Directors Cuts

Skerries

So what do we think of them?
Some are really well done such as Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven but then you have things like Lucas mucking around with Star Wars
So what are the good and bad ones out there?

bnt

"Director's Cut" isn't a perfect description of what it's about, I think: it's a chance to make the film better all round. Sometimes it takes time to figure out what could be improved, sometimes it's pretty clear straight away. For example, Blade Runner was famously in need of fixing because of the way the studio interfered in the original film e.g. changing the ending and getting Harrison Ford to record a voiceover. So, the "Director's Cut" wasn't just for Ridley Scott, but was also for Ford, Young and the cast, for the editors, Vangelis, and everyone else whose creative vision didn't make it to the screen the first time.

Sad Professor

The term director's cut is greatly misused and misunderstood. The director's cut is the director's final and preferred cut of the film before release. If the director hasn't been interfered with in the editing room then what you see in the cinema is the director's cut.

If such a director chooses to go back and re-edit the film years later then that's simply a alternate cut which the director in some cases may insist is their new preferred cut of the film. For example, the "director's cut" of Alien is actually just an alternate cut as Scott wasn't interfered with originally and what was released in 1979 was his preferred cut of the film.

Director's cut as a marketing term should really reserved for films that were compromised by their studios at the time of release. Blade Runner would be a good a example of this. Kingdom of Heaven is a bit of a grey area as I'm pretty sure Scott could have dug his heels in and had that version released if had wanted. He had final cut, but he may have been contractually obliged to deliver a film below a certain length.

candy-gal1

just going to ask a question on this, the directors cut of The Butterfly Effect, which ending is that does anyone know?
i went to see t5hat when i was about 16, one of the first 18s movies i ever got let in to , and that one they were showing ended with him walking down the street, seeing the girl and then walking on.

then i rented it on dvd a good wile back and it ended completely different and kind of depressing in comparison, so just asking which ending is the directors cut which is out on dvd?
thanks

krudler

some can improve the film greatly, be they directors or alternate/extended cuts, like Kingdom of Heaven, I thought it was a mess in the cinema, its superb in its full version, others, like Donnie Darko, can show a director didnt have a clue what he was doing to begin with

Sad Professor

Is Donnie Darko not a good example of what I'm talking about though? The theatrical cut of the film was a compromise between Kelly and the studio, but afaik the film was never taken away from him. He made those cuts himself. The subsequent "director's cut" was an afterthought, an alternate/expanded cut that was mostly inspired by how well received the film was. It was obviously a misstep in the same way that the Special Edition of Close Encounters of the Third Kind was, but I don't think it means Kelly didn't know what he was doing.

However, Donnie Darko is probably a good case study for why director's shouldn't screw around with their films after the fact. And also why, for their own sake, they shouldn't call them the "director's cut" when they are really just an alternate/expanded cut.

delbertgrady

There are examples of footage being removed. Peter Weir's so-called Director's Cut of Picnic at Hanging Rock (originally released in 1975) is several minutes shorter than the original theatrical version, and was regarded by many involved with the film (including some of the main cast)as a mistake, in that he removed a lot of key scenes from the final third.

Considering the film was released without any "studio interference", it seemed a bit ridiculous to call the later version a "Director's Cut", when presumably the 1975 cut was his vision anyway. It's one thing wanting to put extra footage in, but making a decision to cut scenes, especially after the film had built up a huge cult following for years, does a disservice to fans. The idea that he did so because his "world view" had changed is hardly an excuse. Maybe Martin Scorsese would like to "fix" a few things in Taxi Driver or Raging Bull, but he leaves them alone.

Likewise, John Cassavetes cut about half an hour from The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976) two years after it was originally released.

The saddest tale of all is the "lost" negative of the longer version of The Wicker Man, which was partly-restored a few years ago using inferior, second generation footage. Rumours persist that the original negative inadvertently ended up as landfill during motorway construction.

brian_t

candy-gal1 wrote: »

just going to ask a question on this, the directors cut of The Butterfly Effect, which ending is that does anyone know?

