Theatrical, Director's, Extended, Unrated, and Special

[Duke Togo]

The idea for this topic kinda sprung out of an ongoing debate in the Star Wars blu-ray thread, and I thought there might be enough folks around here interested in film to make a real discussion out of it (not centered around Star Wars).

Theatrical cuts of films may or may not have been altered by studio exec's who have no business touching film. Director's cuts may return film to its original intended "vision," but was that vision too unwieldy or unfocused to begin with? Are extended and special editions anything more than a marketing ploy? And WTF is an "unrated" cut, anyway?

Personally, I feel the whole theatrical vs director's cut argument largely depends on the film and the director. There is no question in my mind that the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is vastly superior for the theatrical, for instance. Extended and special editions are a novelty for me, and I'll check them out if the original film was something I enjoyed. Apocalypse Now and Gladiator are both films I love, but I've found their extended versions to be interesting at best, and too much at their worst. As far as "unrated" versions, I've never seen one, but I always assumed these editions meant nothing more that more boobs and cursing.

Anyway, I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone who is interested in the discussion. It's not about being right or wrong, and maybe we'll all find something new to watch in the process.You wanna talk about the SW Special Editions? Go for it. The "restored" version of Metropolis? Keen. Blade Runner Final Cut? I've got your unicorn right here.

[Dynaman]

Theatrical cuts of films may or may not have been altered by studio exec's who have no business touching film.

They own the film (in nearly all cases), that gives them the right to make whatever changes they want - it is the devil's bargain that goes with studio funding. Despite the horror stories of studio execs butchering movies they are also just as often responsible for making them better as well.

[areaseven]

HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING (1991)

I've seen the original theatrical release, and yes, it was crap. I haven't seen Russell Mulcahy's 1995 "Renegade Version" or the 2004 "Special Edition". Anyone care to discuss?

[eugimon]

"unrated" implies language/sex/violence but all it really means is that the version hasn't gone before the ratings board. It doesn't have to have more of anything naughty.

As for director versus studio. I think it's important to not who is making the movie in the first place. Certainly there are some directors who have a specific vision and a specific movie they want to make. Other directors are guns for hire and they make the movie the studio or producer wants to make.

This is certainly the case for brukheimer flicks. Certainly the director brings their own sensibility and flair to a project it's silly to say that Brukheimer doesn't, ultimately, call the shots on his flicks.

[Duke Togo]

When I saw Aliens at a theater in Dallas 1986, it had the famous "sentry gun" scene in it. For years none of my friends knew what I was talking about, nor could I find any proof that the scene existed. It wasn't until the special editions of the Alien movies came out in the late 90's that I finally saw that scene again. However, the added scene with Newt's parents seems unnecessary to me, though it's not enough to put me off of watching it.

BTW, as far as Highlander II goes, it's the only movie I've ever walked out of in the theater. I don't care how they cut it, I don't think you can salvage anything out of that mess.

[mikeszekely]

This thread popped up while I was replying in the SW BR thread, so I'll just quote what I wrote there.

But the arguments always seem to break into two camps. One side wants the movies as they remember them from the theater, and complains that Lucas is raping their childhood with every edit he makes. The other side shrugs, accepts Lucas' right to make whatever tweaks to the art that he created, and is content to buy whatever version is available because hey, it's Star Wars.

Why can't there be a middle ground, though? I accept Lucas' ownership and am largely ambivalent to whatever changes Lucas wants to make... I'll go so far as to say that I think some are for the better, like using Hayden Christensen for Anakin's ghost in RotJ. But given how many other films are released with both a theatrical cut and a second extended/unrated/Director's cut, is it really that unreasonable to suggest that Lucas should have included both the Special Editions and the original releases in the Blu-ray box?

[VF5SS]

what about the DYRL remaster where they fixed a few coloring errors

but didn't fix the Hikaru VF-1S cockpit shield issue :c

[ae_productions]

When I saw Aliens at a theater in Dallas 1986, it had the famous "sentry gun" scene in it. For years none of my friends knew what I was talking about, nor could I find any proof that the scene existed. It wasn't until the special editions of the Alien movies came out in the late 90's that I finally saw that scene again. However, the added scene with Newt's parents seems unnecessary to me, though it's not enough to put me off of watching it.

BTW, as far as Highlander II goes, it's the only movie I've ever walked out of in the theater. I don't care how they cut it, I don't think you can salvage anything out of that mess.

