Regular or directors cut/extended edition
Depends. I try to find spoiler free reviews of stuff I am torn between thatrical and director's (...) cut. Most of the time I will go for the director's cut as it should be how the director imagined it. There are exceptions:
- I never watched (and am unlike to do so) the extended cut of 2001. Good friends of mine saw it in a movie theatre and were very disappointed ("half a hour of pretty colours with bad music")
- If the majority of reviews does say there is nothing new, like just a few seconds of extra staring in each dialouge
- in case of dubbed movies, if there are a new set of dubbing actors, because the original one were not interested anymore or dead
Edit: Can anyone suggest movies to me that have a big change due to the changes/additions of the DC? I am thinking Blade Runne theatrical - DC (with/without off screen commentator),
Comment has been collapsed.
Once Upon a Time in America - U.S. theatrical cut was severely neutered
Daredevil - the original version sucked. The director's cut is mediocre
Star Wars - Han Shot First!
Comment has been collapsed.
As I do not remember watching Once Upon a Time in America (maybe I saw the German dub in the mid 90s), I will watch it at some point and avoid the U.S. theatrival cut (not sure if it is available here).
Comment has been collapsed.
it's a great movie. The U.S. distributor noticed that the contract called for a movie about half as long, and hired another editor to cut it to the appropriate time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd probably say Apocalypse Now Redux. It does adds a bit to character development for the crew on the boat, though not so much to the story itself. The additions fit well with the overall mood, enhancing the strangeness factor of the environment.
Comment has been collapsed.
on one hand, it does add a bit and makes it more surreal, on the other hand, the pacing is completely different, making it somewhat less accessible
Comment has been collapsed.
Kingdom of Heaven. I avoided the theatrical cut entirely as everyone seemed to say the cuts demanded by the studio had ruined it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still couldn’t make it through the director’s cut. Everyone goes on about how good the DC is, but I don’t think editing can save that dumpster fire of a film.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Donnie Darko (the Director's Cut is more like "the dumbed down version" but it didn't sound as cool so they're selling it as DC)
- The Abyss. No spoiler but the DC introduces a "subplot" that ends up changing the meaning of the movie in a significant way
- Brazil. Although it's not technically a director's cut because it was released in its original form in most countries and edited for a happier ending in the US by distributors.
- Same with Leon. It's not for a happier ending this time but the US distributors took an axe to some scenes that involved Portman's character, changing significantly the relationship between both leads, which alters the movie in a big way
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I saw two different versions of Leon, one introducing the "ring trick", one who just uses it, with no prior introductionary scene. I am not sure anymore, but this might have been due to a cut version for German TV.
I enjoyed The Abyss, but I do not recall which version it was. I will to get hold of both version soon-ish.
I never watched Brazil, but it is on some "you have to watch this list" for 15(?) years now :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I know Leon was cut for tv in the European market so several versions do exist. The US theatrical version did cut a lot of scenes that made Portman's character less "innocent", in her role in the killings, in making advances to Leon, and in a very famous scene where she plays Russian Roulette to make him he loves her. I guess the distributors were squeamish about the implications but it works much better in the original movie with the scenes included because she's not a damsel in distress and there's a layer that is missing in the US version
The Abyss is a pretty cool movie. Some people have issues with the longer cut but I always thought it was better, less ET-ish
Brazil is a must watch for sure. It's not an easy movie but the surrealist element really isn't that out there compared to more recent movies. Gilliam is vastly underrated, imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly depends on the movie... sometimes I enjoy the director's cut/extended edition and sometimes I don't.
Edit: Perfect example... the special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy... sometimes the vision of the director without other creatives there to hold them back isn't that good.... Case in point: how in one scene of the special edition of A New Hope, you can barely even see the main characters because George Lucas decided to clog the screen with random creatures.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah those anniversary editions were legit disappointing. The "new" special effects look more like sh*t than the old ones by now and they really went over the top with the creatures for not that much added. And we all know Han Shot First!
Comment has been collapsed.
It depends on the movie, but I usually prefer the longer version. The extended version is better in some movies if they originally cut things to get a certain rating or to make the movie shorter. Some movies they add in stuff back in that really deserved to be cut just because they want to be able to sell another version of the movie to make more money. If I know there are different versions available, I will try to look up what the difference is and do some research.
Comment has been collapsed.
IT depends on the movie i guess .
IF i get invested in it i would probably look for the extended editions so i can get a little bit more content of it.
Stuff like the LoTR series / the Hobbit.
IF its just silly fun i dont really care ... stuff like the Marvel movies , i watch once and forget about them
Comment has been collapsed.
it really depends on the movie.
