BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Director's Cuts- are they worth it

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
haus of fraser
10:45 / 29.09.04
ok so Kovaks posting on the ever changing original star Wars trilogy got me thinking- Directors cuts in general great or over indulgant wank?
The big problem with directors cuts mean that the original popular movie gets taken out of print in favour of the directors vision- now star wars is a prime example of something they keep fucking with- but there's already a board on that subject so maybe thoughts on- apocalypse now redux, Blade Runner, Cinema Paridiso, Donnie Darko and I'm sure plenty more- I'm not saying that there is anything wrong as such- Its interesting to see what didn't make original cuts- its the removal of the original from the DVD racks that pisses me off.
Prime example Cinema Paridiso- one of my all time favourite movies- won the oscar for best foreign language film in 1989- mid 90's they bring out the directors cut- with an extra 40-50 minutes- let me tell you it's shit compaired to the original 'studio cut' and there is no way it would have won the oscar. Not only are there long boring scenes with some of the more minor characters- the plot has changed motivations have changed! Goodies are now not so goodies!
as far as I'm aware you can only now buy this version- like star wars they've rewritten history- but unlike the box claims this movie didn't win an oscar or any award a very similar- superior film did!
The only directors cut that i can think that i really really enjoyed was aliens- more carnage yay! How can you not want more of that movie?
I've not seen the donnie Darko directors cut- is it worth it? I like the movie and as I understand it the main change is with some of the music?
surely with DVD's special editions box sets we should now be able to buy both or either version without some twat thinking they no best..
If it ain't broke- don't fix it!
 
 
_Boboss
11:09 / 29.09.04
the first, i think, of the era was aliens. a classic example of 'if it ain't broke'. the sentry guns, as guitar-solo as they are, kind of break the plot, reduce the baddie threat to sheer weight of numbers and really are just a waste of fun before the bit when they come through the ceiling. the bit with newt's parents is rubbish too - it's so much more fun to ponder the mystery of how they got there yourself. those are the main bits i think. oh yeah there's a bit where ripey goes 'see you hicks' and he says 'it's dwayne. name's dwayne.' 'think i'll just stick with hicks' was the reply we were denied.

most of these bits were in the novel anyway. a bit in the novel but not the special ed is when ripley's heading to rescue newt, and she runs into my two dads who's been stuck to the wall and impregnated. he says something rank like 'i can feel it moving' and she leaves him a grenade to do himself in with. now that would have been a cool bit to film.

in general: leave well enough alone. really short films never get a special ed, always things like donnie darko which are just that little bit flabby to begin with.
 
 
Benny the Ball
06:55 / 30.09.04
The thing about directors cuts that I find annoying is that they tend to dump the older cuts in favour of these. DVD's provide the perfect format to allow us the public the option. The T2 disc shows this, allowing you to add or remove the additional footage (in this case, although not technically a directors cut as such, I think that the added stuff gives the film a lot more). Sometimes I'm in the mood to watch Blade Runner with the voice over, which is the reason I held onto an old VHS. Sidenote, a friend once told me that there was a scene in Blade Runner where Deckard is cleaning his gun and swearing at it, I remember when I was a kid seeing an old VHS rental copy which had a couple more minutes running time than my copy at home - does anyone know of this scene? Yes it's great that sometimes directors are allowed to go back and revisit their films and tinker with them, but often the film they produce as a result of this is not the film which gave them the money and notice to allow this in the first place, and not the film that it's fans watched and liked and wanted. It's the rewritting of history sense that rancors me, we should have the option.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
08:27 / 30.09.04
Sidenote, a friend once told me that there was a scene in Blade Runner where Deckard is cleaning his gun and swearing at it, I remember when I was a kid seeing an old VHS rental copy which had a couple more minutes running time than my copy at home - does anyone know of this scene?


just skimmed Paul Sammon's account of all the different versions in his book Future Noir and I see no mention of this. Perhaps you dreamed it!

