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

[taksraven]

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

I think it depends on the style of the "directors cut". If is the sort of thing that the director had his cut and the studio refused to release it and then they release their own version, (resulting in Alan Smithee as director), I think that the ultimate release of the "original" version is important. (most of Zack Snyders films seem to go through this process)

I think that the directors cut of Dark City was far superior to the version that was released in the cinema's.

If it is a director just trying to correct their "errors" later on (I'm lookin at you, George L.) I am much more wary of it....

[BeyondTheGrave]

I think it depends on the style of the "directors cut". If is the sort of thing that the director had his cut and the studio refused to release it and then they release their own version, (resulting in Alan Smithee as director), I think that the ultimate release of the "original" version is important. (most of Zack Snyders films seem to go through this process)

I think that the directors cut of Dark City was far superior to the version that was released in the cinema's.

If it is a director just trying to correct their "errors" later on (I'm lookin at you, George L.) I am much more wary of it....

What changes were made/added in dark city?

[taksraven]

What changes were made/added in dark city?

From wikipedia, which is always right....

"A director's cut of Dark City was also officially released on DVD and Blu-ray Disc on July 29, 2008. The DVD version removes the opening narration which the director felt explained too much of the plot, and restores it to its original location in the film. The director's cut also includes 15 minutes of additional footage, generally consisting of extended scenes with additional establishing shots and dialogue.[66] The DVD also includes expanded audio commentaries by Ebert, Proyas, Dobbs and Goyer, and several new documentaries. The Blu-ray disc includes all the content from the DVD version, as well as the original theatrical cut and the special features from the 1998 DVD release."

[Major Focker]

Can't help but notice that most of the examples are Ridley Scott films. So either many of you are fans or RS is just notorious

Anyway, fully agree on Kingdom of Heaven. The studio did the film a disservice with the theatrical cut. Can't recall any other movie that benefited so much from a director's cut, but despite this many still dismiss the film citing historical inaccuracies or a "wandering moral compass". Well, I don't think a re-cut can ever address the first, and as for the second charge, I think they're missing the whole point.

To a lesser extent, Troy DC was also an improvement. Too bad a re-cut can't change some of the really bad dialogue.

Haven't watched Alexander DC yet, but from what I've read, I shouldn't get my hopes up, even if I'm thinking that similar things have been said about KoH DC. Shame really, it was a very good subject.

As for Gladiator, I can appreciate why RS had to put in a disclaimer on the extended version. As you watch this version, RS appears at the start explaining that it is an extended version but not the director's cut (which is the theatrical release). By the time I finished watching, I could understand why. Some argue the added scenes enriched the characters or even the sense of place (or "sense of Rome" as some put it). I liked some of the additions, but for most I felt it was too much hand holding and it really mucked up the pacing.

Same thing for LOTR, although I did find that it had a better ratio of good additions vs. bad. The problem is that they are already very long films. Some say that the side stories and/or character development scenes that were added really enriched the film and brought the films much closer to the books. But I haven't fully read the books so I don't know what I'm missing, and from what I could discern, the original versions weren't particularly lacking in terms of plot and character development. Sure, it's a nice world to delve into and expound further, but it has to be in manageable chunks for the chosen medium (ie. perhaps it might have been better as a 6-part mini series), and not at the expense of pacing. I distinctly recall an instance where the insertion of an added scene utterly derailed the momentum of an ongoing battle. I have no complaints about the expanded battles themselves, but having said that, I would rather watch them in stand-alone viewings ie. when I have some time to kill, grab a beer, select a battle scene, play that and maybe another one. Alternatively, I would like a version where they keep the expanded battles, leave out the pace breakers, and take generous liberties in cutting the Sam-Frodo bromance

Leon/The Professional is a strange one. What some are marketing as extended or complete edition is actually the original international version (and is the DC). The US release had a "lolita" scene taken out supposedly due to the censors' view of american sensibilities. That scene does enrich the film, but it's deletion doesn't break it. I prefer the original of course, but it's a great film regardless of versions (well, unless they make a version with a plot twist at the end that Matilda is a boy). And the recent bluray transfer is fantastic.

