Movie Theatrical vs Directors Cuts - What's your poison ?

[Xtreme]

Does everyone prefer the theatrical version of a movie, or do you get excited about extended or directors cut releases ?

Your taste may vary, I find sometimes the directors cut can make a film a lot better (see Dare Devil for example) while in other cases they don't add anything (other than $$$ to a movie studios bottom line from curious fans of such films).

I've gotten so used to opting for directors cuts of certain films, not having access to them in a superior format is a little annoying (eg: Lethal Weapon on blu-ray).

Most people prefer the standard cut of Terminator 2. I actually like the extended/special edition - everything from the Kyle Reese dream sequence, to seeing the T1000 absorb information and also the climax of the film seeing the T1000 malfunction - adds to the movie.

 

[DIG]

I really liked the directors cut of Donnie Darko, where critical scenes were put back in that which actually explained what the hell was going on.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

I'm a sucker for director cuts. Especially of movies I really enjoy.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

In the torrent age, unless the director's/please-buy-this-blu-ray's cut has markedly better reviews I'd probably watch the theatrical version as that's the 'real' movie.

 

[Underarm]

There's a few directors cuts that improve on the theatrical cut. Donnie Dario and The Butterfly effect spring to mind.

If you count them, the extended edition on Lord if the Rings Trilogy, and the updated 1997 Star Wars Trilogy are the best ways to watch them. People forget just how bad some scenes in A new Hope really were.

Overall, I don't think they change people's already held views on the movie. The Snyder cut isnt going to make Justice League good.

 

[SnakeMan86]

There's a few directors cuts that improve on the theatrical cut. Donnie Dario and The Butterfly effect spring to mind.

If you count them, the extended edition on Lord if the Rings Trilogy, and the updated 1997 Star Wars Trilogy are the best ways to watch them. People forget just how bad some scenes in A new Hope really were.

Overall, I don't think they change people's already held views on the movie. The Snyder cut isnt going to make Justice League good.

The directors cut is soooo dark, sad and depressing, albeit a much better ending to the soppy-ness that they released.

 

[DEVO]

Prefer the Theatrical version of The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.
Technically the extended version of TGTB&TU isn't really a Director's cut as Sergio Leone had died around 20 years before, but it is generally regarded as the version Leone had envisioned.

Prefer the Directors version of Aliens and Blade Runner.

Depends on the movie, the Director, and in the case of the TGTB&TU the duration between the two versions.

 

[DEVO]

There's a few directors cuts that improve on the theatrical cut. Donnie Dario and The Butterfly effect spring to mind.

If you count them, the extended edition on Lord if the Rings Trilogy, and the updated 1997 Star Wars Trilogy are the best ways to watch them. People forget just how bad some scenes in A new Hope really were.

Overall, I don't think they change people's already held views on the movie. The Snyder cut isnt going to make Justice League good.

Totally, strongly disagree. The updated versions are terrible, the SFX look worse than the originals. As someone who saw the original Star Wars in the cinema back in 1977/78 when I was six years there is something magical about the originals that is diluted somewhat by the updates.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

If you count them, the extended edition on Lord if the Rings Trilogy, and the updated 1997 Star Wars Trilogy are the best ways to watch them. People forget just how bad some scenes in A new Hope really were.

Which scenes?

 

[Roobs321]

Film-by-film basis. Sometimes the ideal is somewhere in between (Alien 3 & Fanny & Alexander are 2 good examples of this, both cuts are about equal to me). You really have to judge it for yourself, you can't take the director's opinion as gospel or anything.

With me it often tends to be more of an International Cut vs American Cut type thing. Especially a lot of foreign movies that Weinstein got his hands on. There are times when a shorter edit serves the film's pacing better and streamlines the focus powerfully, and other times where the extra length adds crucial story elements and coheres it (too overlong for popular release given x number showings per day). I guess it all depends how extraneous you feel the additions are. If they feel suggested/unspoken anyway in the shorter cut, then the shorter cut might do you fine.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

The Snyder cut isnt going to make Justice League good.

But better than this?

