Restored Version at the Music Box...

[Bill Carson]

"Hey Blondie, isn't that Angel Eyes?"  Good Morning Friend! Yes it would have been beautiful if we were treated to the new version or a documentary on the subject. well you have made me a happy man! I heard a rumour at work that Clint & Eli had indeed recorded lines for the lost scenes and that Van Cleef's lines were done by a voice actor. It now seems that the rumours were true as I have read the messages by our friends in the US (Lucky Buggers!) Perhaps we will get screenings at selected cinemas here in the UK. I work in London's West End so I will keep my ears to the ground for any and all info. Ahh, the 'Ecstasy of Gold' scene on the big screen again, that would be beautiful.  

[cigar joe]

Actually the voice actor did a better job with Van Cleef than Clint & Eli did with themselves, but its a small insignificant critique. The restored scenes are great.

[General Sibley]

When you English sods finally join the rest of western civilisation you'll have the pleasure of hearing Eli Wallach trying to conjure up Tuco 40 years later.  He sounds like a frail old Jewish shopkeeper now.

[The clint]

What's with the people on this site, you always want to see the longest versions of every movie. Isn't the 162 minute version just enough? Why put in scenes that Leone cut himself out of the film for international release? I don't like when films are tampered with so that 37 year old footage is matched with recent dialogue. I'll just stick with the remaining scenes as extra material on DVD. You may disagree.

[General Sibley]

Well, IMHO after seeing the film on television 88 times and counting, a new version is more than welcome.  We're not talking the King James bible here.

I agree that some of the scenes should have remained on the editing room floor (Tuco in the cave for sure).  But the two additional scenes with Angeleyes add depth without detracting from the pacing.  Definitely makes him less two-dimensional, and adds a sympathetic element to his character.  

When the Stones tour, they don't perform the songs identically each time.  I'm not offended if a movie is treated as a fluid work, as long as the scenes were filmed at the time of the original.  You're still talking about the same spirit of creative inspiration on the screen.  

Now if a hack at a studio starts digitally recreating new scenes to push out a new DVD revenue stream...  

[cigar joe]

Now your almost not that far off the mark, remember how not long ago they were talking about how computers and digital animation could in effect resurect long gone movie stars to sell adds.

You can almost  imagine a diditally resurected Angel Eyes or Colonel Mortimer seeking vengence in a future western. lol

[General Sibley]

...Actually, now that I think of it I wouldn't mind seeing some additional digital scenes.

How about a flashback sequence when Tuco has the noose around his neck, similar to OUATITW?  A quick-cut montage of him remembering with glee all the crimes they recite, "Wanted in 14 counties in this state...."

[The clint]

Oh, I don't believe that anyone would think that's a good idea. It sucks! Why would anyone damage a film like that?! It's distorting a director's vision, rouining the intended film and plus, creating a scene digitally is cheating. It doesn't involve astual actors. I don't like computer generated characters in movies at all, but this is worse. This is a prime example how low people can get.

[cigar joe]

It wouldn't be good to screw around with the masterpieces of course, I don't mean that.

Just think of something that might be fun and may be cool with a digitally recreated Lee Van Cleef. You never know it could be very interesting.

[KERMIT]

while being interviewed on the actors studio
 m. scorsese revealed he no longer uses film.
everything computerized.
could anyone fill me in on how this process    
works.  
thx,
kerm

[cigar joe]

Probably shoots in digital format, like "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" that was all digital.

[KERMIT]

thanks cj . now i wonder what angel eyes eye's would
look like in digital ? (. . )
                       o00o  _  o00o  

[The clint]

That sounds terrible. Digital is an amatour format and Scorsese is certainly no amatour. Movies are progressing in the wrong direction. Digital is practical but nothing really substitutes the real thing (celluloid film). If I were to make a movie for real (for practice it's good to use digital) I'd film it on real material. Can I have any opinions... What do you prefer?

[The Smoker]

I do hear were your coming from Clint.
I feel theres a weight and substance to conventional film frame motion . Which digital 'born' films lack...

This debate between analogue/digital format has been going on for 25 years now.

Look whats happened to a certain factions of music recently. People are moving back to analogue production methods
- a warmer sound, more substance & less clinical cold.
After 20 years of the CD.

Im waffling now..   Anyways..

But i do feel digital film restoration, when used to clean old analogue celulloid material like Good The Bad and The Ugly. can only be a good thing.. makes a film look youthful again.

[Angel Eyes]

they seem to shoot and edit on video then transfer the final cut onto film.
which is what they did with Once Upon a Time in Mexico, I must admit I wouldnt of noticed unless Garry hadnt of told me first.
presumably all this is to save cash on filmstock.