Okay, call me confused. I've just seen the specs for this at SAE and if I'm reading this right the expanded cut does NOT have the audio option of the original Amfitheatrof score. Instead I have to watch the short version in order to hear this. If this is the case, then it's NO SALE with me. Even though the film is still a narrative mess, the added scenes did strengthen a couple of plot points and I would rather watch this version from now on than the shorter one, but I do NOT want to listen to a score that was composed decades after the fact any more than I'd want to watch compromised episodes of "The Fugitive" with replacement music. The DVD gave me the option of the original score with the long cut and if that's the only way I can enjoy the film that way, then that's the only version I'll own. Thumbs down to Twilight Time for doing this when they didn't have to.

I'll take this opportunity to reiterate a point I've made before: Amfitheatrof has gotten the biggest bum rap of any film composer I've seen in terms of a score being blamed for a film's failing with this film. Yes, I'm the first to acknowledge that the title song clashes with the tone, but the score and its main theme are fine overall with nothing inappropriate to the visuals. Since Peckinpah was not the producer of this film, IMO what his sentiments were on the score should not count for squat when it comes to the idea that the score should somehow be replaced by something done decades later to make the film "better" and to meet his "vision". Especially since if anyone really deserves the blame for why this film did not become the classic it could have been, it is Sam Peckinpah and his incredible failure to come up with a storyline that was written out to a logical end result. Instead, he got obsessed with giant detours in the plot, shooting scenes over and over on location and letting time slip away while the script had no ending and it never even did get an ending to address the simple question of what happened when Dundee and the others returned to the fort? These were narrative points that needed to be addressed by a competent scriptwriter and on that point, Peckinpah who had charge of the script failed this film miserably and ultimately gave us the real root cause of why the film failed and no amount of blaming Daniele Amfitheatrof could change that.

Maybe Nick can weigh in on this.

Eric: the only thing I suspected is that Amfitheatrof never scored the "extended version", and/or that track was editorially "assembled" for that DVD. Nick was kind enough to email me back and essentially confirmed that to be the case.

Here's his reply in full:

"The blu-ray master for the extended version of Major Dundee is not just a brand-new transfer, but a ground-up redo wherein some reels have been remixed and sound effects re-dubbed. Executives in charge of the project were not completely happy about the 2005 transfer which had been assembled in haste due to the exigencies of the schedule, so the opportunity was taken this time to fix some aspects. As a result the blu-ray master for the extended version does not include the Amfitheatrof score. Why would it? It is important to remember that Amfitheatrof did not score the "extended" version, just the original theatrical release.

On the old DVD via seamless branching, viewers were afforded the choice of scores, but the additional scenes either had no music, or some of Amfitheatrof's music was "tracked" to cover some transitional material.

Viewers of the blu-ray miss nothing by only watching the longer cut with Caliendo's score. Now, we completely understand that some aficionados don't like the idea of the new score, and some don't like the new score period, which is why we have gone to the extra time and expense of including for the first time on a digital format the original theatrical cut, complete with the Amfitheatrof music, and as a bonus, isolated for soundtrack fans to enjoy. It's really a win-win when you think about it, and much more true to history than the "try to have it both ways" scenario of the DVD."

I appreciate the explanation Andy and so now my declaration of NO SALE is even more emphatic. It is not a "win-win" for someone like myself who has always found "Major Dundee" to be a film that needs more narrative cohesion and the new scenes did clear up one point regarding what happened to the scout who was suspected as a traitor. So now in order to watch the version that has more cohesion, I have to listen to a tampered music score? Because this is what this score is, and no amount of spin by those who justified this score in the first place on the most dubious of premises can ever change my view of that. I frankly consider it insulting that I have to be stuck with the shorter version of the film which is weaker on the narrative to hear the correct score that was done at the time (Peckinpah didn't like it? Big deal, he's the one who screwed up the film more than anyone else) If they wanted to go to "extra time and expense" they should have allowed people like me the option to see the film the way I am now USED to seeing it on DVD. The "have it both ways" scenario was the fair and logical answer and now with this release, logic just went out the window big time.