I think so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andre]

Directors Cuts and Extended Editions (which can be the same or different things) I've generally preferred, as they tend to be less sanitised for mass appeal and include more character development. I'd go with Blade Runner (happy ending versus not) and Superman 2 (just dropping and getting back his powers like it was nothing, versus showing the real cost of Superman losing being able to talk to his Father ever again) as my biggest two Director's cuts as better. Extended editions as better I'll go with The Lord of the Rings as a fan from reading decades before the movies.

Director's cuts as self indulgence is Lucas redoing the original Star Wars trilogy ending with Hayden Christensen.

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Aliens DC is much better than original.

Avatar DC > original

STAR WARS SE vs original is tough, I like both and watch either version randomly.

LOTR extended cuts piss on the theatrical cuts.

 

[Deathly]

I alternate between most cuts of film, it really just depends on what it is and how necessary the extended and deleted scenes are. Like Fire Walk With Me is an example of something that needs to be watched in it's absolute entirety (3h 29m playing 2h 13m)

 

[Caesar]

It really depends. One of my favourite films of all time (Brazil) is completely unwatchable in its US theatrical release format. A lot of the problems with Kingdom Of Heaven disappear with the director's cut, making it actually a pretty good movie. On the other hand, a lot of great directors have made some awful director's cuts of films that they should have just left alone - Terminator 2 and Apocalypse Now being two prime examples.

I will generally seek out a director's cut if I feel like the main problem with the film was that the pacing was off, the plot was jumbled, or the film ended on a thematically jarring note. That indicates to me that there were issues with editing that could maybe be fixed with a different cut.

If the acting/dialogue/story/cinematography was bad, no amount of recutting is going to fix that. Similarly, if the plot and pacing is already tight and logical then a director's cut is probably just going to add unnecessary bloat.

 

[Andre]

Aliens DC is much better than original.

Excellent choice. Ripley's loss of her own daughter and subsequent determination to save Newt gives that part of the plot so much more depth than 'Ripley has ovaries, of course she'll be clucky!', of the original.

 

[DIG]

Excellent choice. Ripley's loss of her own daughter and subsequent determination to save Newt gives that part of the plot so much more depth than 'Ripley has ovaries, of course she'll be clucky!', of the original.

Plus it has the brilliant sentry gun scene where they exhaust hundreds of rounds on unseen targets while the crew watches on helplessly until they run out.

Such an outstanding sequel.

 

[STFU Donnie]

It really depends. One of my favourite films of all time (Brazil) is completely unwatchable in its US theatrical release format. A lot of the problems with Kingdom Of Heaven disappear with the director's cut, making it actually a pretty good movie. On the other hand, a lot of great directors have made some awful director's cuts of films that they should have just left alone - Terminator 2 and Apocalypse Now being two prime examples.

I will generally seek out a director's cut if I feel like the main problem with the film was that the pacing was off, the plot was jumbled, or the film ended on a thematically jarring note. That indicates to me that there were issues with editing that could maybe be fixed with a different cut.

If the acting/dialogue/story/cinematography was bad, no amount of recutting is going to fix that. Similarly, if the plot and pacing is already tight and logical then a director's cut is probably just going to add unnecessary bloat.

I thought Apocalypse Now - Redux was stupendous! The scene with the downed B-52 was awesome.

 

[Caesar]

I thought Apocalypse Now - Redux was stupendous! The scene with the downed B-52 was awesome.

I feel like pacing is really important to the success of that movie and Redux killed that.

 

[Kram]

In the torrent age, unless the director's/please-buy-this-blu-ray's cut has markedly better reviews I'd probably watch the theatrical version as that's the 'real' movie.

What are you doing bro!

 

[Kram]

Excellent choice. Ripley's loss of her own daughter and subsequent determination to save Newt gives that part of the plot so much more depth than 'Ripley has ovaries, of course she'll be clucky!', of the original.

I prefer the Aliens DC, but if you had never seen the movie before I'd say watching the original first so you didn't see the undamaged colony would be better.

Terminator 2 DC from memory has some good stuff added but also some crap that detracts from the movie.