Lord of the ring trilogy - absolutely
Once Upon a Time in America - don't ever watch the U.S. theatrical cut
Ridley Scott movies - can go either way
Star Wars - Han Shot First!
Comment has been collapsed.
Always "Directors cut/extended edition"... :)
till now i didnt saw any movie that is better in a cut-version...
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the directors cut/extended editions more because those added parts give you more content, insight and understanding of the plots.
Comment has been collapsed.
what about when the Director's Cut makes the movie shorter? Or more confusing?
Comment has been collapsed.
If I get the chance of free choice over both versions, I ALWAYS grab the Directors cut/extended edition over the regular.
All the extra cookies going to waste unseen otherwise...
Comment has been collapsed.
Usually the longer cut. However, sometimes the producers were right in slicing it down to a tightly sound theatrical cut.
Off the top of my head, films where the theatrical cut is better: Sucker Punch, Donnie Darko, Man With The Iron Fists
Edit: Also, avoid any “UNRATED EDITION” cuts. These are typically comedy films with some deleted scenes lazily tacked on just to have an eye-grabbing UNRATED on the box. While the scenes may be funny, they usually add nothing (except runtime) to the film and ruin the cinematic flow.
Comment has been collapsed.
American Pie is a great example of the unrated edition making needless changes
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a movie completionist so the "director's cut" it is for me. It usually is better than the commercial version that was edited so that movie theaters could get more money off the popcorn and candy and soft drinks in a day BUT studios have been known to use that tendency (especially since Blu Ray) to sell the same movie twice for very little changed.
Sometimes it's also an abuse of the "director's cut" term as the director was fine with the commercially released version and/or even made the changes but they are releasing anyway for collector value under that name. I'm looking at you Little Shop of Horrors. And that version always ends up sucking.
Still, it's nice to be able to tell on your own and not let the blood suckers of the movie industry make the decision for you
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone loves people who say this.
Of course, you are right. The narrative capabilities of of a novel are usually superior to film.
That said, there are exceptions. Fight Club, for example, is a much better film than book (as the author even admits).
Comment has been collapsed.
It depends on the movie. Sometimes I'll watch a directors cut and it's a bunch of pointless deleted scenes that didn't really add to the characters or stories at all. Sometimes its the opposite (in cases like LOTR) where the movie is worse off if you remove scenes. I know a lot of scenes aren't explained in the theatrical version of lotr but when you see the extended version, it clicks into place.
If given a choice though I like the extended versions or the version that the film-maker originally intended
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer to watch it the way the director intended, so yes, director's cut.
The exception for me is the original Star Wars trilogy - I know Lucas had always intended them to be "more", but I prefer the original theatrical versions -- the new CGI enhanced scenes don't mesh as well as I'd like.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ridley Scott is a good counterpoint here - he often did the director's cut years later, when he was in a different frame of mind. some are improved, some are worse off. It's not necessarily that one version is his vision and other isn't, it's that he likes tinkering with his movies and doesn't know when to stop
Comment has been collapsed.
I usually go for the directors cut, but it depends. Lately it seems like a lot of movies use "directors cut" as a marketing gimmic and you only get an extra 10-15 minutes of cut scenes, so for those movies I dont care which version I end up watching. Movies like Lord of the Rings (like Stefanig mentioned) really were worse off without the extra scenes, so for those kinds of movies I make sure Im getting the directors version
Comment has been collapsed.
It definetly depends on the movie. The extended cut of Dune is so awful that David Lynch removed his name from it.
The director's cut of Daredavil transforms it in a pretty decent movie. The Lord of the Rings extended versions are awesome, but no god in heaven or hell could force me to watch a second time one of "The Hobbit" movies, let alone an extended cut.
The original western cut of "Nausicaa of the valley of the wind" (Warriors of the wind), is a heavily edited (and therefore pretty nonsensical version) of the movie.
The theatrical version of Kingsman removed either the church scene, or the dirty joke by the end. Depending on the country.
And so on, and so on..
I always do a little research first.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a fan of Aliens (1986) the extended version was a nice surprise. Really enjoyed the new stuff the first time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most extended versions of movies are improved, because they expand on characterization or straighten out pacing issues. One exception I can think of is the first X-Men film, where the extended scenes were spliced in very crudely with some very bizarre hard cuts.
Comment has been collapsed.
So when watching movies at home, which version do you like better? The regular edition that plays in theaters or the directors cut/extended editions for the cut content that you don't see in the theaters?
I know a lot of people that would only watch the regular version due to the movie being shorter. Me, I prefer the extras in it. The ones with missing scenes that, sometimes, make a scene make sense.
How about you?
Comment has been collapsed.