD is definitely cut is what started this debate in the first place, at least you now acknowledge that your argument is based completely on a subjective memory - and hence it is no stronger or weaker than my own argument, which also ultimately boils down to a subjective memory!

You say back-peddling. I say clarification.

Like I said before we use words like confirm without acknowledging every possible meaning or interpretation of the word. By confirm I meant from my own point of view and to my own satisfaction. It still stands that you're perfectly entitled to doubt my subjective memory. I never said otherwise on that score. Because I'm convinced isn't automatically a reason why everyone (or anyone) else should be.

I think in his last post LD did a good job of highlighting how inconsistent a memory can sometimes be when it comes to fast-paced suggestive thrillers like The Dark Knight, I too have seen posters talk about seeing the knife slice from a front view in their screening!

I don't doubt that many film fans 'see' things they never actually have. But until I'm proven wrong I have to stand by what I remember (or believe to remember).

[Shingster]

Ordinarily these days a BD transfer of a contemporary film would be struck from the digital intermediate, but Dark Knight has IMAX sequences and the BD seems like it could very well have been struck from an IMAX print instead. They wouldn't usually go to a theatrical print unless the original negatives/intermediate/interpositives are lost or unusable

[HungFist]

I don't doubt that many film fans 'see' things they never actually have. But until I'm proven wrong I have to stand by what I remember (or believe to remember).

I don't know about film fans, but Shing is right, it's quite common for people to imagine having seen more than they did. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a classic example. There's hardly any graphic violence in the film, but it's so well made, and the film is so intense, that after the screening people often think they saw something that they actually only imagined. When you cut at the right moment, and accompany with the right sound effects, your mind easily completes the image.

Not saying this is the case here, just a general observation.