I personally prefer the Director's Cut of Blade Runner, though there are elements of the original version that I also like.
 
 
haus of fraser
09:19 / 30.09.04
Another confused film- although for entirely different reasons is Brazil with a European and US version- both with different endings- heres a great link explaining all the different versions- the uk version it ends with Sam waking in the torture chamber- in the us version it appears that he escaped?!
I don't know whether the DVD has different versions of it as I still own it on VHS- I'd love to see the different versions although I suspect the sad ending will always be my favourite but who knows...
I believe theres a documentary called the battle for Brazil but I've not seen it? Apparently one of the reasons for the different versions is that the studio weren't happy with Gilliams and demanded a re-cut, while the recut was happening Gilliam did some secret screenings to critics and infuencial bods- It then won some film of the year critics prize- before its official release- winning on Gilliams not the studios cut... hence confusion over different releases- I assume he was able to get a bit of control back for the European release as the release dates are several months behind the US and they had time to make changes??

The clear line that seems to be being drawn is that some of these directors cuts are clear cash ins. Apocalypse Now Redux- nice to see all those extra bits but an extra hour on a 3 hour movie? Come on people do we trust the man whose recent output has gone from the bland 'The Rain Maker' to the down right shit 'Jack' with robin williams.
And try and buy yourself an un-fucked with version.

Maybe its all a conspiracy to make us keep buying these god damn things- you can bet in 10- 20 years in movie theatres we hear a drum roll 20th centuary fox music

"for the first time in 40 years you can now experience the Original Star Wars movies- unfucked with ..."

And on and on again.

Kovacs- an interesting thought I like the Blade Runner dir cut- but prefer the Voice over one- did you see the one with a voice over first? Cos I reckon that most people that love this movie know the originla cut and therefore understand the plot better- To be honest I think the directors cut is a bit of a mess and the only good bit about it is the unicorn dream and the sad end- I like the private dick talking it adds to the 50's noir feel. It looser and easier to follow and without it would the film have been so successful?
 
 
Benny the Ball
09:56 / 30.09.04
Blade Runner wasn't a success at all on initial release, but it was the original voice over film that grew a fan base, thus allowing Scott to release the Director's Cut at a time when 'the audience were finally ready for it'. I loved the info that you got from the voice over (the version I first saw) and I'm sure that this allowed me to enjoy the voice-less version more. As for my friend, I always thought that he was full of shit, but I gave him the benefit because of the scene when Deckard questions the snake producer out of sync, so always thought that this had been cut, and the talk of bits missing before the directos cut release, but guess that I should always go with the gut instinct of doubting.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
10:10 / 30.09.04
The Brazil stuff is all on the Criterion DVD collection - original release, restored DC, documentaries (the Battle of Brazil included). Worth getting, if it's still available.

As far as the voiceover on Blade Runner goes, it's a mess - not only is it inconsistent, but praising it for providing film noir atmosphere is missing the point. Its inclusion wasn't a stylistic decision and never feels like one. It's there because the studio thought moviegoers were stupid, based on audience reaction at initial showings. And, y'know, not every example of film noir includes a voiceover. I completely fail to understand how and why anyone would think the voiceover-free version is confusing - it's not a film that asks a huge amount of its audience.

I think the main difference between these two films and most other DCs is these ones were discovered before they were released - a groundswell of support had built up around them which made the studios eventually realise that there was money to be had from allowing the directors' personal takes a commercial release. With Brazil it was the screenings to press and students, with Blade Runner - iirc, and there's a good chance that I don't - it was the wrong version being shown by accident. People heard about the different versions, wanted to see them.

The vast majority of DCs are down to one of two things: they're either a cash-in or the result of the director's disturbingly large ego. I'm with Gambit re: Aliens DC - with one minor exception, none of the added scenes benefit the movie. The sentry guns make the aliens even easier to destroy, further distancing the film from the first one, and the facehugger attack scene at the beginning pulls all sense of suspense from the movie's first half. Discovering that Ripley had a daughter and that she's died is the exception - it reinforces the main theme of the Ripley/Newt scenes well.

Generally, additional scenes are best left as curios, extra features on the DVD. In fact, there's little reason why most DCs can't share disc space with their original theatrical version. Give the viewer the option of which chapters they want to watch, the order they want to watch them in.
 