Similarly for Highlander, I find that what was omitted in the theatrical release wasn't really critical. While I appreciate the addition of Rachel's history, I felt the pace stumbled because of it. And in the scheme of things, she wasn't that important of a character. I would rather have had more background on why Kurgan decided to become evil, or how Macleod met Heather, a more plot significant character (was she an outcast too?), or maybe some history between Ramirez and Kurgan (and maybe

explaining why Ramirez sought out Macleod specifically).

I like the idea of Deckard being a replicant, but I haven't gotten around to watching the workprint or the final cut versions included in the ultimate release (which I agree should be the standard for such kind of releases). So I'll reserve judgement until I see if the re-cuts make a plausible argument. As it stands, I see Deckard as human in the versions I've watched thus far.

Underworld had an unrated version where the director also put a disclaimer that the theatrical release was the director's cut. There was just a love scene added and very little else, so not sure what he was so paranoid about. I bought the bluray anyway on account of Kate Beckinsale. I'll likely use the same logic to get the BR unrated release of Ultraviolet (edit: SuckerPunch too)

A few other films I intend to get DC versions of as I upgrade my collection to bluray: Watchmen, T2, Bourne (?), Pitch Black, Hero, Alien/s, Crash (hope people can recommend more).

Wondering if there's appetite for a separate thread on recommendable (or at least interesting) films that didn't get a wide release.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Major Focker

[ae_productions]

Can't help but notice that most of the examples are Ridley Scott films. So either many of you are fans or RS is just notorious

Anyway, fully agree on Kingdom of Heaven. The studio did the film a disservice with the theatrical cut. Can't recall any other movie that benefited so much from a director's cut, but despite this many still dismiss the film citing historical inaccuracies or a "wandering moral compass". Well, I don't think a re-cut can ever address the first, and as for the second charge, I think they're missing the whole point.

To a lesser extent, Troy DC was also an improvement. Too bad a re-cut can't change some of the really bad dialogue.

Haven't watched Alexander DC yet, but from what I've read, I shouldn't get my hopes up, even if I'm thinking that similar things have been said about KoH DC. Shame really, it was a very good subject.

As for Gladiator, I can appreciate why RS had to put in a disclaimer on the extended version. As you watch this version, RS appears at the start explaining that it is an extended version but not the director's cut (which is the theatrical release). By the time I finished watching, I could understand why. Some argue the added scenes enriched the characters or even the sense of place (or "sense of Rome" as some put it). I liked some of the additions, but for most I felt it was too much hand holding and it really mucked up the pacing.

Same thing for LOTR, although I did find that it had a better ratio of good additions vs. bad. The problem is that they are already very long films. Some say that the side stories and/or character development scenes that were added really enriched the film and brought the films much closer to the books. But I haven't fully read the books so I don't know what I'm missing, and from what I could discern, the original versions weren't particularly lacking in terms of plot and character development. Sure, it's a nice world to delve into and expound further, but it has to be in manageable chunks for the chosen medium (ie. perhaps it might have been better as a 6-part mini series), and not at the expense of pacing. I distinctly recall an instance where the insertion of an added scene utterly derailed the momentum of an ongoing battle. I have no complaints about the expanded battles themselves, but having said that, I would rather watch them in stand-alone viewings ie. when I have some time to kill, grab a beer, select a battle scene, play that and maybe another one. Alternatively, I would like a version where they keep the expanded battles, leave out the pace breakers, and take generous liberties in cutting the Sam-Frodo bromance

Leon/The Professional is a strange one. What some are marketing as extended or complete edition is actually the original international version (and is the DC). The US release had a "lolita" scene taken out supposedly due to the censors' view of american sensibilities. That scene does enrich the film, but it's deletion doesn't break it. I prefer the original of course, but it's a great film regardless of versions (well, unless they make a version with a plot twist at the end that Matilda is a boy). And the recent bluray transfer is fantastic.

