Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut

So they cut good scenes but left the filler in.
Wow 11/10 bravo Coppola

Redux then hit the scene skip button when he's at the French plantation

>muh french scene
the final 30 min are just as bad

literally fuck you the entire part at Kurtz's compound is kino. The only scene that's better is the bridge.

Is there any new scenes that weren't in redux or theatrical?

Not an entirely new scene, no but the restoration of the film makes it look as if it was filmed last year, amazing being from the 70's.

For some reason the only major scene cut out by Francis was when the guys fuck the playboy models, which in my opinion is fine as what are the fucking odds they randomly show up to see the USO show and then suddenly end up on a base with them a few miles up the river.

I'm so fucking glad I've seen this now on the big screen and I can tick it off my bucket list and I just want to give a shout out to my shitty fucking town that when I went to see this masterpiece at 2:30pm on a Saturday, prime time for most people that only myself and one other boomer showed up.

The horror.

>but the restoration of the film makes it look as if it was filmed last year, amazing being from the 70's.
Did you ever watch redux or the theatrical version? Literally looks pristine. Are you even sure they restored anything or are you talking out of your ass? Because I really don't see what there is to restore in Apocalypse Now.

All of them, it's a great movie.

That fucking french plantation scene made sense and dragged the movie even further along. It served no purpose

says the fag who hasn't seen it

Yeah, that's why I'm asking you, so again, what did they restore?

Attached: 1564231916590.jpg (225x225, 7K)

Theatrical is the ONLY good cut of the movie. Redux is actually dogshit. I saw that first and I could still easily tell which were the added scenes because they were all really bad and unnecessary. Feels precisely 40 minutes too long which is the amount of added footage they threw in. Honestly ruins the movie.
The theatrical cut though is perfect, 10/10

>this entire post

Attached: 1506788957455.png (657x539, 110K)

It looks sharper and has better color than any previous version. Just look at the trailer.

youtube.com/watch?v=9l-ViOOFH-s

>Theatrical is the ONLY good cut of the movie. Redux is actually dogshit. I saw that first and I could still easily tell which were the added scenes because they were all really bad and unnecessary. Feels precisely 40 minutes too long which is the amount of added footage they threw in. Honestly ruins the movie.
The theatrical cut though is perfect, 10/10

Attached: (you).jpg (189x267, 27K)

One of the most overrated films ever. God damn

>french plantation scene is still in there
what the fuck did they cut then?

>no but the restoration of the film makes it look as if it was filmed last year, amazing being from the 70's
What does this even mean? The theatrical version looks great still, as do many old film productions. The Godfather doesn't "look" like it was filmed 40 years ago. Lawrence Of Arabia looks like it was filmed last year.

do you find redux unsound?

Attached: 1876783632.jpg (336x500, 64K)

saw the workprint and had some kino moments.

also saw workprint for fightclub

I don't really see it, the 1080 blu ray release is already as clean as this, colors and grain wise
A 4k release is really nice, but talking about restoration for this when the film itself is at a far higher resolution seems like pure marketing to me

this was a perfect opportunity for coppola to add few scenes but nah, just cut that one segment with tits and sell it to plebs bro. such a lazy cut. cheap moneygrab.

Where do you find workprints?

>Liking inconsequential boring WEIRD shit like the gang fucking playboy models and chilling with frenchies for dinner and Kurtz having long drawn out monologues that aren't memorable and butcher the fantastic pacing of the original.

Most movies from the late 60s and after look as if they were filmed 'last year'
The aged look on some movies of that time is only due to poor blu ray or dvd releases made by incompetent morons, poorly kept and degraded original films and so forth

That "i like napalm smell in the morning" monologue alone makes it underrated actually.

>Redux is actually dogshit. I saw that first and I could still easily tell which were the added scenes because they were all really bad and unnecessary.
All of this. I watched Redux and there were many times where I said "this is suspiciously boring", lo and behold I read the Wikipedia entry on the film and see that pretty much everything that was awful had been added in the Redux release.