 
Benny the Ball
10:26 / 30.09.04
Finding out the Ripley's name was Helen (or Ellen) didn't help the film at all. I always felt that Aliens really took away from the frightening aspect of the creature, there are lots of them, that was it. Especially when Ripley has her speach about 'one of these things' wiping out her crew, i sort or made them a bit crap really, and Alien 3's attempt to return to this seemed odd after Aliens - basically if you have enough guns it's all okay, not really the point of a creature that can adapt and survive and kill as nature.

As for Blade Runner - it wasn't so much that the story is clearer because of the voice-over, it's more the little details that it provided - like the street-language that is used being a mish-mesh of so many languages. It was good for me as a 10 year old seeing that version first, as it was like having the book read out to me - but at the same time, the most powerful moment of the film (the whole end section from Deckard's arrival at JF's apartment) didn't have a voice over and stood out as the best part of the film for me back then. The director's cut dehumanises Deckard and distances us from him, which I think was Scott's intention, helping to add to the '6th replicant' rumours.
 
 
FinderWolf
15:08 / 30.09.04
So there's no more regular non-director's cut Blade Runner available, esp on DVD? If so, that kinda sucks.
 
 
haus of fraser
15:33 / 30.09.04
As far as i can tell the original cut of Blade runner has been erased from history a la star wars- fairly ridiculous I think that we can't be allowed to make our own choices-

I know that Ridley scott is now seen as a film legend but just like Copola a lot of his out put has been shit in recent years- GI Jane anyone, White Squall, Black Hawk Down?

A sketchy list admittedly he's no Paul anderson (why oh why did they give him the alien movies????) and I love alien, Blade Runner and Gladiators got its moments.

What makes the directors cut the definitive version? Can you imagine Kuberick fucking with 2001, Spielberg playing with Jaws or ET?

Could there be a psychological need to fuck with your good work when your recent output has been souless middle of the road shit?

Surely there must be a time when they'll bring out DVD's with both versions a La T2- they're just waiting for another cash in moment; and us the schmucks go for it every time- its a hardlife being a fanboy....

ps can't wait for Paul Andersons 'Shopping' dir cut - see if they can polish that turd?
 
 
FinderWolf
17:07 / 30.09.04
>> Spielberg playing with Jaws or ET?

Too late, dude - Spielberg did play with ET. (uh, I don't mean that like it sounds, in the molesting sense) Don't you remember the controversy about 2 years ago when Stevie digitally erased the guns from the threatening meanie gov't agents at the end in the final chase scene and replaced the guns with cellphones? And he also inserted the E.T. Special Edition scenes (you know, the CGI E.T. in the bathtub and few other shots of the robot E.T. that were cleaned up by CGI, shades of Lucas' Special Editions) into the movie.

BUT, when Stevie came out with E.T. on DVD, he did what fans love and included both versions, old and new.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
20:34 / 30.09.04
Kovacs- an interesting thought I like the Blade Runner dir cut- but prefer the Voice over one- did you see the one with a voice over first? Cos I reckon that most people that love this movie know the originla cut and therefore understand the plot better- To be honest I think the directors cut is a bit of a mess and the only good bit about it is the unicorn dream and the sad end- I like the private dick talking it adds to the 50's noir feel. It looser and easier to follow and without it would the film have been so successful?

Well, it's been established that the film was not successful as the original cut, except among cult midnight-movie, VHS and festival audiences.

I did see the original version first but didn't really connect with the film until I watched the DC. Like pretty much everyone involved in the movie, I found the voiceover laboured, clumsy and unnecessary. I might be biased as I have only really given the DC due attention and understand the film through that framework, but I don't think it's nearly as rich without the suggestion that Deckard is a replicant -- and only the unicorn dream really introduces that idea.



As far as the voiceover on Blade Runner goes, it's a mess - not only is it inconsistent

to be fair, the whole film is inconsistent because of all the changes between various drafts.


As for Blade Runner - it wasn't so much that the story is clearer because of the voice-over, it's more the little details that it provided - like the street-language that is used being a mish-mesh of so many languages.

Anyone intelligent can surely figure that out for themselves by hearing Gaff speak?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
20:52 / 30.09.04
to be fair, the whole film is inconsistent because of all the changes between various drafts.