Similarly for Highlander, I find that what was omitted in the theatrical release wasn't really critical. While I appreciate the addition of Rachel's history, I felt the pace stumbled because of it. And in the scheme of things, she wasn't that important of a character. I would rather have had more background on why Kurgan decided to become evil, or how Macleod met Heather, a more plot significant character (was she an outcast too?), or maybe some history between Ramirez and Kurgan (and maybe

explaining why Ramirez sought out Macleod specifically).

I like the idea of Deckard being a replicant, but I haven't gotten around to watching the workprint or the final cut versions included in the ultimate release (which I agree should be the standard for such kind of releases). So I'll reserve judgement until I see if the re-cuts make a plausible argument. As it stands, I see Deckard as human in the versions I've watched thus far.

Underworld had an unrated version where the director also put a disclaimer that the theatrical release was the director's cut. There was just a love scene added and very little else, so not sure what he was so paranoid about. I bought the bluray anyway on account of Kate Beckinsale. I'll likely use the same logic to get the BR unrated release of Ultraviolet (edit: SuckerPunch too)

A few other films I intend to get DC versions of as I upgrade my collection to bluray: Watchmen, T2, Bourne (?), Pitch Black, Hero, Alien/s, Crash (hope people can recommend more).

Wondering if there's appetite for a separate thread on recommendable (or at least interesting) films that didn't get a wide release.

If you're into Sci-Fi, check out the Director's Cut of the Abyss. James Cameron wrote that script when he was 18! The director's cut is so much better than that theatrical version.

[Keith]

Honestly, LOTR is so long anyway, being a little longer hardly hurts anything. You guys were saying Kingdom of Heaven has benefited the most from having a director's cut, but don't forget about the original studio/director brawl title, Brazil. If you've ever seen the studio cut, you'd know just how far they can go towards ruining a film. It also occurs to me that these sorts of things tend to be a lot more accepted with anime. I've never hard anyone complain that Anno went back and changed scenes in some of the last TV episodes, Or that rebuilt totally ruins the story of the original (because it doesn't, and it's awesome on wheels). It's become pretty common place for home release versions of anime series to get an extra layer of tweak from their broadcast versions. Often, those original broadcast versions never see the light of day again, though usually the fixes are more in the way of cleaning up animation.

[EXO]

I was kinda shocked that Ridley said that about Decker. I mean I watched that movie a hundred times before it was ever discussed and the way he presented it was that there was a strong contrast between the replicants, that really valued life and Decker, a human that was practically dead inside in the beginning of the movie. To say that he was a replicant pretty much ruins the point of the movie. Plus he could barely stand up to any of those replicants in a fight and he was suppose to be the best Bladerunner there. It seems really silly that the director says something years after the production and we're just suppose to throw all the things that the screenwriter injected into the movie. If Decker was a replicant to Ridley, he sure kept it a well hidden secret to the other members of the crew, the actors and the audience. I thought the Unicorn scene was just Decker remembering how bad of a movie Legend was... lol. I did end up preferring the Director's Cut after all though. I was convinced that the theatrical release was the best but that was just bias because it what I grew up with. I was wrong and Keith was right on that front but I can't agree with him on the replicant issue.

Speaking of alternate versions. I actually enjoyed Legend because the look of it pretty much nails what those Medieval fantasy books felt like. But the alternate cut which was the UK release seemed really weird to me. They took out that great shot of Darkness with his eyes glowing in the beginning of the movie which to me was iconic. If there's one movie that Ridley shold redo it's should be that one. Because as much as I loved the look, the story was really disjointed and the ending was lackluster. Awesome character and set design though.

There's a round table discussion somewhere on the net between Todd Phillips, Aaron Sorkin, John Wells, Michael Arndt and others where Phillips pretty much says that unedited versions (or other versions that aren't director's cut) are an insult to the filmmakers. They put out what they think is the ideal cut of the movie and the studios insert cuts that are meant to be left out just to sell alternate DVD versions. Just google those names and WGA and there should be videos that maybe still posted on the web.