This is the complete opposite to my experience with Blade Runner: The Final Cut, where I can't even imagine an universe where the the ending people saw in theathers was NOT what I saw on my computer screen.

>it was BORING, muh pacing
Congrats, you have soi-induced ADD

Honestly it looks like watching a film in Netflix as opposed to torrenting it and watching it at 1080p that is actually super crisp.

>it's yet another Apocalypse Now thread where a bunch of morons just want to out pose each other by saying how much redux is bad, and how great of a cinephile they are for disliking it, all the while being unable to explain their trash reasoning
Fuck's sake, I wish there could be a good thread about this movie once in a while
Literally nothing of value is ever said here.

>looks like it ws filmed this year.
That's not a good thing. All films since the early 2000s have literally looked IDENTICAL with the only difference being color filters.

Stop talking about things you know nothing about, pseud.

not him but i'd imagine torrents. mainly private trackers for actual seeders

gottem

>Stop talking about things you know nothing about, pseud.
You're an uneducated zoomer.
Go back an watch ANY TV show or film pre-2000s and you will how film (actual film, not the digital shit) was used in conjunction with lighting, post processing, film stock, lenses, etc to give many projects a unique look. With digital this is all gone. Nowadays every film looks the same, while every tv show looks the same.
Godfather looked different from Star Wars, which looked different from Clockwork Orange, which looked different from Die Hard.
Seinfeld looked different from Frasier, which looked different from Sopranos, which looked different from Married With Children.

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

>everything I don't like is the same, no movie after 2000 could manage lighting and shit, it's all color filters lmao I am very deep
Stop watching capeshit and kill yourself.
t. actual zoomer
Kill yourself too.

d i (e) l a t e

Always a pleasure arguing with moronic posers who can't hold a serious opinion for shit.

>no movie after 2000 could manage lighting and shit,
You're really too young to understand and you've never watched a film pre-2000s. It's not just the lighting you dumbfuck, it's all the other things I mentioned. Film is incredibly sensitive and expensive, but it allowed so much more organic versatility when it came to getting a unique look out of it.
You don't notice how everything looks the same because you've only seen films post 2007.

Full Disclosure is the only copy you need with Theatrical + Redux + the making of, good extras too.

Attached: image.jpg (336x445, 23K)

None. It’s a bad movie

>he can't appreciate a good bone-chilling slow-burn

Attached: 5qjdCzfKKOgxFifgb2xeiow_ZEH-oF6O-fRvAZ8zyMk.jpg (640x738, 56K)

The dinner with frenchies was good. The Calypso moment of Apocalypse now

>still no 8 hour fully restored kino cut of this

Attached: image.jpg (960x1440, 279K)

You're a blind stupid poser who watched his first pre-1970 film last week and burned his eyes on it while having the balls to say that everything looks the same, when he has watched 15 movies from 2007 onwards, all of them american blockbusters from 3 companies.
Congrats, you're not only simplifying a complex and interesting question about film and digital, you're doing it in the most pseud ignorant hipster way possible. Fuck's sake, I'm sick and tired of 18 years old pretending to be cinephile boomers while obviously having the culture of a normalfag teenager. Open your eyes, watch more movies, kill yourself, I don't care, just stop saying stupid fucking shit.

will we ever see the 4 hour cut, bros?

Attached: 0A9FF681-43ED-4290-B723-A6C90FC6D721.jpg (1280x1024, 307K)

the scenes where they're fucking the playboy bunnies

>You're a blind stupid poser who watched his first pre-1970 film last week and burned his eyes on it while having the balls to say that everything looks the same,
Jesus Christ, you're clueless.
Watch the original Lord of the Rings trilogy shot on film, vs the Hobbit trilogy shot on digital.
>Congrats, you're not only simplifying a complex and interesting question about film and digital, you're doing it in the most pseud ignorant hipster way possible.
What have I simplified, faggot? You're only addition to the debate is "herr derr I'm gonna claim you're young and that's the only argument I have".
>just stop saying stupid fucking shit.
You're the one saying fucking nothing.
And if you think that 99% of all films and tv shows don't look identical nowadays, then I really, really feel sorry for you. This is what happens when you look at snapchat all day.

i was in the same situation, selling my body for drums of oil, and i found the scene disturbing, good thing its gone

>hurr durr, compare these two arbitrary examples while ignoring everything about the artistic context surrounding both, will totally prove my non existant point
lmao
>what do I have simplified faggot
>everything shit on digital looks the same lol, if you disagree it's because ur too young lol
You're right, it's so fucking retarded it's not even simplification anymore
>you're the one saying nothing lol
What is there to say when all you say is 'everything I don' t like is same lol'
Go watch a thousand hours of 70s television and come back to tell us all about the great nuances that glorious film allows, making every movie distinctly unique lmao
Your idea is retarded, film doesn't make anything look 'unique' on its own, and digital doesn't magically make every movie look the same generic shit, if you bother to look at anything other than blockbusters specifically designed for that very purpose
Fucking hell, how can you even say something so fucking stupid and not notice how fucking retarded it is?
Answer is, because you are a stupid fucking poser who should watch more stuff instead of saying stupid shit

based rightanon

>all this seethe
love it!

Attached: 1563567500033.jpg (640x627, 48K)

>I say stupid shit, u angry, me happy now
To each his own hobby I guess
Enjoy killing yourself out of desperation over your empty life in the next year or so

Attached: 1536614411378.gif (320x240, 52K)

plantation scene is the biggest pleb filter of film.

>>hurr durr, compare these two arbitrary examples while ignoring everything about the artistic context surrounding both, will totally prove my non existant point
"DUDE, just ignore the fact that all the major films/tv shows from the pre-2000s all look a little different!"
>What is there to say when all you say is 'everything I don' t like is same lol'
Give me some examples of things that don't look the same. I already described numerous tv shows and movies that all have different looks. You're just screaming like one of those Fortnite streamers you like so much.
Why do you think most old school filmmakers don't like digital? For all the reasons I've given, faggot.
>Go watch a thousand hours of 70s television and come back to tell us all about the great nuances that glorious film allows, making every movie distinctly unique lmao
Wow, you're retarded. I didn't say EVERY film/tv show looked unique, I said there is more evidence of uniqueness because film is more versatile than digital. Same way a paint and brush is more versatile than some digital shit. Almost EVERYONE agrees that the hand drawn and colored and filmed Simpsons is far superior than the digitally drawn and colored and digitally produced Simpsons. You really have no idea what you're on about.
>Your idea is retarded, film doesn't make anything look 'unique' on its own,
I NEVER SAID THAT, you dumb faggot. I said it's "MORE VERSATILE!" And you're slightly wrong because most film has the "grainy" look, which digital doesn't have.
>and digital doesn't magically make every movie look the same generic shit
Yes it does. Why do think they do so much bullshit with color grading and other nonsense. Anyone who has worked with film will describe to you the wider canvas you have with it.
>Answer is, because you are a stupid fucking poser who should watch more stuff instead of saying stupid shit
Says the zoomer faggot who thinks digital is superior to film.

Too bad I won't remember you in 30 minutes, would have loved sending you this gif back after your attempt

keep the projection coming 40%er

Attached: tumblr_nnfmnvUjzA1u5z1ezo1_500.gif (460x296, 884K)

>posting gifs like some 9gag twitter tard
whew

HE'S CLOSE
HE'S CLOSE

Attached: 1487204359257.jpg (231x200, 16K)

>blablabla, I didn't say it looked the same, I said it was more versatile
No you didn't.
>let me keep quoting completely unrelated examples, even fucking cartoons now
The goalposts aren't even moved at this point, they're all over the place
I'll come back when you have an actual point about digital and film to make, not just a posture to assert.
>Says the zoomer faggot who thinks digital is superior to film
Who are you quoting?

Yeah, What Coppola doesn't seem to accept is, that he had the perfect version of the movie the first time around. There is no need to add or remove scenes, as the theatrical release was as good as it is possible for Apocalypse Now to be.
With Blade Runner, you can easily feel the weight of the added fluff in the theatrical version. They don't make it unwatchable, just chip its atmosphere a bit.

Always fun to watch a retard having a meltdown in public, but despite your best efforts you're not entertaining

bros....

Attached: mane.jpg (660x282, 34K)

I rather have a 6 hour cut of this

Attached: p7912025_v_v8_aa.jpg (960x1440, 139K)

>No you didn't.
See"Film is incredibly sensitive and expensive, but it allowed so much more organic versatility when it came to getting a unique look out of it."
Do you even read what you're replying too, faggot?
>The goalposts aren't even moved at this point, they're all over the place
I said "tv shows and film" were on the table and I'm giving more examples. You haven't given ONE example.
>I'll come back when you have an actual point about digital and film to make, not just a posture to assert.
So after all you're yelling, you're quitting without giving a single example. This is very typical of zoomer fornite players like you. "I lost, so I'm just gonna leave rather than try to win".
>Who are you quoting?
You dummy. Oh let me guess, now you're gonna say "her derr I never said digital was superior to film", so let me get specific, you're the faggot saying digital projects all look unique in comparison to the uniqueness of films from the past.

>dog turds on the dirty ground>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>film critics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>channelpost critics

Attached: 1280 (2).jpg (1080x1920, 464K)

>the original Lord of the Rings trilogy shot on film, vs the Hobbit trilogy shot on digita
the original lotr trilogy was a passion project made with extreme care and attention to detail. the hobbit movies were slapdash soulless cashgrabs. don't blame the difference in quality on film vs digital

Where does Malick come from?

How did he steal into this world?

I was pretty satisfied with the theatrical cut. Did they cut anything important?

>the original lotr trilogy was a passion project made with extreme care and attention to detail. the hobbit movies were slapdash soulless cashgrabs. don't blame the difference in quality on film vs digital
Yes the content of the Hobbit trilogy sucked, but that doesn't change the fact that it looked like digital shit. It (like a lot of digital work) looks soulless, bland, and just like every other digital project.

>he hasn't watched the 289-minute bootleg copy
should have left the scene in where they try to fish a baby out of the river and it explodes

>cut the bunny scene
>kept the plantation scene
Jesus, what a shitty fucking cut. I'm willing to bet they cut it because of MeToo/feminist bullshit

Attached: 1108211218562.jpg (307x352, 18K)

...

that cage on the bottom is a nice touch

>Do you even read what you're replying too, faggot?
Can I remind you that your next sentence is literally 'everything looks the same'?
>muh examples
what example do you want, half the movies released since 2002 that don't fall under the 'generic blockbuster' label? If you weren't such a blind posturing idiot you could watch some of them instead of arguing literally nothing.
>you're the faggot saying digital projects all look unique in comparison to the uniqueness of films from the past.
Who are you quoting?

You really are a dense mtoherfucker, my point is pretty simple, your opinion that digital makes everything generic is retarded, and only based on your hipster posture and not having watched anything beyond post 2007 imdbcore and blockbusters. You can cry about fortnite and the simpsons all you want, it wo''t change this.
If you want to misrepresent this as 'digital makes everything unique' because you're about as nuanced as a single color filter, don't be mad if I keep asking 'who are quoting?'.

I don't much care about the plantation scene but I prefer Redux with it over the theatrical cut every day of the week and twice on Sundays!

