Theatrical / Extended / Unrated / Director's Cuts

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Gardenofstone10

I've never once pressed to watch Theatrical when there's an option for extended/director's cut. No need to. I'm watching a movie by that director and if he does a cut, that's his product he wants to see

Do keep in mind that there is a difference between "Extended" and "Director's Cut." Even when it says "Director's Cut" you may not know what you're getting. For example, the "Director's Cut" of Alien is NOT what it is says it is-- it was really an alternate version he created for the studio's theatrical re-release, using deleted scenes as replacements for some sequences he originally put in the film.

And then of course a lot of "extended cuts" are just the studio re-inserting deleted scenes with or without the participation of the director, which happens frequently with comedies, and also other films like "Doom" just as a random example off the top of my head.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

Do keep in mind that there is a difference between "Extended" and "Director's Cut." Even when it says "Director's Cut" you may not know what you're getting. For example, the "Director's Cut" of Alien is NOT what it is says it is-- it was really an alternate version he created for the studio's theatrical re-release, using deleted scenes as replacements for some sequences he originally put in the film.

And then of course a lot of "extended cuts" are just the studio re-inserting deleted scenes with or without the participation of the director, which happens frequently with comedies, and also other films like "Doom" just as a random example off the top of my head.

Which didn't help the film anyway.

[I KEEL YOU]

I find that I always tend to prefer the whichever cut is the longest, but that almost always there are some segments of the longer cut that I don't like. But the positives of the longer cuts outweigh the negatives. I find that people are completely irrational when it comes to the Dumb and Dumber unrated version. Yeah, some parts of the extended cut suck, but I couldn't live without "Mock-Si" and Lloyd having the gas station key-chain stick slapped out of his hand by Seabass.

But I understand if people prefer the original cut for sentimental reasons. I like the theatrical cut of Terminator 2 more purely for sentimental reasons, because that's the cut I grew up on. But if I saw the movie for the first time today, I don't know, I might like the extended cut more.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I disagree with the bolded titles. Their director's cuts are far superior to the theatrical cuts.

T2 theatrical is the director's cut.


And since they've been brought up, the Lord of the Rings theatrical releases are the director's cuts, also.

[MykeHavoc]

Exactly. Extended cuts are supplementary. Theatrical cuts should always be included.

[Gold Ranger]

What's so horrible about the extended version of Dumb & Dumber?

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

What's so horrible about the extended version of Dumb & Dumber?

Well, I will concede that I've seen the film numerous times beginning with it's theatrical release, so I have the film thoroughly ingrained in my head. So there is definitely some sort of bias there. However, I still think that the unrated cut adds in a bunch of unnecessary small extensions that blow some of the humor.

I don't need to see Seabass grab his balls, or see his green loogie go into Harry's burger. It's just gross and not really funny. And I don't get the new take used with Harry and Lloyd in the hot tub. I guess the joke is that he thinks people are having sex next door, but it is clearly audio of a porno movie. It's an odd addition and I like the original take they went with better for that scene.

The ONLY addition I liked in it is the realization that if Lloyd married Mary, her name would be Mary Christmas. That's was really funny. Otherwise, I'd call Dumb and Dumber a case of less is more.

[kemcha]

I think a director's cut or extended cut is better than the theatrical edition as long as it doesn't change the dynamic of the film or drastically alter the film. George Lucas did a wonderful thing with the Star Wars special editions with the exception of changing "Han Shot First" in "A New Hope" and removing Bernard Shaw from the ending of "Return of the Jedi". You cannot change the dynamic of a film by severely changing certain scenes that are integral to the film.

Return of the Jedi suffered because Anakin Skywalker was much older when he died, yet Obi-Wan looked the same when he died ... A horrible edit by George Lucas for which he should be charged with destroying one of our national treasures.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

Well, I will concede that I've seen the film numerous times beginning with it's theatrical release, so I have the film thoroughly ingrained in my head. So there is definitely some sort of bias there. However, I still think that the unrated cut adds in a bunch of unnecessary small extensions that blow some of the humor.

I don't need to see Seabass grab his balls, or see his green loogie go into Harry's burger. It's just gross and not really funny. And I don't get the new take used with Harry and Lloyd in the hot tub. I guess the joke is that he thinks people are having sex next door, but it is clearly audio of a porno movie. It's an odd addition and I like the original take they went with better for that scene.

The ONLY addition I liked in it is the realization that if Lloyd married Mary, her name would be Mary Christmas. That's was really funny. Otherwise, I'd call Dumb and Dumber a case of less is more.

back when VHS was around, me and my friend wayched this movie a lot...
i remember the loogie on the burger.
Until now, i also never realized that it was Seabass in the bathroom.
I also remember the hot tub scene.

