The Director's Cut Thread

[wallendo]

I find "director's cuts" to be a mixed bag.

1) In some cases, the DC is actually what the director intended but was forced/coerced/bribed/convinced to change it by the studio. In theses cases, the DC is often (but not always) an improvement.

2) In some cases, the director revisits his movie, or tries to use modern technology to update it. Occasionally this is an improvement, but frequently it isn't, e.g., the Star Wars original trilogy. In many cases, the theatrical edition is what the director really intended at the time.

3) In some cases, it is marketing driven and frequently doesn't work. For example, with Close Encounters, the "Director's Cut" is really an "extended edition", while the "Final Cut" is really the "Director's Cut". For Close Encounters, my preference is: theatrical cut, final cut, and lastly, "director's cut".

Creating even more confusion: the terms "Director's Cut", "Special Edition", "Unrated Edition", and "Extended Edition", which actually should describe entirely different entities, are commonly used as synonyms, not just by web posters, but frequently by the marketing departments of the studios.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by wallendo

Occasionally this is an improvement, but frequently it isn't, e.g., the Star Wars original trilogy.

This is probably sacrilegious to the purists, but I actually thought that most of the enhancements in the original trilogy was worthwhile and added a little bit of depth to some of the settings, without getting to the point of some of the headache-inducing CGI scenes that the prequals brought.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

the DC of Daredevil is great!!!

I remember being very underwhelmed by Daredevil and never really tried the DC. I may have to pick it up and give it a look.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by Sarge

This is probably sacrilegious to the purists, but I actually thought that most of the enhancements in the original trilogy was worthwhile and added a little bit of depth to some of the settings, without getting to the point of some of the headache-inducing CGI scenes that the prequals brought.

True ... like updating the Emperor scene in ESB, much needed change. But for the majority of the rest ... not a huge fan of the additions. Especially Hayden at the end of ROTJ (Still laugh every time I see that - Luke would be like ... who the f$%k is that).

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Director's Cuts aren't about arbitrarily making movies longer - Ridley Scott's Director's Cut of Alien is actually a couple minutes shorter despite including added scenes.

And studios don't tell director's to cut down the running time of a movie for the benefit of the movie itself. They do it to make more money and that's the only reason. Shorter running time means the movie can be played more times in a day and that = more money.

I think Titanic debunks that theory.....

[Steve]

I usually find director's cuts to be improvements over the theatrical releases. Some of my favorites:

The Abyss
Aliens
T2
LOTR
Harry Potter Ultimate Editions

I've never seen anything but the director's cut of Daredevil and thought it was a really good movie.

I've never seen the director's cut of Alien 3, Troy, or Kingdom of Heaven, and for the last two I didn't even know director's cuts were available. I'll have to look into them.

I thought the alterations done to the original Star Wars trilogy were a mixed bag. I liked some of the additional/altered scenes between Vader and the Emperor, etc, but I hated the additional CGI added, and the scene that was was altered to make it look like Greedo couldn't hit Han Solo from across the table was downright insulting.

IIRC some network showed an extended version of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective once on TV and that is the one that comes to mind that was definitely better off left alone.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

I think Titanic debunks that theory.....

But weren't they showing that one on more screens than usual to make up for the long running time? I've always heard the same thing about running length and that is that studios like to keep movies around two hours or so so they can be shown more times in a day and therefore make more money.

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by Steve

But weren't they showing that one on more screens than usual to make up for the long running time? I've always heard the same thing about running length and that is that studios like to keep movies around two hours or so so they can be shown more times in a day and therefore make more money.

i mean, theoretically that makes sense, i just dont see it being true. If a movie is good enough, then it will be playing on more screens and be in theatres longer, regardless of the length

[kdo]

Originally Posted by TheForce8686

I think most director's cuts are completely unnecesary. I think the studios are right when they tell the director a movie is a too long and he needs to trim the fat. Yes, some of the scenes are cool but if the movie is already interesting enough for us to enjoy or want to own then obviously those scenes are not that important. Often times they do make the movies way to long.

