I don’t remember the differences (and there aren’t many) but Ridley Scott himself was asked to make a “director’s cut” of Alien for the Blu-ray release and he did… But he said something along the lines of “It was hard to figure out what to change. The theatrical cut already is the director’s cut. I made it the way I wanted it to be the first time around.”
Any of the original Star Wars trilogy films.
It’s probably worth pointing out that the original theatrical release of what we today call A New Hope was just released as Star Wars, wasn’t even called episode four, didn’t have a title crawl, and included that scene with Jabba but instead of it being Jabba it was some guy in a fur suit, so it’s going to depend on which directors cut you’re talking about.
and included that scene with Jabba but instead of it being Jabba it was some guy in a fur suit
The original theatrical release did not contain Jabba at all. A scene was shot with a human actor, but never used in the film.
We wouldn’t get Jabba in the film until the 1997 Special Edition, which replaced him with CGI. In the documentary alongside that release we do see the original clip and Han stepping on Jabba’s tail is due to Harrison Ford moving around the human actor in a way that doesn’t work with a tail in the way.
We also later got an updated Jabba for the DVD release.
https://screenrant.com/star-wars-jabba-hutt-human-actor-change-reason/
The Star Wars Movies have had fans create despecialized editions, to match the theatrical releases. Ive made sure to keep a copy of them on my media server. I really enjoy them.
I think the intention of this post is to look at theatrical/physical release vs the directors cut.
Star Trek VI. The director’s cut interrupts the extremely dramatic mind-meld interrogation scene with another obnoxious flashback every time a character is implicated. I suppose between releases the director must have lost faith in his audience’s ability to follow the story without having their hands held.
Leon, The Professional. Besson is a creep.
anything Zack Snyder gets his hands on. literally anything. he’ll take an ok theatrical release and then turn into 3 hours of sheer boredom.
I might say Donnie Darko as the Director’s Cut may complicate the movie a bit for those who prefer the mystery of the theatrical one.
I would say the musical choices are better in the theatrical cut as well.
The theatrical cut of Legend, by Ridley Scott, has an awesome prog rock soundtrack.
The director’s cut has some generic fantasy movie musical noodling.
It’s not even close.
shit, i need to look into this because I remember loving Legend back in the day
I swore that was the case but i honestly didn’t by find much on it.
It’s in the Post-production section of the movie’s Wikipedia article.
Justice League
How??? The Snyder cut wasn’t anything to write home about but the theatrical cut was terribly boring.
The first release was a cringe yet-another-superhero-movie, the director’s cut was masturbation over a cringe movie made even longer.
The theatrical Justice League has two things going for it: brevity, and Batman’s “just save one” mentor moment with The Flash, which was nice.
Everything else about Snyder’s cut is better. It looks better, it sounds better, each scene in isolation plays better, it has fewer cringy jokes. Most importantly, it retains Cyborg’s story arc, which it turns out was the heart of the whole damn movie.
Oh, to me both were bad and, generally speaking, I’ve been overdosing on superhero movies, it just never stops and each one is even more slopish than the last. I just remember the director’s cut of this one leaving me even more apathetic than the theatre cut, when we were promised that it would make more sense, be more interesting, etc. It was not. The superhero slop has to stop.
If you aren’t having a good time either way, the theatrical’s 90 minute running time is a huge advantage. But then you should probably just walk away, rather than try again with a 4 hour cut. I enjoyed Snyder’s version well enough once, but I’ll likely never rewatch it just because of the time investment required.
Oh no, I’d die before I pay to watch an american movie. I just need background noise when I’m working on my computer. A movie is good when it actually grabs my attention away from what I’m doing. Both versions did not.
Oh no, I’d die before I pay to watch an american movie.
Glad to hear it, the less money being sent to that country the better. The only money I’ve given to any film or TV for the past year or more has been to CBC Gem and BritBox.
I imagine most movies would suck if I watched them the way you do, though. Podcasts or talking head YouTubers are my preference for choring background.
If I may, I’d like to recommend the animated movie Justice League: War (2014). It’s basically a shorter version of JL17 and ZSJL, all three films are adapted from the same comic. Of the three, this is the best.
In my experience, all of them.
The directors cut isn’t about watching the movie itself, but examining the process of producing a film - dissecting it.
Two different experiences.
I’d argue that James Cameron’s “The Abyss” director’s cut is superior to the theatrical. The extra 25min introduces some extra plot details in the climax that really flesh out the ending
The director’s cut for Blade Runner is a massive improvement on the theatrical version because it removes the narration the studio forced in. A lot of director’s cuts include a few scenes that make a movie work when they were cut or changed to meet some silly studio meddling.
Which one?
There are 7 of them.
What about watching a directors cut unknowingly and loving it?
/end of thread!!!
Empire Records. The directors cut tries to make Rex Manning a more sympathetic character but it just works better with him as a villain.
I don’t know as to whether Rex was really a villain. He was just an arsehole.
Mitchell, however, was a prick from top to bottom.
Deadpool 2.
Theatrical jokes are better.
I didn’t know there was a director’s cut of any Deadpool movie. I knew there was the PG-13 version of Deadpool 2 called “Once Upon a Deadpool” that featured Fred Savage like in Princess Bride
Stargate. The director’s cut tried to add to much plot, and the best bits by a mile were the action scenes!
It’s a Roland Emmerich film. He makes stupid but exciting movies. Stargate is hugely stupid, but it’s exciting. Made for the basis of a great TV series too.
Sonic Adven-wait.
Mallrats. The extended cut is just awful and Kevin Smith agrees.
And now you can only find the garbage extended cut as a download online. I had to download like 12 different torrents just to watch the real movie.
It’s funny I was gonna mention Mallrats and came across your comment.
100%, I didn’t even know this existed and it took a long time to find the right version again
I remember seeing a print release of the Clerks and Chasing Amy screenplays that had an intro by Kevin Smith. He talked about how the reception of Mallrats was really disappointing because the general thrust of most reviews was “how dare he sell out like this?” But there was one review that said “it’s clear Smith loves slapstick comedy but he just doesn’t know how to direct it.” He felt like that was a review of the movie and not of the movement he was imagined to be part of.
Gladiator. The director’s cut adds a lot of unnecessary content, which just messes up the pacing of the movie. And sadly, the theatrical cut is hard to come by (impossible?) in HD format.
And sadly, the theatrical cut is hard to come by (impossible?) in HD format.