The Directors cut would be the one you describe as "kind of depressing".
All four endings are discussed on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butterfly_Effect and you can view them on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8zO9rDKmyA

Faker74

Kingdom of Heaven is definately the example I'd use of what a "Director's cut" can do for a film, that version stands head and shoulders above the theatrical edit.

It was interesting that an extended "director's cut" of Gladiator was released on DVD on the introduction to which Ridley Scott looks completely uninterested and basically states that the original IS his preferred version and the new edit is basically more footage for anyone who is interested.

Similary Peter Jackson says the theatrical cuts of the Lord of the Rings trilogy IS his director's cut and the extended versions are for fans of the book who get more of the material they missed. That said I prefer the extended cuts, and Two Towers in particular is much improved in the extended edit. It is also obvious that the director is closely involved in the extended version, which I don't think is true of the new edit of Gladiator.

I think dvd has simultaneously made life easier for directors to get their vision of a film to the public, whilst almost cheapening the notion of a director's cut, given the number of films that have uncut/unrated/extended home video releases which are pure money grabs on the studios part and nothing to do with the original creative vision of the makers.

How many dvds or blu rays have you ever watched the deleted scenes on and thought "I wish that wasn't cut out"? I'd say 80-90% of the time the cut is understandable / preferable

Giruilla

You should see the directors cut of 'King Arthur'... it's almost a different film!

The theatrical version edited out all gore and other scenes to make it PG.

Skerries

I bought the Alan Smithee version of Dune a while back and wish I hadn't as I can see why Lynch took his name off of it

Aliens I feel is a better film because of the extra 17 minutes and how could they cut out the excellent Sentry Gun scene
also it gives a better insight into why Ripley was trying to protect Newt so arduously

Daredevil is another film I hear good things about but have never seen the directors cut version

SVG

Skerries wrote: »

Daredevil is another film I hear good things about but have never seen the directors cut version

Unless they replaced it with a whole different film, I don't see how a director's cut could salvage anything from Daredevil.

krudler

SVG wrote: »

Unless they replaced it with a whole different film, I don't see how a director's cut could salvage anything from Daredevil.

its actually well worth a watch, and it gets rid of that horrible fireside sex scene between Affleck and Garner, and an expanded courtroom storyline. theres a superb scene where

He hears a woman being attacked a few blocks away after getting back from a night fighting people and he's just too exhausted to go help her and chooses to sleep instead, and he has this image of a dead girl crawling across his bathroom floor

, its really dark and it really adds to the even superheros need a break thing, I like that in Daredevil you see the aftermath of him fighting crime, pulling broken teeth out in the shower and covered in scars and bruises.

hidinginthebush

Skerries wrote: »

Aliens I feel is a better film because of the extra 17 minutes and how could they cut out the excellent Sentry Gun scene
also it gives a better insight into why Ripley was trying to protect Newt so arduously

While the sentry gun scene is brilliant, one thing I hated about the DC of aliens is that we're shown the aliens before Ripley and the rest arrive at the base. The theatrical version builds much more suspense before becoming an all out action flick, where the DC ruins this, and we're waiting for the aliens to show up.

In general I find director cuts to be pretty superfluous. I like the lotr ones, having read the book before hand, and I've only seen the DC of das boot (brilliant!!!). Though if I watch a DVD, I usually wont bother with the deleted scenes unless its been a particularly interesting or exceptional film.

Skerries

I agree that the Hadley's Hope scene at the start could have been left out but it was interesting to see, maybe left on the DVD/VHS as a deleted scene

OldeCinemaSoz

Skerries wrote: »

Aliens I feel is a better film because of the extra 17 minutes and how could they cut out the excellent Sentry Gun scene
also it gives a better insight into why Ripley was trying to protect Newt so arduously

Excellent point.