what's "director's cut"?

CyberGhost

does that mean that it includes the scenes that director cut? or is it edited movie that director cut the scenes out from?

DMT

Director's "Cut" = Version of the film the director edited as opposed to original version released edited by the editors.

lodgepole

The director's cut of the film is, theoretically, the version of the film which the director first handed in to the studio with the intention of release. Often this version gets sent back with requests for cuts for time. Both versions are of course edited by the editor and supervised (usually) by the director.

But one is the director's preffered cut. Often the director's cuts aren't as good as the original theatrical releases.

And nowadays we tend to see a lot of films that get footage added on to them and they get labelled "Director's Cuts"... Extra footage does not necessarily improve a film.

ixoy

Although when Aliens (I assume this originated from Alien being re-released) got its extra 17 minutes it was called "Special Edition" rather than "Director's Cut" because the theatrical release was what Cameron wanted and the extra was just to get more money

mike65

Sometimes the director is right ie Blade Runner but sometimes not like Close Encounters - Special Edition which for me was'nt as good as the 1977 version...Blade Runner is a bad example though as Ridley Scott had little to do with the "Directors Cut" it was really the work of the editor Terry Rawlings.

Mike.

dazberry

Originally posted by ixoy
Although when Aliens (I assume this originated from Alien being re-released) got its extra 17 minutes it was called "Special Edition" rather than "Director's Cut" because the theatrical release was what Cameron wanted and the extra was just to get more money

Although the 17 minutes had a bit of padding in it, it did tie the story together a lot better IMO, being normally cynical about such things .

D.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by mike65
Sometimes the director is right ie Blade Runner but sometimes not like Close Encounters - Special Edition which for me was'nt as good as the 1977 version...Blade Runner is a bad example though as Ridley Scott had little to do with the "Directors Cut" it was really the work of the editor Terry Rawlings.

It's a little harsh to say that Close Encounters is an example of a director being wrong about his particular cut of a film since the "Special Edition" of Close Encounters (which I assume you're talking about, since it vilified fans) is a compromise between Spielberg and Columbia Pictures. Spielberg wasn't happy with the "Original Version" of the film, since he had to cut a lot of major scenes out for one reason or another (mainly budgetary reasons). After the success of the film, he approached Columbia, and they agreed to let him shoot additional scenes PROVIDING he gave them some footage of Roy going into the space ship.

The additional scenes Spielberg shot were fantastic, such as the ship in the desert, and really helped the story. The footage from inside the spaceship was hated by everyone - including Spielberg.

To tie this all back into the original topic, Spielberg has since released a "Definitive Director's Edition", which mixes the best parts of the Original Version and the Special Edition. And doesn't include Roy inside the spaceship. I believe this is the version on the "Collector's Edition" DVD.

mike65

The desert ship was a cool scene...I liked the
depiction of suburban everyman Neary going into frustated decline as his family worries some of which was junked...also the last thing I wanted to see was the inside of the mothership - I prefere the mystery!

Mike.

Oswald Osbourne

Originally posted by ObeyGiant


To tie this all back into the original topic, Spielberg has since released a "Definitive Director's Edition", which mixes the best parts of the Original Version and the Special Edition. And doesn't include Roy inside the spaceship. I believe this is the version on the "Collector's Edition" DVD.

Yeah, I have 'collectors edition' dvd and I can confirm that it is indeed as you describe. I've seen the version with the interior spaceship too and I can definetly say IMHO that the film is better off without it.

Zombrex

Originally posted by dazberry
Although the 17 minutes had a bit of padding in it, it did tie the story together a lot better IMO, being normally cynical about such things .

D.

I hated the "Special Edition" of ALIENS, and was quite pissed that you had to watch it on the DVD. I don't know why they couldn't do a T2 and put both versions on the DVD

Showing the colonists and the discovery of the original ship in ALIEN completely the dimished the tension of the inital exploration of the settlement by the marines.

In the original all you see is a deserted settlement but you slowly piece together what must have happend, with your mind racing as the marines discover new bits, such as the medical report of the man who died when they removed the Face Hugger. It is also more of a shock when you discover why the colonists went out to the ship in the first place.

In the special edition you see the colony is actually full of annoying Yanks and brat kids. You find out straight away why they are sent to the alien ship, you know **** is going to happen and it ruins the tension when the marines arrive. I would never recommend to anyone to watch the SE if they hadn't seen the original.

*rant over*

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by mike65
Sometimes the director is right ie Blade Runner
Mike.

Actually I prefer the version with the voiceover - just like the whole Mike Hammer / noir thing - it's nearly a B&W detective story too.

But the one I'd like to see is the original Dune - even the 3 hour version has lots cut out of it.

Directors Cut is really only worth bothering about if it's significantly different ( fair enough lots of people prefer the Blade Runner cut - but it is different ) and if it's a good director and if the studio has ripped the original cut to pieces.

Major change by studios
Dying Young - in the original he dies, but they cut that bit.

And I still reckon by changing 5 minutes of Fatal Attraction you could make otu the Hubby to be the villan - he drove yer one crazy - BTW what was that all about - G.Close was scrawney, and the wife seemed Ok in all senses...

mike65

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight

And I still reckon by changing 5 minutes of Fatal Attraction you could make otu the Hubby to be the villan - he drove yer one crazy - BTW what was that all about - G.Close was scrawney, and the wife seemed Ok in all senses...

That flick was soooo loaded against the Glenn Close
character and as you say why would Douglas leave
lovely Anne Archer for her....(he always did have a dubious taste in wimmin)

The same story was done better by Clint Eastwood in Play Misty For Me.

Mike.

quank

why is there a directors cut in the first place?
why did they bother to edit it?
so much hassel!

money mongers! :ninja:

lodgepole

Originally posted by quank
why is there a directors cut in the first place?
why did they bother to edit it?
so much hassel!

Several issues... Studios often want a film to clock in at a certain length, generally to facilitate more screenings per day.

Sometimes Producers force creative decisions on directors... Sometimes director's just get it wrong the first time...

A film goes through so much during the edit period that there could be two pefectly good versions of the film, but which take radically different directions. One has to be chosen, but that shouldn't invalidate the other.

ixoy

Originally posted by Lodgepole
Several issues... Studios often want a film to clock in at a certain length, generally to facilitate more screenings per day.

Sample: The LOTR theatrical releases vs the Extended Editions which are superior but, being around 35 or 45 mins longer, certainly eat into daily showings. So Jackson went snippy.

Sometimes Producers force creative decisions on directors... Sometimes director's just get it wrong the first time...

Harvey Weinstein forcing Scorcese to chop up "Gangs of New York".

A film goes through so much during the edit period that there could be two pefectly good versions of the film, but which take radically different directions. One has to be chosen, but that shouldn't invalidate the other.

Alien 3 - the original edit is clearer in the Quadrilogy boxed set.