I meant more in terms of the way it's there, then for huge great chunks of the film it disappears, like somebody went through a screening with a notepad and pen - "This bit needs explaining. And this bit. All this is fine, no explanation needed. This bit needs explaining."

The other point is that the entire movie's fairly sparse on the vocal parts. It's mainly ambient noise, with the odd snatch of dialogue in specific scenes, but only when and where it's absolutely necessary. The voiceover pulls all of this apart.
 
 
Benny the Ball
21:53 / 30.09.04
Anyone intelligent can surely figure that out for themselves by hearing Gaff speak?

You may be able to work out that he isn't speaking Japanese or Spanish totally, but I wouldn't have got that he was speaking a mesh of langauges at aged 10, which was when I saw it, and I'd like to think that I was a fairly intelligent child.

That was just an example that sprang to mind - I remember vaguley, but would have to go back and watch it again to confirm, that there was a moment of voice over that I thought, oh, I would never have got that from the DC...but then again I have friend's that claim to remember entire scenes that don't exist.
 
 
PatrickMM
03:55 / 01.10.04
Blade Runner, the original version, hasn't been wiped from existence. There was supposed to be a big new Blade Runner DVD, that would include a slightly updated director's cut and the original version, and possibly the original director's cut, plus a bunch of bonus features. However, due to some unclear legal issues, production on the disc was halted, and right now, it's not likely to be released in the forseeable future.
 
 
This Sunday
09:59 / 01.10.04
If the new cut is five minutes of previously excised breastfeeding, it probably isn't that necessary, but the theatrical cut of 'Lord of Illusions' was absolute shit, and the director's cut was possibly my favorite film of the year. If Sergio Leone can have a film ruined by a shit editing at the last minute, it could happen to anyone... and all the better to see the original, pure, and planned film... if it's better.
I didn't like 'Aliens' until I saw the director's cut. I still don't love it, but I can watch it all the way through.
I desperately want the three-hour cut of 'Masked & Anonymous'
Heck, I'd even advocate (under proper credits) complete mutilations of pre-existing films, to new ends.
On the other hand, I own the cleaned-up, but nothing added in, editions of the original three Star Wars films, and am happy with that. There's a broad jump between gilding the lily and, giving it arms, legs, nuclear missiles, and a big plastic toy car it can ride around in.
 
 
CameronStewart
14:24 / 01.10.04
>>>Another confused film- although for entirely different reasons is Brazil with a European and US version- both with different endings-<<<

It's not a different cut for UK and US - basicially what happened with Brazil is that Terry Gilliam delivered his version of the film to Universal Studios and screened it for the execs. They thought that it was far too depressing and uncommercial and wanted him to recut it with a happy ending. He refused, they argued, and kicked off a huge power struggle with Gilliam pulling all kinds of sneaky tricks like having illegal guerilla screenings of the film for critics, etc. The critics who'd seen it gave Brazil the LA Film Critic's award for Best Film, which managed to persuade Universal to release the film (in the US) as is....and it was a big commercial flop, just as the studio execs had predicted. Part of the deal they struck was that the film would be recut by the studio, without Gilliam's involvement, for television broadcast. So the theatrical version is Gilliam's original film, and the version you see on television will always be the drastically re-edited "Love Conquers All" happy ending version.

Both versions of the film, as well as a great documentary chronicling the fight for the film, are included on the Criterion Collection dvd, and it's fascinating to watch them both and see how much was changed for the television version, and how drastically a film can be altered through simple editing.

Make no mistake, though, the "Love Conquers All" cut is terrible, and completely rips the heart and balls out of Gilliam's film. The original is unquestionably superior.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:16 / 02.10.04
Where do people sit on the LotR long versions?
 
 
Benny the Ball
18:43 / 02.10.04
I thought that the Two Towers was improved a great deal by the added stuff. Haven't seen FOTR's extended, and just couldn't face seeing anymore of ROTK after those endings, those endless endings...
 
 
PatrickMM
02:28 / 04.10.04
The extendeds are the better movies on the whole. I think releasing them that way in the theater would probably have been a mistake, becuase they really are a test of patience, and are more for the fan who has read the book than the general public. But, in the future I don't see myself really watching theatrical, the extended is the way to go.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
22:08 / 04.05.06
Okay, so I'd better revive this old chestnut of a thread, as I've been asked in the SWIII thread exactly "Why" it is the creator of a work of art who dictates the characteristics of said art.

Because?

Really, who else would rightfully hold that claim? A studio? A studio can suggest, can even modify that work of art, but at that point it isn't the work of the artist anymore. It's the product of the studio. Somewhere, in some make-believe area, the version of the film that the director wanted to make, the version that he or she spent months shooting, and months editing, under the auspices of one singular vision, does exist. But any compromised version of the film is fundamentally not what was intended by the creator.

I am fully open to any suggestions as to what exactly I'm missing here.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:27 / 04.05.06
There's rarely a single artist involved in making a movie. There are artists. A director's cut is a version of a piece of work that's been jiggled with by *one* of those artists, more often than not without the majority of the others involved even being consulted.

That's why a director's cut isn't automatically a definitive version.
 
 
haus of fraser
22:56 / 04.05.06
Quick post cos i'm going to bed- Film making is a collaberative process- writers/ editors/ producers/ art directors/ actors etc etc all contribute.

The Studio/ Production company/ Distributer- pay for and thus own the product. A good example is a project such as New Line's current development of His Dark Materials- developed and written with a team working on it long before a director was booked- so who's the artist- the director or the producer/ studio?

Generally directors are hired to make a film by the studio- Who says their version is the final version?

I guess i should own up that i work as an editor (i also direct but editing pays the bills!) and collaborate, fight with and get inspired by directors on a daily basis- they aren't always right!

I like being able to see directors cuts- they can add stuff to an old loved movie- but i don't believe they should be viewed as definitive versions...
 
 
haus of fraser
23:06 / 04.05.06
...and what dupre said!
 
 
some guy
23:48 / 04.05.06
Really, who else would rightfully hold that claim?

When something reaches a certain nebulous level of popular appeal the "creator" loses authorship in a way. Darth Vader is bigger than any shitty Lucas script and is "owned" by hundreds of millions of people around the world.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
00:59 / 05.05.06
Copey, I think that what you said holds true for movies that fall into the description you gave. That's fine with me.

However, Star Wars is George Lucas' vision, lock stock and two smoking barrels. He had in his head (him alone) what he wanted, and he's tried to make his vision reality since, whatever it was, 1975 or something. If he wants to continually try to get closer to his vision, he should feel compelled to. That's what any other artist would do.

Yes, a lot of people helped him make the various movies and versions, but he's the creator here.
 
 
some guy
02:35 / 05.05.06
Star Wars is George Lucas' vision, lock stock and two smoking barrels

What about the films he didn't write or direct? How close did Ralph McQuarrie come to what was in his head? To what degree is he the creator of the Stormtroopers or whatever?

To millions of people, Star Wars is a movie where Han shot first, end of story. Perhaps there are no definitive answers in situations such as these; Lucas' Star Wars is different than my Star Wars and in that case nobody really has a claim on anything "lock stock and two smoking barrels."
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:30 / 05.05.06
I always felt that Aliens really took away from the frightening aspect of the creature, there are lots of them, that was it. Especially when Ripley has her speach about 'one of these things' wiping out her crew, i sort or made them a bit crap really

Well, arguably, the crew of the Nostromo weren't exactly the "ultimate badasses" of the Colonial Marines. They were a bunch of average working slobs with a couple of hastily built flamethrowers.

For me, the genius of Aliens was that it went a completely different direction to the first one in terms of pace, action, and style whilst keeping in the things which made Alien so discomforting (the claustrophobic ducting, the body horror fear of contamination, etc). Most sequels are just a re-hash of the first one, Aliens wins out by not doing that.

The Director's Cut of it is the inferior version for me. The bugs come across as much less intelligent when they're pissing away their numbers charging down the barrels of the sentry-guns. I much prefer them being off-screen for ages, not a peep out of them until the power's cut and they come creeping in through the one entrance that the marines forgot.

Plus, "Who's laying all these eggs?" aside, no hypothsising about a Queen. The reveal of which blew me away when I first saw the film. Queen/King/Alpha monsters are pretty much par for the course these day, but that was my first one, and it's still the best.