>shitty corner cutting digital movie looks like other shitty corner cutting digital movies
ok

>Can I remind you that your next sentence is literally 'everything looks the same'?
It does. We've gone over this already. You just keep posting (or ignoring for some reason) my previous lines and not offering ANY evidence.
>what example do you want, half the movies released since 2002 that don't fall under the 'generic blockbuster' label?
Good thing I don't watch too many of those. So give me some examples. You're literally trying to talk your way out of not giving a few.
>Who are you quoting?
Now you're onto rhetorical questions and deflection. This is how zoomers argue online.
>You really are a dense mtoherfucker, my point is pretty simple,
It's so simple that you can't give ONE example...
> your opinion that digital makes everything generic is retarded
But it's true. I've given numerous examples.
> You can cry about fortnite and the simpsons all you want, it wo''t change this.
You can cry psuedo and blockbusters all you won't, but it won't change that you have no arguments.
> 'who are quoting?'.
Just sad at this point.
I'm waiting for you examples.

Your examples are retarded and don't prove anything yousaid.
You've used what the hobbit and the simpsons as evidence to support that everything post 2007looks the same? Without bothering explaining why or how? And you're asking for counter examples instead of even attempting toproperly develop your point to the point it might become understandable? Please. 5he burden of proof is still on you. You're the one saying that every movie post 2007 looks the same. Explain why and give examples that properly show this beczuse I just have to take any movie of that time, put it next to another developing a radically different aesthetics say whatever, children of men and 21 jump street, and there you go, I've proven that not all digital movies look the same. What a fucking genius I am.
You have quite a lot of balls talking about deflection and proper rhetoric and argumentation when you are literally unable to explain your point properly, quote an acceptable example and use them to demonstrate your point, or even jeep your point straight without pretending to change it every two posts.
I'm done with your dishonest retarded faggoty ass, keep crying in the void.

No, it just got excellent reviews the one time it was screened

>French plantation owner blames the CIA for creating the Viet Cong to undermine French control of Indochina
>in actuality OSS aided Viet Minh against the Japanese and then the US changed its policy post-war and gave direct logistical support to the French to combat communism before the Viet Cong even existed

I know that confusion and obfuscation of objective fact is one of the major themes of the film, but if this scene was meant to illustrate the mixed up historical narratives among the Americans, French, and whoever else, it would've worked better if Willard or one of the other Americans had a rebuttal.

Attached: RS2_NVAsniper_surprise.jpg (2560x1440, 1.62M)

>Your examples are retarded and don't prove anything yousaid.
Yet you still can't give one.
>You've used what the hobbit and the simpsons as evidence to support that everything post 2007looks the same?
I also said how Godfather, Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, and Die Hard all look different.
I also said how Seinfeld, Frasier, and Sopranos all look different.
>Without bothering explaining why or how?
Digital looks flat, lacks visual depth, and it's not nearly as versatile (do you want me to quote myself again, faggot) as film when it comes to giving it a unique look. Paint and brush vs digital pen.
>Please. 5he burden of proof is still on you.
More tactics to not give a single example.
>You're the one saying that every movie post 2007 looks the same.
They all do. Flat, lifeless.
> different aesthetics say whatever, children of men and 21 jump street, and there you go,
"aesthetics" is no the LOOK of film vs. digital on screen. Children of Men just used gray filters. 21 Jump Street was a bright comedy. You're way of your league, jr.
>You have quite a lot of balls talking about deflection and proper rhetoric and argumentation when you are literally unable to explain your point properly
I explained it so many times that you tried to say "you never said that" and I had to prove your faggot ass wrong, AGAIN.
>I'm done with your dishonest retarded faggoty ass
You have to get back to Fortnite anyway.

SLAM DUNK !!!

They don't even fuck though. The bunny scene is boring as hell, unless you've never seen a tit before.

Will the cut ever be released?

>

Attached: 1562693815148.jpg (584x503, 49K)

>fucking up greentexting
Newfag

The scenes they added into the newest release were already quite mediocre. They just overexpose what was already implied. I cannot imagine what 4 more hours, if they exist, would do to it.
The movie is perfect with the European cut.