*note, except for the muptiple viewings of the VHS when i was a kid, i've never seen the movie since then, until i got the BluRay

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by kemcha

I think a director's cut or extended cut is better than the theatrical edition as long as it doesn't change the dynamic of the film or drastically alter the film. George Lucas did a wonderful thing with the Star Wars special editions with the exception of changing "Han Shot First" in "A New Hope" and removing Sebastian Shaw from the ending of "Return of the Jedi". You cannot change the dynamic of a film by severely changing certain scenes that are integral to the film.

Return of the Jedi suffered because Anakin Skywalker was much older when he died, yet Obi-Wan looked the same when he died ... A horrible edit by George Lucas for which he should be charged with destroying one of our national treasures.

fixed it for you.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Better Than Theatrical

ALIENS
Alien 3
Blade Runner (Final Cut)
Gods and Generals
Manhunter
The Frighteners
Terminator 2
Zodiac

You forgot Lord of the Rings EE

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

back when VHS was around, me and my friend wayched this movie a lot...
i remember the loogie on the burger.
Until now, i also never realized that it was Seabass in the bathroom.
I also remember the hot tub scene.

*note, except for the muptiple viewings of the VHS when i was a kid, i've never seen the movie since then, until i got the BluRay

In the theatrical cut, the actual loogie is off-screen and you see the character's reaction to it instead of the actual green spit. I thought it worked better.

And the hot tub scene had the same dialog exchange, just minus all of the Lloyd holding a glass to the wall listening to the porno audio. Again, this could just be bias, but I liked the exchange better in the take they went with in the theatrical version.

[wooble89]

Terminator 2 has been mentioned and I would say the Theatrical Cut is the better version of that. The pacing is just much better and I believe its the cut Cameron prefers. On the other hand of course, Aliens is much better in its longer version.

[in2video2]

For me I usually check out the Director's Cut first. After a lot of trial and error over time you usually narrow it down to those Directors who know how to really deliver the goods the first time - meaning the Director's Cut. Studios often override the Director for lots of reasons. I usually find the original artistic intent, vision and editing far superior in Director's Cuts. Studios can often wreck or even derail the great vision of some of the better Directors in the business.

[oly]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

What's so horrible about the extended version of Dumb & Dumber?

Additional scenes are unnecessary and terrible.

[Gold Ranger]

In regards to The Terminator:
There is "A" version out there that has the 7 "Terminated" scenes restored back in.
Has anyone else seen or heard about it besides me?
I heard about it years ago and was able to hunt it down after a few months of searching... I honestly prefer the extended version...

[kemcha]

Kinetic, there was no need to correct my post. I already knew that. It was just a way for Reorge Lucas to get out of paying royalty fees to an actor who had a small role in the film.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by kemcha

Kinetic, there was no need to correct my post. I already knew that. It was just a way for Reorge Lucas to get out of paying royalty fees to an actor who had a small role in the film.

Thats not true. If it were, Sebastian's head would've been replaced when the helmet came off as well...

[Steve]

I usually prefer the extended version.

[Damage Inc.]

Hm, well, in direct response to the original post:

Initially I'd say I'd like to see the film the way it was meant to be by the hands of the creators.
This is because most of the time the original cuts are... well, cut, for Theatrical releases or TV or whatever. As most of us know.
But then, occasionally, you run into Extended/Director's Cuts that are just too over-long and boring and the Theatrical Cut is simply better.
So, I think it's also a case of personal preference.
And also, if you happen to have multiple cuts, they might both be good but tell the story in different ways (shorter, longer, in a different order).
In that case it's handy to even have multiple so you get even more options and you can watch whichever you prefer at that time.
So it kind of depends if you want "the full experience" or "the abbreviated version which is also good".

I agree on the point that "you want more content because you want your money's worth".
But then again, what if the extra content/footage is a load of boring nonsense which only wastes your time?
Because you might think you're more satisfied if there's "more to watch", but the "rule" of "less is more" can still apply.
Which often works for about any creative compositions.

So that's pretty much my view on it, that there's not always a "right" version to begin with, it's in most cases always someone's "preferred" version.
Sure, one director might claim only one version is the right version, that can often be the case.
But even directors might like multiple versions, this only gives the viewers more options in what they like to watch.
And even if the director doesn't like a certain version at all, people can still like it, because there are different people.
Such as the director of 'American History X' disowned the whole film... While now it's considered to be among the best films.


On a sidenote, often these titles, such as "Director's Cut", are not used correctly anyway. A good example is with the first two "Alien"-films;
'Alien' got a 'Director's Cut', but Ridley Scott himself said that he preferred the Theatrical version, he thought it was just fine.
'Aliens', however, got a "Special Edition", which actually restores scenes that James Cameron himself preferred to be in there.
So that technically makes 'Aliens' a Director's Cut, and 'Alien' a Special Edition as the latter was only sort of a re-release with some changes.