Bullets 'n' Babes

Markgway wrote:Well, here it is from the horse's mouth: not some bollocks posted on the IMDB.

Sigh. It was widely documented around the time the VI was released that Besson had played this longer cut to test audiences back in 1993/1994 and they reacted badly to it, I think Besson himself may have said so in interviews. Unfortunately this was long enough ago that you can't easily find accurate info on this online anymore. The IMDB information is not "bollocks" at all, it is merely incorrect in stating that the VI was a "director's cut"

Also, no one has to worry about the VI making it onto Blu Ray because there are countries like Japan who only acknowledge the longer cut of the film.

Here we go: Variety VI Review, first printed back in 1996. Here's the relevant part:

This 132-minute director's cut of 1994 Gallic smash "Leon" ("The Professional" in the U.S.), runs 26 minutes longer and is, according to Luc Besson, the more poignant and sensitive version he'd have released had he not been obliged to excise scenes that tested disastrously with L.A. preview auds. For viewers who buy into Besson's fantasy version of the Big Apple, this longer version, which opened June 26 in France, reps a game attempt to make wall-to-wall implausibility ring a shade truer emotionally.

Shingster wrote:The IMDB information is not "bollocks" at all, it is merely incorrect in stating that the VI was a "director's cut"

Which is what I said..........

Besson: "I was happy with the first one, it was mine, my director's cut, no one asked me to cut it."

Variety: "This 132-minute director's cut... runs 26 minutes longer and is, according to Luc Besson, the more poignant and sensitive version he'd have released had he not been obliged to excise scenes that tested disastrously with L.A. preview auds."

Well, SOMEONE'S lying.....

Personally I don't give a flying fuck which cut is the Director's Cut.

It's nice to know but we've no idea what cut the German BD will be and both cuts are readily available on DVD, meaning it's really not important.

Markgway wrote:Well, SOMEONE'S lying.....

Nobody is lying, right from the start I have not stated nor linked to any definitive proof that the VI is a "Director's Cut". As I have been saying from the start, the IMDB info on the VI is accurate, but they made a mistake in claiming the VI was a "Director's Cut". How is this becoming unclear to anyone?

My response was to you saying my whole IMDB quote was "some bollocks". We know that the IMDB's use of the term "Director's Cut" is incorrect, but the rest of the IMDB statement that I quoted, about the test audience reaction, etc, is true!

Also, just because Besson prepared a longer edit of the film to show to test audiences, it does not necessarily imply that this edit is his Director's Cut, as many directors hold off and wait for test audience reaction before finalising their edit of the film.

It's as simple as that. There's really no need for confusion here now.

bradavon wrote:Okay guys, enough! Please take your discussion elsewhere.

Yessir, masser.

Shingster wrote:Nobody is lying, right from the start I have not stated nor linked to any definitive proof that the VI is a "Director's Cut".

I didn't mean you.

My response was to you saying my whole IMDB quote was "some bollocks". We know that the IMDB's use of the term "Director's Cut" is incorrect, but the rest of the IMDB statement that I quoted, about the test audience reaction, etc, is true!

But the crux of their comment was to imply criticism of the previews that esentially forced Besson to cut his own film against his will. And that's false. I' ve never denied that he held test screenings or that they were less than successful. They may well have influenced his final cut, but not in the way that article suggests. I'm not saying that everything at the IMDB is bollocks - of course it isn't. Just that they're prone to inaccuracy and exaggeration, as well as opinion masquerading as fact.

Also, just because Besson prepared a longer edit of the film to show to test audiences, it does not necessarily imply that this edit is his Director's Cut, as many directors hold off and wait for test audience reaction before finalising their edit of the film.

Exactly.

Markgway wrote:Yessir, masser.

Knock yourself out.

How nice of Brad to strategically edit many of his posts to make himself look less of a tool.

Huh? I've not edited out anything, except that isn't relevant any more .

All my discussion about the Leon cuts is still there. If anything you're looking more the tool, than me .

But the crux of their comment was to imply criticism of the previews that esentially forced Besson to cut his own film against his will. And that's false. I' ve never denied that he held test screenings or that they were less than successful. They may well have influenced his final cut, but not in the way that article suggests.

Well, implications aside, they did state fact: Luc Besson played an edit of the film that was similar to the VI to L.A test audiences and they reacted badly, therefore he decided to re-edit the film and THAT is how he came up with the Theatrical Cut that he now probably prefers. He said so in interviews at the time of the release of the VI.

Also, you really shouldn't take the Luc Besson interview you linked to as cast iron proof that he never at any point intended to release the "test audience" edit of the film. Obviously there was a reason for him using that cut first, and you of all people (being a HK film expert) should know that directors are rarely consistent when discussing the various different edits of their films. They have also been known to change their minds on their preferred cuts after the editing/releasing process.

bradavon wrote:Huh? I've not edited out anything, except that isn't relevant any more .

EDITED:

Okay guys, enough! Please take your discussion elsewhere.

Like you weren't part of it... you can't tell other posters what to do or say.

Shingster wrote:Well, implications aside, they did state fact: Luc Besson played an edit of the film that was similar to the VI to L.A test audiences and they reacted badly, therefore he decided to re-edit the film and THAT is how he came up with the Theatrical Cut that he now probably prefers.

John Woo previewed his first cut of The Killer in Taiwan but never intended it to be his dir's cut nor was he forced to edit it. It would be like saying Woo was forced to re-edit his film after disasterous Taiwanese previews. As I side issue I'm really curious why a French film should be previewed in L.A of all places.

Also, you really shouldn't take the Luc Besson interview you linked to as cast iron proof that he never at any point intended to release the "test audience" edit of the film.

I've no reason not to believe him. If he wanted to release the longer edit in France he could have. If the cuts had only been made for America I'd agree with you.

Obviously there was a reason for him using that cut first, and you of all people (being a HK film expert) should know that directors are rarely consistent when discussing the various different edits of their films.

Preview versions are always longer and usually present first draft rough cuts to gauge audience reaction before a final edit is prepared. Leon is no different that any other movie in this regard. Unless the argument is that the preview cut is always the director's cut and we know that's simply not true.

They have also been known to change their minds on their preferred cuts after the editing/releasing process.

Sure. My complaint is that the article implies that Besson was somehow forced to change his film without conceeding that he would likely have done this anyways.

Markgway wrote:Like you weren't part of it... you can't tell other posters what to do or say.

Oh that. It's no longer relevant seeing as the thread has morphed into purely Leon discussion . I followed it up with "knock yourself out" .

I like both cuts though I probably prefer the TC, it's not really missing nothing - the integral version just adds more.

Markgway wrote:Preview versions are always longer and usually present first draft rough cuts to gauge audience reaction before a final edit is prepared. Leon is no different that any other movie in this regard. Unless the argument is that the preview cut is always the director's cut and we know that's simply not true.

No, but sometimes the preview cut is the Director's Cut, but then I have never stated that this is the case with Leon anywhere, have I?

Look, it's obvious you're being an obstinate git on this subject, so let's leave it at this!

Pot. Kettle. Black. End. Of.

Shingster wrote:

Markgway wrote:Lol, since when was the IMDB an accurate source of information?

WTF are you going on about Mark, the information I quote is pretty much 100% fact. The only incorrect bit of info is when they refer to the VI as the "director cut" . You think all the information on the IMDB is untrustworthy?

No, I'm not Romero
I understood the "Version Itegrale" was a European/French cut, the "TC" is the US version.
The VI/DC is even better.

Grim... let it die.

You people do realize that the director is Luc Besson, right?
That fat moron never knows what he wants.

"Director's Cut" means nothing in this case.
Ask Besson which is his favourite cut 3 times and you'll get 3 different answers.

Just do what I do:
Watch both versions. Decide which is best.
Buy the one you like. The end.

tom2681 wrote:Watch both versions. Decide which is best.
Buy the one you like. The end.

I said that back on the first page .

tom2681 wrote:You people do realize that the director is Luc Besson, right?
That fat moron never knows what he wants.

Yup look at the sheer volume of sexy ladies he sticks his boomstick into, then moves onto the next. Fat you may say, but he gets the girls, ladies and women, over and over again.

Women like power. You can be fat and ugly but if you're powerful many women think you're hot.

In America.. first you get the power, then you get the women..

Women are shallow, materialistic creatures at heart. Ask them to choose between a nice guy who's poor and a rich creep, they'll choose the creep 8/10.

And men aren't? Many men put too much emphasise on looks.

That's OTT, not all women are like that. I don't think women are materialist but they do value a man being the provider, way more than a man ever does. Being rich often brings some form of power and independence.