The extended versions of LOTR shouldn't be veiwed in one sitting. That's just insane. If anything it should be treated like a TV series and watched one hour at a time. Or in my case just take out all the boring/gay Hobbit parts that didn't have Gollum.

[areaseven]

I have here the 2005 Gladiator Extended Cut DVD. Basically, it takes most of the deleted scenes shown in the Extras disc of the 2000 release and places them into the movie. Is it better? Not really; just longer. Still the same viewing experience as before. At least you have the option to watch it in its original theatrical form (which Ridley Scott prefers). It's too bad this version doesn't have the History Channel documentary that came with the 2000 release.

[Major Focker]

The extended versions of LOTR shouldn't be veiwed in one sitting. That's just insane. If anything it should be treated like a TV series and watched one hour at a time.

Like I said, might be a good idea for them to re-cut LOTR as a 6-part mini-series (plus maybe an epilogue). I hear there's still a bit of material not included even in the extended versions and that some original scenes got cut to make room for the additions. There's usually at least 2 battles anyway, one in the middle and another at the end, which provide convenient cut-off points for an episodic treatment. Or if they want to be naughty, they can end each episode with a cliff hanger, say for example, when Helm's Deep was about to be overrun, cue credits.

Or in my case just take out all the boring/gay Hobbit parts that didn't have Gollum.

Can't agree with you more. I wish there was a way to make your own selection of individual scenes (original and added) before hitting the play button. Can't recall now if this was possible (at least to some degree) in the DVD extended versions. I've recently bought the bluray set but had to give it away still in shrink wrap. Picked it up in Heathrow on an impulse since it was 40% cheaper than Singapore prices. It was only on the plane that it dawned on me that it was Region B

I have here the 2005 Gladiator Extended Cut DVD. Basically, it takes most of the deleted scenes shown in the Extras disc of the 2000 release and places them into the movie. Is it better? Not really; just longer. Still the same viewing experience as before. At least you have the option to watch it in its original theatrical form (which Ridley Scott prefers). It's too bad this version doesn't have the History Channel documentary that came with the 2000 release.

It sucks really. I've just gotten the bluray (the latest/much better transfer) but I still can't let go of my DVD set because of those documentaries.

I do appreciate the option to select theatrical vs. extended. To me, that should be the minimum standard for alternate releases.

edit: now I'm really curious to check out Brazil. haven't seen either version but i think i have DVD of it somewhere.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Major Focker

[Keith]

For shame, you own Brazil & haven't watched it? For absolute shame!

[Einherjar]

If a movie, series, or video game set has a name near the ballpark of "The Ultimate Edition" of something, I really don't want to see another set unseating its Ultimate-ness a few years later with marginal improvements in video and audio quality, extra scenes, and etc. I paid good money the first time to get the whole experience and a bag of chips.

[Penguin]

If a movie, series, or video game set has a name near the ballpark of "The Ultimate Edition" of something, I really don't want to see another set unseating its Ultimate-ness a few years later with marginal improvements in video and audio quality, extra scenes, and etc. I paid good money the first time to get the whole experience and a bag of chips.

Wow... that just flies in the face of crass consumerism and all marketing known to man.

[Duke Togo]

Ok, I'm curious... As someone who had problems with the LotR movies, is it worth my time to check out the extended editions? I find the story interesting enough (I'm a casual LotR fan, at best), I just don't think the first and third films were done all that well (more so the first than the third).

[Gubaba]

Ok, I'm curious... As someone who had problems with the LotR movies, is it worth my time to check out the extended editions? I find the story interesting enough (I'm a casual LotR fan, at best), I just don't think the first and third films were done all that well (more so the first than the third).

I liked them better than the theatrical versions, for what it's worth.

(Incidentally (as I've said before), although I have no problems reading stuff like Thomas Mann, James Joyce, and Marcel Proust, I find Fellowship of the Ring (the book, not the movie) INCREDIBLY tough going, at least for the first half...which I believe disqualifies me as a real LOTR fan. Give me Mervyn Peake, E.R. Eddison, Michael Moorcock, or Stephen R. Donaldson any day...)

