SHOWDOWN IN LITTLE TOKYO (Mark L. Lester, 1991)

[Scorpio]

It is the same version to Warner's BD, currently, the Unrated version with those 19 seconds difference does not exist rematerized in HD.

[alex.sp89]

We need urgent SILT Director's Cut after Rocky 4 DC. It could help to have even more followers

[periko]

Hello everyone, This is the new 30th anniversary spanish edition of Showdown in Little Tokyo.
In my opinion is the best edition available. The steelbook is solid and well made and the 8 cards are cool too. And it is the only edition that includes extras.

https://ibb.co/xXFmRs1
https://ibb.co/qNCQ20X
https://ibb.co/0FBvPNw
https://ibb.co/wwYrpzL
https://ibb.co/F8QtytT
https://ibb.co/QfY8hT3

[Jox]

I just received it today. It's a "metalpak" (not "steelbook" per say) like the German MEN OF WAR one.

I appreciate the effort and it may be the only edition with extras, but it's a shame the called "extras" were TV reports simply downloaded from Youtube.

(Note to those behind this disc: I would have gladly produced an original special feature on the making of the film)

I also laughed when I saw the disc opening with the usual warning about rights ownership and illegal copies since this release is clearly not cleared by Warner Bros who's nowhere to be mentioned on the packaging...

[periko]

It is better than a regular steelbook, actually. More resistant.
It is true that the extras are not so brilliant, but it is the only footage available about the making of the movie. I am glad to have them together in a disc.

I prefer that Mark L. Lester would make a director's cut of the movie with the complete original footage, of course. But that is a little bit more difficult.

[alex.sp89]

this is not that difficult for Mark. Just take your ass from the bed and make a call. He doesn't direct movies anymore. His last DTV are just awful - Poseidon Rex,Dragons of Camelot. The guy is going to be 80 soon. Warner give this director possibility to shine maybe for the last time with a solid action flick and make happy the fans. Involve Martin Caan in this request because he was the producer of it. Stallone could do Rocky 4 DC. Dolph could say his word - he admitted in interview with Scott Adkins that for SILT he was in very good shape, regime, weights and martial arts daily... Jox would say that Dolph kind of hated this movie, but that was so long time ago, he might change his mind

[Jox]

this is not that difficult for Mark. Just take your ass from the bed and make a call. He doesn't direct movies anymore.

Lester is still running his production/sales company, which has taken most of his time these past 20-25 years. Directing once in a while has become kind of like hobby for him.

Anyway, as I wrote before, I met and interviewed Mark on SHOWDOWN a few years ago at the Cannes Film Market (where he's selling the rights of his company's films). That must have been 2014 because it was a year prior to the 2015 US Blu-ray release. Back then Lester told me that he really wanted to release a SILT special edition with his cut, and that he was gonna call the head of Warner's about it...

I don't know if he ended up doing it but even if he did, we've seen in the past (MOTU and its unused existing extras) how Warner will not add any dollar or make any effort on a library title that they don't really care about. It's that simple. In the same genre, look at the Warner/Seagal movies (from NICO to UNDER SIEGE) that were way more successful than SILT: they didn't receive any special treatment either.

I'm just saying don't get your hopes up about ever seeing Lester's director's cut of SILT.

Jox would say that Dolph kind of hated this movie, but that was so long time ago, he might change his mind

He did not "hate" it, he was disappointed by the finished product at the time.

[periko]

I understand what you are explaining, Jox. But I don't understand why Mark launched a director's cut of Commando a few years ago, only to add a few seconds of dialogue. I think it is more interesting to restore Showdown in Little Tokyo, with the complete footage and the correct chronologic scene order.

Maybe the reason is that Commando is property of another distribution company. FOX, I think.

[alex.sp89]

In the same genre, look at the Warner/Seagal movies (from NICO to UNDER SIEGE) that were way more successful than SILT. - Jox says.

They have a certain reason about Seagal. He is simply persona non grata in the US Little by little after divorce with LeBrock and many relations with women since then, sexual allegations. People banned him- MeToo movements and stuff.

It is not absolute;y necessary WB to invest money in restoration. Provide just footage from vaults and other independent company can do the re-master.
I simply do not understand the logic of WB in late 80s mid 90s - they destroyed so many good action movie prior releasing with dump editing. Some of them were already short 90 minutes (like SILT) and to cut 7-10 minutes out of it just destroying the full meter knowing that they don't have replacement footage is was really stupid. Again Mark Irvin cinematography in Passenger 57 (1992) cut to 84 minutes. At least TV channels put effort and have restored 6 more minutes for almost full 90 minutes of Passenger 57 TV Extended Version (but also cut down violence, language,alternate takes). Seagal Out for Justice with additional scenes in TV Version.Why SILT never got TV EXTENDED CUT ?

In the case of MOTU did they provide masters to director, behind the scenes footage, deleted scenes ?

[JuV]

Warner is kind of a shitty studio in regard of their older movies. Plenty of films had footage in trailers that were never used or released (Tango & Cash, Cobra and Demolition Man being some more known ones). They market tons of films as 'director's cuts' by adding a few scenes in (as mentioned above Commando and all 4 Lethal Weapon films). And when they do give something an opportunity they release it in an awful way (Freddy's Nightmares) or the refusal of giving away rights (Friday franchise). If Mark did contact Warner I doubt they were intrested in it. The only proper director's cut that comes to mind is the recent Justice League one.

[Jox]

Plenty of films had footage in trailers that were never used or released (Tango & Cash, Cobra and Demolition Man being some more known ones).

That's because they would have the trailers made while those movies were still being edited, and re-edited... They would then often be finished very close to the release date.

They market tons of films as 'director's cuts' by adding a few scenes in (as mentioned above Commando and all 4 Lethal Weapon films).

Those should be "unrated cut" instead of "director's cut"...

[JuV]

That's because they would have the trailers made while those movies were still being edited, and re-edited... They would then often be finished very close to the release date.

I know, but my point is more that none of these were ever released as deleted scenes or something.

Those should be "unrated cut" instead of "director's cut"...

They should be unrated or extended cuts, but Warner just markets it as director's cuts.

[alex.sp89]

I agree with u guys. I think WB is the only big studio that advertised so many stills, lobby cards in their press releases, promotion companies with scenes that are not present in the final cut. Why do they release those pics to the audience if the are not in their movies anymore ?More than that many are placed on the VHS, DVD COVERs, extras, menu, brochures inside DVD's. Or people from artwork devision never watched the final cut or they do not have a person responsible for checking artwork, continuity, correctidudines of their job... Trailers, TV promos full of deleted scenes etc. Stupid. In the final people are buying what they didn't expect - it is basicaly a LIE. They saw something different in pre theatrical release-that footage may catch people eye, they are buying the tickets and in the end after they came out from the theatre they feel kind of screwed (where is that scene ? i paid money to see it )

[alex.sp89]

Regarding Mark L Lester Commando DC i would say everything was filmed was used in the final cut. I read the script ( I think it is online already).They edited out just some pieces of dialogue fromscenes to make it shorter. That delete scene with Colonel at the mall from DVD, BLU RAY (AKA rip off from Rambo about Trautman speaking about John) was not really intended in the script. I think Mark L Lester was the only director back then who was polishing his script very well prior filming and saved in this way a lot of money, time and everything he shot was used in the movie. Most of his movies if u look in his filmograhy are about 90 minutes long. That means he is very organized and know how to spend the money right and even could shoot good, OK movies with short money.
WB is the only studio who trashed his movie (SILT)with re-editing.It was imposible to switch the scenes in SILT BECAUSE HOW THEY ARE SCRIPTED THEY COME ONE FROM ANOTHER (continuity events, consequences of one scene come in another). WD editors were on dope or something because replacing the order of scenes made it one big continuity goof, unlogical. My fried used to say the guy broke his neck and he is present in the next scene. Music is not remixed really good in some parts and repeat often in parts where is not really necesary. The final product looks still like a rough cut or workprint named it as u want. But it is really beautiful even in this form - this OST i the best of David Michael Frank.

[JuV]

I agree with u guys. I think WB is the only big studio that advertised so many stills, lobby cards in their press releases, promotion companies with scenes that are not present in the final cut. Why do they release those pics to the audience if the are not in their movies anymore ?More than that many are placed on the VHS, DVD COVERs, extras, menu, brochures inside DVD's. Or people from artwork devision never watched the final cut or they do not have a person responsible for checking artwork, continuity, correctidudines of their job... Trailers, TV promos full of deleted scenes etc. Stupid. In the final people are buying what they didn't expect - it is basicaly a LIE. They saw something different in pre theatrical release-that footage may catch people eye, they are buying the tickets and in the end after they came out from the theatre they feel kind of screwed (where is that scene ? i paid money to see it )

Like Jox said, marketing often happened while editing the movie. It's still no excuse to not release it unless there's rights issues or if it's simply not available anymore, but Warner probably has most of it vaulted tbh. This still happends nowadays, but (most of the time) it's being released as deleted scenes. It also gets used to throw people off to prevent theories, spoilers, etc.