Theatrical Cut vs Alternate Cuts

[Billz]

Do you have a preference?

[Ste7en]

Yes.

A good example would be The Abyss. I saw it at the cinema upon release and I hated it. I just didn't get it at all, it was all over the shop and made little sense. Eventually the SE emerged and I was like "Ah, this is what it is supposed to be like. I get it now".

However, I still prefer the theatrical cut of Blade Runner, with the voiceover. Which is how it was at the cinema upon release, where I saw it first.

[Ianzombie]

It depends on the movie.
The Warriors Theatrical cut is far superior to the extended/directors cut, same with Leon.

[Dougling]

I think it's something that varies. While I'm always interested to see alternative cuts (especially if it's an opportunity to see what the director intended over what was released theatrically), it really comes down to what is best for me. That might sound selfish, because it's somebody else's art, but ultimately as a viewer, I want to see the version that I enjoy the most/prefer.

I find value in all 3 cuts of Blade Runner, but while The Final Cut is most accurate to Ridley Scott's vision and probably the superior version (IMO), I prefer to watch the 1992 Director's Cut as it's the version I grew up loving.

Conversely, I will from time to time go over the different versions of Brazil, but Gilliam's preferred version is also my preferred version.

Then we have the recent Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice... The extended edition is better to a point, as it gives elements of the story more credence and makes more sense of a lot of things, but it doesn't excise a lot of the other crap in there and becomes a slog due to the length. Now I've seen the extended version and I know and understand these extra bits, I just watch the theatrical cut because I've got that knowledge in my brain to understand the bits that didn't make sense, and it's a (slightly) more easy going length.

[stigdu]

Dumb & Dumber is one of my favourite comedy films. When they released the 'extended version' I was over the moon at seeing more comedy from Carrey, but the extra footage just wasn't needed, and changes Carrey's character from a loveable idiot to a nasty little ****. One of my most hated extended editions ever.

I do like the Terminator 2 extended edition, though.

[Indiana Jones]

Depends on the film, some just seem to have extra stuff thrown in for little reason but there are a few where I much prefer the non-theatrical cut.

[figrin_dan]

Dances with wolves, JFK, Leon and Almost Famous were perfect then became perfect and longer.
Aliens and T2 had some great bits added (and some bad bits).
Alien was given modern pacing (that's a negative).
Kill Bill and Natural Born Killers had some extra violence.
Daredevil was made watchable (IMO)

Most comedies just drag on though.

[DaveSimonH]

Originally Posted by Ianzombie

It depends on the movie.
The Warriors Theatrical cut is far superior to the extended/directors cut, same with Leon.

Generally I lean towards director's cuts, but as you say it depends.
For me, Donnie Darko comes to mind, the director's cut is a weaker film.

Also important to be clear about whether they are directors cuts vs extended/alternate cuts. For example the "Dawn of the Dead" extended cut is often labelled directors cut, but Romero himself has said he prefers the theatrical presentation.

[IanSchultz23]

Originally Posted by DaveSimonH

For me, Donnie Darko comes to mind, the director's cut is a weaker film

Even Richard Kelly doesn't consider it his "director's cut" really.

I tend to prefer director's cut or longer cuts over the theatrical.

[samdvd1]

Usually, the Director's preferred version is better IMO.

However.... Donnie Darko. Theatrical Cut >>>>>>>>> Director's Cut.

[levcore]

surely this has been covered quite heavily in this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...&highlight=cut

[Fnord Prefect]

Depends.

Take the Shining. My understanding is that the shorter cut is considered the director's cut rather than the longer USA cinema version. However I'll take the USA cut which I prefer simply because it takes significantly longer with more time for the tension to build before we get to the very slightly disappointing finale.

I've been told it was the long version that was shown on UK terrestrial TV in the early 90's meaning, if true, the USA cut would be the first one I encountered possibly helping shape my preferences.

(Types rant about the pros and cons of the three cuts of Watchmen and then deletes it as I ultimately admit that as fond of the movie as I am, the original comics are vastly superior thus rendering said rant kind of pointless. Summery of deleted rant: while the Director's Cut is the best version from a technical and story standpoint the Ultimate Cut is my preferred viewing option)

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by Fnord Prefect

Take the Shining. My understanding is that the shorter cut is considered the director's cut rather than the longer USA cinema version.

It's not as simple as that though, Kubrick released the long version and then because it was getting negative reviews saying it was long and boring he panicked and quickly cut it down. The long version is the real director's cut as far as I'm concerned, otherwise he wouldn't have released that in the first place. It's actually the same thing that happened to BvS, the long version was originally intended to be released but they lost confidence in their audience at the last minute.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by Fnord Prefect

Depends.

I've been told it was the long version that was shown on UK terrestrial TV in the early 90's meaning, if true, the USA cut would be the first one I encountered possibly helping shape my preferences.

so you should also prefer or be more used to 4:3 version too

I've mentioned a few times I prefer shorter cut, and also think Kubrick did, he was a perfectionist and wouldn't cut anything he didn't want to
anyway I consider both as Director's Cut's as Kubrick endorsed cuts himself
but I don't think it matters which version he preferred anyway
I have both cuts and can watch either, and enjoy both, but just think shorter version works better as Horror film

[Blu MacReady]

Great thread, enjoying people's views on films I've seen.

I generally watch the TC of a release, as I choose 99% of the time avoid the cinema and use my own home system and collection (in a way everything is a blind buy for me). This makes me feel I'm seeing the film as everyone else did and the studio sign off, if you know what I mean.
I've always then (where possible) watched the extended cut or director cut etc.

I've almost always preferred the extended cut, I don't find inserted scenes or expanding character drag a film. They normally, for me, fill a gap that adds something, but at the same time I can see why mostly they're not required and sometimes sign post exactly what I had managed to work out or realise myself, as there was already enough in the TC.

Looking forward to seeing the DC of Raising Cain, as this makes the film a different story, but I'm glad I started with the TC.

[tenia]

It depends. Some TC are the best cut, others are not.

[UltraMario9]

Theatrical Cut of Kingdom Of Heaven is garbage, the Directors Cut is a masterpiece.

Director's Cut of Payback is meh, Theatrical Cut is much better

[navydavey]

Originally Posted by UltraMario9

Theatrical Cut of Kingdom Of Heaven is garbage, the Directors Cut is a masterpiece.

Director's Cut of Payback is meh, Theatrical Cut is much better

I really like the directors cut version of payback, possibly more than the theatrical or at least on par

[Blu MacReady]

Nightbreed DC is better then the TC

[Vincanws]

Originally Posted by Billz

Do you have a preference?

In some cases, e.g. Brazil, Blade Runner, BvS, and Kingdom of Heaven. But otherwise, mostly no.