Movies that the Director's Cut ruined.

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Strat-Mangler, May 27, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Strat-Mangler

    Strat-Mangler Personal Survival Daily Record-Breaker Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toronto
    Maybe "ruined" is too strong a term but there are some movies that I've felt the director's cut interfered with the normal enjoyment I got out of the film.

    The biggest one to me is Amadeus. The original studio cut is the most perfect and enticing film I've ever seen. The DC in comparison is a mess. It's slow, even clumsy in its pace, changes the characters' motivations, and is just not what I'm consider a masterpiece the way the studio cut was.

    The last time I saw the SC available was on DVD. Eventually, I've found somebody who was as fed up as I who took the BluRay and edited it to omit the extra scenes. Watching the BluRay always made me angry at the missed opportunity they had to do a dual-stream disc where one would have access to both versions so I could watch the beloved SC. I unfortunately wasn't aware of how to rip the movie and perform the edits myself so I've downloaded that edited version and since then all is good in the world. Too bad the studio refuses to release the SC in HD.

    Any other movies you feel were messed around with too much with the release of DC versions?
     
  2. malcolm reynolds

    malcolm reynolds Handsome, Humble, Genius

    Location:
    Oklahoma
  3. Rocker

    Rocker Senior Member

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    It doesn't really "ruin" the movie, but I wasn't crazy about the fact that the director's cut of A Good Day to Die Hard removes all the scenes featuring Mary Elizabeth Winstead's character. The DC is still a few minutes longer than the theatrical version due to the inclusion of additional footage elsewhere, but it's still a strange decision nonetheless.
     
    driverdrummer likes this.
  4. rebellovw

    rebellovw Forum Resident

    Location:
    hell
    Perfect response. Very OCD to look at your older movies and say - let's add some crap here and there from the new movies to make them all look cohesive.
     
  5. jkauff

    jkauff Senior Member

    Location:
    Akron, OH
    From what I've read, a "director's cut" traditionally was what the director gave to the editors, who then created the theatrical cut. Its only purpose was to eliminate all the footage the director didn't want to use. If the director wanted input into the final cut, he would join the editors in the editing room.

    Most of the "Director's Cut" releases that started showing up in the early days of DVD were actually re-cuts by the director, who for whatever reason didn't like the theatrical cut. Exceptions were older movies like Red River that were released with the real director's cut, which Howard Hawks never intended for audiences to see. He considered the theatrical cut to be the definitive version.

    I think an "Expanded Version" (like with Lord of the Rings) is a good thing, because that's the version the director would have released if not for the time constraints imposed by theaters. With a director's re-cut, the end result may be good or may be terrible, depending on the vision and editing skills of the director. As in the case you cited, I think often the director is too close to his or her creation and makes bad editing decisions. That's why book authors turn their work over to professional editors.
     
  6. Jason Manley

    Jason Manley Senior Member

    Location:
    O-H-I-O
    "Blade Runner" Director's Cut (1992)

    The first time I ever saw this masterpiece was in 1992 when it was re-released to theaters in the much heralded 'Director's Cut'. I was all of 16 years old watching this modern classic in a cinema with proper projection, Dolby Surround and everything. I came away a bit confused and felt like something was missing. Then maybe a year later I rented the Criterion Collection laserdisc of the film which I would later find out was the 'International Theatrical version' that includes just slightly more violence than the U.S. Theatrical version but is basically the same film with the voice over, etc. I was much more satisfied by the version I saw a year after seeing the 'Director's Cut'. Not that the DC was awful but I feel like Scott got it right the first time.

    So, not "ruined" but certainly did nothing to help. I've yet to ever see any of the subsequent versions so I still hold that the basic original Theatrical version is the one to see.
     
  7. Rocker

    Rocker Senior Member

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    You really should see the "Final Cut" that was released in 2007.
     
  8. Johnny66

    Johnny66 Laird of Boleskine

    Location:
    Australia.
    Alien. 'Ruined', as you say, is too strong a word, but the 'Directors Cut' of 2003 was merely a promotional tool for the DVD release of the restored collected films at the time - and it shows. The 'additions' are nothing more than originally deleted scenes (omitted for good reason), and the excisions (odd lines of dialogue, etc.) are entirely unnecessary.

    Unfortunately, the 'Director' version seems to be the one now regularly selected for screenings in cinemas.
     
  9. The Hud

    The Hud Breath of the Kingdom, Tears of the Wild

    I don't like the unrated version of Talladega Nights.

    It removed my favorite joke:

    "Is that Elvis Costello and Mos Def?"
    "No!"

    even though it is obviously them.
     
  10. JPagan

    JPagan Generation 13

    Location:
    South Florida
    That would be my pick, too. And I concur with your whole argument, but especially this part.
     
    carrick doone and polchik like this.
  11. Solaris

    Solaris a bullet in flight

    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    I think you're in the minority in preferring the voice over. The studio forced it on Scott, and Ford read it badly on purpose in the hope he could sabotage the whole idea. I like the Final Cut myself. To each his own.

    Again, "ruined" is too strong, but I think the changes Spielberg made to E.T. were unnecessary and distracting, though thankfully he reversed this afterward. The ending of the "Special Edition" of CE3K detracts considerably from that film's effect.
     
    jupiter8, somnar, polchik and 2 others like this.
  12. Rocker

    Rocker Senior Member

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The DC is an interesting curiosity, and being a hardcore fan of the series, I'm glad I have it on DVD... but calling it a "director's cut" is actually a total mistake. It's merely an "alternate version" of the film, and Ridley Scott's preferred cut is the original theatrical version. I have to agree that the theatrical version is the superior cut of the film... the trims in the DC really do noticeably affect the pacing in a negative way, as far as I'm concerned.

