Talking about the Director's cut of Blade Runner in another thread... I thought this might appeal as a topic... As my opinion is that The directors cut of Blade Runner is very over - rated.


[Don't get me wrong... I love the film... But I loved the original and would keep the naration but lose the Hollywood ending]

Leon is another example - Great film but the directors cut was mostly just "More footage" Yes there is a lot more stuff between Mathilde and Leon... But you get that all from the film as it stood. In fact it makes the film all a little heavy handed... Whereas the audience have to work harder in the original. I still treasure my copy of Leon -version internationale ... But that's because I'm already a big fan of the film.

The only "Directors cut" of a film I have seen that I can truly say improved the piece is Touch Of Evil.

So does "Directors Cut" simply mean a new way to fleece money from fans and massage the go of Director's. And what about the writer? Where's his cut? After all the writer is where the concept starts... So why all this flattery for directors? Film is a collaborative medium after all. And god save us from the Directors cut of Titanic... I don't think I could sit through a movie Five hours long. :-)

[Desticado]

it is funny how you never seem to get a directors cut which is SHORTER than the original?

Come on Lucas. You know you want to do a DC of TPM with no jaja binks....

I was under the impression that where a Director's Cut was issued, it was often because the studio bosses had 'persuaded' the director to trim the film's running time for commercial reasons.

This might mean that scenes that the director felt were well made, or even fairly essential to the storytelling, could be left out of the theatrical release.

With the advent of DVD, with the ability to included deleted/cut scenes and to release alternate versions, this will become less of an issue at the theatrical stage (especially as some films are now making more money from DVD sales than box office receipts, Spiderman being the most high profile).

I would put a large amount of money on there being a director's cut of 'Gangs of New York' coming to DVD from Scorcese sometime in the future

Originally posted by Len
After all the writer is where the concept starts... So why all this flattery for directors? Film is a collaborative medium after all.

You can take a great script and give it to a useless director and end up with a big pile of unwatchable poo.

You can take a terrible script, give it to a great director, and end up with a good movie.

The director is key, and director's cuts are important because ironically they don't bow to commercialism. As Juboy says, movies are often cut for marketing/commercial reasons, not for reasons of pacing or story development or to get rid of irrelevant material (edits for these reasons would have been made by the director/editor anyway).

Personally, I find anything other than a director's cut a form of censorship. When I know a director's cut is available of a movie, I have to have that version, not a 'doctored' theatrical release. The director's vision is ultimately only preserved when the director is not pressured to make cuts by the film studios - and that's what's important. Would you want to read a book where 4 chapters had been thrown out by the publisher because they couldn't face launching a book that was more than 300 pages?

(Interestingly, note that the FOTR was released as an Extended Edition and NOT a Director's Cut. I believe this was because the director's cut for FOTR was actually the theatrical release.)

[Desticado]

Originally posted by Squirrel God
Would you want to read a book where 4 chapters had been thrown out by the publisher because they couldn't face launching a book that was more than 300 pages?

I think this happens all the time by those people called 'editors'.

On a side there was some footage on the LOTR ex disks with the editor or the original books, saying he couldnt change a word. After all, how do you tell one of the most eminent Proffessors of literature (of his time) that he could write a bit better....

Originally posted by Desticado
the editor or the original books, saying he couldnt change a word. After all, how do you tell one of the most eminent Proffessors of literature (of his time) that he could write a bit better....

Interesting, I didn't know that.

Wouldn't that make him a 'reader' rather than 'editor' then?

Mind you, not a bad job really, being paid to edit something you're not able to edit

[Sinzer]

Yes, books are hashed/hacked apart by the publishers before they go to print.

Sometimes a film benefits from a directors cut, sometimes it doesn't. It is very interesting watching the SW:PM documentaries about the extended scenes, Spielberg is really frank about the cuts, and some other docus I have seen the directors are sometimes glad the cuts are made.

It is the same as having your peice of work criticised, I write reports at work, but I always want them reviewed before I release them. What makes sense to me or seems integral to me, might not actually make any sense to the recipient. Directors cuts are the same, the director may wish to have that 15min race scene, but in reality his viewers may find it boring.

[Desticado]

Originally posted by Sinzer
It is very interesting watching the SW:PM documentaries about the extended scenes, Spielberg is really frank about the cuts, and some other docus I have seen the directors are sometimes glad the cuts are made.

Did Lucas have anything to say about the scenes?