[azrael]

Ok, I'm curious... As someone who had problems with the LotR movies, is it worth my time to check out the extended editions? I find the story interesting enough (I'm a casual LotR fan, at best), I just don't think the first and third films were done all that well (more so the first than the third).

I liked the Extended Editions better. I think The Two Towers The Return of the King is where the added footage actually works the best, IMO. Fellowship of the Ring's additions didn't feel substantial enough to really make it feel different.

[Duke Togo]

I just checked them out on Netflix, doesn't look like they have the Blu's available yet. I'll have to wait.

[BeyondTheGrave]

I just checked them out on Netflix, doesn't look like they have the Blu's available yet. I'll have to wait.

The blurays are 2 disc per movie. No extras from what I heard.

[Penguin]

Ok, I'm curious... As someone who had problems with the LotR movies, is it worth my time to check out the extended editions? I find the story interesting enough (I'm a casual LotR fan, at best), I just don't think the first and third films were done all that well (more so the first than the third).

I would say it depends on what those problems were.

Like most extended editions, the additions are mostly character building scenes, dialogue, and the like. So, if you thought the characters needed more development, then yeah, the EEs will improve on that. There are a few action scenes added back in (such as the fate of Saruman), but nothing mind-blowing. If you had problems with pacing, then the EEs will NOT help. Running times increased on the order of 30 minutes. So, at least when Jackson gives you an extended edition, it's substantial. But, if you ever found yourself thinking "when will this be over", the EEs will have you tearing your hair out.

Me, I like 'em. I'm only a casual LoTR fan myself, but I find that when I watch them, I always watch all three in a row and make a day of it... usually while I'm sketching, building model kits, etc. Helps to pass frigid Canadian winter weekends.

[ae_productions]

I would say it depends on what those problems were.

Like most extended editions, the additions are mostly character building scenes, dialogue, and the like. So, if you thought the characters needed more development, then yeah, the EEs will improve on that. There are a few action scenes added back in (such as the fate of Saruman), but nothing mind-blowing. If you had problems with pacing, then the EEs will NOT help. Running times increased on the order of 30 minutes. So, at least when Jackson gives you an extended edition, it's substantial. But, if you ever found yourself thinking "when will this be over", the EEs will have you tearing your hair out.

Me, I like 'em. I'm only a casual LoTR fan myself, but I find that when I watch them, I always watch all three in a row and make a day of it... usually while I'm sketching, building model kits, etc. Helps to pass frigid Canadian winter weekends.

What's funny is, Jackson said there are even MORE scenes that were filmed that were NOT added to the extended scenes. He joked about releasing another version of the Trilogy, with ALL the cut scenes added. So, instead of making a day out of it, you'd probably need to take a week off work to get through all those!

Too bad the Blu doesn't have all the bonus material. It's actually some of the BEST BTS stuff I've seen on a DVD. But I think it's more for the die hard LOTR fans.

[Penguin]

What's funny is, Jackson said there are even MORE scenes that were filmed that were NOT added to the extended scenes. He joked about releasing another version of the Trilogy, with ALL the cut scenes added. So, instead of making a day out of it, you'd probably need to take a week off work to get through all those!

Too bad the Blu doesn't have all the bonus material. It's actually some of the BEST BTS stuff I've seen on a DVD. But I think it's more for the die hard LOTR fans.

The theatrical BDs don't have any extras, but the extended editions do have all the same bonus material. More even. There are three extra discs of content for each movie, compared to 2 for the DVDs. You get the full two-disc appendices for each movie plus another behind-the-scenes disc for each as well.

Haven't had the initiative to go through all that. It would take me a month.

[Marzan]

As much as Iove LOTR, (both the books and the movie), I found the level of bonus material from the extended editions to be excessive. I mean, the only people it seems they didn't interview for the extras are the drivers and the people in charge of the catering.

http://www.wbshop.com/Lord-Of-The-Rings-Trilogy-BD-Extended-Edition/1000150857,default,pd.html

[Einherjar]

Wow... that just flies in the face of crass consumerism and all marketing known to man.

