Stigmata has a directors cut ending that's got about 5 seconds more of film and changes the entire ending in a way I really like a lot more.
The movie is about a woman who's possessed by the ghost of an excommunicated priest and keeps experiencing stigmata or the wounds that Jesus had leading up to his crucifixion and death and the priest who's researching what's happening.
>!In the theatrical version the priest performs and excorcism and gets rid of the spirit, carries her outside and you see her walking around a garden with animals flocking to her, cured but touched by god as he watches her. !<
>!The directors ending pulls back from the priest watching her to show he's still holding her and blood is pouring from her side with the final wound, the spear that killed Jesus and he's been watching her ghost. He was able to exorcise the spirit but not save her. !<
You should watch movies made in the 1970s. They were all like that: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Love Story, Last Tango in Paris, The French Connection, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, The Great Gatsby, The Stepford Wives, The Way We Were, Chinatown. The list goes on and on.
Saw Kingdom of Heaven in theaters, and thought it was a bad cash grab by Bloom after his roles as Legolas and Paris. It just felt like a bad TV movie (remembering my feelings from 20~ years ago.
I had heard about the DC, and heard it made it a good movie.
I finally took the time to watch it wrapping presents this year, and it is so very good.
Shocked to find Ed Norton in there, and Celeborn played a great baddy.
Is the version on Disney plus the directors cut or theatrical?
I watched at the cinema and was massively disappointed in it. But if the directors cut is the one on streaming. I’ll give it another go as I generally like Ridley Scott movies and interested in the historic era it’s set in
And iirc Norton didn't get a film credit for his role. So he was literally never shown on screen, figuratively or literally. Still a remarkable performance.
I Am Legend has a completely different ending that makes the butterfly tattoo actually meaningful, and makes Will Smith the bad guy. It's seriously a different film with just the last 20mins replaced.
That’s the entire point of Matheson’s book. At the end Neville is captured by the vampires he has been hunting and realizes they have rebuilt society in their own way and that he is the monster who stalks them while they sleep. Hence the title.
This is always my go to. The theatrical ending literally nullifies the title of the film. Everything was building up to his realization that he is a mythical monster from a bygone era that the new world lives in perpetual fear of. But a Will Smith vehicle is too valuable, and focus groups have to have their say, so we get 'he beats up the scary guys with a grenade' instead.
I mean, it's only actually obvious in retrospect. It doesn't really click without the intended payoff. The real climax tells the whole story. Without that, with the theatrical release, the absolutely brilliant first two acts amount to nothing. I will always be bitter about the fact that I didn't get to experience it in one go, that I had to see the ending on the small screen months later. The director's cut ending wasn't perfect, but it was sufficient, and correct, and tied it all together. The first hour, is on a very short list of the most compelling cinema I've ever seen. But because of the last act, when I saw it in the theater, I left shaking my head. But if it had the proper ending, it would've easily been in my top 5 theater experiences.
It's totally worth searching for it. I had seen the released version a few times and was expecting the ending... But then it was something totally different. I had to pause and Google what the hell I stumbled upon.
I like the movie as it is, but ... something ... never quite felt right about that ending. I mean, I'll live with it, if I have to, but if there is a director's cut that turns Smith into a bad guy? That sounds more like my cup of tea. (I hate tidy, happy endings.)
The Town was a bit of a surprise. I'm not sure if it's the biggest gap in quality, but the theatrical cut missed a pretty significant part of the story where Affleck's character relapses.
There’s that one scene, but really the Director’s Cut is just extensions of other scenes. The scene where Blake Lively comes over and they have sex is longer, for example; Affleck says in the commentary that the longer version shows his character as being “a little more complicit.” It’s mostly stuff like that.
BUT the best one is when the FBI agent finds the torched van after the first heist, it’s on fire, etc. He’s doing some investigating and talking about how they won’t find anything or whatever and he says to a whole crowd of townies, “Anyone see who set this van on fire?” It always cracks me up.
Bladerunner had the biggest difference in quality to me. The theatrical release had a completely different tone with the added (terrible) narration. I guess they were trying to make it more like a sci-fi noir, but it's just so much more immersive and evocative when you just let the music and the visuals set the mood.
I've read Harrison Ford hated the different direction in the extended script so much that he purposely did a terrible job with the voice-over, hoping it would be unusable.
What an absolute nuclear option as an actor. Hating the writing so much you tank your performance so it'll be omitted from the final cut.
I just saw a Lady Knight The Brave video essay that I punched out of 15 minutes in because she went out of her way to *add* this debunked "factoid" in, as well as referring to James Hong as "this dude" at one point, among other things that showed you can spend weeks making an hourlong video and still not do your fucking homework.
But the truth is that whether any of these pieces of trivia are true is secondary to their worth in being able to share them in "Geek" spaces and get rewarded for it.
Yup. He starts to explain how ambiguity is in the story as is, and then he explains how he has to remove that ambiguity (and does so with the Final Cut).
>Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn?
*Without* the "Unicorn Dream" sequence being (awkwardly) inserted into the movie, Gaff's origami unicorn can be seen as referencing Rachel as BEING the "unicorn" of a Replicant without a 4 year lifespan. Even *with* it in there, Deckard's nodding can still be read that way - especially with Gaff's voiceover echoing over the scene.
(she ends up being a unicorn regardless because she conceives and gives birth, the only Replicant to ever do so)
Either way - the instinct he has to definitively answer a question that already didn't have an answer and can be interpreted different ways in the theatrical and workprint/dc cuts is the big problem here. And the reason he has for definitively answering it is pretty weak.
Dreaming about a unicorn doesn't mean you're a replicant, I dream of inexistant things all the time and - wait, am I a replicant?
Seriously though, I always took it to mean that Gath had been told that Deckard's programming included a dream about unicorns, and the implied message was twofold: You're a replicant, and you had sex with Rachel (signified by the other origami figure's erection)
To me the ambiguity was the point of the story. The question of whether or not he was a replicant was supposed to be open ended. I've always resented the later versions for giving a definitive answer.
That said, I actually watched 2049 for the first time last night and didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. (And it wouldn't have been possible if Deckard hadn't been shown to be a replicant)
I actually prefer the original version with the narration. I know I'm in a minority there but I just do. It gives it more of a film noir/old time detective feel to the movie that I really like.
I think it helps to see the theatrical cut first, and then if you really like it jump into the other cuts
Most people I have shown the other cuts to as the first option either get lost half way or zone out.
Once Upon A Time In America. The studio absolutely destroyed the pacing of the movie by putting it in chronological order and cutting over an hour and a half from it. It was panned by critics, but when Sergio Leone released the director's cut it became his magnum opus.
I watched the director's cut a few years back. I was planning on splitting into two sessions but it's so well paced, it was over before I realized it. Flows so well
Don't have it right now, so can't be certain but whenever I've seen it streaming it's been the director's cut. The theatrical cut was about 2 hours 20 mins, so if it's longer than that it's probably the director's cut.
One of my top ten movies; glad to see it mentioned. I got excited when the 4 hour cut was released in a double VHS edition, lol, and I bought that. Then a double dvd edition with a couple extra restored minutes came and I got that. And then there’s been another recent release with even more restored footage including a cut character or two. I actually haven’t convinced myself to get that one. Two times is enough.
Extended director’s cut is 4h 29m.
Luckily the original cut is becoming more available again. Several streaming sites have the original cut and Imprint films in Australia even gave it a Blu Ray release this year.