Editors work in conjunction with the writer and can be very generous so as not to stifle creativity.

Film studios just say no.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Squirrel God
[B]You can take a great script and give it to a useless director and end up with a big pile of unwatchable poo. etc[QUOTE]Originally posted by Squirrel God
[B]

True a great script can be made into pap... But I can't think of an example of a terrible script being made into a "Good" movie... only a watchable one.
Though I'd be interested in examples.
It could also be argued that great scripts could have a bad director and still come out good.

My example there is Withnail and I - Bruce Robinson wrote a wonderful script... But even he would admit he's no director.
You're giving an awfull amount of respect to directors here. And being just a bit scathing about producers. It's as broad as it is long... Some producers are great and just let the director get on with it, some are not and interfere and others are creative people themselves who have a valid input... Like I say film is colaborative. Often scene's exist in a film to explain a plot point but a clever editor can make those scene's uneccessary [editors are the unsung heroes]

As for losing chapters from a book. It depends if those chapters are relevant... One of the greatest novels in Literature - Les Misserables - has a whole load of irrelevant chapters on Paris's sewers ... Why... because in those days they were paid by the word... and I think Victor Hugo was also on some kind of sponsorship deal... So it's an age old problem :-)

Still not enough examples of Good Directors cuts though

I'd be grateful if you could edit the above so it doesn't all look like it came from me, seeing as I disagree with you

[PoochJD]

Hi,

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I love "Director's Cuts" and "Extended Versions" of movies. In fact, I genuinely can't think of a bad one.

"Aliens", "Blade Runner", "The Abyss", "Terminator 2": all of those were great films, but the Director's Cut's did improve them in one way or another.

Oh, and I think that "Blade Runner: The Director's Cut" was actually slightly shorter than the original cut, released in 1982. If memory serves, the 1982 version runs to 118 minutes (PAL), and the Director's Cut was only 112 minutes (PAL).

Pooch

[mcmullanbrush]

Originally posted by Desticado
it is funny how you never seem to get a directors cut which is SHORTER than the original?

Kubricks final cut of The Shining was 30 odd minutes shorter than its original release.

Region 1 DVD still has the longer running time but the region 2 version was his final cut. Both are missing around 2 minutes from its first edit.

[Britcitchris]

Directors cut of Leon on R1 has to be my fave directors cut ever. Awesome additional material to an awesome film. I also thought the extra scenes in Apocalypse Redux added a lot more cohesion to the film.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[James45]

Originally posted by Britcitchris
Directors cut of Leon on R1 has to be my fave directors cut ever. Awesome additional material to an awesome film.

have to say that I agree that the international version of Leon (although not a proper director's cut because the normal edit is the one Besson was happy with) was heavy handed and didn't benefit from the extra material. TBH I was more than a little uncomfortable watching some of the extra scenes that set in stone Portman's character's sexual attraction to Leon.

proper director's cuts are a great opportunity to see what the director's vision was before the studio had its way.

[Lex]

As has been said already the original purpose of 'Director's Cuts' was for the Director to release the version of the film which he had originally intended to make before the 'studio' interfered.

This is not to be confused with 'special editions' which are not new versions of the film, but often just re-releases with restored deleted scenes and new fx. Often these are just cash cows for the studios.

The best/worst example of Studio interference in the film-making process is Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL...
If you don't know about it then I would seriously recommend the Criterion DVD version of Brazil which has the 'studio cut' and the 'director's cut'. Basically the film was taken away from Gilliam and turned into something completely different by the studio - it is incredible the difference between the two versions.

Another better Director's Cut is The Abyss - it has the ending which the writer/director originally intended, but was forced to remove by the studio (along with other smaller sub-plots).

Other improved versions imo:

Star Trek the motion picture
Almost Famous
Legend
CE3K
Dances With Wolves
Natural Born Killers

Still waiting for:

Dune
Alien 3

Originally posted by Lex
I would seriously recommend the Criterion DVD version of Brazil

I'd love this. But it costs a fortune

Originally posted by Lex
Another better Director's Cut is The Abyss - it has the ending which the writer/director originally intended, but was forced to remove by the studio (along with other smaller sub-plots).

SE has the theatrical cut as well I'd never seen the movie before so watched the director's cut first. I couldn't believe how the ending was destroyed in the theatrical cut! All the best bits of the movie are missing and it's such a bland movie without the prolonged ending. Feels rushed in the theatrical cut with lots of loose ends.