I think Cameron was trying to show the Audience how hectic and populated LV-426 was at the beginning of the film. It also shows us what Rebecca (Newt) lost. This sets up a stronger connection between Newt and Ripley, as we discover her own daughter had died of old age while she was lost in space.

It creates a different tone all together, as the theatrical cut is more of a mystery. We don't see LV-426 until the Marines arrive. The connection with Ripley and Newt is more implied with a little less force. But we (the audience) get it.

The scene with the sentry guns just rocked. It showed how ruthless, maniacal and determined the Aliens are to get the humans. Makes the surviving Marines hopes seem to fade.

I don't know. I think I prefer the Director's cut of Aliens over the theatrical. It feels more of an epic film.

Same with the Abyss. The Director's cut of the Abyss is actually quite a different movie all together with the few scenes they added.

Some movies, like Star Wars, I prefer the Theatrical cut. Am I being nostalgic? Maybe.

Lucas is a great storyteller, but he's no fine wine. I think each "tampering" he does of the original trilogy degrades it ever so slightly to the lower levels of the prequels.

Solo shot first.

Directors cut vs Theatrical? It depends on the filmmaker and the movie. And, it's also personal preference.

As a movie fan, I dig the extra stuff. So, overall, I say I prefer the Director's cuts (and unrated).

[Duke Togo]

This thread popped up while I was replying in the SW BR thread, so I'll just quote what I wrote there.

That's really the whole thing, Mike. I don't care what he does, if he also provides us with the originals. I also don't feel that he "raped" my childhood; I think such analogies and childish and borderline offensive.

[treatment]

I luv the Blade Runner collector's edition and I reckon that's how releases should be. That edition contains all the known official versions of the film. However, it seems like it's the biggest exception to this issue.

Not really sure why Lucas don't want to include the theatrical originals (at very least, the original trilogy), alongside his new-and-improved versions. I mean, it prolly will give him even more profits and very much less rage directed at him and his shenanigans.

:shrug:

[sketchley]

Aside from Star Wars, the majority of the directors cuts have been either major improvements, or additions of interesting tidbits that further round out the movie, but ultimately prove to be unnecessary.

Abyss - Director's Cut: IS the superior cut. It totally changes the narrative of the film, and improves it considerably.

Alien - Director's Cut: an improvement on the original, as the way the crew treat each other adds a new dimension to the meaning of the title. The life-cycle of the xenomorph is also further rounded out.

Aliens - Extended Edition: as interesting as the scenes of the LV-426 colony, sentry guns and so forth are, I do agree that the removal of the scenes improve not only the pacing, but the overall fear and mystery of the movie.

Das Boot - Director's Cut: haven't seen the original theatrical cut, but man oh man, was blown away by this version.

Lord of the The Rings Trilogy - Extended Edition: in short, totally different films. They retain a whole bunch of elements and characterizations from the novels, but ultimately are not single-sitting movies.

Terminator 2 - Theatrical Version: 1 scene distinctly stands out that was cut in other version: after Sarah Conner breaks out of her room, she breaks a mop to create a weapon. Ultimately I agree with the choice to remove the scene.

Terminator 2 - Criterion Edition: not only adds the above scene, but also a few sequences of the T1000 breaking down during the final battle, and the Conner's opening up Arnie's head in a scene that's just a wonder to watch (there's a "mirror", but actors on both sides of the "glass". I think these scenes added to the film, but kinda agree that they tend to slow down the film.

Nothing else is coming to mind as I type this (I think I saw one or two other ones, maybe), not including the Star Wars films.

Nevertheless, with all movies removal of filmed sequences are decisions not taken lightly. As a manga artist I understand this as well as anyone in the business: even though we love some sequences, ultimately if it messes with the pacing and doesn't add anything to the narrative, it's more likely to be cut. In the above mentioned films, I think "the Abyss" is the only film that shouldn't have been cut the way it was for the theatrical edition.

[treatment]

obtw,

besides the theatrical/DC/UR/Spe, there's also the specific Criterion editions.

fwiw, i still haven't bought nor seen the recent non-Criterion BD of Brazil.

[Duke Togo]

Abyss director's cut I never much liked mainly because of the ending. It just seemed so heavy-handed to me.

Dad Boot is a bit different, because in it's original form it wasn't a film, it was a miniseries. The director's cut extends the run time by an hour, but it's still only just over half of it's original 6-hour length. I've seen both the theatrical and director's cuts, but the viewing was so many years apart I can't even tell you which was superior or what was different.

