# Director's Cut VS. Theatrical **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 17, 2006, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826 "2006-07-17T08:10:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Seymour\_Gams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Seymour\_Gams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seymour_Gams)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/1 "2006-07-17T08:10:24Z")
Is there a favourite movie of yours (or any movie you’ve seen both versions of for that matter) that you’ve seen both the theatrical version and the director’s cut (or “Unrated” as the trend seems to be right now) and actually prefered the theatrical because of time, flow, or any other reason? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/2 "2006-07-17T09:58:39Z")
I was disappointed by the director’s cut of _Blade Runner_ because they removed things that didn’t need to be removed, and added nothing of any value (unicorn dream? feh). Unfortunately, when it gets periodically televised, the stations tend to go with the director’s cut. The extended version of _Terminator 2_ was pretty cool, I admit, but the added scenes aren’t really all that necessary to the plot and they make the movie 17 minutes longer. I’m okay with the shorter theatrical version. ---
**Author:** ![Seymour\_Gams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Seymour\_Gams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seymour_Gams)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/3 "2006-07-17T12:41:19Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I was disappointed by the director’s cut of _Blade Runner_ I completely agree. That was what I was going to put in the post but I couldn’t remember it for some reason when I submitted it. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/4 "2006-07-17T12:44:49Z")
_Aliens_ is tighter in the theatrical release. ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/5 "2006-07-17T12:58:13Z")
Generally I prefer the Director’s Cut of all of James Cameron’s films with few exceptions. The Abyss is basically a completely different film with the director’s cut. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/6 "2006-07-17T13:18:51Z")
I should probably be prohibited from even _talking_ about this film anymore–but, as bad as the theatrical version Return of the King was, the director’s cut was worse. ::shuddering in memory of the over-literalized mouth of Sauron:: ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/7 "2006-07-17T13:30:46Z")
The theatrical cut of the original Dawn of the dead is much tighter and better than the directors cut…Romero also agrees. ---
**Author:** ![JoeSki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b487fb/32.png) [@JoeSki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeSki)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/8 "2006-07-17T13:32:58Z")
The Fourty Year Old Virgin was a tad bit too long in theaters. Adding in an extra twenty minutes or so of scenes not funny enough for the final teatrical cut didn’t help matters for the DVD release. And the worst part of it is is that the movie had some very funny scenes that had been cut. They just spliced in the wrong scenes for the final Uncut DVD. The extended speed dating scene had me rolling. ---
**Author:** ![Seymour\_Gams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Seymour\_Gams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seymour_Gams)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/9 "2006-07-17T13:44:48Z")
> [@kingpengvin](#): > > The theatrical cut of the original Dawn of the dead is much tighter and better than the directors cut…Romero also agrees. Do you happen to know how long the theatrical version you are refering to is? There are more cuts to that movie than I can count. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/10 "2006-07-17T14:07:49Z")
The theatrical version of **Star Trek: The Motion Picture** was better (well, it was slightly _less_ plodding and talky) than the “expanded” version shown on TV, which I believe is also the preferred DVD version (someone correct me if I’m wrong). ---
**Author:** ![minlokwat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minlokwat/32/2844_2.png) [@minlokwat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minlokwat)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/11 "2006-07-17T14:24:41Z")
I almost always prefer the theatrical release version rather than the unedited. There’s a reason those scenes wound up on the cutting room floor in that more times than not, the scenes that were deleted added little or nothing to the arc of the story. Cases in point. When network TV shows the **Sixth Sense** , they add in the deleted scenes which include Cole’s interaction with some older German guy and then a scene where he starts bawling to Bruce Willis’s character. Net result? 15 minutes of fluff that detract from the cumulative, build-up of suspense that maintains the drive of the original version. **The Exorcist** ’s director’s cut is laughable. They inserted little flashing, semi-subliminal, demon faces that are scattered about in random places that add nothing in the way of menace. Then the infamous spider-walk scene, a strikingly bizarre visual which didn’t make the original cut is placed back in. Though fun to watch, it actually doesn’t add much. As for the only uncut version I do enjoy, it would have to come from **the Godfather** series. ({Parts One and Two only of course). Since I’ve seen the original versions dozens of times, it’s interesting to see the deleted scenes placed back in sequence. Good for the aficionados but in reality, had they been in the original release they would have done nothing but make a couple of already very long movies that much more lengthy. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/12 "2006-07-17T14:31:38Z")