>I also said how Godfather, Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, and Die Hard all look different.
>I also said how Seinfeld, Frasier, and Sopranos all look different.
How do they look different? You're fucking unable to explain anything I swear. I can put a list of any movie of any time you fucking want and say the same gay generic shit lmao.
>Paint and brush vs digital pen.
Keep your sorry metaphors for after you've made a fucking point lmao
>you didn' t give examples
I did, I said children of men and 21 jumpstreet look different. I could have used any other movie title. Prove me wrong, pro tip you can't.
>They all do. Flat, lifeless.
Prove it.
>aesthetics" is no the LOOK of film vs. digital on screen
Oh yeah? Explain that in regards to your retarded list of examples lmao
Explain to us the differences film brings between them and why it's so unique compared to digital. After all that's your point right? You should be able to explain that right?
>I explained it so many times that you tried to say "you never said that" and I had to prove your faggot ass wrong, AGAIN.
When did you do that? When yoused the sentence right before 'everything is the sale' to 'prove' you never siad 'everything is the same'? lmao
>fortnite
lmao
Fucking posers I swear to me mom.

Stop trying to fit in and fuck off back to wherever you're from

pathetic
just give in
you're parents are gonna disown you

>How do they look different?
Just watch them (I know you're a zoomer and has never seen ANY of what I mentioned). It's the magical versatility of film vs the bland sameness of digital. It's literally like asking "how does that Last Supper painting look different from the digitally drawn version?"
> I can put a list of any movie of any time you fucking want and say the same gay generic shit lmao.
Yet you haven't, even though I asked you to.
>Keep your sorry metaphors for after you've made a fucking point lmao
I've made so many that you lost track and I had to quote myself.
>I did, I said children of men and 21 jumpstreet look different. I could have used any other movie title. Prove me wrong, pro tip you can't.
And I explained that they both look lifeless and flat. One has a gray filter, then other is bright. You're really missing the point.
>Prove it.
Watch old stuff and you'll see.
Also:"Why do the movies look so flat? - Cinematographer Barry Gross explains "
flipanimation.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-do-movies-look-so-flat.html
This guy even says that they now add grain to digital to make it look like film.
>Oh yeah? Explain that in regards to your retarded list of examples lmao
Aesthetics is lighting, costumers, set design, etc. We're talking film vs digital. You're really out of your league, jr.
>Explain to us the differences film brings between them and why it's so unique compared to digital.
I said 50 times, film is a wider canvas, it allows for richer use of depth, colors, shadows, etc. I gave NUMEROUS examples of projects that each have a different look. Film is more expensive and sensitive, but it allows for more tinkering to get a different look. Digital is cheaper, but all you can do with it is jack up a color filter or lighting.
>When did you do that?
Bro, you're retarded. you literally said "you didn't say that", and I quote the post of me saying that.
More zoomer deflection tactics.
>lmao
posting like a texting zoomer....

i remember seeing the bunny scene for the first time and though Coppola would throw some blacked shit but i was glad the black characters were all cucked in that scene

Attached: 1511792055033.jpg (486x444, 30K)

>I know you're a zoomer and has never seen ANY of what I mentioned
he said it! he SAID it!

that sounds kino

>just watch them, like, don't make me explain anything because I can' t
Yeah I know.
The rest of your post is unreadable, you quote light, grain, yet you can't demonstrate how any of your examples use any of that in a unique way, or how digital somehow makes all lighting the same. You claim film allows for deeper colors, better shadows and whatnot, but are unable to explain how any movie does that. Pro-tip, it' sthe work of the various people working on that, not film itself that does it. Then proceed to repeat 'zoomer zoomer' because you know you can't explain why you hate digital without admitting you're nothing but a hipster. You are out of your league. You don't know shit about what you're talking about. You can't explain you're just using vague buzzwords that you can't even properly define.
>Yet you haven't
Be ayse there is no point in accumulating examples if you don't have anything to say about them. Just like you're doing. You're deflecting everything, add a technical term here or there, a movie title on top of it just to avoid explaining your point. Because you don't have a point.

