If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Onion AV Club)   The kindest cut: 14-plus movies improved by directors' cuts   (avclub.com) divider line 97
    More: Interesting, human beings, Jonathan Demme, pictures, theatrical, Deckard, Goldie Hawn, Sergio Leone, Turner Entertainment  
•       •       •

10408 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Jun 2012 at 8:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-05 08:44:27 AM
BRADE RUNNEL!
 
2012-06-05 08:49:53 AM
I agree with most especially Payback. I'd also add Chronicles of Riddick
 
2012-06-05 08:53:14 AM
apocalypse now is #1 improved with director's cut and #1 worse with director's cut.

/The making-of documentary "hearts of darkness" is better than both versions of the movie.
 
2012-06-05 08:55:40 AM
kingdom of heaven directors cut is amazing.
 
2012-06-05 08:55:51 AM
If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.
 
2012-06-05 08:56:47 AM
Missing the original "director's cut" movie, Brazil.
 
2012-06-05 08:58:10 AM

carnage4u: kingdom of heaven directors cut is amazing.


Yeah it was pretty good, much better than theatrical
 
2012-06-05 09:03:47 AM
I would be interested in seeing the recut of Swing Shift. I remember it being a good and ambitious movie.
 
2012-06-05 09:06:38 AM

TravisBickle62: carnage4u: kingdom of heaven directors cut is amazing.

Yeah it was pretty good, much better than theatrical


d/c of Gladiator was better too.

/lesson -- if it's a ridley scott movie, wait for dvd.
 
2012-06-05 09:06:50 AM
Tyrone Slothrop


Missing the original "director's cut" movie, Brazil.



This is why I came in here.....The original 142 minutes European release.
 
2012-06-05 09:07:41 AM

TravisBickle62: carnage4u: kingdom of heaven directors cut is amazing.

Yeah it was pretty good, much better than theatrical


Ok, I keep hearing that over and over again and I already liked the original (honestly an underrated film). I'm going to have to try it. It's weird that Orlando really can carry a movie, but my opinion might be biased because eva green was in it.
 
2012-06-05 09:12:01 AM

thecpt: TravisBickle62: carnage4u: kingdom of heaven directors cut is amazing.

Yeah it was pretty good, much better than theatrical

Ok, I keep hearing that over and over again and I already liked the original (honestly an underrated film). I'm going to have to try it. It's weird that Orlando really can carry a movie, but my opinion might be biased because eva green was in it.


The director's cut is worth it alone just for Ed Norton's performance as the leper king. Dude gave a career highlight performance without even showing his face.
 
2012-06-05 09:13:50 AM
I liked Payback as it was. I guess I need to see the re-cut version.
 
2012-06-05 09:18:54 AM

ScreamingLemur46: I liked Payback as it was. I guess I need to see the re-cut version.


I did, too. I'm not entirely sure how Mel Gibson played his character as "goofy".
 
2012-06-05 09:25:30 AM

stoli n coke:

The director's cut is worth it alone just for Ed Norton's performance as the leper king. Dude gave a career highlight performance without even showing his face.


THAT WAS HIM!!!!!!????
...wtf... wow. I feel like and idiot.
 
2012-06-05 09:30:44 AM

DamnYankees: If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.


Yeah. It's hard to think of a movie that's so vastly improved by a director's cut. The theatrical version doesn't just wreck the pacing, it cuts out all the scenes that convey character motivation and development, as well as some fantastic acting. You can't even say it was to make it more of an action movie, as they even cut out the (excellent) climactic duel between Balian and Guy de Frenchyname. It really does feel like it was done solely to ruin the film.

ScreamingLemur46: I liked Payback as it was. I guess I need to see the re-cut version.


I've seen both, and vastly prefer the theatrical. The article is dead-on when it says the Director's Cut is more of a serious noir and less of an action/black comedy, but the movie works much better as an action comedy than it does as a noir.
 
2012-06-05 09:32:54 AM
analysis.ucoz.com
 
2012-06-05 09:35:21 AM
Troy...Troy...TROY! Cumon! It was no Blade Runner, but it turned a "meh" movie into a pretty dang good one!
 
2012-06-05 09:36:38 AM

Gunther: DamnYankees: If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.

Yeah. It's hard to think of a movie that's so vastly improved by a director's cut. The theatrical version doesn't just wreck the pacing, it cuts out all the scenes that convey character motivation and development, as well as some fantastic acting. You can't even say it was to make it more of an action movie, as they even cut out the (excellent) climactic duel between Balian and Guy de Frenchyname. It really does feel like it was done solely to ruin the film.
.


Getting the run time under 2 hours gets you an extra showing per screen. They didn't stop to think that if the movie sucks no one will see it.
 
2012-06-05 09:36:58 AM
Saying Heaven's Gate the director's cut is better than the theatrical release is like saying, well, Highlander 2 The Quickening director's cut is better than the theatrical release. Both are highly unwatchable and the improvements are so few that warrant little notice, or caring.
 
2012-06-05 09:50:42 AM

thecpt: stoli n coke:

The director's cut is worth it alone just for Ed Norton's performance as the leper king. Dude gave a career highlight performance without even showing his face.

THAT WAS HIM!!!!!!????
...wtf... wow. I feel like and idiot.


Don't feel bad, I was in that camp too.

In fact, I didn't feel like downloading, er, buying the director's cut until someone on Fark mentioned that it was Norton. WTF? Srsly?

But it's indeed a better movie in the DC. The only thing I enjoyed about the theatrical release was Eva Green. The DC of KoH is a pretty good movie, if for no other reason than it explains how Balian goes from blacksmith to military genius in 15 minutes.

/and David Thewlis as the Hospitaler is GREAT
 
2012-06-05 09:55:13 AM

OldManDownDRoad: thecpt: stoli n coke:

The director's cut is worth it alone just for Ed Norton's performance as the leper king. Dude gave a career highlight performance without even showing his face.

THAT WAS HIM!!!!!!????
...wtf... wow. I feel like and idiot.

Don't feel bad, I was in that camp too.

In fact, I didn't feel like downloading, er, buying the director's cut until someone on Fark mentioned that it was Norton. WTF? Srsly?

But it's indeed a better movie in the DC. The only thing I enjoyed about the theatrical release was Eva Green. The DC of KoH is a pretty good movie, if for no other reason than it explains how Balian goes from blacksmith to military genius in 15 minutes.

/and David Thewlis as the Hospitaler is GREAT


This. I remember watching the director's cut and wondering why people thought that it had been bad. Apparently I had indeed watched a different movie.
 
2012-06-05 09:55:31 AM
ts:dr
 
2012-06-05 09:56:27 AM
List is missing "The Abyss"
 
2012-06-05 10:01:30 AM
Dark City. The Directors cut made it a mystery, while the theatrical version had 5 minutes of exposition in the opening scene laying out the entire plot.
 
2012-06-05 10:02:05 AM

RevCarter: List is missing "The Abyss"


Look at the other list
 
2012-06-05 10:02:18 AM

Carth: Gunther: DamnYankees: If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.

Yeah. It's hard to think of a movie that's so vastly improved by a director's cut. The theatrical version doesn't just wreck the pacing, it cuts out all the scenes that convey character motivation and development, as well as some fantastic acting. You can't even say it was to make it more of an action movie, as they even cut out the (excellent) climactic duel between Balian and Guy de Frenchyname. It really does feel like it was done solely to ruin the film.
.

Getting the run time under 2 hours gets you an extra showing per screen. They didn't stop to think that if the movie sucks no one will see it.


That tends to happen when studios spend $100 million on an R-rated flick. They have to get their money back somehow, and nowadays, you usually only have about 2 weeks to do it theatrically..

Plus, there was pressure on Ridley Scott to basically turn in Gladiator 2, which Kingdom of Heaven wasn't.

I remember seeing it in theaters and hating it. I avoided the director's cut for years before finally caving in and checking it out. I'm glad I did.
 
2012-06-05 10:09:37 AM

Carth: Gunther: DamnYankees: If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.

Yeah. It's hard to think of a movie that's so vastly improved by a director's cut. The theatrical version doesn't just wreck the pacing, it cuts out all the scenes that convey character motivation and development, as well as some fantastic acting. You can't even say it was to make it more of an action movie, as they even cut out the (excellent) climactic duel between Balian and Guy de Frenchyname. It really does feel like it was done solely to ruin the film.
.

Getting the run time under 2 hours gets you an extra showing per screen. They didn't stop to think that if the movie sucks no one will see it.


But the theatrical cut still had a run time of 2:30 or something like that. Just dumb.
 
2012-06-05 10:14:44 AM
I thought the Watchmen movie was greatly improved by the director's cut. Made it feel so much less disjointed.
 
2012-06-05 10:18:39 AM

DamnYankees: Carth: Gunther: DamnYankees: If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.

Yeah. It's hard to think of a movie that's so vastly improved by a director's cut. The theatrical version doesn't just wreck the pacing, it cuts out all the scenes that convey character motivation and development, as well as some fantastic acting. You can't even say it was to make it more of an action movie, as they even cut out the (excellent) climactic duel between Balian and Guy de Frenchyname. It really does feel like it was done solely to ruin the film.
.

Getting the run time under 2 hours gets you an extra showing per screen. They didn't stop to think that if the movie sucks no one will see it.

But the theatrical cut still had a run time of 2:30 or something like that. Just dumb.


Yea, it says in the article "At 20th Century Fox's behest, the theatrical version ran just under two and a half hours" I imagine the difference between 2.5 hours and 3.25 is another showing each day as well. Either way it was a terrible decision.
 
2012-06-05 10:22:28 AM

HeartBurnKid: I thought the Watchmen movie was greatly improved by the director's cut. Made it feel so much less disjointed.


I agree. I haven't seen the super-extended director's cut, though. I don't know if it's worth tracking down.
 
2012-06-05 10:28:19 AM

thecpt: TravisBickle62: carnage4u: kingdom of heaven directors cut is amazing.

Yeah it was pretty good, much better than theatrical

Ok, I keep hearing that over and over again and I already liked the original (honestly an underrated film). I'm going to have to try it. It's weird that Orlando really can carry a movie, but my opinion might be biased because eva green was in it.


There is so much more movie in the director's cut. It's difficult to express how different the movie feels. It turns it from a three star movie that appeals to a specific group to a four or five star movie that should be watched by all. Comparing it to Ben-Hur isn't a stretch.
 
2012-06-05 10:29:19 AM

HeartBurnKid: I thought the Watchmen movie was greatly improved by the director's cut. Made it feel so much less disjointed.


Agree entirely.

List is wrong to include Blade Runner. DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT.
 
2012-06-05 10:30:36 AM
What?!? no Superman II??
 
2012-06-05 10:32:27 AM
I thought the directors cut of "Payback" was rather horrible.

These two lists seem to be reversed.
 
2012-06-05 10:33:39 AM
Oh, also, Kingdom of Heaven is an f-ng good movie. It surprised me.
 
2012-06-05 10:52:45 AM
Pick up the original cut of Die Hard with a Vengenance. It's much more entertaining with blood.and F-bombs
 
2012-06-05 10:55:31 AM

One Bad Apple: [analysis.ucoz.com image 338x475]


How about:

i46.tinypic.com

Oh, wait. The "director's cut" is almost perfectly identical to the regular release, save for a handful of slightly altered sound effects.
 
2012-06-05 10:57:13 AM

Perlin Noise: What?!? no Superman II??


After watching the Donner cut it was easy to see where the Superman franchise started going downhill. Yeah, I know he reused the ending from Superman, but his original intent was to have a cliffhanger ending at the end of Superman and the spinning around the Earth thing to reverse everything. After all, he did go back in time to save Lois but still let the town get flooded after the dam bursts.
 
2012-06-05 11:03:00 AM

hipswiggle: Pick up the original cut of Die Hard with a Vengenance. It's much more entertaining with blood.and F-bombs


wait.. there is a different version?
 
2012-06-05 11:04:46 AM
I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.
 
2012-06-05 11:15:42 AM

SuperChuck: I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.


Yes, because everyone during the Crusades was a bloodthirsty savage. No one back then liked living in peace.
 
2012-06-05 11:15:48 AM

SuperChuck: I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.


That movie bored me horribly. Do you know what would have been awesome to have happen in that movie?

Something.

Anything!
 
2012-06-05 11:17:43 AM

zipdog: Perlin Noise: What?!? no Superman II??

After watching the Donner cut it was easy to see where the Superman franchise started going downhill. Yeah, I know he reused the ending from Superman, but his original intent was to have a cliffhanger ending at the end of Superman and the spinning around the Earth thing to reverse everything. After all, he did go back in time to save Lois but still let the town get flooded after the dam bursts.


There's a fan edit out there that combines the best of the Donner cut with the best of the Lester cut -- it's easily superior to either.
 
2012-06-05 11:24:38 AM

DamnYankees: SuperChuck: I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.

Yes, because everyone during the Crusades was a bloodthirsty savage. No one back then liked living in peace.


I'd think that that sort of person would be more likely to stay away from the Crusades rather than jump into the middle of it.
 
2012-06-05 11:26:13 AM

flaminio: it's easily superior to either.


As long as there are no goofy sound effects or ice cream hitting someone in the face or silly translucent vinyl net thing thrown from the S insignia, its better.
 
2012-06-05 11:27:27 AM

Perlin Noise: hipswiggle: Pick up the original cut of Die Hard with a Vengenance. It's much more entertaining with blood.and F-bombs

wait.. there is a different version?


Yes there is. The studio pushed for the PG-13 theatrical version.
 
2012-06-05 11:29:17 AM
Kingdom of Heaven was the best director's cut I've ever seen. It was a whole different (and vastly improved) movie.
 
2012-06-05 11:32:09 AM

hipswiggle: PG-13 theatrical version.


Are you sure you are not thinking about "Live Free or Die Hard"? I don't remember "with a vengeance" being PG-13.
 
2012-06-05 11:36:10 AM

SuperChuck: I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.


Since there was no one doing that during the movie, I have no idea what you're talking about. The most peaceful characters, at best, were attempting to keep the peace and prevent a gore-fest. There weren't any attempts at singing Kumbaya. They just didn't want everyone in the city dying because a few fundy warmongers wanted to start a fight.
 
2012-06-05 11:40:07 AM
I've only seen the theatrical version of Kingdom of Heaven and found it mediocre. Never bothered with the extended version because I assumed it would just be more crap, but it looks like I was wrong I guess I should try to find it.
 
2012-06-05 11:40:33 AM

Perlin Noise: hipswiggle: PG-13 theatrical version.

Are you sure you are not thinking about "Live Free or Die Hard"? I don't remember "with a vengeance" being PG-13.


Yes, you're right. It would appear you bested me and my stupidity with your encyclopaedic knowledge of Bruce Willis movies.
 
2012-06-05 11:41:31 AM

stoli n coke: Carth: Gunther: DamnYankees: If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.

Yeah. It's hard to think of a movie that's so vastly improved by a director's cut. The theatrical version doesn't just wreck the pacing, it cuts out all the scenes that convey character motivation and development, as well as some fantastic acting. You can't even say it was to make it more of an action movie, as they even cut out the (excellent) climactic duel between Balian and Guy de Frenchyname. It really does feel like it was done solely to ruin the film.
.

Getting the run time under 2 hours gets you an extra showing per screen. They didn't stop to think that if the movie sucks no one will see it.

That tends to happen when studios spend $100 million on an R-rated flick. They have to get their money back somehow, and nowadays, you usually only have about 2 weeks to do it theatrically..

Plus, there was pressure on Ridley Scott to basically turn in Gladiator 2, which Kingdom of Heaven wasn't.

I remember seeing it in theaters and hating it. I avoided the director's cut for years before finally caving in and checking it out. I'm glad I did.


But a movie like that gets significant foreign revenue, plus they picked a respected Syrian actor to play Saladin(not ethnically correct, but it's Hollywood.. they'll pick a Chinese guy to play a Japanese part), which adds to that foreign cred.
 
2012-06-05 11:42:25 AM

hipswiggle: Perlin Noise: hipswiggle: PG-13 theatrical version.

Are you sure you are not thinking about "Live Free or Die Hard"? I don't remember "with a vengeance" being PG-13.

Yes, you're right. It would appear you bested me and my stupidity with your encyclopaedic knowledge of Bruce Willis movies.


... It's not like he's talking about the directors cut of Striking Distance here
 
2012-06-05 11:48:06 AM
What, no 1776?
 
2012-06-05 11:48:58 AM

hipswiggle: It would appear you bested me


please don't take it that way. I was just wanting to find out if there was an even more offensive version of "with a vengeance" that I was missing out on.

After all, it did have Samuel L Jackson in it...
 
2012-06-05 11:51:30 AM
The Close Encounters of the Third Kind director's goes more in depth to fill holes. It explains where the music they use to talk to the spacemen came from and explains the cows dying off on the way to Devil's Peak.
 
2012-06-05 11:52:51 AM

SuperChuck: DamnYankees: SuperChuck: I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.

Yes, because everyone during the Crusades was a bloodthirsty savage. No one back then liked living in peace.

I'd think that that sort of person would be more likely to stay away from the Crusades rather than jump into the middle of it.


Might want to read a biography of St. Francis of Assisi then, for an example of why you're wrong
 
2012-06-05 12:00:04 PM

Theaetetus: Dark City. The Directors cut made it a mystery, while the theatrical version had 5 minutes of exposition in the opening scene laying out the entire plot.


And the scene with the hooker's daughter showing Bumstead her drawing of the Strangers killing her mother explains further why he believes John Murdock isn't the killer.
 
2012-06-05 12:00:45 PM

HeartBurnKid: I thought the Watchmen movie was greatly improved by the director's cut. Made it feel so much less disjointed.



Seconded. I never understood why the full version of the Vietnam battle scene was never shown.
 
2012-06-05 12:01:27 PM

gulley: What, no 1776?


Fun fact: Jack Warner cut the "Cool Conservative Men" song from the theatrical version because then-president Richard Nixon asked him to.
 
2012-06-05 12:07:16 PM

bhcompy: hipswiggle: Perlin Noise: hipswiggle: PG-13 theatrical version.

Are you sure you are not thinking about "Live Free or Die Hard"? I don't remember "with a vengeance" being PG-13.

Yes, you're right. It would appear you bested me and my stupidity with your encyclopaedic knowledge of Bruce Willis movies.

... It's not like he's talking about the directors cut of Striking Distance here


Heh. That was some bizarre butt-hurt right there.
 
2012-06-05 12:07:31 PM
Star Trek: The Motion Picture should be here. It feels more like a movie than the original. I have no idea how to say it other than that.
 
2012-06-05 12:19:14 PM
Missing from the list:

Butterfly Effect (way way WAY better ending)

Pearl Harbor - a lot more graphic gore was added to the battle scene, made it a lot more realistic.
 
2012-06-05 12:23:22 PM
Huh.. So there is a DC of Troy??

**Checks Amazon**

Huh.. Well I'll be. Is it actually good?
 
2012-06-05 12:30:41 PM

stagirite:
List is wrong to include Blade Runner. DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT.


Agreed. He's human. I don't care what Ridley Scott says. I think EJO was messing with Deckard at the end, that's all.

nicoffeine: Star Trek: The Motion Picture should be here. It feels more like a movie than the original. I have no idea how to say it other than that.


Oh, the original version is a movie....the DC is a better movie. There were a couple of extremely minor changes that I didn't like, but otherwise it is highly superior to the original.
 
2012-06-05 12:51:33 PM

Gunther: DamnYankees: If Kingdom of Heaven isn't No. 1, no cred.

Yeah. It's hard to think of a movie that's so vastly improved by a director's cut. The theatrical version doesn't just wreck the pacing, it cuts out all the scenes that convey character motivation and development, as well as some fantastic acting. You can't even say it was to make it more of an action movie, as they even cut out the (excellent) climactic duel between Balian and Guy de Frenchyname. It really does feel like it was done solely to ruin the film.


I think that I'm going to have to track down that cut. I saw the theatrical version and thought it was just a mess.
 
2012-06-05 12:55:21 PM

wippit: Missing from the list:

Butterfly Effect (way way WAY better ending)

Pearl Harbor - a lot more graphic gore was added to the battle scene, made it a lot more realistic.




Which ending is that? I actually liked that movie but found the "fetus-strangles-itself-in-the-womb" ending to be complete FARKing shiat.
 
2012-06-05 12:57:34 PM

maelstrom0370: wippit: Missing from the list:

Butterfly Effect (way way WAY better ending)


Which ending is that? I actually liked that movie but found the "fetus-strangles-itself-in-the-womb" ending to be complete FARKing shiat.


As opposed to the original ending: he becomes a doctor and lives happily ever after?
 
2012-06-05 01:01:52 PM

wippit: maelstrom0370: wippit: Missing from the list:

Butterfly Effect (way way WAY better ending)


Which ending is that? I actually liked that movie but found the "fetus-strangles-itself-in-the-womb" ending to be complete FARKing shiat.

As opposed to the original ending: he becomes a doctor and lives happily ever after?


Aaaaaand that's a problem because...????
 
2012-06-05 01:05:02 PM
The guy is tormented for 20 years, and then suddenly "I'm a doctor! All is good now."

Just doesn't seem to fit the theme of the movie.
 
2012-06-05 01:13:03 PM

stagirite: HeartBurnKid: I thought the Watchmen movie was greatly improved by the director's cut. Made it feel so much less disjointed.

Agree entirely.

List is wrong to include Blade Runner. DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT.


Even before the director's cut, there were plenty of clues that he was. The only gripe that I have with the DC is that it makes it a bit too explicit, but I don't have any problem with him being one.
 
2012-06-05 01:14:45 PM

wippit: The guy is tormented for 20 years, and then suddenly "I'm a doctor! All is good now."

Just doesn't seem to fit the theme of the movie.


I think that's an argument for both endings sucking.

Seriously... a fetus strangling itself in the womb? Really!?

On the other hand, it does raise the explicit proposition that the world is a better place without Ashton Kutcher in it, so there's that.
 
2012-06-05 01:17:47 PM

wippit: The guy is tormented for 20 years, and then suddenly "I'm a doctor! All is good now."

Just doesn't seem to fit the theme of the movie.


I took it as the torment was over once he scared the girl away. No more time hopping, everyone gets a "normal" life.
The womb scene, for me, didn't seem to fit the movie.
Oh well, tomAYto/tomAHto

/Oh wait, this is FARK
//FARK you and your stupid opinion!!
///amidoinitrite?
 
2012-06-05 01:31:15 PM

NeoCortex42: I agree. I haven't seen the super-extended director's cut, though. I don't know if it's worth tracking down.


Don't bother unless you're a huge fanboi. It mostly adds some animated comic book type sequences that aren't needed.
 
2012-06-05 01:42:37 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: stagirite: HeartBurnKid: I thought the Watchmen movie was greatly improved by the director's cut. Made it feel so much less disjointed.

Agree entirely.

List is wrong to include Blade Runner. DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT.

Even before the director's cut, there were plenty of clues that he was. The only gripe that I have with the DC is that it makes it a bit too explicit, but I don't have any problem with him being one.


What's interesting is the conundrum of how one would know. Making it explicit takes the fun out of that, but what's even worse is that as an explicit claim, it renders the whole story incoherent. The point of having blade runners is that they don't want any replicants on Earth, so why would you use replicants as blade runners? (And why would you use replicants who get the crap kicked out of them and feel pain?) Does not compute.
 
2012-06-05 01:48:00 PM

Theaetetus: Dark City. The Directors cut made it a mystery, while the theatrical version had 5 minutes of exposition in the opening scene laying out the entire plot.


That still remains one of the most baffling changes I can think of. I saw it in the theatre and though it looked cool, it was incredibly underwhelming. Finding out later they added that voiceover, I facepalmed - it ruined the whole point of the movie.
 
2012-06-05 01:56:15 PM

stagirite: What's interesting is the conundrum of how one would know. Making it explicit takes the fun out of that, but what's even worse is that as an explicit claim, it renders the whole story incoherent. The point of having blade runners is that they don't want any replicants on Earth, so why would you use replicants as blade runners? (And why would you use replicants who get the crap kicked out of them and feel pain?) Does not compute.


When you get the count of rogue replicants, the number doesn't match the number of targets that Deckard is given. It's off by one.

I think that the implication is that they somehow got hold of Deckard and managed to somehow reprogram him to go after the others (perhaps using the same memory techniques that they used on Rachael), which makes sense given how dangerous they are. It's a win-win for the authorities.

I think that it also explains a lot of Gaff's interaction with Deckard (and that's even if we excise the origami).
 
2012-06-05 02:06:56 PM

stagirite: What's interesting is the conundrum of how one would know. Making it explicit takes the fun out of that, but what's even worse is that as an explicit claim, it renders the whole story incoherent. The point of having blade runners is that they don't want any replicants on Earth, so why would you use replicants as blade runners? (And why would you use replicants who get the crap kicked out of them and feel pain?) Does not compute.


Because they are efficient at their work. Since their job is to destroy other replicants, ie. those not under control the "the man" and are running buck wild, they need to believe they are human so they don't go all squirrely with their prime directive of destroying replicants and being one at the same time.

Or something to that effect...
 
2012-06-05 02:16:45 PM

SuperChuck: I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.


You should try reading some history books. Saladin wasn't a bad guy. He did want peace. Unfortunately, the Crusaders kinda kept that from happening, what with their wars and stuff.
 
2012-06-05 02:18:37 PM

Khellendros: SuperChuck: I don't get the love for Kingdom of Heaven. Having a guy running around during the Crusades saying "can't we all just get along" is too silly for me to take seriously.

Since there was no one doing that during the movie, I have no idea what you're talking about. The most peaceful characters, at best, were attempting to keep the peace and prevent a gore-fest. There weren't any attempts at singing Kumbaya. They just didn't want everyone in the city dying because a few fundy warmongers wanted to start a fight.


Sounds familiar, eh?
 
2012-06-05 02:28:07 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: stagirite: What's interesting is the conundrum of how one would know. Making it explicit takes the fun out of that, but what's even worse is that as an explicit claim, it renders the whole story incoherent. The point of having blade runners is that they don't want any replicants on Earth, so why would you use replicants as blade runners? (And why would you use replicants who get the crap kicked out of them and feel pain?) Does not compute.

When you get the count of rogue replicants, the number doesn't match the number of targets that Deckard is given. It's off by one.

I think that the implication is that they somehow got hold of Deckard and managed to somehow reprogram him to go after the others (perhaps using the same memory techniques that they used on Rachael), which makes sense given how dangerous they are. It's a win-win for the authorities.

I think that it also explains a lot of Gaff's interaction with Deckard (and that's even if we excise the origami).


That would help address my first point, but not my second: he's super-weak and feels pain.
 
2012-06-05 03:10:55 PM
I love the Redux version of Apocalypse Now, but I'd still cut the French plantation scene after Clean's funeral. I love how the Redux version clears up a bunch of continuity problems in the original, the two biggest being:

* at the beach, one minute there's no surfboard on the back of the boat, the next shot there is
* one minute Clean's corpse is in the back of the boat, the next shot it isn't

Unfortunately, the French Plantation scene doesn't add anything --we don't need the history of French colonialism in Asia debated > Willard doing drugs-- but hey, that's what the next chapter function on DVD's is for.
 
2012-06-05 03:19:52 PM

Henry Holland: I love the Redux version of Apocalypse Now, but I'd still cut the French plantation scene after Clean's funeral. I love how the Redux version clears up a bunch of continuity problems in the original, the two biggest being:

* at the beach, one minute there's no surfboard on the back of the boat, the next shot there is
* one minute Clean's corpse is in the back of the boat, the next shot it isn't

Unfortunately, the French Plantation scene doesn't add anything --we don't need the history of French colonialism in Asia debated > Willard doing drugs-- but hey, that's what the next chapter function on DVD's is for.


I was never a fan of Apocalypse Now, thinking it a confused mess. But, like Kingdom of Heaven mentioned above, the Redux version resolves a lot of that problem and does a much better job of creating the atmosphere.

My beef with the French plantation scene was that it dragged terribly and made me wish I was at a theater so I could get up and go get some popcorn.
 
2012-06-05 03:40:18 PM

OldManDownDRoad: Henry Holland: I love the Redux version of Apocalypse Now, but I'd still cut the French plantation scene after Clean's funeral. I love how the Redux version clears up a bunch of continuity problems in the original, the two biggest being:

* at the beach, one minute there's no surfboard on the back of the boat, the next shot there is
* one minute Clean's corpse is in the back of the boat, the next shot it isn't

Unfortunately, the French Plantation scene doesn't add anything --we don't need the history of French colonialism in Asia debated > Willard doing drugs-- but hey, that's what the next chapter function on DVD's is for.

I was never a fan of Apocalypse Now, thinking it a confused mess. But, like Kingdom of Heaven mentioned above, the Redux version resolves a lot of that problem and does a much better job of creating the atmosphere.

My beef with the French plantation scene was that it dragged terribly and made me wish I was at a theater so I could get up and go get some popcorn.


Everything added drags the movie down. You didn't see it in the theater, so you have the option to pause, take a break, whatever. In the theater, the movie is balls. I struggled to stay awake, quite literally, and that never happens even with bad movies. There was just no value to the scenes they added.
 
2012-06-05 05:21:49 PM
I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were best improved by their extended cuts. I liked the theatrical versions, but it felt like there were some fairly obvious gaps in the story; the extended cuts pretty much resolved those issues.

otherwise, I found the alternate cuts of Alien and Alien 3 to be fairly interesting. I don't think I really like the working cut of Alien 3 as much as some of the other people I know, but it adds a bit more personality to an otherwise fairly pointless movie.
 
2012-06-05 05:42:57 PM
The DC of The Blues Brothers was better than the traditional version and some things make more sense in it. For example, after Carrie Fisher blows up the hotel just as John Candy and the two cops were busting into Elwood's room, Elwood looks at his watch and tells Jake that it's time to go to work, by which you assume he meant going to work on their efforts to get the band back together. Later on, Elwood has that glue he keeps using on the RV's accelerator pedal and the elevator's circuitry. In the extended version however, you see Elwood go to his work at a glue factory and steal cans of the product. There were other little bits like stashing the Bluesmobile in a CTA transformer shed at night, inter alia

One director's cut (if it can really be called that) that I was meh about was Richard Donner's version of Superman II. He was stuck without a lot of scenes that were never filmed after he was fired, and having to use some of Richard Lester's material. Yes, it had some improvements (the reveal in the Niagra Falls hotel, Lois dropping the green crystal that allowed him to rebuild, not having the giant cellophane S logo), but it was also weaker in some areas (such as using the same deus ex machina solution that he used in the first movie -- and which negated the point of having to battle Zod & Co. in the first place), and some junk that was junk in both versions (the whole moon sequence was one WTF, huh? moment after another).
 
