Movies- Theatrical vs Director's Cut

[Huntn]

As recently mentioned in the Movie Thread (linked below), reagarding theater vs director cuts, does anyone remember a director cut that was vastly superior to the theater cut? As a rule, I'd describe them as a way to bloat out a movie in order to generate additional revenue, however sometimes the director cut has some value, but is there enough value to warrant purchase a second copy of a movie, just for the additional footage? Notice I said sometimes and my answer is usually, no.

Here is an example of good extra footage (less than 2 min) in the Avatar Director's cut the areal hunt scene. Granted I am an Avatar junkie:

How can you watch this and not love it? ​

Regarding Alien, I never saw the Directir's cut, but for Aliens I did and was not happy with the additional footage, which removes all of the mystery of how the Colony on LV426 aliens. We know Burke sent word to the colony in the theatrical cut to go investigate because Ripley said so later in the story, but showing what happens in the beginning, imo removes the entire mystery of them circling the compound and not knowing what exactly happened here, even though we do know. It's a trade off which does not pay off. I'll take the mystery every time.

Aliens Hadley's Hope, this is an example of 5 minutes you don't need to see, followed by Hudson pseudo rapping about what a bad ass he is :

Here is a good addition in the Aliens Director's cut, the sentry turrets :

Starting out with one of the SciFi genres best Ridely Scotts 1979 classic, naturally the theatrical cut

Might stay on the SciFi theme or flip to the Cold War later tonight...

Q-6

 

[D.T.]

Agreed about the unnecessary settlers scene in the DC of Aliens, but I kind of dig on the sentry guns scene.

Blade Runner for me is the biggest improvement in the non-theatrical release. In fact, it's not the Directors Cut (which was the first edited release), but what they called the Final Cut, which was the DC + remastered audio, full reshot scenes, etc!

 

[Huntn]

Agreed about the unnecessary settlers scene in the DC of Aliens, but I kind of dig on the sentry guns scene.

Blade Runner for me is the biggest improvement in the non-theatrical release. In fact, it's not the Directors Cut (which was the first edited release), but what they called the Final Cut, which was the DC + remastered audio, full reshot scenes, etc!

I agree that remastering has value. You mention reshot scenes, did this happen after the theatrical release? I know somewhere in this forum, it's been discussed before, but... my question is, for Blade Runner does the Final cut significantly add meaningful content, changing the feel of the story for the better without losing tightness in editing? I might be compelled to find the Final Cut for viewing. I wonder if streaming sites feature this version, or it might just have to be Bluray.

 

[D.T.]

I agree that remastering has value. You mention reshot scenes, did this happen after the theatrical release? I know somewhere in this forum, it's been discussed before, but... my question is, for Blade Runner does the Final cut significantly add meaningful content, changing the feel of the story for the better without losing tightness in editing? I might be compelled to find the Final Cut for viewing. I wonder if streaming sites feature this version, or it might just have to be Bluray.

That's a great question: the DC is a massive improvement in the "feel" of the movie. It removes the tacked on "happy ending", removes the voiceover, a few other very notable changes. The FC is tonally about the same, it's mostly technical improvements, but it creates a more immersive, more consistent experience (so the feel is still improved yet again). There are some completely reshot scenes, all the FX have been cleaned up (some were horribly distracting in the original/DC).

 

[Scepticalscribe]

As recently mentioned in the Movie Thread (linked below), reagarding theater vs director cuts, does anyone remember a director cut that was vastly superior to the theater cut? As a rule, I'd describe them as a way to bloat out a movie in order to generate additional revenue, however sometimes the director cut has some value, but is there enough value to warrant purchase a second copy of a movie, just for the additional footage? Notice I said sometimes and my answer is usually, no.

If reviews indicated that the theatre cut significantly butchered the movie, yes, I would argue that the Director's Cut may well be better.

When I was a student, the Director's Cut of any movie (if available) was all we would watch.

Now, I concede that sometimes, it became an excuse for bloated and self-indulgent story telling.

However, the two movies I have seen where there does appear to have been a significant difference between the Theatre Release and the Director's Cut were Blade Runner - which has been previously mentioned, and Heaven's Gate.