>cut playboy titties
>leave in french yawnfest that ruins the pacing
Fucking garbage

pacing is a meme

They both, equally, ruin the pacing. I have fallen asleep during both scenes during two different viewings.

>Yeah I know.
Still no examples, that's all I know.
>The rest of your post is unreadable, you quote light, grain, yet you can't demonstrate how any of your examples use any of that in a unique way, or how digital somehow makes all lighting the same.
So now you don't just want examples and you want me to demonstrate how they're used in a unique way? Talk about moving the goalposts. My answer is still the same. Watch them and you'll see the difference. Of course you're a zoomer that watches only tiktok vids.
> You claim film allows for deeper colors, better shadows and whatnot, but are unable to explain how any movie does that.
I will admit that I'm not a super technical expert, but I shouldn't have to be. I'm sure a scientist can write a 20 page paper on the axis of the light and how it displays in relation to a dark theater on our cornea. Would that make an autist like you happy?
>Pro-tip, it' sthe work of the various people working on that, not film itself that does it.
AGAIN, I fucking said that! I said numerous times that film is more versalite and allows for more uniqueness. I said it's more sensitive and expensive. Of course you need top people in every position to get the maximum potential out of film. YOU ARE LITERALLY RETARDED!
>Then proceed to repeat 'zoomer zoomer' because you know you can't explain why you hate digital without admitting you're nothing but a hipster.
I've given numerous examples (even posted an interview with a cinematographer). You've given ZERO. It's also ironic how you're chastizing me for using "zoomer" but you keep using "hipster". You're so unaware of your own stupidity.
>You are out of your league.
I said this to you numerous times. You're stealing from me now.
>You don't know shit about what you're talking about.
You haven't given ONE point.
>Be ayse there is no point in accumulating examples if you don't have anything to say about them.
And yet another excuse for not giving examples...

And that's why theatrical cut will always be superior.

Hell, the theatrical cut was already Coppola's definitive version of the movie, he decided to change it decades later like George Lucas with the Star Wars special editions.

the theatrical cut was forced on coppola by the CIA. Redux and final tell a story of decent into madness interrupted by a reminder of what civilization actually is and means. theatrical tells a story of USA, USA, USA.

If not for the plantation, willard would've joined kurtz the same way as everyone else sent after kurtz (another plot point removed from theatrical). As the insanity of vietnam was clearly getting to willard until that point. Removing the scene is a statement that sanity is a fixed construct that is completely unshakable.

go back to /pol/ retard

How is he wrong?

the playboy scene doesn't really belong in the movie. as its just coppella whining about porn while putting porn in his movie

Lol, are you telling me they removed the Suzie Q scene?
It really belongs in the movie because it shows how of a crazy shitshow the vietnam war was.
And, the scene is pretty cool.

>he hasn't watched redux
there's another scene later where suzie Q's manager is prostituting her in hopes of getting a ride out. willard's crew take that offer. they removed this scene because it really is just kinda dumb. Like "hey that was a total disaster lets send her further into the literal hell we created, oh hey she's perfectly fine."

STILL no monkey sampan scene. i hate crappola.

It's really not very good. Watch the shortest version and get ready to skip parts.

was on piratebay a few years ago.This was around 2010 or so. I mostly remember the outpost scene as being filmed really cool and also like in the redux, i gave up and fell asleep during the french portion (which is a bit more dragged out in the workprint)

would it be easy to just remove the french plantation scene with a video editor?

You faggots pretend to like the film but can't stand one scene that makes people understand what a fucking clusterfuck Vietnam was for the French colonialists of the era.

>would it be easy to just remove the most important scene in the movie?

How hard would it be to change the ending so Kurtz wins and makes the entire world hell one river at a time?