[mikeszekely]

I liked the Criterion version of Robocop, even if it was only stereo audio on the DVD. I bought the Blu-ray, haven't watched it though.

[azrael]

Lord of the The Rings Trilogy - Extended Edition: in short, totally different films. They retain a whole bunch of elements and characterizations from the novels, but ultimately are not single-sitting movies.

...

Nevertheless, with all movies removal of filmed sequences are decisions not taken lightly. As a manga artist I understand this as well as anyone in the business: even though we love some sequences, ultimately if it messes with the pacing and doesn't add anything to the narrative, it's more likely to be cut. In the above mentioned films, I think "the Abyss" is the only film that shouldn't have been cut the way it was for the theatrical edition.

I agree with Lord of the Rings. With each Theatrical cut clocking in at than 3 hours, that's a long time to make people sit already. The Extended editions fall in 3.5-4 hours. Unless you have that much free time, most normal people are not going to sit through all 4 hours of Return of the King's extended cut.

[Uxi]

Criterion Robocop rocks. I never go back to the R-rated version. Is the Criterion out on BD yet? Last I checked, it was only the theatrical/R-cut so I had passed.

I generally favor director's cuts/extended editions.

[Keith]

I agree that a theatrical version should be included regardless, but far more often than not, I tend to stick with extended/director's cuts of movies. As for Brazil, I hear Criterion has it in the pipeline for next year.

[anime52k8]

Alien - Director's Cut: an improvement on the original, as the way the crew treat each other adds a new dimension to the meaning of the title. The life-cycle of the xenomorph is also further rounded out.

Aliens - Extended Edition: as interesting as the scenes of the LV-426 colony, sentry guns and so forth are, I do agree that the removal of the scenes improve not only the pacing, but the overall fear and mystery of the movie.

I've actually always felt the opposite way about these 2. For me most of the added scenes in Alien didn't add much and slowed the film down, and I really dislike the bit with Dallas towards the end. On the other hand, I greatly prefer the extended version of Aliens. I think it better fleshes out some of the characters actions and I've always though the sentry gun scene worked really well in the whole of the film.

:edit:

Also; f*ck you Ridley Scott, Deckard is not a god damn Replicant. Just wanted to get that out there.

Edited September 21, 2011 by anime52k8

[Keith]

I've actually always felt the opposite way about these 2. For me most of the added scenes in Alien didn't add much and slowed the film down, and I really dislike the bit with Dallas towards the end. On the other hand, I greatly prefer the extended version of Aliens. I think it better fleshes out some of the characters actions and I've always though the sentry gun scene worked really well in the whole of the film.

:edit:

Also; f*ck you Ridley Scott, Deckard is not a god damn Replicant. Just wanted to get that out there.

Prepare to have your mind blown:

Deckard IS a replicant, and Replicants are CYLONS! This has all happened before, and this will all happen again!!

[anime52k8]

Prepare to have your mind blown:

Deckard IS a replicant, and Replicants are CYLONS! This has all happened before, and this will all happen again!!

Oh...

Well in that case it makes it all better. Thank you Keith.

[Keith]

ST movie extended/director's cuts not making it to bluray...discuss.

[anime52k8]

I wasn't even aware that there where extended versions of any of the ST movies besides TMP until this evening so I don't really mind.

[taksraven]

ST movie extended/director's cuts not making it to bluray...discuss.

Not such a big difference to Wrath of Khan, makes a VERY big difference to TMP if the didn't include the trims and new FX shots of V'Ger etc.

[Dynaman]

Not such a big difference to Wrath of Khan, makes a VERY big difference to TMP if the didn't include the trims and new FX shots of V'Ger etc.

The BEST version of TMP is the one on youtube where someone pieces together all the shots of the crew looking at the viewscreen and they use a "blue" movie to fill in the audio. As for making it BD, they went to the trouble of adding the shots for DVD, maybe they will go through the trouble of doing it again for BD.

[Duke Togo]

Also; f*ck you Ridley Scott, Deckard is not a god damn Replicant. Just wanted to get that out there.

The writer says he's not a replicant, Harrison Ford says he's not a replicant, and the book the movie is based on says he's not a replicant. Even with the silly unicorn scene, there's nothing in the movie that actually proves that he is a replicant.

And don't anyone bother to bring up the "eyes" bit; its already known that the scene where Deckard's eyes get that replicant look is because Ford accidentally stepped into Sean Young's light.