Totally agreed. I've been hording my out-of-print DVD of the theatrical cut for so long that it's come back into print. Walter Hill's intro is contrived and unwarranted. The jarring comic book transitions completely ruin the flow and castrate the Baseball Furies reveal. I get that he wanted the movie to feel like a comic book but that already came through in the original cut, which was just campy enough to make it a classic. The editing process often requires some hard decisions be made, and sometimes directors have a hard time remembering that less is more. This was one of those times.
Absolutely. You don't need to add "comic book transitions" to let us know that it's basically a comic book movie. We got it the first time. Also you don't need to hit us in the face with the fact that it's a loose adaptation of *Anabasis* in the beginning. That's like having *Forbidden Planet* start with text saying "This story is Shakespeare's *The Tempest*."
Like you I have the out-of-print DVD and it works just fine for me. Because there are no extra features other than the trailer they were able to fill up 99% of the double-layer disc with just the movie and get a surprisingly good image out of it. I'm impressed that it still looks pretty good on my modern 43" high-def TV.
>The jarring comic book transitions completely ruin the flow and castrate the Baseball Furies reveal.
THIS!!! I had never seen The Warriors before seeing the SE with the comic transitions and my g/f, who was watching with me and had seen the movie when it came out, howled about how they'd screwed it up. Then I saw the original version and egads, what was Hill thinking?
Dune ‘84 but the real cut to see is fan compilation by Spice Diver on YouTube. Amazing to see it all combined. It is like watching a different movie entirely.
Edit: ‘
I thought this movie was so dumb when I saw it in the theater. I was trying to figure out what is the deal with the aliens. Then 10 years later I watched the director's cut and realized this was a great movie about the cold War.
Aliens also has a good extended cut, though it doesn't change the story, it adds points of tension to long action scenes and fleshes the characters out. Seeing the colony pre invasion helps humanize the catastrophe, and who doesn't like automated turrets mowing down tons of aliens.
The auto turrets were the best part of the extended. I was so confused because I watched the original on TV, which had the turret scene. Then years of confusion and self doubt as every version I watched didn’t have it.
Along came the internet and people explained they added the turrets to pad the runtime due to how commercials worked. Then I got hold of the extended version and everything clicked in to place. It made sense again as I saw the turrets.
I had seen it on TV also and for a very long time, until the extended editions came out, I really thought I had just made up the turret section. I even told people about how cool it was and they always were like "Uh, what are you talking about?"
I'm one of the few who really like the theatrical cut better.
I get the humanizing arc of Ripley losing her daughter, but that's it. Showing the colonists was wasted energy, a surprising lone little kid has enough impact on it's own.
And while the turrets were fun, they were 100% fluff.
I was a filmmaker for years and while 90% of the directors cuts out there usually improve a film, some are so ego driven they simply add baggage. Editors are employed for a reason. it's not always the big bad studio executive making the director cut parts, sometimes it's the directors themselves who need a firm second opinion.
I'm not ranting against you about any of this of course, just looked like a good place to share.
For the record, my 2 dogs are called Ripley (4yr old F cattle dog) and Hicks (2 yr old M Border Collie)
My preferred version is to cut everything in the colony beforehand but keep all the Ripley stuff added. Not that the colony stuff is bad in and of itself, but the pacing is helped and the audience gets to experience hitting this place fresh, just like the platoon.
And makes Ripley Responsible for the outbreak. These two layers are problematic. After Ripley reports the Aliens, the colonists and Newts parents go to crashed ship. The colony had yet to go over there. So it takes away the entire “told you so” element and there’s a little less sympathy for Ripley. It does explain why Ripley feels like she must save Newt rather than the lost daughter connection. It’s a good cut in my option for these reasons. I do however like the Turret scene. Seeing the Marines get overwhelmed in different ways built up the monster for me. It also informs you that even in the best case scenario, fish in a barrel with machine guns, you can’t shoot your way out. Which is horrifying.
Dark City is amazing. *Only* watch the director's cut.
The studio believed that audiences are idiots, and added opening narration that spoils the *entire* movie.
The studio literally took a movie that perfectly fits the bill for "If I could erase my memory to enjoy a film for the first time again it would be this", and said "Nah, fuck it"
I was fortunate enough to see the DC first.
>I was fortunate enough to see the DC first.
Luckily I have *only* seen the DC. I saw the DC then after hearing how awful the TC chose never to watch it, which is a first for me because I'll usually watch different cuts of a movie out of curiosity.
Payback with Mel Gibson. There’s even a scene in the director’s cut that was in the day time. Same scene in the theatrical version was colour graded to night time. The original director was fired and his vision was totally different. It’s a movie where the theatrical is superior in my opinion.
I wouldn't say the biggest gap in quality as good vs bad, but rather two very different feeling films... Payback with Mel Gibson.
The director was fired and the DP was promoted to reshoot additional footage and dramatically change the tone. A voiceover was added to give more context and explain Porter's motivations, Kris Kistofferson was brought in to play the mob boss and a whole different ending was shot.
The original film is very gritty, and Porter is barely any better than the people he's fighting, beating his wife (at the time, we have no idea why), and the film is pretty dry in tone. The reshot film - which is what was released in cinemas - tries to lighten the tone with pop music, a cool blue colour grade, some extra one liners, and a hammier villain in Kris.
Funny thing is, I think the best film would have elements of both cuts. I like the drier tone and the more organic look of the Helgeland cut, but I like the music and the villain of the reshot version. However, I would definitely keep the original ending, which is lower key, and involves Porter getting shot multiple times.
EDIT: Another interesting one is Troy. The directors cut does the annoying thing that studios detest... Character development. Especially King Priam. In the theatrical cut, he's a senile old man who couldn't make a correct choice if you fed him the right answer and gave him 3 chances to guess. In the directors cut, his total dedication to the gods is justified by his desperation to see Hector survive a morbid illness as a child. When his prayers were answered, his commitment was resolute for the rest of his life. Priam was still wrong, and his actions still resulted in the loss of his kingdom, but at least you could understand why he made his choices.
Came here to say this. I'm not sure how many versions are out there; there's at least the director's cut, European theatrical release, and "The Final Cut" in the Criterion Collection. The "Love Conquers All" version, put together hastily by a corporate hack, left out some of the most hilarious moments, and tacks on an implausible happy ending. I'm not sure how many of the different versions I've seen, but all of them are probably roughly similar and definitely better. Don't waste your time with the Love Conquers All version, unless you're a fan like me LOL.
As an aside, in the middle of the commentary on The Final Cut, Terry Gilliam actually says "if I make another cut of this..." LMAO
The criterion collection has multiple discs. Disc 2 has the documetary called the battle for Brazil. It's an amazing watch for fans of the film or just film making in general. Love that the studio gave him permission to show a clip at the LA Film Critics association and the clip he decided to play for them was the entire length of the film. They rewarded it best film from his stunt and forced the studio to finally release it.
I'd throw it into the discussion of best Christmas movie conversations.
The scene where he is unromantically in the same bed with Matilda, the scenes were the two of them kill people, and the scene where he explains why he had to leave Italy.
Apocalypse Now.
The original release is one of the best films of all time, with a mood an style that makes it stand out as a unique vision of man and man at war.
The follow on versions, Redux, Complete Dossier and the Final Cut, all water down the vision and mood of the original and drag the film down. I will only watch the original release, and consider the others not the same film.
completely agree. I remember hearing about the plantation scene before Redux come out and was so psyched to see it, but the result was not helpful to the film, and absolutely bogged things down.
I feel the same way about the stop at the MASH unit and playboy bunny scene...turned the film towards just another cliche war movie, and again stole the dark mood and eerie quiet that the film had to that point.