> [@Seymour Gams](#): > > Is there a favourite movie of yours (or any movie you’ve seen both versions of for that matter) that you’ve seen both the theatrical version and the director’s cut (or “Unrated” as the trend seems to be right now) and actually prefered the theatrical because of time, flow, or any other reason? Virtually every single example. I have never seen a “Director’s cut” that wasn’t substantially worse than the original. Editors are there for a reason. Most director’s cutd are bloated, overlong, and feature weak scenes. I have the DVD version of Pulp Fiction, and there’s a bunch of deleted scenes on it - but not cut into the movie. Each scene is introduced by Quentin Tarantino, and in each case he says something to the effect of “I really like this scene. As a scene, by itself, it’s really great. But in the movie, it’s not. It slows it down too much. So, out it went.” That’s the difference between a “director’s cut” and the theatrical release; it may have more good SCENES, but it ain’t a better movie. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/13 "2006-07-17T14:32:50Z")
**Apocalypse Now** vs. **Apocalypse Now Redux** is a no contest. Why add 50 minutes of crap to a masterpiece? ---
**Author:** ![awldune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@awldune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/awldune)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/14 "2006-07-17T14:34:29Z")
_Last of the Mohicans_ - Director’s cut is tighter, but screws up two of the most dramatic scenes. Five minutes shorter and doesn’t add much of anything. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/15 "2006-07-17T14:42:37Z")
I saw _Donnie Darko_ at the movies with my teenage son. We both loved it and had a long, long animated discussion over a meal about what the movie was about. It did very little box office here in Australia and none of his friends saw it until it came out on DVD (in fact neither of us knows anyone else who saw it at a cinema). We watched the director’s cut with some of his friends and it seemed to me to have been “dumbed down” so that the equivocal plot points were all made explicit. We both found it far less involving. I have intended seeing the original cut again to check this impression but have never got around to it. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/16 "2006-07-17T15:20:53Z")
It might be interesting to note that the “Director’s Cut” of **Blood Simple** is actually _shorter_ than the theatrical edition (though not by much). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/17 "2006-07-17T15:28:40Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > _Aliens_ is tighter in the theatrical release. I was going to add that one. One big problem with it is kinda subtle: at the beginning of the film, you see a sign that has the colony’s name on it and its population, which is around a hundred to a hundred and fifty people. In the theatrical cut, it just seems like there’s an endless horde of the things. but knowing how many aliens are on the planet takes a lot of the suspence out of the film. There’s only a hundred aliens there? Considering how many they splatter during the course of the film, especially with the autogun scenes added back in, by the time they take off there must have only been a dozen or so left. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/18 "2006-07-17T15:29:11Z")
and of course, **Star Wars** , the original release defined movies for a generation. The director’s cut… didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/19 "2006-07-17T15:30:38Z")
Count me in as preferring the theatrical releases of Blade Runner and Aliens, especially the former. As for Return of the King, the extended edition was better, but both were excellent films. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826/20 "2006-07-17T15:31:29Z")
I’d say the expanded cut of _Alien Resurrection_ (which is really just an alternate version, not intended to improve on the original, so it’s a bit different situation). The very first scene of the film is a silly, badly-CGI’ed slapstick bit that practically ruins the movie before it even starts. Among the _Lord of the Rings_ films, I’d say _The Two Towers_ is most improved by its extended edition, and _The Fellowship of the Ring_ is the least improved. I like the extended cut too, but there’s a wonderful tightness to the theatrical version of _Fellowship_ that gets a little lost in the extended cut. _Return of the King_’s last act feels a little rushed in the theatrical version, and the extended cut improves it in that regard, but it also adds a lot of flab earlier in the film. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/directors-cut-vs-theatrical/364826.md?page=2)