Bullets 'n' Babes

An interesting read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr ... ectors-cut

How ironic this article had to be revised

The simple fact is, the majority of the time, the director is right. Kingdom of Heaven is a better film because of Scott's decision to re-work it. As is Blade Runner. If I have to put up with the Michael Bay's of this world (who's largely lost the plot and given "too" much creative freedom, Bad Boys and The Rock are great action flicks) to keep the studios OUT, then so be it.

It's when the studios get involved and release pointless extended cuts (putting back scenes deleted for a reason) that it gets annoying. That most Director's Cuts get later released, just proves the studios always end up realising they were wrong to get involved.

I'm just for good cinema!

If there is a real reason why a film isn't released as it should be, Blade Runner, Superman 2...then I'm all for it.

Shit that gets released on home formats that is just a studio cash in should be avoided, Spiderman 2.1, Sin City Extended Cut etc..

There's no blanket rule for what gets released, nor will there ever be..just do your research before buying..some of the changes aren't important. Other stuff like the reconstructed 'Fincher' cut of Alien3 is a gem when it does drop, but it's only interesting if you're an 'in the know' fan

I do like 'unrated' comedies though (different topic) but again sometimes more isn't better!

There's a couple of things I'd like to emphasize

1) It's not always so obvious whose project the film is. While I like to see directors as artists, some movies are in fact producers's films. It might have been the producer who had the vision, and an employee (director) was simply hired to film that vision. Example: The Empire Strikes Back. That's not Irvin Kershner's vision, it's George Lucas's vision.

2) Nevertheless, it's indeed very common that the final cut of a film was requlated by the financers, not the artists. If the artist, who ever it was, was not allowed to release the film in its "original form", then I'm only glad to see a "director's cut" released. However, the new version should attempt to restore the film back to its original form, not create a brand new film with added CGI and editing techniques that didn't exist the at time the film was shot.

3) Once a movie has been released publicly, it would be a fair practice to keep that version accessible to people from then on. In other words, even if the theatrical cut was not the director's preferred version, it should still be made available on home video format rather than only releasing a director's cut. It's kinda unfair if they show one version in theaters, some people become fans of that version, and they later they try to prevent people from ever seeing that cut anymore.

"Extended Versions" are a different topic. They're just extra versions or special edits, and should be treated as such.

It's also a shame most people judge a film once, not caring the widlely available version has been tampered with. Kingdom of Heaven is a good example of this, it deserves to be respected much than it is but because the theatrical cut is inferior it never will be.

It's annoying television showings tend to always only show the theatrical cut, despite a superior version being equally as available. They've got a responsibility to show the right version of the film.

HungFist wrote:1) It's not always so obvious whose project the film is. While I like to see directors as artists, some movies are in fact producers's films. It might have been the producer who had the vision, and an employee (director) was simply hired to film that vision. Example: The Empire Strikes Back. That's not Irvin Kershner's vision, it's George Lucas's vision.

True.

HungFist wrote:"Extended Versions" are a different topic. They're just extra versions or special edits, and should be treated as such.

Further confusion lies when Director's Cuts get called Extended Cuts and Extended Cuts get called Director's Cuts. I've seen Termintator 2: Special Edition labelled as the Director's Cut when Cameron is on record saying it's more an alternate version.

I don't disagree with your points at all but in the case of Empire Strikes Back, Kershner actually put a lot of his own time into making the dialogue work (rewriting and planning out scenes to add humour and life, naturalistic speech and real interplay between the actors). It's said that the Star Wars characters never felt so real as they did in Empire and I agree with that, and would add it's wholly down to the efforts of the Irvin Kershner, not Lucas.

Obviously we all know Star Wars is a 'magic' film that just worked, but if you compare Empire and Jedi the third film has that actors just delivering lines (usually just explaining what they are doing, as they are doing it). If it wasn't such and accomplished production all round, Jedi would be almost as bad as the Prequels for that..

But good discussion!

Love it when I kill a thread...

The theatrical cut of Donnie Darko is significantly better than the director's cut.

gasteropod wrote:The theatrical cut of Donnie Darko is significantly better than the director's cut.

Everyone seems to think that but I liked both and found the DC just as confusing.

I originally saw the theatrical cut years ago, then I bought the DC on DVD and found it a lesser experience because the mystery was gone, in fact the film felt quite different altogether. That's the version I've watched over the years, but yesterday finally gave the theatrical cut a second viewing because I've just got the Blu-ray which contains both versions, and my God it's so much better.

bradavon wrote:Kingdom of Heaven is a better film because of Scott's decision to re-work it.

Instant fail way to start a thread, a shite film which is just as shite with more pointless footage inserted forcefully into it

If that is the best longer cut you can think of, well.....

The Warriors DC is inferior to the theatrical version,with pointless "comic book" style transitions.annoyingly the DC is the only version available on BD.

Universal marketed the expanded cut of The Frighteners as 'the director's cut' despite the fact that Jacksin claims several times on the disc that it's not. The theatrical cut is his director's cut, the alternate is just that. Something more for the fans.

Studios are all too quick to explit the DC tag. Anyone here believe for a second that those 'DC's of the Lethal Weapon sequels were genuine?

saltysam wrote:annoyingly the DC is the only version available on BD.

Good point. Shit like this is a travesty when it happens.

luckystars wrote:

saltysam wrote:annoyingly the DC is the only version available on BD.

Good point. Shit like this is a travesty when it happens.

yeah and the annoying thing is,this is a genuine DC,done by Walter Hill who is convinced this is his true vision.so i guess we'll be stuck with it.When i first heard about a Warriors DC i was pleased,i finally thought i was going to see again the pre-credit Coney Island sequence only ever shown on BBC 2 years ago...no such luck.

Irvin Kershner and Lawrence Kasdan had a tremendous amount of input in Empire Strikes Back, to say it is George Lucas' vision is simply flat out wrong.

As always there are good and bad examples of "Directors Cuts", and it's not always obvious which titles are genuine DCs and which are just studio marketing stunts. You also have examples like Leon where the longer cut represents the director's "original" vision, but the director themselves seemingly learned to love and prefer the shorter cut when editing a film down.

Shingster wrote:Irvin Kershner and Lawrence Kasdan had a tremendous amount of input in Empire Strikes Back, to say it is George Lucas' vision is simply flat out wrong.

ok, ok, my bad, but you know what I meant.

HungFist wrote:

Shingster wrote:Irvin Kershner and Lawrence Kasdan had a tremendous amount of input in Empire Strikes Back, to say it is George Lucas' vision is simply flat out wrong.

ok, ok, my bad, but you know what I meant.

Actually Gary Kurtz too. Which is why he quit the team after Empire, knowing what Lucas had planned for Jedi...an all out toy movie!!

And I still love it too

Shingster wrote:You also have examples like Leon where the longer cut represents the director's "original" vision, but the director themselves seemingly learned to love and prefer the shorter cut when editing a film down.

Yeah the same with Kiyoshi Kurosawa & Bright Future, and possibly Stanley Kubrick & The Shining.

Or Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev which has several Directors cuts!

Are the LOTR EE's Peter Jackson's DC's? They certainly feel like it.

grim_tales wrote:Are the LOTR EE's Peter Jackson's DC's? They certainly feel like it.

Nope they are Frank Bruno's

Yeah, a lot of people forget that Kubrick cut 'The Shining' himself and preferred the shorter version.

Sometimes less is more.

The extended 'Leon' is interesting, but I prefer the theatrical cut. Besson knew what he was doing.

I'm very happy with the full cut of The Shining though, I don't feel that it drags.

They could do with cutting most of it, as it sucks

Do you like any Kubrick?