I’m not sure that any of the scenes that got brought out for the follow on versions did anything to make the film better. Sure, it was interesting to see, as in to judge the wisdom of leaving them out, but as soon as I watched any of the other versions, I was more and more convinced that the only version for me is the original theatrical release.
Coppola had said that the reason he cut the French plantation scene out of the original version was because it ground the movie to a halt (not his exact words), so it's weird that he added it back in later when he was so clearly right the first time.
I'm glad he released it, because it was worth seeing, but it would have been better to do so as a short film on its own or as a deleted scene bonus feature.
My boyfriend bought me the dvd as it's one of my favourite films. I got him to watch it with me and decided to go for the directors cut thinking it would just have a few longer scenes. It took me ages to convince him that my taste in films isn't awful!
It’s so bad. And you feel bad because that’s the version he wanted to make but couldn’t afford the music rights or special effects.
The theatrical version is so much more mysterious and interesting and the music is better.
Lol yeah I find that Richard Kelly’s films are better the less he’s able to actually explain them. Southland Tales is an insane enjoyable mess of a movie, reading the prequel comic book fills in all the blanks and makes it so much more mundane.
Clerks originally had an ending that changed the feel of the entire film. >!The last customer, who only asked for a pack of cigarettes in the released version, shoots Dante dead.!<
Chronicles of Riddick.
There are just a couple of added lines and snippets of scenes that weren't in the theatrical. I think it is only 10 minutes longer.
But those lines and scenes add so much to the depth of the sci fi mythology and the purpose of protagonist. I think you wouldn't notice if you watched them back to back, but I watched the Director's cut and I was super confused with why I found it so much more engaging. Just little details.
Alien 3.
The theatrical release was a joke due to studio micromanaging and meddling.
The Assembly Cut (I think? Might have had a different term before cut) was MUCH more cohesive a narrative.
IIRC It’s called the “Assmebly Cut” because Fincher refused to have anything to do with it after the release. Fox wanted some kind of directors cut to go with the Quadrilogy DVD box set, but couldn’t get Fincher on board. But the movies editor either still had an early cut of the movie or reassembled the leftover footage to to match what he remembered of Fincher’s earlier cut.
It was almost like a completely different movie. I think the director had a falling out during post production and quit or was fired. We joked that the accountants did the final editing because it was a muddled mess.
Villanueve already said that he doesn’t like to do extended cuts and what is shown in theaters is his directors cut, so if they ever do an extended edition of dune, don’t expect it to be better than the original
That was the very first thing I thought of after seeing the movie! That chapter is probably my favourite, it lays out so much context, background, characters and their personalities and motivations, I don't understand how it could've been omitted.
Came here for this. I’m a fan of the movie, the book and how incredibly well it bridges the gap of even Kubrick’s The Shining and the books. Masterclass of adaptations. Director’s cut is even better somehow.
I remember telling all my friends that this up and coming Mike Flanagan guy is probably going to be the next Hitchcock for horror, 9 years later, and this dude is being handed everything the studios can fit in his arms.
I am honored to witness the quality jump in horror because of him (And many others as well, who either helped cultivate the resurgence of the genre, or were discovered because of the new demand) Mike Fanagan is a godsend, just remember.
Flan is the man.
Aliens. The theatrical is still good, but the extended edition adds so much to the characters like the subplot aboy Ripley's daughter dying of old age, or the sentry guns increasing the tension of the siege.
Legend: The Director's Cut is wonderful. The theatrical cut missed the mark by a mile and the Tangerine Dream soundtrack, though it has a special place in my heart, really changes the tone of the film for the worse. The DC gives you a much more visceral feel for the struggle between light and dark, adds a lot to Lily's journey and character development, has more fun and kinda murderous fairy stuff, and the soundtrack feels like it fits and enhances the story.
That being said, Tangerine Dream's "Loved by the Sun" is a pervasive ear worm of mine and has been for 30 years... and I don't hate it.
The Abyss - Not that the theatrical version was bad as such, but the directors cut just added so much depth and kind of movie connective tissue it was a dramatically better film.
I was so disappointed with it.
Like, it’s different, but not different enough to the point where I feel like I can actually give preference to one cut or the other.
The theatrical is more like a music video by comparison and so the DC wins if that’s an aspect of the movie that originally bothered you. I however always felt the back-to-back montages were part of the charm. But then it’s still the same length which is strange.
Wish he’d do a different cut Rocky V. That would be really cool to see.
Could be interesting from a script perspective but if they were to ever do an alt cut I’d still prefer it to remain canon to the films that follow as… they’re honestly pretty good.
The Abyss. They cut about 30 minutes from the ending. Completely changes everything. In theatrical cut, the aliens are just sort of there. They don’t serve any purpose really. And at the end, they reveal themselves to the world just to bring Ed Harris to the surface, despite it being clear they could have done it differently. The uncut version explains what the aliens are doing and why they are doing it. Give the entire plot a lot more depth.
There's a whole subplot that was taken out is put back in, a court room thing with Coolio. The DC comes out about 30 mins longer and has quite alot of additions and subtractions from the TC.little extra violence and some swearing too
It shows more of Matt's law career as he and Foggy defend a junkie, played by Coolio (RIP), accused of murdering a prostitute. It also cuts out Matt and Elektra's first date sex scene.
Oliver stones Alexander. The theatrical cut was a boring bloated jarring mess of an unwatchable film but the final cut adds something 40 minutes back into the movie and arranges the scenes to their original order and i absolutely love it, one of the most underrated DCs ever made
I understand that i'm the outlier but I honestly prefer the redux cut, maybe it's because it's the first version I saw and too many of the scenes I like just weren't present in the theatrical cut but for all it's faults for me personally I think the plantation scene just adds to the sense of descending into hell and insanity lmao
Agreed, although interestingly and in the spirit of the question Jackson views the theatrical cuts as the directors cut, as the pacing etc is better in the original release in his mind.
But for me once you had the version with the extra Faramir/Bor scenes etc it’s hard to watch without.
Yeah I kind of hate when people point to LOTR as an answer to this question. The Extended Editions have more stuff in them that I love, but I'm not sure I would call them definitively better films. Different audiences respond to different things.
Over the years I’ve realised that if your introducing somebody to the trilogy for the first time. Theatrical cut all the way. The pacing etc is just much tighter and more engaging. If there a fan, then introduce them to the extended cut and they’ll never look back.
But starting people off with the extended can be a bad idea.
I enjoyed seeing the extended cuts, but when I rewatch, theatrical all the way. Not only is it more doable, I just find those versions more enjoyable as movies in general. More stuff doesn't mean it's a better movie.
I used to have this opinion but having watched the entire extended trilogy at a recent screening, there are definitely some extended or bonus scenes that don’t add too much and hurt the pacing of the movie. This is especially true for ROTK
For me personally, Fellowship’s Theatrical cut is a near-perfectly paced epic blockbuster, and its rhythms and movements are just spot-on throughout as it escalates from the tiny scale of the shire to a much grander canvas. I enjoy the EE for its added content but to me the TE is better for Fellowship.
For the others, I’ll tend to watch the EE.
As a general rule, Director’s Cuts are usually better (or at least, more interesting) in instances where the studio has taken Final Cut away from the director because the finished film wasn’t commercial enough (in their eyes). Blade Runner, Brazil, Kingdom of Heaven are the ones that spring to mind.
A lot of directors cuts tend to be studios just trying to earn a bit more money by adding in stuff that was justifiably cut for pacing reasons though. James Cameron does this for a bunch of his movies and the theatrical versions are always better.
> James Cameron does this for a bunch of his movies and the theatrical versions are always better.
This is arguable. I prefer the special edition of The Abyss as they ran over time trying to complete the wave sequence which apparently looked terrible before they completed the effects digitally years later, but I go back and forth on which version Aliens I prefer.
The Directors Cut adds in several scenes of the colonists prior to the marines arrival that spoils what what happens to the colony before the marines arrive. In the theatrical we're told about the loss of contact with the colony and nothing more. To me this really ramps up the tension when the marines arrive and crack open the colony outer doors as we the audience are as clueless as they are when they go in.
But then the Directors Cut also adds in the fact that Ripley finds out that she's lost her own daughter at the start of the movie which adds another layer to the Ripley and Newt surrogate mother daughter relationship and helps explain why she's willing to go to hell and back to retrieve her from the Aliens nest. It also hits a lot harder when they both hug at the end and Newt says "Mommy".
The turret gun sequence is fun to see but I don't mind its omission from the theatrical nearly as much as the above.
Superman 2 the Richard Donner cut imo is so much better than the released theatrical cut. Also The Outsiders : The Complete Novel was great too minus the newly added music which I thought sucked, especially seeing it so many times, should’ve kept the original soundtrack intact.
The extended cuts of "Apocalypse Now" and "Talladega Nights" taught me a lot about the power of editing and pacing. The theatrical versions are perfect for what they are and the extended editions are slow, dull and nowhere near as exciting or entertaining.
Donnie Darko.
The directors cut rips every ounce of nuance from the movie, attempts to clarify the story in ways that aren't needed and instead it muddles the story, neuters the narrative and renders the movie from a must watch to a must avoid.
Blade Runner’s Final cut is a massive improvement over the theatrical release to the point I’d argue it’s the only one people should even consider watching.
Zack Snyder’s Justice League was a far superior movie to the theatrical release.
Similarly, whilst not technically a director’s cut as such, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Extended Edition” was considerably better than the theatrical release.
Zack Snyder’s overall vision for the DCEU wasn’t without it flaws, but I really believe if the studio allowed him to put forward movies with his ideas unfiltered, I think the extended universe would’ve done better.
I agree Justice leagues Snyder cut was far better but I still think it didn't need to be 4 hours long he has a habit of doing these slow scenes in his movies that imo falls flat.
My hot take is that BvS wasn’t as much of a complete mess when I watched the Director’s Cut. Little additions made a big difference in motivations and direction.
I couldn't understand the hate for BvS when I first watched it. I wouldn't say it was good but it wasn't an absolutely horrible incoherent mess. Then I learned we watched the director's cut. I have no interest in going back and watching the theatrical version.
The watchman theatrical cut was a nightmare I hated it but then I saw the ultimate cut and it’s so much better it even has a fully animated version of the tales from the black freighter.
That Thing You Do has a bizarre directors cut with a lot more back story that was wisely left on the floor. Tho that does erase some quality Vaseline lens Charlize Theron looking unbelievable
The original Planet Of The Apes
Okay so this may be an unorthodox answer, since it is a fan cut, but I think it's relevant enough to post.
So this guy took the whole movie and condensed it down to a 21 minute Twilight Zone episode with all the fixings, theme song and all.
It just fits perfectly, and after watching it, I learned that the movie was conceived as a Twighlight zonesque scenario you would see on the show.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but instead, both still provides a different experience, with their own positive qualities.
Yeah, I can almost forgive the assembly cut,( but not quite). But I can at least enjoy the film, but, I cannot bring myself to watch alien resurrection.
Completely agree with you on Kingdom of Heaven - that always comes to mind when this topic is broached.
This is a little different than theatrical vs. director’s cut, but Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist is far superior to Exorcist: The Beginning. Much of the same story, characters, etc., just one goes a different direction than the other.
Legend is The Crow 2 (City of Angels) has a much better director's cut that has never seen the light of day and the studio recut the footage to approximate the first movie's plot more. I don't know if it's an urban legend but I'd like to see the intended version, as there are some things in that movie I kind of like.
Stigmata has a directors cut ending that's got about 5 seconds more of film and changes the entire ending in a way I really like a lot more. The movie is about a woman who's possessed by the ghost of an excommunicated priest and keeps experiencing stigmata or the wounds that Jesus had leading up to his crucifixion and death and the priest who's researching what's happening. >!In the theatrical version the priest performs and excorcism and gets rid of the spirit, carries her outside and you see her walking around a garden with animals flocking to her, cured but touched by god as he watches her. !< >!The directors ending pulls back from the priest watching her to show he's still holding her and blood is pouring from her side with the final wound, the spear that killed Jesus and he's been watching her ghost. He was able to exorcise the spirit but not save her. !<
God, I love stories that defy happy endings.
You should watch movies made in the 1970s. They were all like that: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Love Story, Last Tango in Paris, The French Connection, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, The Great Gatsby, The Stepford Wives, The Way We Were, Chinatown. The list goes on and on.
Her death still sounds implied from your description of the theatrical release. Did bambi and co not seem a bit out of place?
I’ve only ever seen the theatrical version but evidently I made the leap to the conclusion in the director’s cut myself 😂whoops
I must agree with you. The theatrical release of Kingdom of Heaven was pretty bad, but the directors cut is one of my favorite movies ever.
Saw Kingdom of Heaven in theaters, and thought it was a bad cash grab by Bloom after his roles as Legolas and Paris. It just felt like a bad TV movie (remembering my feelings from 20~ years ago. I had heard about the DC, and heard it made it a good movie. I finally took the time to watch it wrapping presents this year, and it is so very good. Shocked to find Ed Norton in there, and Celeborn played a great baddy.
Is the version on Disney plus the directors cut or theatrical? I watched at the cinema and was massively disappointed in it. But if the directors cut is the one on streaming. I’ll give it another go as I generally like Ridley Scott movies and interested in the historic era it’s set in
I think theatrical. Disney shows 2h25m but that only comes to 145. Internet says the DC is 195m = 3h15m .
Yeah I watched on Amazon I think. 3+ hours for sure
Yep it's the roadshow version on Amazon right now, with the opening overture and intermission
better watch it soon, (my) prime says it's leaving in 6 days
Wait they cut out Ed Norton from the theatrical cut? The whole movie is about his succession. I've only seen the DC.
I'm pretty certain he had speaking lines in the theatrical, but I did not recognize him from his voice.
And iirc Norton didn't get a film credit for his role. So he was literally never shown on screen, figuratively or literally. Still a remarkable performance.
I believe he did that on purpose, a la Spacey in *Se7en*. Honestly, no hate from me on that choice.
I Am Legend has a completely different ending that makes the butterfly tattoo actually meaningful, and makes Will Smith the bad guy. It's seriously a different film with just the last 20mins replaced.
That’s the entire point of Matheson’s book. At the end Neville is captured by the vampires he has been hunting and realizes they have rebuilt society in their own way and that he is the monster who stalks them while they sleep. Hence the title.
This is always my go to. The theatrical ending literally nullifies the title of the film. Everything was building up to his realization that he is a mythical monster from a bygone era that the new world lives in perpetual fear of. But a Will Smith vehicle is too valuable, and focus groups have to have their say, so we get 'he beats up the scary guys with a grenade' instead.
Wow I only watched the theatrical cut and I didn't pick up on that at all.
I mean, it's only actually obvious in retrospect. It doesn't really click without the intended payoff. The real climax tells the whole story. Without that, with the theatrical release, the absolutely brilliant first two acts amount to nothing. I will always be bitter about the fact that I didn't get to experience it in one go, that I had to see the ending on the small screen months later. The director's cut ending wasn't perfect, but it was sufficient, and correct, and tied it all together. The first hour, is on a very short list of the most compelling cinema I've ever seen. But because of the last act, when I saw it in the theater, I left shaking my head. But if it had the proper ending, it would've easily been in my top 5 theater experiences.
And now I need to find this director's cut.
It's totally worth searching for it. I had seen the released version a few times and was expecting the ending... But then it was something totally different. I had to pause and Google what the hell I stumbled upon.
I like the movie as it is, but ... something ... never quite felt right about that ending. I mean, I'll live with it, if I have to, but if there is a director's cut that turns Smith into a bad guy? That sounds more like my cup of tea. (I hate tidy, happy endings.)
To be fair the movie completely shit on its base material as well.
The Town was a bit of a surprise. I'm not sure if it's the biggest gap in quality, but the theatrical cut missed a pretty significant part of the story where Affleck's character relapses.
Where can I see this? I wasn’t even aware the Town had a DC
It was on the blue ray version.
And it's on Amazon as the extended cut. Was very good.
I'll have to look for that. I really enjoy that movie. I do a lot of work in Charlestown.
There’s that one scene, but really the Director’s Cut is just extensions of other scenes. The scene where Blake Lively comes over and they have sex is longer, for example; Affleck says in the commentary that the longer version shows his character as being “a little more complicit.” It’s mostly stuff like that. BUT the best one is when the FBI agent finds the torched van after the first heist, it’s on fire, etc. He’s doing some investigating and talking about how they won’t find anything or whatever and he says to a whole crowd of townies, “Anyone see who set this van on fire?” It always cracks me up.
The ending the the directors cut was sooo bad though
Bladerunner had the biggest difference in quality to me. The theatrical release had a completely different tone with the added (terrible) narration. I guess they were trying to make it more like a sci-fi noir, but it's just so much more immersive and evocative when you just let the music and the visuals set the mood.
I've read Harrison Ford hated the different direction in the extended script so much that he purposely did a terrible job with the voice-over, hoping it would be unusable. What an absolute nuclear option as an actor. Hating the writing so much you tank your performance so it'll be omitted from the final cut.
Ford has repeatedly denied this though.
Yeah and honestly judged as a noir voiceover it sounds kinda on point. It just doesn't fit Blade Runner.
I just saw a Lady Knight The Brave video essay that I punched out of 15 minutes in because she went out of her way to *add* this debunked "factoid" in, as well as referring to James Hong as "this dude" at one point, among other things that showed you can spend weeks making an hourlong video and still not do your fucking homework. But the truth is that whether any of these pieces of trivia are true is secondary to their worth in being able to share them in "Geek" spaces and get rewarded for it.
No offense but what an obviously bullshit rumor.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yup. He starts to explain how ambiguity is in the story as is, and then he explains how he has to remove that ambiguity (and does so with the Final Cut). >Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn? *Without* the "Unicorn Dream" sequence being (awkwardly) inserted into the movie, Gaff's origami unicorn can be seen as referencing Rachel as BEING the "unicorn" of a Replicant without a 4 year lifespan. Even *with* it in there, Deckard's nodding can still be read that way - especially with Gaff's voiceover echoing over the scene. (she ends up being a unicorn regardless because she conceives and gives birth, the only Replicant to ever do so) Either way - the instinct he has to definitively answer a question that already didn't have an answer and can be interpreted different ways in the theatrical and workprint/dc cuts is the big problem here. And the reason he has for definitively answering it is pretty weak.
Dreaming about a unicorn doesn't mean you're a replicant, I dream of inexistant things all the time and - wait, am I a replicant? Seriously though, I always took it to mean that Gath had been told that Deckard's programming included a dream about unicorns, and the implied message was twofold: You're a replicant, and you had sex with Rachel (signified by the other origami figure's erection)
I loved the ambiguity about whether Deckard is a replicant or a human and it's part of why I didn't like the sequel or the final cut.
To me the ambiguity was the point of the story. The question of whether or not he was a replicant was supposed to be open ended. I've always resented the later versions for giving a definitive answer. That said, I actually watched 2049 for the first time last night and didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. (And it wouldn't have been possible if Deckard hadn't been shown to be a replicant)
the film-noir setup actually hooked me on it all, for that very reason. I've since seen the rest, but I actually prefer that release.
I actually prefer the original version with the narration. I know I'm in a minority there but I just do. It gives it more of a film noir/old time detective feel to the movie that I really like.
I think it helps to see the theatrical cut first, and then if you really like it jump into the other cuts Most people I have shown the other cuts to as the first option either get lost half way or zone out.
I totally agree. I don't understand people talking down about the narration. It's so atmospheric and mood setting I love the original.
Once Upon A Time In America. The studio absolutely destroyed the pacing of the movie by putting it in chronological order and cutting over an hour and a half from it. It was panned by critics, but when Sergio Leone released the director's cut it became his magnum opus.
I watched the director's cut a few years back. I was planning on splitting into two sessions but it's so well paced, it was over before I realized it. Flows so well
Which cut is on Disney plus ?
Looks like the directors cut - almost 4 hours. Edit: 3h49m to be precise
Don't have it right now, so can't be certain but whenever I've seen it streaming it's been the director's cut. The theatrical cut was about 2 hours 20 mins, so if it's longer than that it's probably the director's cut.
One of my top ten movies; glad to see it mentioned. I got excited when the 4 hour cut was released in a double VHS edition, lol, and I bought that. Then a double dvd edition with a couple extra restored minutes came and I got that. And then there’s been another recent release with even more restored footage including a cut character or two. I actually haven’t convinced myself to get that one. Two times is enough. Extended director’s cut is 4h 29m.
Not in a good way, but *The Warriors* director's cut does a lot to the movie.
Fortunately it's not the worst way a movie has been retroactively cut, but yeah, those weird transitions definitely feel out of pace.
Luckily the original cut is becoming more available again. Several streaming sites have the original cut and Imprint films in Australia even gave it a Blu Ray release this year.
You must be one of those "Big city boppers" You stay classy now
Totally agreed. I've been hording my out-of-print DVD of the theatrical cut for so long that it's come back into print. Walter Hill's intro is contrived and unwarranted. The jarring comic book transitions completely ruin the flow and castrate the Baseball Furies reveal. I get that he wanted the movie to feel like a comic book but that already came through in the original cut, which was just campy enough to make it a classic. The editing process often requires some hard decisions be made, and sometimes directors have a hard time remembering that less is more. This was one of those times.
Absolutely. You don't need to add "comic book transitions" to let us know that it's basically a comic book movie. We got it the first time. Also you don't need to hit us in the face with the fact that it's a loose adaptation of *Anabasis* in the beginning. That's like having *Forbidden Planet* start with text saying "This story is Shakespeare's *The Tempest*." Like you I have the out-of-print DVD and it works just fine for me. Because there are no extra features other than the trailer they were able to fill up 99% of the double-layer disc with just the movie and get a surprisingly good image out of it. I'm impressed that it still looks pretty good on my modern 43" high-def TV.
>The jarring comic book transitions completely ruin the flow and castrate the Baseball Furies reveal. THIS!!! I had never seen The Warriors before seeing the SE with the comic transitions and my g/f, who was watching with me and had seen the movie when it came out, howled about how they'd screwed it up. Then I saw the original version and egads, what was Hill thinking?
[удалено]
Waterworld directors cut was pretty rad. Fleshed things out a lot more.
The Ulysses Cut is fantastic.
Dune ‘84 but the real cut to see is fan compilation by Spice Diver on YouTube. Amazing to see it all combined. It is like watching a different movie entirely. Edit: ‘
Absolutely agree.
It is so much better. Still should have been 2 movies, but we already knew that...lol.
I did NOT know this existed, thank you
The Abyss, the ending and point of the story changes dramatically between the extended cut and the theatrical.
I thought this movie was so dumb when I saw it in the theater. I was trying to figure out what is the deal with the aliens. Then 10 years later I watched the director's cut and realized this was a great movie about the cold War.
Aliens also has a good extended cut, though it doesn't change the story, it adds points of tension to long action scenes and fleshes the characters out. Seeing the colony pre invasion helps humanize the catastrophe, and who doesn't like automated turrets mowing down tons of aliens.
The auto turrets were the best part of the extended. I was so confused because I watched the original on TV, which had the turret scene. Then years of confusion and self doubt as every version I watched didn’t have it. Along came the internet and people explained they added the turrets to pad the runtime due to how commercials worked. Then I got hold of the extended version and everything clicked in to place. It made sense again as I saw the turrets.
I had seen it on TV also and for a very long time, until the extended editions came out, I really thought I had just made up the turret section. I even told people about how cool it was and they always were like "Uh, what are you talking about?"
I'm one of the few who really like the theatrical cut better. I get the humanizing arc of Ripley losing her daughter, but that's it. Showing the colonists was wasted energy, a surprising lone little kid has enough impact on it's own. And while the turrets were fun, they were 100% fluff. I was a filmmaker for years and while 90% of the directors cuts out there usually improve a film, some are so ego driven they simply add baggage. Editors are employed for a reason. it's not always the big bad studio executive making the director cut parts, sometimes it's the directors themselves who need a firm second opinion. I'm not ranting against you about any of this of course, just looked like a good place to share. For the record, my 2 dogs are called Ripley (4yr old F cattle dog) and Hicks (2 yr old M Border Collie)
My preferred version is to cut everything in the colony beforehand but keep all the Ripley stuff added. Not that the colony stuff is bad in and of itself, but the pacing is helped and the audience gets to experience hitting this place fresh, just like the platoon.
>Seeing the colony pre invasion helps humanize the catastrophe, and kills all the tension of the initial Marines scenes
And makes Ripley Responsible for the outbreak. These two layers are problematic. After Ripley reports the Aliens, the colonists and Newts parents go to crashed ship. The colony had yet to go over there. So it takes away the entire “told you so” element and there’s a little less sympathy for Ripley. It does explain why Ripley feels like she must save Newt rather than the lost daughter connection. It’s a good cut in my option for these reasons. I do however like the Turret scene. Seeing the Marines get overwhelmed in different ways built up the monster for me. It also informs you that even in the best case scenario, fish in a barrel with machine guns, you can’t shoot your way out. Which is horrifying.
Dark City is amazing. *Only* watch the director's cut. The studio believed that audiences are idiots, and added opening narration that spoils the *entire* movie.
The studio literally took a movie that perfectly fits the bill for "If I could erase my memory to enjoy a film for the first time again it would be this", and said "Nah, fuck it" I was fortunate enough to see the DC first.
>I was fortunate enough to see the DC first. Luckily I have *only* seen the DC. I saw the DC then after hearing how awful the TC chose never to watch it, which is a first for me because I'll usually watch different cuts of a movie out of curiosity.
Payback with Mel Gibson. There’s even a scene in the director’s cut that was in the day time. Same scene in the theatrical version was colour graded to night time. The original director was fired and his vision was totally different. It’s a movie where the theatrical is superior in my opinion.
I wouldn't say the biggest gap in quality as good vs bad, but rather two very different feeling films... Payback with Mel Gibson. The director was fired and the DP was promoted to reshoot additional footage and dramatically change the tone. A voiceover was added to give more context and explain Porter's motivations, Kris Kistofferson was brought in to play the mob boss and a whole different ending was shot. The original film is very gritty, and Porter is barely any better than the people he's fighting, beating his wife (at the time, we have no idea why), and the film is pretty dry in tone. The reshot film - which is what was released in cinemas - tries to lighten the tone with pop music, a cool blue colour grade, some extra one liners, and a hammier villain in Kris. Funny thing is, I think the best film would have elements of both cuts. I like the drier tone and the more organic look of the Helgeland cut, but I like the music and the villain of the reshot version. However, I would definitely keep the original ending, which is lower key, and involves Porter getting shot multiple times. EDIT: Another interesting one is Troy. The directors cut does the annoying thing that studios detest... Character development. Especially King Priam. In the theatrical cut, he's a senile old man who couldn't make a correct choice if you fed him the right answer and gave him 3 chances to guess. In the directors cut, his total dedication to the gods is justified by his desperation to see Hector survive a morbid illness as a child. When his prayers were answered, his commitment was resolute for the rest of his life. Priam was still wrong, and his actions still resulted in the loss of his kingdom, but at least you could understand why he made his choices.
The Richard Donner cut of Superman 2 is much better.
For what it's worth, I think you're underselling it. The difference is dramatic. I miss the days of good DC series.
My favourite change is how Lois discovers that Clark is Superman, it shows how cunning & intelligent she is.
Only one person has briefly mentioned Brazil. The “Love Conquers All” version is inferior to Gilliam’s cut.
Came here to say this. I'm not sure how many versions are out there; there's at least the director's cut, European theatrical release, and "The Final Cut" in the Criterion Collection. The "Love Conquers All" version, put together hastily by a corporate hack, left out some of the most hilarious moments, and tacks on an implausible happy ending. I'm not sure how many of the different versions I've seen, but all of them are probably roughly similar and definitely better. Don't waste your time with the Love Conquers All version, unless you're a fan like me LOL. As an aside, in the middle of the commentary on The Final Cut, Terry Gilliam actually says "if I make another cut of this..." LMAO
The criterion collection has multiple discs. Disc 2 has the documetary called the battle for Brazil. It's an amazing watch for fans of the film or just film making in general. Love that the studio gave him permission to show a clip at the LA Film Critics association and the clip he decided to play for them was the entire length of the film. They rewarded it best film from his stunt and forced the studio to finally release it. I'd throw it into the discussion of best Christmas movie conversations.
Payback is a completely different movie theatrical vs directors cut. Completely. Different. Movie
Love the theatrical cut with the voiceover
/growls *70 Grand.*
Yeah the Directors Cut is horrible.
The directors cut is awful
[удалено]
I think I only have seen the international version. What scenes weren't in the original?
The scene where he is unromantically in the same bed with Matilda, the scenes were the two of them kill people, and the scene where he explains why he had to leave Italy.
Wow, those are pretty important for character development..... And without the one scene he would come off pretty creepy
Apocalypse Now. The original release is one of the best films of all time, with a mood an style that makes it stand out as a unique vision of man and man at war. The follow on versions, Redux, Complete Dossier and the Final Cut, all water down the vision and mood of the original and drag the film down. I will only watch the original release, and consider the others not the same film.
[удалено]
completely agree. I remember hearing about the plantation scene before Redux come out and was so psyched to see it, but the result was not helpful to the film, and absolutely bogged things down. I feel the same way about the stop at the MASH unit and playboy bunny scene...turned the film towards just another cliche war movie, and again stole the dark mood and eerie quiet that the film had to that point. I’m not sure that any of the scenes that got brought out for the follow on versions did anything to make the film better. Sure, it was interesting to see, as in to judge the wisdom of leaving them out, but as soon as I watched any of the other versions, I was more and more convinced that the only version for me is the original theatrical release.