Sorry if I'm venting but after the experience of music replacement on "The Fugitive" made me on general principle come to oppose that practice for all time on *any* end product unless it was a score commissioned at the time of the film's original production that was not used (like Herrmann's music for "Torn Curtain"), this thing really hits a raw nerve with me.

But this really isn't like THE FUGITIVE TV series music being replaced...the version Amfitheatrof scored is still on there intact. He never scored, apparently, anything other than that version. So his music being in the longer cut really isn't any more "appropriate" than the new score you don't care for, because it was artificially created after the fact.

I get where you're coming from in terms of monkeying around with older movies, and certainly MAJOR DUNDEE's newer score is sort of unprecedented outside of silent films that have new scores written for them. For me, though, I understand why they did it, because Amfitheatrof's score is an embarrassment. Mitch Miller theme song? Those ridiculous Apache synthesizer stabs? It's like a score for F-TROOP or some bad '60s TV series, and really sticks out -- in a bad way. Of course, I didn't grow up on the film, so I understand the attachment people might have with the older version -- but it's still on there for the version the music was actually composed for. They didn't touch anything in regards to the original theatrical cut.

The longer cut is something that's been editorially assembled years after the fact in the first place. It can never be what Peckinpah EXACTLY intended, so whether or you not accept it as such is up to each individual viewer. For me, I can't be outraged because this modern "reconstruction" doesn't adhere to a score that was never composed for it to begin with.

I think the difference Andy is this. These scenes were shot and intended for a film made in 1964-65. If they had been presented then the composer who was hired for the job would have scored them. Now maybe if you do this decades later and the composer is still alive and he has a chance to compose the material in a way to match the material he also scored, I can understand that. But let's consider an equally valid scenario. Should the Donner cut of Superman II thrown out Williams music and not retracked it? Or suppose we were to find all the missing footage for Cleopatra that we know North didn't score. Does that mean if we were to assemble a new "directors cut" of Cleopatra should EVERYTHING North composed originally be thrown out in the process? I think we know what kind of an uproar that would generate!

I also have to dissent on Amfitheatrof's score. I agree that the Mitch Miller song is embarrassing but only in the context of it playing over a title sequence showing scenes of carnage and destruction. I do nontheless understand the commercial reasoning behind it, which was not atypical for what other films of the era did, so I see that as more a product of the times that could have been handled better by sticking the song over the end credits. However, I do think the instrumental of the theme is fine and I also think the score itself is quite good with just one inappropriate moment and that is when there is a comical sounding verison of the Dundee theme during the sequence when he's gotten drunk in the village (but this was a scene that never should have been scripted in the first place, so I blame Peckinpah more for that).

As for the much-mocked "stingers" I think they frankly serve a valuable purpose and that's to serve as the voice of the audience like me that after awhile wants to know why the heck the focus of the mission, namely the Apache, is being forgotten with all these pointless digression scenes of "down time", the French, Senta Berger etc. If anything, when I hear it, I think "Finally, are we back on course???" As for the device itself, I really don't see why using stingers for something like that is somehow more silly than Goldsmith banging on mixing bowls in "Planet Of The Apes" to evoke something. In this case, it at least gave us a reminder of what the forgotten objective was supposed to be.

I'm not calling Amfitheatrof's score the greatest thing I've ever heard. I just think he did a job he was asked to do by the man who legitimately called the shots on this, and he did his job accordingly, only to see him made an unfair scapegoat for what supposedly was the film's biggest problems. It really offends my sense of fair play that changing the score in a manner that is without precedence in this kind of film is suppsoed to be "honoring the vision of the director" which then allows Peckinpah, who was also responsible for the script, to be let off the hook for all the things he was screwing up during the course of the production.

But all of this would be a moot point frankly if only a consumer like me could simply have the *same* option I was given on DVD which I think was the fairest and most logical solution. We can watch the extended version with whichever score we prefer and that way *neither* faction on the matter of the score has to be denied a chance to see a more logically coherent version of the film. And on that point, I think the TT people are really showing a contempt for the people like me who weren't jumping on the bandwagon about how changing the score was some wonderful thing in the first place.

I think the difference Andy is this. These scenes were shot and intended for a film made in 1964-65. If they had been presented then the composer who was hired for the job would have scored them. Now maybe if you do this decades later and the composer is still alive and he has a chance to compose the material in a way to match the material he also scored, I can understand that. But let's consider an equally valid scenario. Should the Donner cut of Superman II thrown out Williams music and not retracked it? Or suppose we were to find all the missing footage for Cleopatra that we know North didn't score. Does that mean if we were to assemble a new "directors cut" of Cleopatra should EVERYTHING North composed originally be thrown out in the process? I think we know what kind of an uproar that would generate!

Oh of course, but we're not talking about John Williams' Superman or Alex North's Cleopatra -- we're talking about Amfiteatrof's Major Dundee. I think really this just all goes down to how you feel about his music. I guess if I liked it more, I'd feel the same as you, but I am in the camp that considers it a liability. It's like Tangerine Dream scoring Legend -- it's just out of place and doesn't work for me. Of course it's far from the movie's only problem -- and I don't believe the folks who produced the newer version "scapegoated" Amfitheatrof's score and viewed it as the film's primary flaw. If you listen to the commentary they are very frank about the film's narrative problems and shortcomings which extend beyond the music.

To me it makes sense, if you are doing a reconstruction more along the lines of what the director had in mind, to restore as much footage as you can and try and make it as close to what he would've wanted. Adding footage helps, but you can't change a third act that was fumbled when it was made! You can change the music, and that's an easy fix. I don't think they changed it to "scapegoat" his score, but to underscore the film that Peckinpah (and others) would've felt was more appropriate. In the context of literally "creating" a new movie -- which this longer cut is -- myself, I didn't have a problem with it. You can't trample on something that didn't exist in the first place, as Amfitheatrof's work is retained in the released version for which it was written.

Well, I'm not sure I get why North or Williams would be entitled to any more consideration just because of their names, because once you do it for someone you justify doing it for anyone else regardless of who their name is. Regardless of how I feel about the inappropriatness of all the temp tracks Stanley Kubrick used in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the only thing I'd ever favor is using North's compositions made at the time for any alternate track version because that's music that was part of the original production history just like the new footage is part of the original production history. But I'm not going to ever favor an alternate 2001 that say combines North's music with some modern-day composer from the present for the scenes North never scored.

I won't disagree with your point that they do acknowledge the other flaws in the film, but in the context of what I remember at the time this came out with loads of gushing profiles in FSM about the fact that they had done this new score and didn't go into *any* kind of discussion over the ethics of whether this was right or not (which are just as serious as if you decide to colorize a film or put in modern FX) nor did they acknowledge that maybe Peckinpah wasn't necessarily the right person to judge what was right or not for the film music wise given how he was failing to deliver big time in ways he could have prevented. Peckinpah is also known to have disliked Bassman's score for "Ride The High Country" so why aren't the people responsible for Caliendo's score deciding that he should slap a new score on that movie? This to me is the slippery slope of the whole thing. The fact that you can do a new score does not mean you should do it. Putting footage shot at the time back into a movie to improve the narrative is something I'm in favor. Slapping in things that are a false representation of the era the film was originally made in is something I can't approve of ever, whether it's colorization, new FX or a score composed by someone who wasn't around back then.

But I still think this particular argument is a circular one that can still get rendered moot if consideration had been shown by Twilight for the audience that whether they like it or not WANTS to see the extended cut with the original score and if that option could be provided for in the DVD release it could be done so again for Blu-Ray. They chose to act otherwise for reasons that I do not consider valid or logical, and so they will have to deal in my case with the consequence of not buying their product.

Well, I'm not sure I get why North or Williams would be entitled to any more consideration just because of their names, because once you do it for someone you justify doing it for anyone else regardless of who their name is.

My point is that those scores are classics. This score is anything but a classic -- in fact I think a lot of people think it's hilariously awful in places and deserved to be replaced. I'm pretty sure Peckinpah wasn't the only one who disliked it so much.

But the bottom line for me is this: they still haven't touched Amfiteatrof's work for the film he scored. They didn't strip it out of the version for which it was written. It's still there!

Peckinpah is also known to have disliked Bassman's score for "Ride The High Country" so why aren't the people responsible for Caliendo's score deciding that he should slap a new score on that movie?

That's not a fair comparison, because what you're describing would be applicable if they took the theatrical cut of MAJOR DUNDEE and replaced Amfiteatrof's score. That's not what they did. They created, literally, a reconstruction of a longer cut he never scored to begin with, and had a scene-specific new score written for it.

The film Amfiteatrof scored is still in this release, untampered with.

The fact that you can do a new score does not mean you should do it.

I don't disagree, but that's a blanket statement that doesn't take into account that there was no score ever written for the 2006 reconstructed version of the film.

They chose to act otherwise for reasons that I do not consider valid or logical, and so they will have to deal in my case with the consequence of not buying their product.

So you're not buying this release because it doesn't contain an editorially-fabricated music track for an editorially-created longer cut of the film that was produced not in the 1960s but in 2006? You have zero interest in the "proper" theatrical version which was the only one in existence for, what, over 40 years?

If they took the theatrical cut and replaced Amfiteatrof's score, I can absolutely understand your disappointment, but that's not what happened. The one and only version of the movie he scored is on the disc and nobody has touched it. How is that not "logical" or "valid"? (If anything's not artistically valid, it's putting Amfiteatrof's score over scenes that he never scored to begin with).

I should just add -- I'm not even that big a fan of the film. It has some obvious shortcomings that will always be there on the part of botched decision making behind the camera at the time of its production, because of Peckinpah, the producers, the studio, etc. Don't want anyone to feel that I'm blindly defending the picture because, I realize, it's got its "issues" lol.

And likewise Andy, I hope that this exchange doesn't seem like some arguing obsession on my part.

AndyDursin wrote: My point is that those scores are classics. This score is anything but a classic -- in fact I think a lot of people think it's hilariously awful in places and deserved to be replaced. I'm pretty sure Peckinpah wasn't the only one who disliked it so much.

Frankly, I've never understood why it got that reputation. The LP I will grant you is hiliariously awful in places with its sound effects and animal noises as well as songs that do not appear in the film itself. But I made a point of watching the film again with a totally blank slate and an open mind on the underscore itself throughout the film which is the make or break issue, and what I heard was except for one brief section, music that fit the images on screen and even if it wasn't overly exceptional it wasn't something that warranted being the first score in the history of movies to be subjected to this approach. It has always struck me, everytime I read all the venom aimed at the score, that what I'm hearing (and as an addendum after seeing your last post, Andy, I want to assure you I'm not including you in this category, but rather the tone of what I've read in old articles, books etc.) is a pile-on mentality dictated by what's perceived (wrongly IMO) as the supposed horrible, wrong thing the "suits" did to poor Sam Peckinpah when he got fired off the movie and then reinstated only when they accepted Heston's (naive) offer of giving up his salary if Peckinpah stayed. If there'd never been this bigger behind-the-scenes flap in which the traditional storyline is one of Peckinpah the martyr/victim of the evil studio bigwigs, with the score being one of the things the studio can be "blamed" for, then I think the to-do over its merits would have been a lot less than what it got made out to be.

But the bottom line for me is this: they still haven't touched Amfiteatrof's work for the film he scored. They didn't strip it out of the version for which it was written. It's still there!

From the strictest of archival standpoints, that's correct. I will grant that they're not doing what George Lucas has done in terms of the SW cut. But the problem though is that once they released the long cut of the film with the original score on DVD they changed forever my own perception of how to experience this movie just as when "1776" was released in its LD version, my perception of how to view that film was changed forever to the point where I can never watch either the original theatrical cut or the DVD versions, ever again. I can't watch the short version of "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' or "The Alamo" either because once I see something that is better from a narrative standpoint, watching a cut version is for me like going back to a syndicated edit of a TV show. If the long cut had *never* had the original score on DVD, then there'd be a legitimate point because then I'd be asking for something I never saw before. In this case, I'm just asking to have what's *been* available before and *can* be made available but instead I am rather patronizingly told that if I want to see the film with what I think is the appropriate score, I have to watch the one with the weaker narrative. That is what I'm objecting to. The film is not a new film created from scratch it's simply a variation on the same film as before with the same actors, and in the absence of any alternate score composed at the time (which is why Legend can have two scores or Torn Curtain), it should have the music that was done for the movie that is still 90% of what this new cut is.

Eric I do understand where you are coming from. Ultimately, you feel how you feel, and you're not "wrong," and neither am I, because it's a question of how much it bothers an individual consumer (which it does a great deal to you, but doesn't to me at all), which is the bottom line in all of this. Keep in mind also TT is also working with whatever elements Sony provides to them, and in this instance, they were not given that "alternate" soundtrack for the longer version with the older score tracked in it.

Quite true, Andy. It is all subjective, just like the question of what we think about the score, which is why I just can't understand why a solution that had been respectful of both sides subjective views got thrown out the window on this. If Sony didn't provide them with the elements originally, then if I were trying to show consideration for the customers who perfer the original score or think the replacement was wrong ethically just like colorization, I would have asked them to provide those elements as the fairest solution that would have guaranteed that everyone would have been happy. Prettying up the theatrical cut to me just comes off as putting lipstick on a pig in this case because my options are either (1) a long cut with a score I don't like on general principle or (2) a short cut that makes less narrative sense with the right score. Either way is lose-lose with me. ANd I honestly don't remember hearing about anyone clamoring over the lack of the original cut on the DVD release which is why I'm frankly surprised it even came up in the presentation at all.

There's been a to-do about this whole thing at Home Theater Forum, in which I've been involved and in which Nick has been making his posts explaining what's going on. Unfortunately, the explanations I've been hearing are just not making any sense to me and are leaving a lot of unanswered questions that I think raise the troubling matter over whether Nick and those who were responsible for the replacement score have some kind of prejudice against the idea of the extended cut existing with the original score option available.

Here's the starting point. Sony prepared a Blu-Ray master *only* with the replacement score. Okay, so far so good. If things had proceeded straight from there we would have had a one disc release only with just this option.

But now here's where it really gets confusing to me and the things Nick keeps saying is constantly making me go "HUH?"

#1-Having established that they couldn't have done a seamless branching option with what they were first given by Sony, Nick then boasts of how they then went to the trouble of having the theatrical cut (14 minutes shorter and with a less satisfying narrative because of the missing scene that clears up the fate of the scout) restored and how Sony didn't have to do this but went beyond the call of duty to do so, and presumably this is the reason why back in August, Nick made that announcement about the hold-up in releasing this to 'work on the master' and how the wait would be worthwhile etc. Here's where I'm confused. Is Nick saying that they, the people at TT, requested Sony do this? If this is the case, then the question that should be asked is why not ask Sony to simply go back to the extended cut and include a new master with the Amfitheatrof score? A DVD master existed for this, whereas no DVD master existed for the original cut which frankly is not needed and is superfluous at this point. The extended cut is a better narrative and the only question should be which score would you rather here for it, same as the DVD.

#2-But in all of his posts of explanation, Nick leaves the clear and distinct impression that he has NEVER been happy with the idea of the extended cut being available with the original score. When he mentions the 2005 DVD release, he literally talks of it as if it was some unfortunate thing he was forced to do beacuse the theatrical cut was not going to be made available and then, as a grudging concession to keep the original score from being lost the seamless branching option was created for the DVD release. Now I can remember the time when people used to hail the idea of seamless branching as a viable and effective way to let us see alternate versions of a movie through the DVD format, but if you read Nick's posts he acts as if something terrible and unsatisfactory took place when this decision was made, and that if he'd really had his druthers he would NOT have allowed us to have this option in 2005 but instead would have stuck the people who don't like the replacement score with just the theatrical cut, ergo, exactly the scenario we're seeing now.

#3-Not once does Nick clarify the matter of who was in a position to determine what the months of down time would be spent on. Was it *ever* in his power to ask Sony to do it this way, or was Sony arbitrarily doing this themselves and saying "there's no way of doing a Blu-Ray master of the extended cut with the original score"? I have a hard time believing the latter for a few simple reasons. First off, we all know how proud Nick is of the replacement score. So proud that he also at other times in his posts says, "Why should the original score have been there?" as if somehow it's an absurdly silly idea to think that one should be able to see the film this way. His entire tone seems to be that of one who thinks he's doing everyone a favor by presenting the short cut at long last. There is no tone of regret or apology for those who were expecting otherwise or the kind of explanation I would expect to hear from someone who had no say at all in the matter of how this was presented *especially* in light of the fact that for almost eight years now, the home viewing experience for a lot of people like myself has been to see this film in its extended cut with the original score. Nick should have gone into this project with eyes open as to what this kind of release would mean, and while I could accept an explanation of "Sony gave this, we released this" that just isn't going to fly when his organization spent a lot of extra time to put all kinds of TLC into the final effort that reveal a much more hands-on role in deciding what was going to happen. All I can say is that if I were in charge of a project like this, I would not have asked Sony to waste their money working on the theatrical cut, I would have asked them to prepare a new extended cut master with the original score and made it a two disc release of extended cut with one score, extended cut with another score if that's what it would have had to be *if* it was in my power to influence Sony on what to do on this, and Nick has so far not answered satisfactorily the question of whether he had or did not have influence on this point. I just can not believe that Sony then decided with zero input from him, especially in light of his comments regarding his feelings about the 2005 DVD release, that the theatrical cut was the thing they were going to work on during the down time.

It is really unfortunate this thing had to happen, and I think what troubles me is how some people in the discussion I've been involved with are treating this matter in a cavalier fashion as if it's not a big deal and not something worthy of a serious discussion. Considering that HTF is at the same time having a LONGER discussion of people complaining about the fact that the upcoming Blu-Ray release of "Shane" will not have two versions of the film in separate aspect ratios (which for me personally is a very trivial matter but I'm not about to post in that thread to tell those people that), it strikes me that this matter which concerns the failure to duplicate a DVD presentation on Blu-Ray on a very serious point more serious than bonus material not being ported over or a host of other things that often can make a Blu-Ray unsatisfying to some people should be attracting greater attention than it sadly has.

Just my two cents. I guess if this weren't a film I didn't have a fondness for on some levels because the first half of the movie is one of the most compelling pieces of cinematic drama I've ever seen, it wouldn't raise my hackles the way it has. In this hobby that's always bound to happen with some titles more than others.

I think Sony, to be honest with you, are the ones who are "prejudiced" against the original score because they were the ones who dumped it from the 2004 extended version. That decision is really the one you should be more fired up about Eric, because TT is really just releasing whatever Sony provides to them.

As far as the theatrical version being included, perhaps Sony was simply more amenable to producing a new master of the theatrical version than striking ANOTHER new master of the expanded version with the old score being tracked back into it? The amount of people interested in the former are probably far greater than the latter (I know you feel differently but that's probably the reality), and if they already invested in a HD master of the expanded version, they likely saw no real incentive in striking another one just for that reason.

TT are really just the intermediaries when it comes to releases like this. They license the masters from studios and release what they give them. If you are really irritated with what the content of the presentation happens to be -- the transfer, soundtrack, etc. -- it's something that needs to be directed at the studio, not TT. TT can make judgements on their own about whether to release something (as in that transfer of DEMETRIUS & THE GLADIATORS was worth licensing from Fox, or that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD '90 transfer was worth it even though it had been re-colored), but the quality of that presentation is really up to the studio that provides the content to them.

I'm sure they weighed whether or not to release this set without the original score attached to the extended version, and it's a judgement call. For you, you wouldn't have done it. They made the call to do so. Really not much more to say other than that.