I just don't see the value in enhancements that just raises my risk of getting tinnitus and visual seizures. But the first LOTR extended editions are probably the only ones I can justify.

[areaseven]

For those who are fans of The Warriors, what are your thoughts on the 2005 Ultimate Director's Cut DVD? Do you think the added digital comic book effects were necessary?

[mecha2241]

For those who are fans of The Warriors, what are your thoughts on the 2005 Ultimate Director's Cut DVD? Do you think the added digital comic book effects were necessary?

I actually kind of liked those, the New York in the movie kind of seemed like something out of a comic book any way with the way the different gangs dressed.

[VF-15 Banshee]

The HD remastered version of Ghostbusters is being re-released into about 500 theaters on October 13, 20 and 27.

[Marzan]

The HD remastered version of Ghostbusters is being re-released into about 500 theaters on October 13, 20 and 27.

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man in HD? I can't wait...

[Duke Togo]

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man in HD? I can't wait...

Did I miss something? Was the original theatrical release anything but "high definition"?

[Warmaker]

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.

Generally I lean towards "more footage = better" but I agree that it depends from movie to movie. I'll agree with the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, makes it better. More stuff to see in a movie is usually good for me unless the quality of the spliced in segment looks noticeably off or it greatly alters something key to a movie (with them being fine in the first place).

Regardless, alot of movies these days release with extended / director's / unrated cut with the theatrical version in the same place. The recent Blade Runner releases is an outstanding example of catering to all visions of this great movie. 4 versions, count 'em, FOUR, in the same package. I just wish the great flanneled one in Lucasfilm did the same.

[Duke Togo]

Generally I lean towards "more footage = better" but I agree that it depends from movie to movie. I'll agree with the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, makes it better. More stuff to see in a movie is usually good for me unless the quality of the spliced in segment looks noticeably off or it greatly alters something key to a movie (with them being fine in the first place).

Regardless, alot of movies these days release with extended / director's / unrated cut with the theatrical version in the same place. The recent Blade Runner releases is an outstanding example of catering to all visions of this great movie. 4 versions, count 'em, FOUR, in the same package. I just wish the great flanneled one in Lucasfilm did the same.

What was best about Final cut is that Scott used modern computer technology to clean up and fix shots, not replace them. The work they did on BR is seamless and flawless.

[taksraven]

Did I miss something? Was the original theatrical release anything but "high definition"?

Heh. You know how HD usually just means removal of all film grain so the characters look like shopfront manequinns, etc

PLUS, loads of edge enhancement......

Edited October 1, 2011 by taksraven

[Duke Togo]

For those who are fans of The Warriors, what are your thoughts on the 2005 Ultimate Director's Cut DVD? Do you think the added digital comic book effects were necessary?

I have The Warriors coming on Blu from Netflix tommorrow, so I'll add my 2 cents once I get a chance to watch it.

[Duke Togo]

Did not like the additions to the "ultimate" version of The Warriors at all. They didn't visually fit in with the rest of the film, and I didn't need the history lesson--I know who Cyrus and Ajax are.

[Marzan]

Speaking of extended editions, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly definitely is another example of a film that is much better in its original version. The extra scenes were redubbed in some cases by other actors (since some had died in the previous 40 years) and in others, (the great Eli Wallach), one can tell that the voice belongs to a very old man.The difference can be quite jarring.

[Keith]

Speaking of extended editions, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly definitely is another example of a film that is much better in its original version. The extra scenes were redubbed in some cases by other actors (since some had died in the previous 40 years) and in others, (the great Eli Wallach), one can tell that the voice belongs to a very old man.The difference can be quite jarring.

Except that "is" the original version, the shorter edit was done the U.S. theatrical release. The dub is a bit jarring regardless.

[VF-15 Banshee]

If you guys want to go see Ghostbusters, you should be able to find locations for the 13, 20, and 27 on MovieTickets.com. Just FYI