    Another title that's had a mistakenly-titled "director's cut" for many years is Dawn of the Dead (1978). Many of the early DVD releases (and even some of the old VHS copies) that were labelled as a "director's cut" were actually an extended 139-minute version that was shown at Cannes, and was not George Romero's preferred cut. The 127-minute theatrical cut is Romero's actual "director's cut". I believe the first time the 139-minute version was properly labelled as an "extended version" (instead of a "director's cut") was in 2004 on the "Ultimate Edition" DVD).
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    altaeria likes this.
  13. Really? Scott refused to call it the Director's Cut. He stated that what we saw in theaters back in the day WAS the theatrical version. The other version is nothing more than a curiosity.
     
  14. Torontotom

    Torontotom Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canada
    I know many may disagree with me but I actually didn't care for the extra footage in The Abyss. Definitely interesting to see but I prefer the 140 minute theatrical version.
     
  15. The Hermit

    The Hermit Wavin' that magick glowstick since 1976

    Just his own, it would appear; he even digitally altered American Graffiti... you monster!!!

    Peter Jackson has stated repeatedly (and publicly) that The Lord of the Rings trilogy's theatrical versions were/are his definitive and preferred versions, whereas the extended cuts were just nice bonuses for the fans.
     
  16. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    Have to agree with the Director's Cut of BLADE RUNNER being inferior to the studio-imposed version.

    I think that the Director's Cut is -- and I hate to use the discussion board cliche-- overrated by fans because they already know the story, having seen the original. I've watched the film several times with different sets of friends and many found the narration-less editions confusing. I also think Scott pulled something worse than a Lucas by implying Deckard was a replicant in one of the post-theatrical edits.
     
  17. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    Have to agree with the Director's Cut of BLADE RUNNER being inferior to the studio-imposed version.

    I think that the Director's Cut is -- and I hate to use the discussion board cliche-- overrated by fans because they already know the story, having seen the original. I've watched the film several times with different sets of friends and many found the narration-less editions confusing. I also think Scott pulled something worse than a Lucas by implying Deckard was a replicant in one of the post-theatrical edits.
     
    Karnak likes this.
  18. The Slug Man

    The Slug Man Forum Resident

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Peter Bogdonavich's director's cut of Mask. Basically the same movie, but he replaced all the Bob Seger songs with Bruce Springsteen, which was his original intention. Normally I support a director's creative choices, etc., but I grew up watching that movie on cable all the time and loved all the Seger songs, so the director's cut on DVD feels alien to me.
     
  19. will_b_free

    will_b_free Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    I'd venture the order goes semething like this:

    Assembly Cut - a multi-hour version usually made by the editors without the director (because the director was busy still shooting the film while the editors were putting the Assembly Cut together as the pieces came in).

    Rough Cut - the director works with th editors, making his own choices this time, refining and winnowing down the Assembly Cut into something close to a finished film - but, if the director knows he doesn't get final say in how the film ends up it may only be taken most of the way to completion.

    Theatrical Cut - the studio takes the Rough Cut and changes it - sometimes radically - to suit their needs, either with or without the director's involvement.

    Director's Cut - the director is given the opportunity to take his own Rough Cut to completion, if the studio feels it will be a selling point on home video. If the studio feels it is not worth it, they may still release some of the deleted scenes from the Rough Cut as extras.
     
    MikaelaArsenault and jkauff like this.
  20. jkauff

    jkauff Senior Member

    Location:
    Akron, OH
    I bow to your superior knowledge about the way these things are done, but I wonder if this is the "modern" order. Going back to Red River, what is being called "The Director's Cut" is very different from the theatrical version. The ending is several minutes longer, and the Walter Brennan narration was obviously added later to replace the "book page" scenes in the early cut. Hawks felt the theatrical version worked better than the early version. So what did they call that early cut back in the 40s?
     
  21. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Payback...DC destroyed this.
    Bad Santa...ditto.
     
    svoegtlin likes this.
  22. Jason Manley

    Jason Manley Senior Member

    Location:
    O-H-I-O
    I never knew that, that's interesting. I love Bogdonavich's films though, he's a very underrated filmmaker. The use of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in MASK was one of the few instances of a Beatles song in a film for years, that I could think of. They seem to have loosened up in recent years though with the licensing.
     
  23. Johnny66

    Johnny66 Laird of Boleskine

    Location:
    Australia.
    It's a shame because, even when Scott openly states that the 'Director's Cut' was created merely for marketing purposes, it now effectively competes with the original theatrical version and the two are seen (by a general audience, at least) as somewhat indistinguishable. Whilst Scott's re-cut isn't as polarising as, say, the revisionist tampering of Star Wars, it is markedly different. Beyond scene additions and excisions (some of which quite drastically reshape the back story), the framing has been tightened and the colour grading shifted into dangerous teal & orange territory.

    This might all be considered moot given the retconning of Prometheus and Covenant, but still...it does irk.
     
    Karnak likes this.
  24. I felt that the "Alternate Cut" was interesting but it lacked much of the tension and the sicenes that were cut, aside from the egg scene (which if it had been included in the original would have fit in more with the method that David uses to create them) which, indeed, would have stopped the film dead in its tracks if it had been in the original.

    It's a good version but its not the RIGHT or BEST version IMHO. It's like listening to an alternate take of a track. It's cool to hear the path not taken but it wasn't taken for a reason.
     
  25. I don't think it works as well with the Springsteen songs even though that was the intention originally.
     
    Motorcity supernaut likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine