Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Gizmodo)   Do not look to directors' cuts for salvation   (io9.gizmodo.com) divider line
    More: Vintage, Film, director's cut, Director's cut, Snyder Cut, Directors' cuts, Film director, Justice League, director's cut make  
•       •       •

1607 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 22 Jun 2020 at 9:55 AM (13 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



44 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-22 9:51:40 AM  
"The best way to let studios know that you're not a fan of what they're dropping is to just stop going to see their movies."

If the Movie stinks... Just don't go!
Youtube YigM-F4oSIE
 
2020-06-22 10:16:57 AM  
I'm glad the brought up "Blade Runner" as an exception, but it wasn't merely a "clarification" of Scott's vision.  It was a restoration of what he actually made.  When studio executives saw his original cut, they panicked because they thought they were getting a futuristic film noir cop movie, not a deep philosophical film that did not resolve the core question regarding the central character, i.e. the ambiguity of whether Deckard was a human or a replicant with built-in false memories.  The studio had Ford come back in and cram some narration in that buried the existential question about Deckard, and Ford I think resented it, and it certainly seems to carry over into his narration which sounds flat and disinterested.  That film was released in theaters and did not do very well, so the changes they made did not help its fortunes at all.  Scott's 1992 cut was really only a couple of minutes longer than the theatrical cut, but it did away with the awkward narration, and is almost an entirely different film.  Mostly, I think director's cuts are overblown, but there are some really good ones out there.
 
2020-06-22 10:25:37 AM  

Nabb1: I'm glad the brought up "Blade Runner" as an exception, but it wasn't merely a "clarification" of Scott's vision.  It was a restoration of what he actually made.  When studio executives saw his original cut, they panicked because they thought they were getting a futuristic film noir cop movie, not a deep philosophical film that did not resolve the core question regarding the central character, i.e. the ambiguity of whether Deckard was a human or a replicant with built-in false memories.  The studio had Ford come back in and cram some narration in that buried the existential question about Deckard, and Ford I think resented it, and it certainly seems to carry over into his narration which sounds flat and disinterested.  That film was released in theaters and did not do very well, so the changes they made did not help its fortunes at all.  Scott's 1992 cut was really only a couple of minutes longer than the theatrical cut, but it did away with the awkward narration, and is almost an entirely different film.  Mostly, I think director's cuts are overblown, but there are some really good ones out there.


Regarding "Blade Runner," I've honestly lost track of how many different cuts of that film there are.  Turns out there's enough of them that "Versions of Blade Runner" is its own Wikipedia page.
 
2020-06-22 10:26:19 AM  
Here is how to a director's cut properly:

1 - add back in the deleted scenes of useless commanders doing nothing so that the original pacing of the boarding action is hobbled with the bonus of crapping on your editor's skills that made your movie.

2 - have cgi add in a new gun shot and heroic head bob that destroys the character growth of the classic rogue with a good heart. Then state that the audience never understood even after 20 years of fandom.

3 - add back in a deleted scene that ruins not one, but three moves of suspense. Make sure to ruin the classic story telling of the 'ominous force' that pushes your character's action by adding a funny little step on the tail of the now disenfranchised antagonist.
 
2020-06-22 10:26:57 AM  

Nabb1: I'm glad the brought up "Blade Runner" as an exception, but it wasn't merely a "clarification" of Scott's vision.  It was a restoration of what he actually made.  When studio executives saw his original cut, they panicked because they thought they were getting a futuristic film noir cop movie, not a deep philosophical film that did not resolve the core question regarding the central character, i.e. the ambiguity of whether Deckard was a human or a replicant with built-in false memories.  The studio had Ford come back in and cram some narration in that buried the existential question about Deckard, and Ford I think resented it, and it certainly seems to carry over into his narration which sounds flat and disinterested.  That film was released in theaters and did not do very well, so the changes they made did not help its fortunes at all.  Scott's 1992 cut was really only a couple of minutes longer than the theatrical cut, but it did away with the awkward narration, and is almost an entirely different film.  Mostly, I think director's cuts are overblown, but there are some really good ones out there.


Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind.
 
2020-06-22 10:33:24 AM  

McGrits: Here is how to a director's cut properly:

1 - add back in the deleted scenes of useless commanders doing nothing so that the original pacing of the boarding action is hobbled with the bonus of crapping on your editor's skills that made your movie.

2 - have cgi add in a new gun shot and heroic head bob that destroys the character growth of the classic rogue with a good heart. Then state that the audience never understood even after 20 years of fandom.

3 - add back in a deleted scene that ruins not one, but three moves of suspense. Make sure to ruin the classic story telling of the 'ominous force' that pushes your character's action by adding a funny little step on the tail of the now disenfranchised antagonist.


You forgot #4, bury the original cut so no one can release it on modern media.
 
2020-06-22 10:37:04 AM  

Nabb1: Mostly, I think director's cuts are overblown, but there are some really good ones out there.


There are a LOT of good ones where they just add a few scenes to flesh out the story (post-release, no one cares if there's an extra 6 minutes; your audience is largely people who already like the film), maybe longer cuts of some stuff.

And then there's the director's cut of Payback (the Mel Gibson one) - it's a ridiculously silly movie (like Shoot 'em Up, with a lot more restraint), but the original director decided that no one cares about Act 3 and just kind of ...ended the story (at least that's how I remember it). The "real" release adds in a whole bunch of stuff to actually build action and pay it off.
 
2020-06-22 10:38:01 AM  
I am not a fan of Zack Snyder, and with the exception of some few, scattered parts of Man of Steel, I absolutely loathe the DCEU and everything about it. Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice (a title so godawful I can never resist saying it in full with dramatic emphasis) was my least favorite major studio film of the decade. The wrongness of it is kind of awe inspiring and fascinating to contemplate.

That said, I would rather see the actual Snyder film as it was originally written, planned, and produced than a half-reshot, cobbled together, atonal, discordant, unfocused film, one that is obviously at war with itself and tries to serve too many masters. Even if it's just to hate-watch it like I did with Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

And the fact that it's actually getting finished now is just totally amazing. It would be like George Lucas pouring millions of dollars into re-editing The Force Awakens with his weird, kooky "Whills" stuff added in post. I can't WAIT to see this shiat.
 
2020-06-22 10:43:04 AM  
Sometimes they're crap:  the director's cut of Donnie Darko gave too much away, ruining the effect of the theatrical release where people would puzzle out their own theories of what happened.

It also rearranged the movie in a weird way that farked with the narrative and pacing of the movie, throwing in these awkward episode titles in the middle, etc.  Basically that director's cut is there to make you look stupid when you convince your friends that "seriously you have to see this movie."
 
2020-06-22 10:44:08 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-22 10:45:39 AM  

Delc: McGrits: Here is how to a director's cut properly:

1 - add back in the deleted scenes of useless commanders doing nothing so that the original pacing of the boarding action is hobbled with the bonus of crapping on your editor's skills that made your movie.

2 - have cgi add in a new gun shot and heroic head bob that destroys the character growth of the classic rogue with a good heart. Then state that the audience never understood even after 20 years of fandom.

3 - add back in a deleted scene that ruins not one, but three moves of suspense. Make sure to ruin the classic story telling of the 'ominous force' that pushes your character's action by adding a funny little step on the tail of the now disenfranchised antagonist.

You forgot #4, bury the original cut so no one can release it on modern media.


And #5, throw in some CGI that looks terrible even six months later, even though the muppets and costumes are still brilliant after four decades.
 
2020-06-22 10:46:17 AM  
The worst director's cut is the one for "The Warriors", which adds distracting comic-book themed scene transitions, but also because of those, each scene tapers off because they need to end on a frame that suits the comic book motif instead of a decent cut point. The pacing is entirely wrong as a result. It goes from being a camp classic to being pure camp.
 
2020-06-22 10:47:20 AM  
The original "director's cut", Brazil, was definitely better than the version cut by the studio. But a director's cut won't make an inherently bad movie better.
 
2020-06-22 10:57:49 AM  
The director's cut of Almost Famous, is a much better version than the original movie.
 
2020-06-22 11:14:48 AM  
I do have to say, though, that LoTR is a franchise where the director's cuts are really worth it.  That's a special case where the only factor in chopping down the movie was time---in most other cases, scenes end up cut because of marginal quality or significance, or poor pacing or composition that is improved by editing them out.  But with LoTR it was all gold, and the Director's cut is just more movie.  If anything, the theatrical release seems a bit too hurried.
 
2020-06-22 11:15:26 AM  

Nabb1: The studio had Ford come back in and cram some narration in that buried the existential question about Deckard, and Ford I think resented it, and it certainly seems to carry over into his narration which sounds flat and disinterested.


To be fair, I think that's Ford's default mode
 
2020-06-22 11:16:32 AM  

wiseolddude: The director's cut of Almost Famous, is a much better version than the original movie.


Really? Do you mind elaborating? The original is one of my favorite all-time films and I was going to show it to a friend the other day, but balked at the running time on my streaming service because it was the director's cut and I was afraid it would drag.
 
2020-06-22 11:24:22 AM  
While not exactly a directors cut, Monty Python's Holy Grail failed miserably in the original screening.  They went back and through out all the period correct sound track and replaced it with the current over the top goodness, and also added the opening sequence (with llamas).

It doesn't take much to make or break a movie.  Comedy is even more subtle.  I strongly suspect that there is a funny movie somewhere on the cutting room floor of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but I doubt there is enough financial backing to find it.
 
2020-06-22 11:27:57 AM  

McGrits: Here is how to a director's cut properly:

1 - add back in the deleted scenes of useless commanders doing nothing so that the original pacing of the boarding action is hobbled with the bonus of crapping on your editor's skills that made your movie.

2 - have cgi add in a new gun shot and heroic head bob that destroys the character growth of the classic rogue with a good heart. Then state that the audience never understood even after 20 years of fandom.

3 - add back in a deleted scene that ruins not one, but three moves of suspense. Make sure to ruin the classic story telling of the 'ominous force' that pushes your character's action by adding a funny little step on the tail of the now disenfranchised antagonist.


2a) Make the alien say "Maclunkey!" for some reason.

Han/Greedo Scene New 2019 Disney+ Change Comparison (Maclunkey)
Youtube mH19gKo7W7w
 
2020-06-22 11:47:04 AM  

wiseolddude: The director's cut of Almost Famous, is a much better version than the original movie.


I haven't watched either in awhile but I remember liking the theatrical version better. From what I can remember the 2 hour versions was tighter and told a more focused story. The in at least a few cases the deleted scenes they put back in were deleted for good reason.
 
2020-06-22 12:06:30 PM  

Xcott: I do have to say, though, that LoTR is a franchise where the director's cuts are really worth it.


I've watched the whole thing in both extended and original cuts enough times that for about 90% of the extended scenes, I can see why a moment was cut. We don't really need to see Merry and Pippin find a bunch of pipe weed, for example. It's fun and light moment, but it doesn't add anything to the story. There are a couple big exceptions to that in all three movies but I understand the two cuts for each movie to be necessary in their own way.

There's also the case to be made for condensed editing cuts. Fan edits of the Hobbit and most of the newer Star Wars movies can go a long way to rescue a flawed product. Directors do not always know best.
 
2020-06-22 12:16:51 PM  

LaBlueSkuld: McGrits: Here is how to a director's cut properly:

1 - add back in the deleted scenes of useless commanders doing nothing so that the original pacing of the boarding action is hobbled with the bonus of crapping on your editor's skills that made your movie.

2 - have cgi add in a new gun shot and heroic head bob that destroys the character growth of the classic rogue with a good heart. Then state that the audience never understood even after 20 years of fandom.

3 - add back in a deleted scene that ruins not one, but three moves of suspense. Make sure to ruin the classic story telling of the 'ominous force' that pushes your character's action by adding a funny little step on the tail of the now disenfranchised antagonist.

2a) Make the alien say "Maclunkey!" for some reason.

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/mH19gKo7​W7w?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]


Da Fuq????
 
2020-06-22 12:17:54 PM  
The theatrical cut of Last of the Mohicans is better than Mann's director's cut.
 
2020-06-22 12:19:24 PM  

likefunbutnot: Xcott: I do have to say, though, that LoTR is a franchise where the director's cuts are really worth it.

I've watched the whole thing in both extended and original cuts enough times that for about 90% of the extended scenes, I can see why a moment was cut. We don't really need to see Merry and Pippin find a bunch of pipe weed, for example. It's fun and light moment, but it doesn't add anything to the story. There are a couple big exceptions to that in all three movies but I understand the two cuts for each movie to be necessary in their own way.


Some of the extended scenes are bad, but I wouldn't trade the Mouth of Sauron scene for anything. That definitely should have made the theatrical edition.
 
2020-06-22 12:22:26 PM  

likefunbutnot: Xcott: I do have to say, though, that LoTR is a franchise where the director's cuts are really worth it.

I've watched the whole thing in both extended and original cuts enough times that for about 90% of the extended scenes, I can see why a moment was cut. We don't really need to see Merry and Pippin find a bunch of pipe weed, for example. It's fun and light moment, but it doesn't add anything to the story. There are a couple big exceptions to that in all three movies but I understand the two cuts for each movie to be necessary in their own way.

There's also the case to be made for condensed editing cuts. Fan edits of the Hobbit and most of the newer Star Wars movies can go a long way to rescue a flawed product. Directors do not always know best.


Didn't Jackson insist on those being called "Extended" and not "Director's" because they're just generally more, and not some kind of preferred cut?
 
2020-06-22 12:33:24 PM  
We showed ny partners kid T2 the other day for the first time and I decided to snag the directors cut. Aliens directors cut actually benefitted from the cut scenes so I had high hopes T2 would be the same.

Nope. Every single thing they cut should have been left on the cutting room floor forever. Absolutely nothing of value was added and in most cases actually made the movie worse.
 
2020-06-22 12:36:34 PM  

likefunbutnot: Xcott: I do have to say, though, that LoTR is a franchise where the director's cuts are really worth it.

I've watched the whole thing in both extended and original cuts enough times that for about 90% of the extended scenes, I can see why a moment was cut. We don't really need to see Merry and Pippin find a bunch of pipe weed, for example. It's fun and light moment, but it doesn't add anything to the story. There are a couple big exceptions to that in all three movies but I understand the two cuts for each movie to be necessary in their own way.

There's also the case to be made for condensed editing cuts. Fan edits of the Hobbit and most of the newer Star Wars movies can go a long way to rescue a flawed product. Directors do not always know best.


It's interesting how "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" ended up being opposites of each other.  LotR had a massive amount of source material that they had to condense down to 3 movies, while "The Hobbit" was a fairly slim novel that they tried every which way to extend out over 3 movies.
 
2020-06-22 12:44:34 PM  

Shakes999: We showed ny partners kid T2 the other day for the first time and I decided to snag the directors cut. Aliens directors cut actually benefitted from the cut scenes so I had high hopes T2 would be the same.

Nope. Every single thing they cut should have been left on the cutting room floor forever. Absolutely nothing of value was added and in most cases actually made the movie worse.


The alternate T2 ending? Definitely worth cutting. But those little scenes showing that the T-1000 was actually suffering some damage after reconstituting? Those could have remained.

Polish Hussar: It's interesting how "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" ended up being opposites of each other.  LotR had a massive amount of source material that they had to condense down to 3 movies, while "The Hobbit" was a fairly slim novel that they tried every which way to extend out over 3 movies.


See also: Game of Thrones earlier seasons (picking, choosing, editing) vs later seasons (building actual content from a handful of bullet points). I'm not saying they shouldn't have been much better than they were, or that far better decisions couldn't have been made in the series... but the biggest problems really started after they burned through their source material.

Some people are just better at adapting good source material than they are at trying to replicate that same quality using what is essentially their own fan fiction.
 
2020-06-22 12:47:21 PM  

clkeagle: Shakes999: We showed ny partners kid T2 the other day for the first time and I decided to snag the directors cut. Aliens directors cut actually benefitted from the cut scenes so I had high hopes T2 would be the same.

Nope. Every single thing they cut should have been left on the cutting room floor forever. Absolutely nothing of value was added and in most cases actually made the movie worse.

The alternate T2 ending? Definitely worth cutting. But those little scenes showing that the T-1000 was actually suffering some damage after reconstituting? Those could have remained.

Polish Hussar: It's interesting how "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" ended up being opposites of each other.  LotR had a massive amount of source material that they had to condense down to 3 movies, while "The Hobbit" was a fairly slim novel that they tried every which way to extend out over 3 movies.

See also: Game of Thrones earlier seasons (picking, choosing, editing) vs later seasons (building actual content from a handful of bullet points). I'm not saying they shouldn't have been much better than they were, or that far better decisions couldn't have been made in the series... but the biggest problems really started after they burned through their source material.

Some people are just better at adapting good source material than they are at trying to replicate that same quality using what is essentially their own fan fiction.


Nah, I mean it was a nice detail but I'm hard pressed to think of a single added scene that didn't stop the movie to a grinding halt. Everyone of em was superfluous and killed the pace. In my opinion anyways.
 
KIA
2020-06-22 12:57:14 PM  
T2 Extended Edition was really good, added a lot of Sarah Connor background which really helped the character arc.

Cameron was just mad because he was jilted.  Shame.
 
2020-06-22 1:46:29 PM  

t3knomanser: The worst director's cut is the one for "The Warriors", which adds distracting comic-book themed scene transitions, but also because of those, each scene tapers off because they need to end on a frame that suits the comic book motif instead of a decent cut point. The pacing is entirely wrong as a result. It goes from being a camp classic to being pure camp.


That sounds awful, and I can't dig it.
 
2020-06-22 1:50:11 PM  

Shakes999: Nope. Every single thing they cut should have been left on the cutting room floor forever. Absolutely nothing of value was added and in most cases actually made the movie worse.


I love seeing those deleted scenes but yep, totally agree, they were cut for a reason.

I reeeaally wish I hadn't purchased those extended LOTR versions as well. I thought I would be thrilled but most of it is unnecessary and occasionally pretty cringey.
 
2020-06-22 2:59:01 PM  
Dark City and Daredevil are examples of movies where the director's cuts are superior. Far superior, in Daredevil's case. Whole subplots are added back in, all of the studio-added Elektra bullsh*t is removed, and the movie is way stronger for it.
 
2020-06-22 3:22:40 PM  
But, what about butthole cuts? Is that our salvation?
 
2020-06-22 4:32:10 PM  

Xcott: I do have to say, though, that LoTR is a franchise where the director's cuts are really worth it.  That's a special case where the only factor in chopping down the movie was time---in most other cases, scenes end up cut because of marginal quality or significance, or poor pacing or composition that is improved by editing them out.  But with LoTR it was all gold, and the Director's cut is just more movie.  If anything, the theatrical release seems a bit too hurried.


Those and, as noted above, Kingdom of Heaven are the examples I would cite as a big improvement.  The re-edit of Touch of Evil, which was supposed to help the movie conform to Orson Welles' original wishes, turned a pretty good movie into a masterpiece.  I actually hope they're no longer selling the old one
 
2020-06-22 5:18:03 PM  

Nabb1: I'm glad the brought up "Blade Runner" as an exception, but it wasn't merely a "clarification" of Scott's vision.  It was a restoration of what he actually made.


I've never seen Blade Runner. Whenever I get around to it, watch the original or the director's cut?
 
2020-06-22 5:28:05 PM  

WoodyHayes: Nabb1: I'm glad the brought up "Blade Runner" as an exception, but it wasn't merely a "clarification" of Scott's vision.  It was a restoration of what he actually made.

I've never seen Blade Runner. Whenever I get around to it, watch the original or the director's cut?


Go with either "The Director's Cut" or "The Final Cut."  I was in the same position as you a couple years ago, I was told as long as the version you're watching doesn't open with Harrison Ford narration, you're good.
 
2020-06-22 6:16:17 PM  

Polish Hussar: WoodyHayes: Nabb1: I'm glad the brought up "Blade Runner" as an exception, but it wasn't merely a "clarification" of Scott's vision.  It was a restoration of what he actually made.

I've never seen Blade Runner. Whenever I get around to it, watch the original or the director's cut?

Go with either "The Director's Cut" or "The Final Cut."  I was in the same position as you a couple years ago, I was told as long as the version you're watching doesn't open with Harrison Ford narration, you're good.


Alright, thanks. Shouldn't be too hard to remember about it being the wrong version if Harrison Ford starts talking.
 
2020-06-22 6:19:00 PM  

Dumb-Ass-Monkey: Dark City and Daredevil are examples of movies where the director's cuts are superior. Far superior, in Daredevil's case. Whole subplots are added back in, all of the studio-added Elektra bullsh*t is removed, and the movie is way stronger for it.

Dark City

you say?... I am intrigued. I wasn't aware of a director's cut.
 
2020-06-22 6:46:37 PM  

EatsCrayons: Dumb-Ass-Monkey: Dark City and Daredevil are examples of movies where the director's cuts are superior. Far superior, in Daredevil's case. Whole subplots are added back in, all of the studio-added Elektra bullsh*t is removed, and the movie is way stronger for it.

Dark City you say?... I am intrigued. I wasn't aware of a director's cut.


I've always thought it would have been better without Kiefer's narration. Kind of gives it all away
 
2020-06-22 11:53:11 PM  
The Director's Cut of "I am Legend" with the ending where it turns out Will Smith is the bad guy, the mass murderer, the Dr. Mengele torture-experimenter, the legend among the vampire race, the evil one who has killed so many of their loved ones, is much closer to the book, and a much, much better story than the pure-shlock Hollywood ending of the theatrical release.
 
2020-06-22 11:53:33 PM  
I heard a while back a director's painful story of how the studio hacked to death his creation and what they eventually shoved out the door was a disgrace and an abomination of his true artistic intent. He spent decades of tireless work and finally achieved the funding to release his film as it was meant to be seen.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Sorry to say, but the studio was right in trying to salvage that over convoluted mess.
 
2020-06-23 8:40:31 AM  

Pop and Miracle Whip: I heard a while back a director's painful story of how the studio hacked to death his creation and what they eventually shoved out the door was a disgrace and an abomination of his true artistic intent. He spent decades of tireless work and finally achieved the funding to release his film as it was meant to be seen.

[Fark user image 659x338]

Sorry to say, but the studio was right in trying to salvage that over convoluted mess.


Yep, there's no guarantee that the director's "true vision" is actually any good.
 
2020-06-23 10:28:48 AM  
The Re-Deux version of Apocalypse Now has one scene that should have been in the original version
and one long part that should have stayed in the can...The whole Plantation scenes, where they bury
in Clean and have dinner with the French Colonial family was FANTASTIC..It was so beautifully filmed
and the master of the house telling them that, "You Americans are fighting for the biggest...NOTHING...
in history.." is fantastic..

The seduction and opium smoking thing doesn't really add much in the plantation portion though..
But it is also very well filmed..

The additional couple of minutes they added of the Air Cav guys trying to find the boat crew and
get the surfboard back is a great light moment..I see why it was cut originally in an already LONG film,
but it's fun..

The boat stopping at the medical evacuation camp and running into the Playboy helicopter was
a total waste of film..It adds absolutely nothing..It's not filmed very well..It's just awkward and
weird..
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
X
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.