Close Encounters of the Third Kind...Which version is better?

[JadedRaverLA]

Personally, I hate the very IDEA of director's cuts. I think the audience deserves a single version of films. If a director's version of the film is so good, then that should be the version released in theatres -- period. [/end rant]

BUT... for this particular film... go with the Director's Cut -- it's definitely the best version. There are a few films (like CE3K and Brazil) where the director's cut is definitely better (and different enough to justify a separate release) than the original studio cut of the film,so I completely understand the additional release.

[Heart&Soul]

Director's cut.

[Lucy Diamond]

I saw that recently....I don't remember it being that loooooooooong.

Great flick though. I'd love to see the director's cut.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Personally, I hate the very IDEA of director's cuts. I think the audience deserves a single version of films. If a director's version of the film is so good, then that should be the version released in theatres -- period. [/end rant]

BUT... for this particular film... go with the Director's Cut -- it's definitely the best version. There are a few films (like CE3K and Brazil) where the director's cut is definitely better (and different enough to justify a separate release) than the original studio cut of the film,so I completely understand the additional release.

However due to problems at Columbia and an extremely rushed schedule, they weren't able to do the movie the way Steven Spielberg wanted. Which is why there's a director's cut.

[PS3_Kiwi]

I watched the Director's Cut yesterday. I had already seen the other versions a while ago.

The Director's Cut was very good, and if you have a subwoofer in your system, be prepared for some serious earth shaking bass when Roy Neary first comes into contact with the alien mothership.

I was listening to the DTS HD MA audio track. There is a Dolby True HD track as well, which should be very similar to the DTS track.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

However due to problems at Columbia and an extremely rushed schedule, they weren't able to do the movie the way Steven Spielberg wanted. Which is why there's a director's cut.

... which is why on this particular film I completely understand the necessity of a director's cut, and recommend it as the preferred version. Same with 'Brazil,' where the studio completely butchered the film and attempted to create an entirely different movie out of the film elements.

Normally, though, I just miss the days when there was ONE version of each movie that came out, and you could discuss film's with others without having to figure out which version each had seen.

[Blu-Jawa]

I wish there was a verson that put ALL the cut parts into one film!
Verson 1 has the Power Plant part.
Verson 2 has the inside the spaceship, and when Roy was Trashing his Home.
Verson 3 is a Dir. Cut

the parts are like 3 or 4 mins!? why is it split??

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Blu-Jawa

I wish there was a verson that put ALL the cut parts into one film!
Verson 1 has the Power Plant part.
Verson 2 has the inside the spaceship, and when Roy was Trashing his Home.
Verson 3 is a Dir. Cut

the parts are like 3 or 4 mins!? why is it split??

Sometimes a director's vision includes cutting unnecessary or bad scenes. The best version of a movie is not simply the one with the most scenes included.

In this case, the 'inside the spaceship' scene in the special edition was considered a mistake (by both Spielberg and many fans) as it demystified the alien craft and could in no way compete with our imagination of the unknown - some things are just better not shown.

[mdtulp]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Personally, I hate the very IDEA of director's cuts. I think the audience deserves a single version of films. If a director's version of the film is so good, then that should be the version released in theatres -- period. [/end rant]

BUT... for this particular film... go with the Director's Cut -- it's definitely the best version. There are a few films (like CE3K and Brazil) where the director's cut is definitely better (and different enough to justify a separate release) than the original studio cut of the film,so I completely understand the additional release.

do you think that every release we see in the theater is what the director envisioned all the time, directors have to make cuts for studio demands, (running time, fx shots that weren't complete, schedules, release dates etc) but with homw video none of that really matters, directors cuts are a better movie 99% of the time(the 1% goes for Lucas making Greedo shoot first, totally stupid) Have you ever done anything that you'd like to do over, or add to (like this post)LOL

[blackhawktraffic]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Personally, I hate the very IDEA of director's cuts. I think the audience deserves a single version of films. If a director's version of the film is so good, then that should be the version released in theatres -- period. [/end rant]

BUT... for this particular film... go with the Director's Cut -- it's definitely the best version. There are a few films (like CE3K and Brazil) where the director's cut is definitely better (and different enough to justify a separate release) than the original studio cut of the film,so I completely understand the additional release.

That just makes you sound stupid, the Directors Cut is almost always the best cut out there. You might be getting confused with so called unrated cuts which are all for the sake of making an extra dollar or two by the studio. With many big budget titles the director does not have the final say on the cut, that is often left up to the studio, producers etc. To say that the DC should have been the cut seen in theaters instead of the Theatrical cut is one thing, but since some Directors Cut change the movie drastically and god forbid an American movie not have a happy ending for the sad sobs that go see most of the mainstream trash is another thing.

But Yes Directors Cut

[syncguy]

How about the PQ and AQ of 3 versions of the movie. Are they same or different? If “branching” is used, I expect the PQ and AQ are same.

[darkpoet25]

Originally Posted by syncguy

How about the PQ and AQ of 3 versions of the movie. Are they same or different? If “branching” is used, I expect the PQ and AQ are same.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=529

[Kryptonic]

Director's Cut.

[hanser]

I prefer the original cut. It has more humour in it (eg longer scene where Roy is destroying the garden for builing his mountain) and less scenes focusing on Roys psychological problems and the breakup of his family (eg no shower scene), which are in my opinion not the main theme of the movie. In my opinion therefore there is a better balance between humour and drama. Also I prefer the introduction to the neary familiy (toy train scene).

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by hanser

I prefer the original cut. It has more humour in it (eg longer scene where Roy is destroying the garden for builing his mountain) and less scenes focusing on Roys psychological problems and the breakup of his family (eg no shower scene), which are in my opinion not the main theme of the movie. In my opinion therefore there is a better balance between humour and drama. Also I prefer the introduction to the neary familiy (toy train scene).

Roy's problems (his psychological problems and family problems are closely related, BTW) are indeed the main theme of the movie.

At that time, faith in traditional religions was on the decline, and Americans generally were feeling lost and down. This was after the turbulent but hopeful 60s, and the failures of the 70s (Vietnam, inflation/recession, etc.). So, we began turning toward Eastern religions, vague mysticism, and belief in ETs. In a way, ETs became our new religion. Thus, the two main characters are shown as isolated from traditional society, and seek something new from the aliens.

Doug