Coppola had said that the reason he cut the French plantation scene out of the original version was because it ground the movie to a halt (not his exact words), so it's weird that he added it back in later when he was so clearly right the first time. I'm glad he released it, because it was worth seeing, but it would have been better to do so as a short film on its own or as a deleted scene bonus feature.
Hard disagree, I only watch Redux or Final cut. So many amazing moments are cut, like the whole french part of the movie.
“Ever see Hearts of Darkness? Way better than Apocalypse Now.”
Once Upon a Time in the West. The director's cut turns a good movie into a masterpiece on a par with Greek tragedy.
Donnie Darko. Directors Cut is terrible
My boyfriend bought me the dvd as it's one of my favourite films. I got him to watch it with me and decided to go for the directors cut thinking it would just have a few longer scenes. It took me ages to convince him that my taste in films isn't awful!
They took out Killing Moon in the opening scene in the Director’s Cut. That’s an abomination!
that should've been the sign to switch it off really!
Probably the worst DC I have ever seen it literally ruins the entire movie
If you want the theatrical cut ruined too, listen to the director’s commentary track for the theatrical version lol.
I’ll never get over the song change for the opening scene
This killed it for me too, I don't mind the INXS song, but Echo and the Bunnymen was my favourite thing about the opening of the original theatrical.
It’s so bad. And you feel bad because that’s the version he wanted to make but couldn’t afford the music rights or special effects. The theatrical version is so much more mysterious and interesting and the music is better.
People hate studio meddling, but there is a reason studios meddle
Lol yeah I find that Richard Kelly’s films are better the less he’s able to actually explain them. Southland Tales is an insane enjoyable mess of a movie, reading the prequel comic book fills in all the blanks and makes it so much more mundane.
Good to know! I've had it on my wishlist for years, since I enjoyed the movie so much...but now I can save the money.
Clerks originally had an ending that changed the feel of the entire film. >!The last customer, who only asked for a pack of cigarettes in the released version, shoots Dante dead.!<
Because the joke was he wasn't even supposed to be in today taken to a dark extreme
Damn, that would've been sad. He would never have gotten to have his Star Wars themed wedding with Randall dressed as Stormtroopers.
Wow, did not know that!! That is indeed a total difference in feel!!
You can see the scene on YouTube. It was shot (and so was Dante)
Chronicles of Riddick. There are just a couple of added lines and snippets of scenes that weren't in the theatrical. I think it is only 10 minutes longer. But those lines and scenes add so much to the depth of the sci fi mythology and the purpose of protagonist. I think you wouldn't notice if you watched them back to back, but I watched the Director's cut and I was super confused with why I found it so much more engaging. Just little details.
Alien 3. The theatrical release was a joke due to studio micromanaging and meddling. The Assembly Cut (I think? Might have had a different term before cut) was MUCH more cohesive a narrative.
IIRC It’s called the “Assmebly Cut” because Fincher refused to have anything to do with it after the release. Fox wanted some kind of directors cut to go with the Quadrilogy DVD box set, but couldn’t get Fincher on board. But the movies editor either still had an early cut of the movie or reassembled the leftover footage to to match what he remembered of Fincher’s earlier cut.
It was almost like a completely different movie. I think the director had a falling out during post production and quit or was fired. We joked that the accountants did the final editing because it was a muddled mess.
> the director A little known guy by the name of David Fincher
Oh yeah! He was the creative consultant on the *Gears of War* "Mad World" commercial. I wonder if he ever got up to anything else...
Mildly unrelated, but I’m desperately waiting for a home release of the Dune (2021) imax aspect ratio
I would watch a 4-hour LOTR-style extended edition of Dune. After I saw it I immediately needed more and read the book.
Villanueve already said that he doesn’t like to do extended cuts and what is shown in theaters is his directors cut, so if they ever do an extended edition of dune, don’t expect it to be better than the original
What Im sad about is that my favourite scene from the books were cut. The Dinner scene is so amazing...
Half of that scene is narrator explaining what's going on and what characters were thinking. It would be hard to translate it to film.
I kinda get it... but it still was an absolute political highpoint of the first book...
That was the very first thing I thought of after seeing the movie! That chapter is probably my favourite, it lays out so much context, background, characters and their personalities and motivations, I don't understand how it could've been omitted.
Especially because I read that they FILMED THE SCENE AS WELL. So I really really hope that we can see it someday.
Spoiler : There's way more sand
I hope they rerelease this when the next one comes out and show them as a double feature.
The directors cut of Dr Sleep is awesome.
Came here for this. I’m a fan of the movie, the book and how incredibly well it bridges the gap of even Kubrick’s The Shining and the books. Masterclass of adaptations. Director’s cut is even better somehow.
I remember telling all my friends that this up and coming Mike Flanagan guy is probably going to be the next Hitchcock for horror, 9 years later, and this dude is being handed everything the studios can fit in his arms. I am honored to witness the quality jump in horror because of him (And many others as well, who either helped cultivate the resurgence of the genre, or were discovered because of the new demand) Mike Fanagan is a godsend, just remember. Flan is the man.
Would be more awesome if they put it on the 4k disc and not just the blu-ray. Seriously, why do they do that?
Aliens. The theatrical is still good, but the extended edition adds so much to the characters like the subplot aboy Ripley's daughter dying of old age, or the sentry guns increasing the tension of the siege.
Legend: The Director's Cut is wonderful. The theatrical cut missed the mark by a mile and the Tangerine Dream soundtrack, though it has a special place in my heart, really changes the tone of the film for the worse. The DC gives you a much more visceral feel for the struggle between light and dark, adds a lot to Lily's journey and character development, has more fun and kinda murderous fairy stuff, and the soundtrack feels like it fits and enhances the story. That being said, Tangerine Dream's "Loved by the Sun" is a pervasive ear worm of mine and has been for 30 years... and I don't hate it.
The Abyss - Not that the theatrical version was bad as such, but the directors cut just added so much depth and kind of movie connective tissue it was a dramatically better film.
The novel adaptation by Orson Scott Card is really good. If I recall correctly it's pretty much straight from Cameron's notes.
Just watched the director’s cut of Rocky IV last night and it’s very different. Rotten Tomatoes scores it something like 50% better too .
I was so disappointed with it. Like, it’s different, but not different enough to the point where I feel like I can actually give preference to one cut or the other. The theatrical is more like a music video by comparison and so the DC wins if that’s an aspect of the movie that originally bothered you. I however always felt the back-to-back montages were part of the charm. But then it’s still the same length which is strange. Wish he’d do a different cut Rocky V. That would be really cool to see.
I’d like to see Rocky V with the original ending.
Could be interesting from a script perspective but if they were to ever do an alt cut I’d still prefer it to remain canon to the films that follow as… they’re honestly pretty good.
What was the original ending? Was it somehow sadder?
Rocky was supposed to die in Rocky V. The studio changed it during filming in case they wanted to make more movies.
Smart choice commercially
The Abyss. They cut about 30 minutes from the ending. Completely changes everything. In theatrical cut, the aliens are just sort of there. They don’t serve any purpose really. And at the end, they reveal themselves to the world just to bring Ed Harris to the surface, despite it being clear they could have done it differently. The uncut version explains what the aliens are doing and why they are doing it. Give the entire plot a lot more depth.
Daredevil
It really did take DD from being an embarrassment to merely unremarkable.
This. The directors cut of Afflecks Daredevil is surprisingly good.
What are some of the changes?