[ae_productions]

The writer says he's not a replicant, Harrison Ford says he's not a replicant, and the book the movie is based on says he's not a replicant. Even with the silly unicorn scene, there's nothing in the movie that actually proves that he is a replicant.

And don't anyone bother to bring up the "eyes" bit; its already known that the scene where Deckard's eyes get that replicant look is because Ford accidentally stepped into Sean Young's light.

I'm glad they didn't come out and say that he is or isn't a replicant. It's great because here we are, some 28 years later, still debating the issues.

I have not seen ALL the cuts of Blade Runner, but NONE of the ones i have seen have NOT said one way or the other if he is or isn't a replicant.

Ridley Scott is going to do another Blade Runner film. He signed on a few weeks back. Curious to see what they are going to do with it.

[Keith]

The writer says he's not a replicant, Harrison Ford says he's not a replicant, and the book the movie is based on says he's not a replicant. Even with the silly unicorn scene, there's nothing in the movie that actually proves that he is a replicant.

And don't anyone bother to bring up the "eyes" bit; its already known that the scene where Deckard's eyes get that replicant look is because Ford accidentally stepped into Sean Young's light.

Context. What the writer says is true, but only for the book. What Harrison Ford says is true, for the original cut of the film, he wasn't invovled with much else. What Ridley Scott says is true for the DC & Final Cut. Don't see how you can possibly argue that point.

[Dynaman]

The writer says he's not a replicant, Harrison Ford says he's not a replicant, and the book the movie is based on says he's not a replicant.

The book is so different that they are not nearly the same character either though. Only a couple of scenese make it intact from book to movie.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Dynaman

[Load Master]

I think the only true version of a film is the one that originally screened in theatres, the directors vision or not. ie you can't go back and change history imo. Now when you have different versions screening in different theatres (re Aliens sentry guns), then it gets more complicated..

[Dynaman]

I think the only true version of a film is the one that originally screened in theatres, the directors vision or not. ie you can't go back and change history imo. Now when you have different versions screening in different theatres (re Aliens sentry guns), then it gets more complicated..

Don't say that to George...

[Penguin]

Well, I think they're all marketing ploys, at the end of the day. Adding something different from the original theatrical release is an attempt to sway us to spend money on the new version. I do think some additions rise above mere marketing, while others are pretty transparent, and some down right pathetic.

I've found "unrated" cuts are usually the most suspect. It seems mostly applied to either raunchy comedies or horror films, but only rarely adds any real value. As someone else noted, it just means it didn't go before the MPAA, but the marketing implies so much more.

True "Director's Cuts" are supposed to be a restoration of the director's original version, good or bad, but the term is used erroneously too. Alien is a good example. Scott had final cut. Alien as shown in 1979 is the Alien he wanted. It already is the director's cut. The re-release with the altered footage was more of an experiment to add back in the "transformation" sequence with Dallas at the end, plus a few other deleted scenes, and of course, sell more tickets. Scott re-edited it and actually removed perfectly good footage to make space for some alternate scenes to try and keep the pacing up. In fact, it ended up shorter than the original release by a minute or two. Yet, they labelled this the "Director's Cut", when in fact he's on record saying he prefers the original.

Personally, I'm with Ridley on that. The only little scene I really liked was the added character bit of Lambert going postal on Ripley outside the sickbay. At least, I think that was in the re-release. If not, it's a cool deleted scene.

Generally, I've never held with any notion about a "true" version of a film. Some films are improved when revisited, some aren't. Regardless of what they add or why, it's all kinda hit and miss when it comes to the end result. Mostly it's all a matter of personal taste. I do think people get way too bent out of shape about changes. I adore film as a medium. Movies can have significant emotional impact on me. And yes, small changes in lighting, dialogue, camera position, can dramatically alter the impact of a scene. That's one of the cool things about the medium. But of all the things to get enraged about in this world, changes to a movie have to come in near dead freakin' last for me.

When I think of "altered releases", the following typically come to mind (excepting Alien, which I already touched on).

- Star Trek: The Motion Picture special edition does improve the visuals. No help for the pacing.

- The Independence Day special edition actually conquered the one thing that really shattered my suspension of disbelief when I first saw it... Jeff Goldblum writing a computer virus for the alien ship. The special edition adds a scene showing him using the captured fighter to figure out the computer system. Shows how one scene can really change your perception.

- Highlander II: the "Renegade" version: It's still a crappy movie, but they removed planet Zeist and fixed the really horrendous editing errors. (I mean, seriously, how did those even get into theatres?) One of those instances where any improvement is good.

