MovieChat Forums > Payback: Straight Up (2007) Discussion > Theatrical version more audience friendl...

Theatrical version more audience friendly?

posted 17 years ago by XAPxSCORPx
5 replies | jump to latest

I like how the studio execs and Mel Gibson say that the theatrical version of Payback is more audience friendly, but the theatrical version has 3 more scenes of violence. I like the studios logic: "We can't have the dog dying or Porter not getting the money, but lets add more violence."

1) Porter blowing up the 3 outfit members in the car.
2) Porter being torture by punches in the face and have two of his toes smashed by a hammer.
3) Porter setting off the phone bomb killing at least 3 more outfit members and who knows how many other people in the dive motel.

I thought all of those scenes were great and are sorely missed from the director's cut. Mr. Bronson made a better villian in person than the female Mrs. Bronson voice on the phone.

Overall, loved both the Theatrical and Director's versions, I just wish that there was a deleted scenes section on the DVD that were left out of both versions.

[–] Braggis 17 years ago

It wasn't the violence they didn't like. It was the TONE of the movie that got under their skins, especially Mel's.

The original version is bleak. There's not really any chuckles and its kind of unsatisfying, I guess - as he doesn't "win" and will have the Outfit hunting them for the rest of their lives. Its more in tune with the book, but, evidentially, they didn't like that.

I loved the Bootleg version and am looking forward to getting this.

[–] Memories-Of-Murder 17 years ago

It is more audience friendly. And not just because of the cheap emotional string pulling of making the dog survive beign shot in the head. It's the overall mood. That dhallow atempt to try to make Porter more "humane" or whatever that means in Hollywood speak, and that "path of redemption by contriction" bullcrap that is the scene with him being beaten up to a pulp. Not only is all that goes agaisnt the mood set earlier in the movie, it goes totally against what kind of story this is about.

Hollywood should really get to their thick minds that it's not important in a mvoie that the main character is a good guy, or a nice guy, or sympathetic or any of that nonsense. Characters need to be internally consistent and INTERESTING. If they are good guys or bad that's circunstantial, not fundamental. Porter in the director's cut is a very coherent and interesting character. In the theatrical version, midway through the movie he turns around and becomes a different person for no good reason other then to kiss the audience's asses. That's shallow, dumb and insulting to the audience's intelligence. There's an onld saying that goes: "if it aint broken, don't fix it". The question of the matter is, are studios wise enough to know when it's not broken? Regarding "Payback", they certainly weren't, and the director's cut proves it in spades.

Still, i want to thank the studios for the oportunity to have released this film in a much closer version of the original intention. For that the studios have my thanks. Too bad that was not what i saw in the theaters back in 1999, where it should had belonged.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

[–] ZOMBIE-8 17 years ago

These two cuts are amazingly different. The theatrical cut feels like a black comedy while the director's cut is far more serious and to-the-point. As for Bronson, I feel that the disembodied voice is actually more menacing as we never see Bronson, we just know that there is a "presence" that controls all of the syndicate/outfit. This "non-tangible" villain just seems more powerful... maybe it's just me. The only negative I have for the DVD, not the movie, is that there were roughly 10 minutes of extra deleted scenes (judging by the bootleg that people have talked about) still missing that could've been special features. Mainly the "eye scene" that everyone talks about. Then again, us beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

[–] Adam_P_L 17 years ago

I agree completely with what Memories-Of-Murder said. Yes, the director's cut is shorter, has no fewer pyrotechnics, and is (at least on the surface) less violent, it's a much better film, mainly because Porter is a completely consistent character. Not to mention cold as hell. When he goes into the train station's toilet at the end and calmly guns down the two Outfit guys on either side of him ... damn! You really believe this is a guy you shouldn't mess with.

Unlike the Porter in the theatrical version, this one doesn't start wisecracking halfway through. In the original, when Rosie saves him and he says, "I got hammered," I thought I was watching Lethal Weapon 4. Seriously, it was lame. The director's cut is much better.

[–] buddyboy28 10 years ago

I wouldn't call two explosions violence. It's not like you see the bodies afterwards or during.

On the other hand, in the DC, Porter is shown using violence towards his wife, killing a man just for insulting a woman, and then you have the shootout at the subway which he may or may not have survived.

Basically it's more violent and cold blooded in every way.

The only more violent aspect of the theatrical was the toe smashing scene, which let's face it only existed just to make you hate the villians even more and feel more sympathy for Porter. In other words trying to be more audience friendly.