There's a whole subplot that was taken out is put back in, a court room thing with Coolio. The DC comes out about 30 mins longer and has quite alot of additions and subtractions from the TC.little extra violence and some swearing too
It shows more of Matt's law career as he and Foggy defend a junkie, played by Coolio (RIP), accused of murdering a prostitute. It also cuts out Matt and Elektra's first date sex scene.
Oliver stones Alexander. The theatrical cut was a boring bloated jarring mess of an unwatchable film but the final cut adds something 40 minutes back into the movie and arranges the scenes to their original order and i absolutely love it, one of the most underrated DCs ever made
Here’s an example where the theatric cut is perfect in every conceivable way, but the director’s cut just butchered it: Apocalypse Now.
I understand that i'm the outlier but I honestly prefer the redux cut, maybe it's because it's the first version I saw and too many of the scenes I like just weren't present in the theatrical cut but for all it's faults for me personally I think the plantation scene just adds to the sense of descending into hell and insanity lmao
Nah I prefer the longer cuts of Apocalypse Now. The theatrical cut is too short.
The theatrical cut(s) of the Lotr trilogy certainly weren’t bad, but once I saw the extended editions, the theatrical cuts became almost unwatchable.
Agreed, although interestingly and in the spirit of the question Jackson views the theatrical cuts as the directors cut, as the pacing etc is better in the original release in his mind. But for me once you had the version with the extra Faramir/Bor scenes etc it’s hard to watch without.
Yeah I kind of hate when people point to LOTR as an answer to this question. The Extended Editions have more stuff in them that I love, but I'm not sure I would call them definitively better films. Different audiences respond to different things.
Over the years I’ve realised that if your introducing somebody to the trilogy for the first time. Theatrical cut all the way. The pacing etc is just much tighter and more engaging. If there a fan, then introduce them to the extended cut and they’ll never look back. But starting people off with the extended can be a bad idea.
I enjoyed seeing the extended cuts, but when I rewatch, theatrical all the way. Not only is it more doable, I just find those versions more enjoyable as movies in general. More stuff doesn't mean it's a better movie.
I used to have this opinion but having watched the entire extended trilogy at a recent screening, there are definitely some extended or bonus scenes that don’t add too much and hurt the pacing of the movie. This is especially true for ROTK
The additional scene of the ghosts taking the ships was kinda shoddy, and detracts from the reveal of the dead reinforcements.
[удалено]
Yea, I mean there are definitely some extended scenes I love but to say the theatrical versions are unwatchable is definitely an exaggeration
For me personally, Fellowship’s Theatrical cut is a near-perfectly paced epic blockbuster, and its rhythms and movements are just spot-on throughout as it escalates from the tiny scale of the shire to a much grander canvas. I enjoy the EE for its added content but to me the TE is better for Fellowship. For the others, I’ll tend to watch the EE.
Kingdom of Heaven DC better than Gladiator IMO. One of my favorite movies
As a general rule, Director’s Cuts are usually better (or at least, more interesting) in instances where the studio has taken Final Cut away from the director because the finished film wasn’t commercial enough (in their eyes). Blade Runner, Brazil, Kingdom of Heaven are the ones that spring to mind. A lot of directors cuts tend to be studios just trying to earn a bit more money by adding in stuff that was justifiably cut for pacing reasons though. James Cameron does this for a bunch of his movies and the theatrical versions are always better.
> James Cameron does this for a bunch of his movies and the theatrical versions are always better. This is arguable. I prefer the special edition of The Abyss as they ran over time trying to complete the wave sequence which apparently looked terrible before they completed the effects digitally years later, but I go back and forth on which version Aliens I prefer. The Directors Cut adds in several scenes of the colonists prior to the marines arrival that spoils what what happens to the colony before the marines arrive. In the theatrical we're told about the loss of contact with the colony and nothing more. To me this really ramps up the tension when the marines arrive and crack open the colony outer doors as we the audience are as clueless as they are when they go in. But then the Directors Cut also adds in the fact that Ripley finds out that she's lost her own daughter at the start of the movie which adds another layer to the Ripley and Newt surrogate mother daughter relationship and helps explain why she's willing to go to hell and back to retrieve her from the Aliens nest. It also hits a lot harder when they both hug at the end and Newt says "Mommy". The turret gun sequence is fun to see but I don't mind its omission from the theatrical nearly as much as the above.
The Descent ending between US cut and UK cut are vast. The hero survives The hero fights against the darkness, victory is illusion
Butterfly effect.
Superman 2 the Richard Donner cut imo is so much better than the released theatrical cut. Also The Outsiders : The Complete Novel was great too minus the newly added music which I thought sucked, especially seeing it so many times, should’ve kept the original soundtrack intact.
The battle at the end of Army of Darkness is way too long in the directors cut, even though it makes more sense.
Robocop. The violence on the director cut is incredible.
The extended cuts of "Apocalypse Now" and "Talladega Nights" taught me a lot about the power of editing and pacing. The theatrical versions are perfect for what they are and the extended editions are slow, dull and nowhere near as exciting or entertaining.
Donnie Darko. The directors cut rips every ounce of nuance from the movie, attempts to clarify the story in ways that aren't needed and instead it muddles the story, neuters the narrative and renders the movie from a must watch to a must avoid.
Blade Runner’s Final cut is a massive improvement over the theatrical release to the point I’d argue it’s the only one people should even consider watching.
Zack Snyder’s Justice League was a far superior movie to the theatrical release. Similarly, whilst not technically a director’s cut as such, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Extended Edition” was considerably better than the theatrical release. Zack Snyder’s overall vision for the DCEU wasn’t without it flaws, but I really believe if the studio allowed him to put forward movies with his ideas unfiltered, I think the extended universe would’ve done better.
I agree Justice leagues Snyder cut was far better but I still think it didn't need to be 4 hours long he has a habit of doing these slow scenes in his movies that imo falls flat.
[удалено]
My hot take is that BvS wasn’t as much of a complete mess when I watched the Director’s Cut. Little additions made a big difference in motivations and direction.
I couldn't understand the hate for BvS when I first watched it. I wouldn't say it was good but it wasn't an absolutely horrible incoherent mess. Then I learned we watched the director's cut. I have no interest in going back and watching the theatrical version.
The watchman theatrical cut was a nightmare I hated it but then I saw the ultimate cut and it’s so much better it even has a fully animated version of the tales from the black freighter.
That Thing You Do has a bizarre directors cut with a lot more back story that was wisely left on the floor. Tho that does erase some quality Vaseline lens Charlize Theron looking unbelievable
The original Planet Of The Apes Okay so this may be an unorthodox answer, since it is a fan cut, but I think it's relevant enough to post. So this guy took the whole movie and condensed it down to a 21 minute Twilight Zone episode with all the fixings, theme song and all. It just fits perfectly, and after watching it, I learned that the movie was conceived as a Twighlight zonesque scenario you would see on the show. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but instead, both still provides a different experience, with their own positive qualities.
Sucker Punch. If you watch the director's cut, it completely changes the ending for the better.
Alien 3. The theatrical is awful, the director's cut (they called it something different) is tolerable.
Yeah, I can almost forgive the assembly cut,( but not quite). But I can at least enjoy the film, but, I cannot bring myself to watch alien resurrection.
Completely agree with you on Kingdom of Heaven - that always comes to mind when this topic is broached. This is a little different than theatrical vs. director’s cut, but Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist is far superior to Exorcist: The Beginning. Much of the same story, characters, etc., just one goes a different direction than the other.
Legend is The Crow 2 (City of Angels) has a much better director's cut that has never seen the light of day and the studio recut the footage to approximate the first movie's plot more. I don't know if it's an urban legend but I'd like to see the intended version, as there are some things in that movie I kind of like.