Director's Cut - A scam?

[Stormbringer]

What are your thoughts on these DVD's?

It really depends. Some films have a much better directors cut (T2, LotR) and I don't consider them a scam since they were cut for other reasons.

On the other hand some films have scenes deliberately left out in order to produce a special DVD cut. Those are a scam but since the movie wasn't likely worth watching to begin with what does it matter?

All in all it depends on what was cut and why.

[Luzifer's right hand]

The Director's Cut of "The Abyss" is forty minutes longer than the theatrical version and so much better imo. It fills in the spaces left out of the first cut.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The Director's Cut of "The Abyss" is forty minutes longer than the theatrical version and so much better imo. It fills in the spaces left out of the first cut.

Better ending too.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

A much better ending.

I don't think the theatrical version of The Abyss is even watchable anymore, personally.

[Zoink]

The extended Lord of the Rings versions are much better, IMHO.

The director's cut of Brazil is *FAR* better than the studio cut.

The 'director's cut' of Army of Darkness was good, but not any better than the other.

I think that's the only 'director's cuts'/alternate versions I own.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The extended Lord of the Rings versions are much better, IMHO.

The director's cut of Brazil is *FAR* better than the studio cut.

The 'director's cut' of Army of Darkness was good, but not any better than the other.

I think that's the only 'director's cuts'/alternate versions I own.

There's another cut of Brazil? I must see this!

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Good God, the "Love Conquers All" version of Brazil is terrible. It's not even the same movie at all.

[Zoink]

There's another cut of Brazil? I must see this!

No DON'T!!!!! It sucks, the only reason to see it is to laugh at the stupidity of the studio. The studio didn't like Gilliam's version, so they got another editor to change it. They made it so the stuff that he was fantasizing about is real and he ends up living happily ever after with the girl….. which sort of defeats the entire point of the movie.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Good God, the "Love Conquers All" version of Brazil is terrible. It's not even the same movie at all.

Wait, it's a happy ending, isn't it?

Alarms sounding already...

[Admiral Valdemar]

There's another cut of Brazil? I must see this!

No DON'T!!!!! It sucks, the only reason to see it is to laugh at the stupidity of the studio. The studio didn't like Gilliam's version, so they got another editor to change it. They made it so the stuff that he was fantasizing about is real and he ends up living happily ever after with the girl….. which sort of defeats the entire point of the movie.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[zombie84]

wasnt that the theatrical version? I know there was one they edited for the television networks as well.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

That cut was never actually released to American cinemas, because by then they just decided to give up. Its only showing to the public prior to Criterion's laser disc set (and their DVD rerelease) was when it was broadcast only once on ABC sometime in the late 80s or early 90s.

[Zoink]

wasnt that the theatrical version? I know there was one they edited for the television networks as well.

All I know is that I have the Criterion Collection copy, which is three disks (director's version, 'Love Conquers All' studio version, and a documentary disk)

Gilliam made his version, the studio didn't like it and made their own. I forget which was released first. The documentary explains all this, but its been a while since I've watched it.

[Zoink]

That cut was never actually released to American cinemas, because by then they just decided to give up. Its only showing to the public prior to Criterion's laser disc set (and their DVD rerelease) was when it was broadcast only once on ABC sometime in the late 80s or early 90s.

that sounds like it.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

IIRC, Gilliam's cut that's on the Criterion set isn't the original European cut, but one he did prior to the release of the LD set. I think he said that it was pretty much the definitive and final version of the film.

He took a few things here and there from the LCA version, I think. In the commentary I remember that he said he liked how the US version opened with the clouds and he liked that more than how the European version opened.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

If you haven't read it yet, I absolutely recommend to track down a copy of The Battle for Brazil. It's the book that the documentary was based on, and it goes into a whole lot of depth, including the film's full script with notes about the production and alterations in the most recent edition.

[zombie84]

If your interested in more Terry Gilliam vs the Studio, i highly recommend Lost in La Mancha--its the documentary about the making of what would be his epic opus, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, the highest euro-financed film ever...until the production runs into problem after problem after problem, resulting in the film being abandoned halfway through production. Such a heartbreaking shame. Based on the few snippets of finished film that is shown, it would have been glorious.



why why why??? What a waste.

[Rogue 9]

Yeah, I read about that. They had the worst run of bad luck ever during production. A military exercise involving strike fighters going on in the area on the same day as shooting? Pouring rain for a week straight IIRC? It was ridiculous.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm sure that's when he gave up and turned to his own super hero idea but was reluctant to even attempt that given such bad luck.