[mcmullanbrush]

Originally posted by Squirrel God
I'd love this. But it costs a fortune

I got mine for 40 quid. It does seem a lot for one film, but it has given me more enjoyment than a dozen 7.99 DVDs that I got on the off chance I might like them.

Brazil....

I was wondering when someone was going to mention Brazil... :-)

This is of course a mighty exception... except I would say that here in Europe we only ever got the Director's Cut...

I own that DVD box set and it's brilliant well worth the money for the film... and the studio version and the documetaries. The sstudio version is the funiest thing I've ever seen... [Unintentionally funny] How to ruin a great film or what.

The Abyss seems to come up a lot... I haven't seen the director's cut of that so I'll look out for it.

But I do think that people have to take into account that alot of these director's cuts [and for that matter SE's and extended versions] are just marketting ploys. Mostly of films that have already captured our imaginations. I'm not saying don't buy them.. or that there isn't a value in them... simply that Director's Cut doesn't always mean better.

surely the important thing here is choice? if you don't want to watch the d.c. watch the alternative.some films theatrical cuts as opposed to directors cuts could said to be like watching a widescreen aspect ratio film in pan&scan.

[Britcitchris]

Blimey Lex, you just reminded me of how awful the ending of the 'studio' version of The Abyss was. I still want to stand up on the soap box and shout 'how dare they!!' even now!

[dnrc]

I normally like directors cuts as usually there are slight extra bits of story and characterisation.

But sometimes you do actually get major differences to the films, the best example of this is True Romance, in the directors cut, there was a different sequence of events at the ending. (Oh, and an extended beating......cool)

Originally posted by Desticado
it is funny how you never seem to get a directors cut which is SHORTER than the original?

Blade Runner is shorter

[Desticado]

I think that most of the time the directors cut is prefered by people that were already fans of the theatrical cut of the movie.

Most other people are nonplussed.

[jdanielp]

Originally posted by Len

Leon is another example - Great film but the directors cut was mostly just "More footage" Yes there is a lot more stuff between Mathilde and Leon... But you get that all from the film as it stood. In fact it makes the film all a little heavy handed... Whereas the audience have to work harder in the original. I still treasure my copy of Leon -version internationale ... But that's because I'm already a big fan of the film.

in my opinion the extra scenes in Leon changed the feel of the middle part of the film for me (for the better). i refer mainly to the sequence where Mathilda goes off to try and kill the Gary Oldman character. in the theatrical version it seems that she is somewhat naive in considering doing this taking all those weapons having had seemingly little training. in the version internationale however we get to see a lot more of her training thus helping to explain why she thought she might be able to manage the job (although ultimately being rather too naive to manage anyway).

Originally posted by PoochJD
Hi,

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I love "Director's Cuts" and "Extended Versions" of movies. In fact, I genuinely can't think of a bad one.

"Aliens", "Blade Runner", "The Abyss", "Terminator 2": all of those were great films, but the Director's Cut's did improve them in one way or another.

Can't agree with "Aliens". I thought the director's cut was worse. All that sentimental stuff with Ripley's daughter and the kids running around on LV426. Yuck! Judiciously cut by the money men, I think. IMO the original was better because the first time we see the planet is when the troops land: we're as unwitting as they are.

If memory serves, the only good addition was some footage of the automatic guns.

Picking up on something the Squirrel said earlier, Peter Jackson is on record as saying the extended version of FOTR is just that: he apparently shot half an hour's worth of extra stuff specifically for the DVD release. What we saw at the cinema was exactly what he intended us to see there.

[Britcitchris]

What about the scenes of Newts mum and dad discovering the alien ship? Those scenes definitely helped add more depth to the Newt/Ripley relationship. Arguably not needed in the cinema release as it slowed down the film but you can definitely see why it was added to the director's cut.

Mmm, I hear what you say but I still preferred it without.

In fact, now that you've got me going, it would have been better without Newt at all. Irritating name, irritating actress. Wasn't sorry to see the back of her at the start of Alien 3.

[Britcitchris]

Newt was very relevant in the story. Ripley had always wanted a child but missed out due to her being in space for so long.

I do think there was no need for her in Alien 3, so I was not disappointed with her absence.

Missed the scene in the hydroponics bay with the death certificate for her daughter then?

WRT The Abyss, lent my mate the Directors Cut, his reaction was 'aha! That's what it was all about then...'
He'd never seen that version, and had been confused by the original version.