2012-06-05 05:54:52 PM

FeedTheCollapse: otherwise, I found the alternate cuts of Alien and Alien 3 to be fairly interesting. I don't think I really like the working cut of Alien 3 as much as some of the other people I know, but it adds a bit more personality to an otherwise fairly pointless movie.


What changes are their specifically? I like the theatrical cut. I think it is negatively viewed because Alien 3 really is more of a direct sequel in style to Alien than Aliens, which is an action movie rather than a suspense or a horror/creature film. People want it to be Aliens 2, not Alien 3.
 
2012-06-05 06:06:13 PM

bhcompy: FeedTheCollapse: otherwise, I found the alternate cuts of Alien and Alien 3 to be fairly interesting. I don't think I really like the working cut of Alien 3 as much as some of the other people I know, but it adds a bit more personality to an otherwise fairly pointless movie.

What changes are their specifically? I like the theatrical cut. I think it is negatively viewed because Alien 3 really is more of a direct sequel in style to Alien than Aliens, which is an action movie rather than a suspense or a horror/creature film. People want it to be Aliens 2, not Alien 3.




I think there's a bit more to the Alien 3 hate than just that. I don't think it's nearly as bad as it's been made out to be, but it kind of feels like an overly long epilogue to Aliens that doesn't really give satisfactory answers. I don't mind the ending, but in light of the rest of the subpar movie, it does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Here's a list of the alternate scenes

I wish they had kept this in.
 
2012-06-05 06:22:18 PM
Both versions of The Brown Bunny were cut by director/star/writer/cameraman/editor/producer Vincent Gallo, so I don't think "director's cut" is a useful term in that film's case -- but the second, shorter version is a massive improvement over the original.
 
2012-06-05 08:59:20 PM

HopScotchNSoda: Both versions of The Brown Bunny were cut by director/star/writer/cameraman/editor/producer Vincent Gallo, so I don't think "director's cut" is a useful term in that film's case -- but the second, shorter version is a massive improvement over the original.


There's only one scene in that film that has any value whatsoever.

You know the one.
 
2012-06-05 09:02:59 PM
The difference in the ST:TMP Directors Cut is that they got to actually finish the damn thing. Paramount was so tied into their release date that the sound FX never got a chance to get totally integrated -as well as most of the visual FX as well. Plus Wise cut a lot of the 'Sulu/Decker/Uhura staring at the V'GR' shots, and inserted a couple of important character scenes - especially the scene of Spock crying, realizing that logic is not everything, and that V'GR would never understand that - without help. That's only the most important plot point in the movie! That way, the whole Decker merging with V'GR thing almost makes sense.
 
2012-06-05 10:40:59 PM
True Romance
 
2012-06-05 11:43:41 PM

Mofo_Jones: stagirite:
List is wrong to include Blade Runner. DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT.

Agreed. He's human. I don't care what Ridley Scott says. I think EJO was messing with Deckard at the end, that's all.



THIS.

If he is a replicant then in the end he basically just realizes that he's a replicant and will probably be "retired".

If he's a human being, then in the end he's had to question what it means to be human and he realizes what people have been doing (creating disposable people) is wrong.

I think the movie makes a lot more sense, and is a LOT more poignant, if Deckard is human. When I added Blade Runner to my media collection I added the theatrical cut.
 
2012-06-06 10:04:13 AM
Dark City. One of my all time science fantasy films, and the theatrical version starts out by spoiling the central mystery of the movie with a voiceover at the beginning of the film. There really was no excuse for the studio to interfere like that, and even the first time I saw the movie, I was mystified as to why everything was given away like that. Plus, without the voiceover, there's a little more room for audience interpretation of what the strangers are.
 
2012-06-06 02:19:25 PM

mongbiohazard: Mofo_Jones: stagirite:
List is wrong to include Blade Runner. DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT.

Agreed. He's human. I don't care what Ridley Scott says. I think EJO was messing with Deckard at the end, that's all.


THIS.

If he is a replicant then in the end he basically just realizes that he's a replicant and will probably be "retired".

If he's a human being, then in the end he's had to question what it means to be human and he realizes what people have been doing (creating disposable people) is wrong.

I think the movie makes a lot more sense, and is a LOT more poignant, if Deckard is human. When I added Blade Runner to my media collection I added the theatrical cut.


THIS. Well put.
 
2012-06-07 08:41:32 PM
The important thing about Highlander: The Director's Cut was that it added that cool Nazi scene.

Also, it revealed why "THX Certification" is a farking joke. The DVD looked sub-VHS. Apparently someone must have left the master print on top of a farking radiator.
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report