 

[Queen6]

Regarding Alien, I never saw the Directir's cut, but for Aliens I did and was not happy with the additional footage, which removes all of the mystery of how the Colony on LV426 aliens. We know Burke sent word to the colony in the theatrical cut to go investigate because Ripley said so later in the story, but showing what happens in the beginning, imo removes the entire mystery of them circling the compound and not knowing what exactly happened here, even though we do know. It's a trade off which does not pay off. I'll take the mystery every time.

DC of Alien was heavily driven by the studio for the box set, adding nothing to the film; some background on the xenomorphs lifecycle and an attempt to shift up pacing a little, both unnecessary IMHO, later Ridley Scott would go to state similar, placing the theatrical release as the definitive version. For me the pacing is perfect and the mystery that surrounds the alien very much a compelling aspect of the film.

Agree with others regarding Blade Runner with the final cut enhancing and removing needless interference. Another of Ridley Scott's films that was vastly improved with the release of the DC was Kingdom of Heaven, putting back in what the studio demanded to be cut out I also agree that some are just using the DC as a vehicle to bring in additional revenue, without delivering additional meaningful content to the audience.

Q-6

 

[Huntn]

That's a great question: the DC is a massive improvement in the "feel" of the movie. It removes the tacked on "happy ending", removes the voiceover, a few other very notable changes. The FC is tonally about the same, it's mostly technical improvements, but it creates a more immersive, more consistent experience (so the feel is still improved yet again). There are some completely reshot scenes, all the FX have been cleaned up (some were horribly distracting in the original/DC).

I went looking for the Blade Runner Final Cut from streaming sources, and did not find one. Granted I did not look extensively, but I did find a Bluray version for purchase for $9 at Amazon.

I first saw Blade Runner in 1982 at a drive-in in San Jose, California with a sleeping baby in the back seat. It was such a dark film, viewed at a drive-in in the city, adversely effected by nearby lights offered a substandard picture, and accompanied by those wonderful drive in speakers, it was really hard to appreciate. I have seen it since, but no idea which version I saw.

 

[Number-Six]

In my opinion, the International version of Léon: The Professional is much better than the version released in the US due to 22 minutes of additional footage

 

[D.T.]

I went looking for the Blade Runner Final Cut from streaming sources, and did not find one. Granted I did not look extensively, but I did find a Bluray version for purchase for $9 at Amazon.

I first saw Blade Runner in 1982 at a drive-in in San Jose, California with a sleeping baby in the back seat. It was such a dark film, viewed at a drive-in in the city, adversely effected by nearby lights offered a substandard picture, and accompanied by those wonderful drive in speakers, it was really hard to appreciate. I have seen it since, but no idea which version I saw.

Did you pick it up? I've got the BD set that's the theatrical, DC, Final Cut versions, though I've only ever used/watched the FC. Unless you're totally against physical media, $9 seems like a bargain

Holy smokes, Blade Runner at a drive-in? Now _that_ is an experience

Spoiler

If you remember Rachael and Deckard driving away into the sunset along some coastal highway (with a voiceover) at the end, that's the theatrical version, and big difference vs. the DC/FC.

 

[Huntn]

Did you pick it up? I've got the BD set that's the theatrical, DC, Final Cut versions, though I've only ever used/watched the FC. Unless you're totally against physical media, $9 seems like a bargain

Holy smokes, Blade Runner at a drive-in? Now _that_ is an experience

Spoiler

If you remember Rachael and Deckard driving away into the sunset along some coastal highway (with a voiceover) at the end, that's the theatrical version, and big difference vs. the DC/FC.

It's ordered. I suspect the Final Cut includes the original theatrical release. I'll compare the endings. I've always preferred positive endings even if the future is uncertain.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Another thread has referred to Das Boot, the first German movie made about Germans during the war in the post war era.

There is the movie version (which is excellent, meticulous history, superb production values, a superlative cast, excellent script and an outstanding soundtrack) and there is the TV series (which is, basically, an extended version - a sort of Director's Cut - of the movie) which is - predictably - even better, and which allowed the story to be told in a more deliberate, and nuanced way.

 

[Tech198]

I prefer the theater release always over the Directors Cut.

Isn't DC just someone's view ? and the final Cut, is just more editing .... not interested as it's often not intended for mass audience.