It portrays the French as correct. Can’t have that in a American movie.

out of all the hundreds of hours of footage, i wonder just what it is about the french plantation that coppola likes so much. i mean pacing issues aside, it's just a weak and not very well-written sequence. at its worst the dinner dialogue scans like some film school freshman shit

theatrical remains perfect. the only thing i'd label essential and keep from redux is kilgore's introduction

all the extra bits added for the chronological godfather 1/2 tv cut were also extremely jarring and flat. whoever did the editing for coppola in the '70s knew what they were doing

Didn't Coppola go to bat for the porno film Shortbus?

Theatrical Version + Kilgore additions + new soundmix (which truly is fantastic) would be the best cut

i read that the restoration is shit, the colors are changed and don't look like a Apocalypse Now.

Bullshit, colors are true to the original. Saw it 2 weeks ago

What are the differences between this and the Redux cut?

It’s been explained a million times. So what’s one more.

The central theme to the first half of the movie is what the military is doing to try to remind soldiers what they’re fighting for. All the military can come up with is surfing, grilling, and porn. Framed against the backdrop of the war, this is simply even more insanity.

The French plantation is the only outpost of peace, love, and sanity in the literal manmade hell created there. It’s the only actual reminder Williard is given of what he’s fighting for and why Kurtz is wrong. Without it, he joins Kurtz.

Read the thread.

>though
Only filtered plebs hate the french plantation scenes

>For some reason the only major scene cut out by Francis was when the guys fuck the playboy models, which in my opinion is fine as what are the fucking odds they randomly show up to see the USO show and then suddenly end up on a base with them a few miles up the river.
This is literally explained in the fucking film.
The Helicopter the playboy Bunnies came in on needed to be refueled.
The soldiers at the USO show went batshit when seeing the Playboy Bunnies.
The Bunnies and their manager fled back to the helicopter, and flew off, way earlier than they were supposed to.
The Bunnies helicopter landed in the jungle, because they ran out of fuel, because the Helicopter didn’t get a chance to be refueled before they left.
The Helicopter was presumably landed by the river, in the hopes of running into a US Military patrol boat who could give them fuel, or drop them off at a base.

I’m not seeing an explanation why, in order to get out of nam, the pilot flew deeper into nam.

Thevpilot was just trying to fly to a different military base.
He probably just ascended and followed the river till he was out of sight of the base they just fled from and then realized he was fucked on fuel.

So go get out of nam, he flew deeper into nam. Not towards any of the oceans where military vessels are stationed less than a dozen miles away.

It’s a bad scene and was cut for good reasons, twice.

Theatrical
Don’t even bother with anything else

The pilot wasn’t trying to get out of Nam when he fled the base,
He was just trying to get far enough away from the base.

considering he's in a helicopter, 20 feet off the ground is "far enough away." Flying deeper into a warzone is unjustifiable.

I literally wish this would happen in real life

Imagine two obese men in sweats just having a fucking hissy fit at eachother two rows down that turns into impotent fisticuffs as each try to take their authentic ninja weapons out of their backpacks

.

Theatrical cut with the Kurtz compound getting blown apart during the credits.

The base the pilot just left from wasn’t necessarily a “hostile” zone.
Military bases, whether the larger type were the Bunnies were performing, or smaller outposts, are designed with the purpose of controlling the surrounding area.
The base were the bunnies were performing was a supply depot, with areas for landing helicopters, focking boats, and a stage for performances.
This is not the kind if military base that is completely surrounded by hostiles.
There might have been sime in the vicinity, attacking a helicopter bear the base, would normally cause patrols of soldiers to go varmint hunt the area very quickly.
Any Vietcong in the area would likely just be there to gather info on US troop numbers, supplies, and patrols going out, and would basically just be acting as spies.
The later bridge scene showed what a base under seige was like, and the whole point of that base, was to hold major forces back from attacking further downstream in any numbers.

>The base were the bunnies were performing was a supply depot

>man this supply depot is fucking batshit
>let me just fly to a forward medical base that'll certainly be better

you can't excuse this