+1...very much in agreement here...plus, sometimes the DC's just plain ruin the movie IMO. Actually, the only DC's I've ever seen that I thought to be a 'major' improvement were the LOTR EE's...and I'm not even sure that those qualify as DC's, since it seems more likely that the studio simply didn't want to release films that long (in terms of running time), at the theaters.

[Gaius Marius]

Kingdom of Heaven DS and the EE LotR are the two that spring to mind as improving the theatricals. KoH is a vastly better movie because of it, while the EE LotR add some good scenes to flesh out the films.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

I think Titanic debunks that theory.....

It doesn't debunk it. Titanic is an exception to the theory. Not to mention it played in more theaters, and auditoriums, than the average movie. Gone With the Wind would be another exception. And because they're the exception is the reason the studios aren't trying to make every movie longer.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

It doesn't debunk it. Titanic is an exception to the theory. Not to mention it played in more theaters, and auditoriums, than the average movie. Gone With the Wind would be another exception. And because they're the exception is the reason the studios aren't trying to make every movie longer.

Well, how about LOTR TE? all nearly three hours, except ROTK which was longer...

And Avatar? about a half hour less than Titanic, but still considerably long.

I think good story telling is much more important than running times.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Q!

Well, how about LOTR TE? all nearly three hours, except ROTK which was longer...

And Avatar? about a half hour less than Titanic, but still considerably long.

I think good story telling is much more important than running times.

I agree with you, but it's not my theory.

But even LOTR had to subscribe to a studio version that kept the running time as short as possible, which is why Jackson released the Extended Editions.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I agree with you, but it's not my theory.

But even LOTR had to subscribe to a studio version that kept the running time as short as possible, which is why Jackson released the Extended Editions.

Well, Okay then

Agree to..... agree?

[DaleDark]

Don't mean to come off as a dickish, but the EEs of LOTR is NOT Peter Jackson's director's cut, and he prefers the theatrical cuts (he has said as much on the TE DVDs). That said, I do enjoy them more than the TEs.

Someone over at Fox should have been fired and perp-walked out of the building for what they did to Kingdom of Heaven (oh, and screwing Ridley Scott out of another Oscar nod).

Probably my favorite DC/EE/Unrated/etc.... cut is the expanded version of T2......just cuz it allows me to pretend that 3 and Salvation never happened (ignorance is bliss).

[Fighter]

Originally Posted by Q!

Well, how about LOTR TE? all nearly three hours, except ROTK which was longer...

And Avatar? about a half hour less than Titanic, but still considerably long.

I think good story telling is much more important than running times.

Totally agree...I don't care how long a film is, as long as it entertains me..case in point...LOTR EE...longer than the originals, but much better!!

[BluraySe7en]

I prefer JFK's & Nixon's DC as for Kingdom of Heaven I've only seen the DC and I know that's a number of hours I'm not getting back.

Seriously if the Theatrical was worse then glad I never saw it. Aliens, Abyss are better for me and T2 is improved in it's extended cuts.

I can't remember the Theatrical cuts of The LOTR Trilogy and only know them as the extended now and can't imagine going back to them, despite ROTK going on for far too long Fellowship and Two Towers is much improved.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by DaleDark

Don't mean to come off as a dickish, but the EEs of LOTR is NOT Peter Jackson's director's cut, and he prefers the theatrical cuts (he has said as much on the TE DVDs).

Yah ... I think he just said that on the TE DVDs to make those who had bought it feel better about their purchase.

[vegeta88]

I think the extended cut of Punisher (Thomas Jane) was very much so improved with the new scenes. There is a subplot with his cop buddy that is really strong and actually adds a lot to the films as a whole IMO.

Comedies, I generally prefer the theatrical versions more which is why they should always include both like for The Hangover. I really like that Blade Runner and Close Encounters of the Third Kind have all of the cuts available.

[Bigoez77]

donnie darko directors cut was quite a bit different then the original but i dont think it was better than the original