[Master of Ossus]

It's case-by-case for me. Lots of directors' cuts absolutely suck and add nothing to the film, whatsoever. Others are quite good, and clearly add material to the original film. In particular, LotR and Bladerunner come to mind as fitting in this category. In those cases, I think that it's a legitimately new product when they add significant material, and I'm willing to shell out a second time to get a director's cut that's really good and adds to the film. Other films add material but don't seem to maintain quality (ie. Apocalypse Now). In that case, I chose to purchase the director's cut only because I thought I should see the new scenes a few times, and even though I prefer the original film I still think it was interesting to see how Coppola wanted to do things. I DO absolutely hate it when directors' cuts add maybe two minutes of crappy material to a movie, and I would either only buy the original film or I would wait until the DC was released in that case.

Yes, it's a money-making ploy to sell the original version and THEN the DC, but I don't think that it's any worse than any other industry. Particularly in the infamous recording industry and publishing industry, they do things like this only to make money. Damn them.

[neoolong]

Actually there is. Depending on if the director has the balls to say it isn't if it really isn't. Either on a commentary or in public after the release of the DVD.

OK, in some circumstances there are. But the director could still be playing for the money.

Then you really can't take the word of anyone since they could be lying.

No, but when the director makes a director's cut, that still is the director's cut. Even if somebody calls something else the DC, what the director made is the director's cut.

But there's not a lot of ways of telling the difference.

Actually, that's irrelevant. When the director makes his cut, that is the director's cut. It doesn't matter if someone calls something else the DC. It doesn't matter if it ever gets released. It doesn't matter if nobody even sees it. It doesn't matter if you can't tell the difference if somebody didn't tell you. The thing the director made is still, the director's cut.

[zombie84]

if there is a version of the film labelled DIRECTORS CUT, then that is the DIRECTORS CUT. Usually a director is satisfied (to varrying degrees) with the finished film (theatrical version) but if a subsequent version is labelled DIRECTORS CUT then that is the DIRECTORS CUT. If it is the theatrical cut (if the director was satisfied with it or had final cut--but even then that can change) then it isnt going to be labelled. Recently the term "directors cut", along with "extended edition" and "special edition" have taken on such a marketing persona that they've begun to lose meaning.

Extended and Special editions are different though, and can be judged on a case-by-case basis IMO--sometimes its simply an ALTERNATE CUT, neither better nor worse than the theatrical (in the eyes of the director) but simply an alternate version of the film. Sometimes it motivated by curiosity and fan-demand (perhaps the director is interested in making a longer cut, even though he prefers the theatrical--LOTR and the T2 extended editions being examples of this--and sometimes it simply something marketed or made for the fans. I dont think either is bad. But is also important to acknowledge that, unless the director says elsewhere (interviews, liner notes, etc.) that he prefers this cut, it is to be assumed to NOT be a directors cut (besides, most directors cuts are labelled as such).
For example, LOTR EE are extended editions that contain deleted and re-edited scenes, but remain as inferior to the theatrical cuts as a single flowing feature--PJ states that the theatrical is his directors cut because he is satisfied by it, and he is rightly justified in saying so IMO (by which i mean i prefer the theatrical too).

You cant assume a director is lying about his or her preference. Directors are very vocal about this sort of thing--sometimes to the point where they disown the film (wherin the since-abandoned Alan Smithee pseudonyme is used).

[DPDarkPrimus]

In many cases it's probably just a way of getting more money - The Alien films spring to mind

On the contrary... the Aliens special edition added almost 30 minutes of footage, and is the movie Cameron wanted to release, and the Alien 3 special edition (also a half hour longer) is actually a good movie... unlike the original.


The theatrical release is not always the version the directors wants, because the studio can make them cut the film to a certain length, dispite their not wanting to.

[Steve]

When it comes to the various LOTR movies' Extended Editions, the reason those scenes weren't in the theatrical release was because New Line forced Jackson to cut them out.

[Stravo]

When it comes to the various LOTR movies' Extended Editions, the reason those scenes weren't in the theatrical release was because New Line forced Jackson to cut them out.

Actually Peter usually explains why it was cut and the reason most cited is pacing and time issues.

He even defends HIS cutting of the Saruman scene in ROTK. Most of the cutting decisions were hsi save in ROTK where he publically complained that his 4 hour cut was his final vision and New Line forced him into a 3.5 hour running time.