The warriors: TV composite

[AvP]

by Tranzor
What is it about? Director Walter Hill has publicly stated that he hates the television footage. In fact none of the TV footage was even placed as an extra on the newer dir's cut dvd edition. My goal was to restore every bit of extra footage that appears in the television version back into the superior first edition (not that BS dirs cut) of the film. I placed the extra footage in the film exactly to where it was in the TV version. No rearranging of scenes of any kind (except for the bathroom scene which was a different edit on the TV version).

original film name: The warriors
new film name : The warriors: TV composite
Film studio name : Paramount
edit crew name : Tranzor
Date Original Film Was Released: 1979 (2000, dvd)
Date Edit Was Released : 2001 ver1.0, ver 1.1 2007
Original Runtime: 93 mins
New Runtime: 100mins (107mins, TV footage was time compressed)

CUTS/ADDS: about 10 seconds (however this missing 10 appears as an extra on my disc)

Extras: TV footage in its full pan and scan glory for die-hards, original edit of the bathroom scene (roller skating gang)

Conceptual improvements/advancements of edit over original:

* Adds a bit more depth to the film. This also includes some key info such as how Swan finds out his gang is wanted by the Riffs, etc.


DVD breakdown info:

* TV footage (matted) and film are presented in it's 1:85:1 aspect ratio, true 16x9 anamorphic widescreen pic. NTSC format. 38 chapter stops (includes info on what chapters have TV footage). AC3 sound

persons involved 1

TIME: ehh give or take a few days


Maybe downloadable from Fanedit.info

 

[Ziz]

Ok, I gotta ask, why does Tranzor say "the superior first edition (not that BS dirs cut) of the film"? Aside from the director stating that he doesn't like the TV footage, what's the problem with director's cut? I have yet to watch the official disc or the edit, so I wanted to understand what I should look for in each version.

 

[Omaru1982]

Good cut, would be nice if they released this instead of that comic book crap we got in the DC.

I didn't think it added much to th story but as a non US resident I would have missed out on this version inthe 80's. it was nice to watch just bearing that in mind.

 

[metalfingersinmybody]

Can someone point me in the right direction to get links for this please...

 

[addiesin]

Can someone point me in the right direction to get links for this please...

Look no further, please read these:

1. 
   [*=left]If this is your first time here please read Using This Site. It's full of useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. This site has many rules in place to protect itself and its users. Should you ever need a reminder look no further: General Rules and Own the Source Rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to an admin for further details.

​

 

[Judgeraye]

Ok, I gotta ask, why does Tranzor say "the superior first edition (not that BS dirs cut) of the film"? Aside from the director stating that he doesn't like the TV footage, what's the problem with director's cut? I have yet to watch the official disc or the edit, so I wanted to understand what I should look for in each version.

ok since this was a decade ago question it may have been answered already but here goes: The Director's cut came out and we were all excited until we saw it. Suddenly it seemed that Hill didn't even appreciate his own film! He put on some prequel about a Greek tragedy, which was fine but then he proceeded to tell all of us that this was a cartoonish movie, with comic book overtones, so he had added comic book panels. That was all well and good but he seemed to be ashamed of the unrealistic violence and ideas of the movie. Plus he was trying to make it more noble than it was. The

400 BC event called the Anabasis​

is a heavy read. He tells us that was what the book was based on and in order to update it to modern times he pictured a comic book style of storytelling but couldn't afford it. To us, though, it was just a movie. It wasn't any more fantastic a stretch than The Sting or Jaws or The Godfather. He was telling us the film we all knew and loved, wasn't supposed to be. As if we didn't already Know that these things wouldn't happen like this in real life. I mean an interacial gang in the 70's? ok, we get it, its a movie. Suspend belief and all. It's not like he was putting White guys in the Savage Huns or Asian guys in The Gramercy Riffs. We all knew that Italian guys didn't all talk like Vinny Barbarino, and undercover detectives didn't drive around LA in a bright red Torino.
It's a M O V I E. Give us some credit. The horrible part about the cut scenes he doctored was that they interupted the flow of the film. When the guys come out of train station, it was cool to suddenly see Ajax 's face change as he saw the Baseball furies waiting. The DC takes that realization all away by cutting to comic book panels depicting the encounter. it just takes you out of the movie. Especially if you've seen the original cut. So there, That's why I, and hopefully many others are upset that the directors cut, while it did give us a lot of new content interview wise, missed the mark by fundamentally changing a movie we already loved

 

[futon88]

Walter Chaw wrote a fantastic essay on The Warriors in his book A Walter Hill Film. Lots of stuff in there about the Director's Cut vs. the original. I highly recommend the book if you're a fan of Hill's films or just enjoy Chaw's writing.