- Aliens director's cut: I try to get people who haven't seen it to watch the theatrical version first. LV426 is so much creepier coming into it cold with the Marines. Afterwards, if you like the film, the director's cut adds dimension. I like 'em both, but there's a definite change in the experience from one to the other.

- Blade Runner: Love the Final Cut. 'nuff said.

- Superman the Movie: A little bit ambivalent on the additions. Some are good, some kinda slow it down, mostly positive, I think, but not always.

- Lord of the Rings: I bought the theatrical versions when they came out DVD, thinking "maybe some times I'll prefer a shorter trip". Never watched 'em.

- Apocalypse Now Redux: How to take a movie from slow burn to screeching halt.

- Green Lantern: Hasn't even been released, and I'm already thinkin' 6 more minutes ain't gonna change Hal Reynolds from being a whiny punk.

- The Descent had the ending changed for the North America release, so the DVD/Blu-ray release with the original downbeat UK ending is often portrayed as a "Director's Cut". Neil Marshall approved of the change, being of the opinion that it was the terrifying journey up to that point that was the real point of his movie (not to mention that it let the studio create an entirely repetitive and predictable sequel). So, from a certain perspective, they're both Director's Cuts.

Since it was brought up, I have to weigh in on the "Deckard replicant" issue. I know Ridley loves the idea from the plot twist perspective, but talk about a way to ruin a character's emotional arc. One of the major themes of the story, how the so-called artificial people have more emotional depth than so-called real people and Deckard growing as a result of his experience, is entirely junked if Deckard is a replicant. So, I gotta side with the screenwriter, and ignore Ridley's "gee whiz, that's sneaky of me" glee. If he does something in this future film to insist that Deckard was a replicant, I'll be disappointed.

It's not entirely on topic, but this also made me think of Danny Boyle's commentary on the alterate endings to "28 Days Later". If you like the film and haven't seen them, they represent to me a good case of how a director can get out of touch with the audience's experience.

The original ending had Cillian Murphy's character die of his gunshot wound. While it's realistic that the two women might not be able to heal him of such a wound, it also offs the single character the audience has focussed on for the entire film. Danny strangely thought it was still positive, because the girls will soldier on and survive, and couldn't seem to relate that at test screenings, audiences didn't care for the ending that rewards all of Cillian's heroics with death.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Penguin

[Duke Togo]

I was under the impression that Alien and Aliens were "special editions," and not "director's cuts." I'm fairly certain the theatrical cuts are the "intended" versions of the films.

Speaking of director's cuts, I don't think any single movie has benefited from one as much as Kingdom of Heaven.

[Penguin]

I was under the impression that Alien and Aliens were "special editions," and not "director's cuts." I'm fairly certain the theatrical cuts are the "intended" versions of the films.

Speaking of director's cuts, I don't think any single movie has benefited from one as much as Kingdom of Heaven.

Looking at my discs, you're right about Aliens. It's referred to as the 1991 Special Edition. Alien, though, was and is marketed as the 2003 Director's Cut, both in the DVD/Blu-rays and the big poster on my living room wall.

I don't know how I'd weigh the improvement against every other director's cut , but I'd very much agree Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut is immensely more enjoyable than the theatrical release.

One I didn't think benefited much: The Exorcist. Similar to the 2003 Alien, they marketed it around adding a single scene: the so-called "spider-walk". The end result didn't impress me much.

Here's one for people to consider: Terminator 2: Judgement Day Special Edition. As with Aliens and Avatar, it's another Cameron expansion which adds a lot of back story for the characters and makes an already long movie even longer. I know some who think the additions make it really drag, while others love the additional character bits. What are the opinions around here?

For that matter, how about the Avatar special edition? I never thought Avatar had all that impressive a story in the first place (very pretty, but pretty predictable), but I liked that the special edition added some more dimension to Jake, and I thought showing Earth in the opening scenes made Jake's later statement about how humanity had "killed its mother" a bit more resonant. On the flip side, you could argue that it's more effective leaving the squalor of future Earth to our imaginations, much like seeing only on Earth in Blade Runner leaves the audience with an appreciation why "Let's all go... to the colonies!" could be an attractive option.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Penguin

[Duke Togo]

I wouldn't watch Avatar again, no matter the cut.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Duke Togo

[BeyondTheGrave]

Avatar is overrated.

As for uncut versions; it depends on the genre and how well the movie did in the box office. Example: Salt. There's like 3-4 versions on the dvd release.