Bladerunner's Director's Cut is also by far the better version. Simply cutting out Ford's irritating narration makes the film far more interesting (I hate it when films feel they have to explain themselves). Plus losing that terrible ending where they drive through the forests (Hang on, all the animals are dead and they all live in horrible dystopian cities, where'd the nature come from?).

What pisses me off is that the only available dvd is a horrible copy with zero extras. I'm praying for the day they release something similar to the recent Aliens dvd with both versions and some commentary (Harrison Ford muttering "I hate it! I hate it!" over and over).

Thanks people. I was at a loose end tonight. Bladerunner/Aliens double-bill for me!
 
 
Spaniel
09:12 / 05.05.06
To millions of people, Star Wars is a movie where Han shot first, end of story. Perhaps there are no definitive answers in situations such as these; Lucas' Star Wars is different than my Star Wars and in that case nobody really has a claim on anything "lock stock and two smoking barrels."

Personally I think this is a very important point. Surely cultural judgements about the significance of a given work are more important than the director's opinion? If a 80 million SW fans declare the Special Editions to be non-definitive then I think we have to take their opinion seriously.

Now, obviously Lucas has a huge amount of creative control when it comes to SW related matters*, he has a large say over what's canon and what's not, and yes he holds most of the legal rights, but is this really enough to say he owns SW in any kind of meaningful sense? The fact that we are debating this point - and that this gets debated all over the Internet - suggests otherwise.

And all that's before we even get into decontructivist readings of the situation (which I'm really not qualified to do).


*This also brings us back to film as a collaborative process. All this "the director is the author stuff" was formalised (auteur theory) and popularised in the sixties and has remained controversial ever since.
 
 
Seth
09:27 / 05.05.06
Where do people sit on the LotR long versions?

No-one should ever watch the theatrical cuts again.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:38 / 05.05.06
I think they're a slightly different case, in that so far as I know it was always the plan to release those straight after, and the theatrical releases were really just cut that way to save people's tired asses- I believe Jackson was in charge of the cutting down as well. I could be wrong, though, but that's the impression I've got from Jackson interviews.
 
 
haus of fraser
12:55 / 05.05.06
The problem i have with Star Wars- is that Lucas is so damn inconsistent- 'this is my vison- er , no this is' etc

The definitive version for me is the original- the one that started it all and that all the fans liked- not some dolled up version with bad animation.
 
 
matthew.
13:05 / 05.05.06
I like how the thread summary says "artistic integrity". If Lucas was a true auteur, then why would he give his stories and ideas to other directors and writers? The simple answer is because Lucas is not an auteur. Therefore there cannot be a definitive version that isn't the original version.

As people have pointed out, film is very collaborative. I also tend to think of film as organic, as well, ever-changing and ever-evolving. Sometimes in a positive way (Bladerunner) and often in a negative way (SW 1997 Spec Ed; the prequels). IMHO, since film and art is rather organic, and especially now in a world of DVD and digital film, then there can be no definitive version that is pinned down, put in a glass frame, and thrown on the wall.

Also, with the term "Director's Cut," it shows that it's not really the ultimate perfect cut. It's merely one person's vision of something. I want to see a "Writer's Cut" or a "Best Boy's Cut". That'd be interesting.
 
 
This Sunday
13:25 / 05.05.06
I don't buy the Lucas-auteur, or indeed, the supremacy and free-pass of the Auteur Theory in practice, but really... Val Lewton was an auteur, by many arguments, and he just produced. No direction, no writing, just management and selection, and his works bear his mark. 'I Walked with a Zombie' to 'Curse of the Cat People' they bear his mark. Lucas is just a collection of other people's good stuff, some dodgy racial representations and faith over experiential operations, plus lightsabers and a princess in a metal bikini with a gun. Handled always better by other people, in a style not readily recognizable as significantly his own.
 
 
Triplets
14:03 / 05.05.06
she leaves him a grenade to do himself in with. now that would have been a cool bit to film.

We got something like that with Gorman and Vasquez.

You always were an asshole, Gumbitch!!!11!!
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply