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.

[casperuk]

Originally Posted by 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.

See the thing is. The UK of release blade runner and some other territories the theatrical relases didn't have the voice over and left it ambiguous. Which is what Ridley Scott wanted originally.

So the US version to me just isn't the right version. I've not watched the final cut. Having owned it for years. So i must do that at some point. But currently it's the UK version for me

[Spiderwalk]

Originally Posted by casperuk

See the thing is. The UK of release blade runner and some other territories the theatrical releases didn't have the voice over and left it ambiguous. Which is what Ridley Scott wanted originally.

So the US version to me just isn't the right version. I've not watched the final cut. Having owned it for years. So i must do that at some point. But currently it's the UK version for me

The UK theatrical cut does have the voice-over, it wasn't until the so-called director's cut was released in 1992 that it was removed.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[Member-167298]

Originally Posted by figrin_dan

Most comedies just drag on though.

Even though I enjoy some of his work, Judd Apatow is one of the worst offenders. His theatrical cuts are already quite lengthy, but the extended cuts are far too self-indulgent (ex. The 40-Year-Old-Virgin at 130+ minutes!) with the pacing of the story taking a back seat to more "funny" being crammed in. I really think most comedies work best with a 90 minute running time.

[Bourne1886]

Yeah I really like them, Daredevil (Ben Affleck) directors cut is one that I think is better than the theatrical cut as is Kingdom of Heaven which is like a different movie, also Superman and Superman 2 and Aliens. Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition benefits massively from an extra 30 minutes. All better in my opinion with the extra footage.

[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.

[s_har]

It depends on the movie really. Sometimes the theatrical cut is better than the alternate one and othertimes it's the opposite.

E.g
Donnie Darko theatrical cut is far superior to the director's cut. I can't even bear to watch the director's cut.
And Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut is far superior to the botchered theatrical release.

[StingingVelvet]

I'd say it's really a 50/50 case-by-case basis for me. It's rare I consider an extended or director's cut the ONLY cut of the movie I want to watch though. Blade Runner, Batman v Superman, The Wolverine... maybe the Lord of the Rings movies... that might be it?

[drush9999]

Just to confuse matters are mislabelled Director's Cuts that aren't their preferred version, Ridley I'm looking at you

General rule of thumb is, if it's Michael Mann or George Lucas, theatrical, for most other directors whichever version they prefer