 

[kazmac]

I cannot think of any director's cut I've seen that I've liked. Granted, my memory is for naught with more mainstream films.

That said, I 100% agree with the comments about Aliens DC; that those extra scenes ruined the mystery of the colony world and the company plans.

 

[hanser]

I prefer Aliens DC, because it shows more character moments, lets one breathe more between the action segments. Other cases I prefer the longer cuts is The Abyss, Terminator 2 and Lord of the Rings.

 

[D.T.]

I prefer the theater release always over the Directors Cut.

Isn't DC just someone's view ? and the final Cut, is just more editing .... not interested as it's often not intended for mass audience.

Well, the someone's view [typically] in the DC is the Director, and many times, they get hamstrung by time, budget, technical limitations - or there's studio imposed revision from people who aren't in the creative industry.

Don't mean to wear out Blade Runner as an example, but the voice-overs in the theatrical were added - at the vehement request not to, by the director Scott - by the studio, because some people sitting in a boardroom thought the audience would be confused. What we got was an extremely unnecessary, slightly clumsy, spoon fed opening scene that eventually was made 100X better by the DC that removed them

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Well, the someone's view [typically] in the DC is the Director, and many times, they get hamstrung by time, budget, technical limitations - or there's studio imposed revision from people who aren't in the creative industry.

Don't mean to wear out Blade Runner as an example, but the voice-overs in the theatrical were added - at the vehement request not to, by the director Scott - by the studio, because some people sitting in a boardroom thought the audience would be confused. What we got was an extremely unnecessary, slightly clumsy, spoon fed opening scene that eventually was made 100X better by the DC that removed them

You have made a very good point about the "vision" of the artists clashing with the financial imperatives of the industry, or those who are funding it, and this is at the core of why the debate - or discussion - of anything deemed a "Director's Cut" is often - on the one hand - a defence for the purity of artistic expression - and, on the other, a dislike of what may be pretentious self-indulgence, or - as with some of the movies already cited in this discussion - tacking on stuff to make a movie more palatable - and easier to understand - for an audience.

This debate goes back to the days of silent movies, and the lingering respect in artistic and creative circles for the vision of the auteur, or director, a version of the movie that is the vision of the director, not the studio, dates from that era, when movies that were considered possible works of art were butchered at the behest of film, or movie, studios, terrified of mounting costs, and the growing length both of movies, and of the time they took to shoot - and show. D W Griffith, and, Abel Gance - giants of the silent era, both had work butchered in order to meet time and money constraints.

The thinking that informed these decisions was that audiences couldn't handle anything sophisticated, or that had too much nuance, and they certainly couldn't risk being challenged, let alone being compelled to stay inn their seats linger than a they were used to with a movie.

In the 1940s, Orson Welles bemoaned what he saw as the slaughtering by philistines of his second movie, The Magnificent Ambersons, a notorious example of the practice of gutting what were considered superb movies.

However, in recent decades, artistic expression has sometimes spilled over into pure self-indulgence.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

As recently mentioned in the Movie Thread (linked below), reagarding theater vs director cuts, does anyone remember a director cut that was vastly superior to the theater cut? As a rule, I'd describe them as a way to bloat out a movie in order to generate additional revenue, however sometimes the director cut has some value, but is there enough value to warrant purchase a second copy of a movie, just for the additional footage? Notice I said sometimes and my answer is usually, no.

Here is an example of good extra footage (less than 2 min) in the Avatar Director's cut the areal hunt scene. Granted I am an Avatar junkie:

How can you watch this and not love it? ​

Regarding Alien, I never saw the Directir's cut, but for Aliens I did and was not happy with the additional footage, which removes all of the mystery of how the Colony on LV426 aliens. We know Burke sent word to the colony in the theatrical cut to go investigate because Ripley said so later in the story, but showing what happens in the beginning, imo removes the entire mystery of them circling the compound and not knowing what exactly happened here, even though we do know. It's a trade off which does not pay off. I'll take the mystery every time.

Aliens Hadley's Hope, this is an example of 5 minutes you don't need to see, followed by Hudson pseudo rapping about what a bad ass he is :

Here is a good addition in the Aliens Director's cut, the sentry turrets :

Doesn't the Alien's director's cut also include a very important cut scene: when Ripley finds out her daughter has died of old age. It really adds to the story with Newt.

 

[Huntn]

Doesn't the Alien's director's cut also include a very important cut scene: when Ripley finds out her daughter has died of old age. It really adds to the story with Newt.

I forgot about that... that does add to the story.

 

[robotica]

Terminator 2 DC adds loads of great scenes that really add to the story.
Like the part where they reset the terminator from "read only" to "learn mode"

The worst DC I have seen is Independence Day, they just added terrible one liners.

 

[Nermal]

If I'm allowed to suggest a "modern" movie, the DC of Sucker Punch is an improvement - the theatrical version's ending was a confusing mess because an important scene was completely missing.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

If I'm allowed to suggest a "modern" movie, the DC of Sucker Punch is an improvement - the theatrical version's ending was a confusing mess because an important scene was completely missing.

CAn u tell me what it was, use the spoiler thingee.

 

[Nermal]

CAn u tell me what it was, use the spoiler thingee.

Even better: I can link to this full comparison. The scene that I was talking about is the big paragraph just before the bottom of the page (1:35:46).

 

[mobilehaathi]

Terry Gilliam's Brazil was cut by Universal for US audiences to radically change the ending of the movie to a happy one. I believe the Criterion Collection version contains the two original cuts plus a third Director's cut.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Terry Gilliam's Brazil was cut by Universal for US audiences to radically change the ending of the movie to a happy one. I believe the Criterion Collection version contains the two original cuts plus a third Director's cut.

But is this not a feature of the US market? That anything other than the proverbial "happy ending" goes down poorly with studio executives, and indeed, sometimes, with audiences?

Part of the sheer narrative power of the superb movie "The Third Man" (and it is close to flawless on every level, script, story, setting, cast, acting, cinematography, soundtrack) is the extraordinary downbeat ending, which chooses the bittersweet integrity of art (and life), rather than Happy Ever After, as this is an ending where Holly Doesn't Get The Girl as she walks past him and out of the screen and out of his life in one of the most powerful endings to a movie ever made.

 

[Huntn]

Terminator 2 DC adds loads of great scenes that really add to the story.
Like the part where they reset the terminator from "read only" to "learn mode"

The worst DC I have seen is Independence Day, they just added terrible one liners.

That sounds interesting. We know in T2, he comes back programmed to protect John Conner. Do you remember what part of the movie this happens? I suppose somewhere in the middle.

If I'm allowed to suggest a "modern" movie, the DC of Sucker Punch is an improvement - the theatrical version's ending was a confusing mess because an important scene was completely missing.

Do you recommend this movie? (And why.)

Terry Gilliam's Brazil was cut by Universal for US audiences to radically change the ending of the movie to a happy one. I believe the Criterion Collection version contains the two original cuts plus a third Director's cut.

I remember trying to watch this and not liking it's style, although I'm fuzzy on that point.

But is this not a feature of the US market? That anything other than the proverbial "happy ending" goes down poorly with studio executives, and indeed, sometimes, with audiences?

Part of the sheer narrative power of the superb movie "The Third Man" (and it is close to flawless on every level, script, story, setting, cast, acting, cinematography, soundtrack) is the extraordinary downbeat ending, which chooses the bittersweet integrity of art (and life), rather than Happy Ever After, as this is an ending where Holly Doesn't Get The Girl as she walks past him and out of the screen and out of his life in one of the most powerful endings to a movie ever made.

I can take an unhappy ending, but admit to not preferring them. Rarely if ever do I watch such movies with very unhappy endings multiple times, but It depends on the degree of unhappiness. Some endings are unhappy, but offer kernels of hope. Other's don't, like Rosemary's Baby, but that one is a case of where the ending is undetermined imo. The Empire Strikes Back, downbeat but with hope. Another story, is Stephen King's The Mist where the book ended on a bleak note, but the movie went whole hog tragic. Vertigo, yeah profound, unhappy ending, but I can watch this and The Mist again.

I don't know if I've seen The Third Man, will try to catch it. In the spectrum of unhappy, having someone walk out on you is not that tragic, is it? Which reminds me. I need to watch The Graduate again. No comment on the ending.