Director's Cut VS. Theatrical

[Bryan_Ekers]

@riker1384

In Terminator 2 there were some important scenes cut out that showed them enabling Arnold’s “learning chip” or something, which explained some of the later scenes with the boy teaching Arnold about people. On the other hand, the flashback/dream scenes with Reese weren’t necessary at all.

As I recall, the original version simply has Arnold saying he has a learning chip, and it goes from there. The extended version makes a big deal about how the chip has to be enabled, how Skynet leaves it switched off by default, yada yada yada.

The scene in which the chip is removed is technically interesting, though, in that it involves a fake mirror and Linda Hamilton choreographing her movements with her twin sister Leslie, who appears later in the film as the T-1000 taking on the form of Sarah Connor.

[RickJay]

@Zakalwe

I guess I’m the only who prefers the Director’s Cut of Blade Runner. My two primary reasons: No voiceover and the unicorn dream sequence. I find voiceovers generally annoying and the original Blade Runner’s was extremely so. The unicorn sequence I like because it is necessary to clarify the significance of the unicorn figurine at the end of the movie (ie, Deckard is most likely a replicant).

I should have mentioned that the decision to take out the voice over was an improvement, IMHO. Everything else made it worse.

This is likely worth its own thread, but IMHO, adding the idea that Deckard is himself a replicant - which was most definitely not Scott’s intent when he first made the movie - is a terrible change that robs the movie of much of its impact.

Indeed, if you operate on the premise that Deckard is not human, the entire penultimate scene is basically shot to hell. Assuming Deckard is human, it works wonderfully; at that moment, Batty achieves true humanity, and the machine has surpassed the actual human. The entire point of Deckard being a burnout is to take away his humanity. This contrast reaches its peak at that moment on the roof; Batty is more human than Deckard. If Deckard’s not human anyway, that takes away from the contrast.

[Rysto]

I haven’t seen it, but from what I’ve heard, the director’s cut ending of The Butterfly Effect was much worse than the ending in the theatrical release.

[Derleth]

@Bryan Ekers

Anyway, I broke my promise not to further discuss Blade Runner in this thread, but I mean it this time.

I can certainly understand why you would wish to hold off.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m just now watching Team America and wondering if there’s a director’s cut that explains what the deal is with Baxter.

[Sir_Rhosis]

@Nonsuch

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).

No, Robert Wise’s “Director’s Cut” (or whatever its official title is), released on DVD back in 2002, or so, removes all the extraneous scenes that were put into the TV version and is pretty close to the original theatrical version except that a few new CGI effects (especially the scenes on Vulcan) are incorporated into the film, replacing old clunky effects.

Whether this is good or bad, depends on your view of altering films.
In reply to another post. The Butterfly Effect DVD doesn’t change the ending used in theaters, it just includes the first shot ending as an extra, iirc.

Sir Rhosis

[Frylock]

Pretty much every director’s cut I’ve ever seen has seemed to me to be inferior to the theatrical release.

-Kris

[Tangent]

I prefer the director’s cut of DareDevil to the theatrical version. Most people I know who’ve seen both seem to agree.

It’s still far from great, but it is an improvement.

[Dan_Norder]

@Rysto

I haven’t seen it, but from what I’ve heard, the director’s cut ending of The Butterfly Effect was much worse than the ending in the theatrical release.

Seen it and can confirm it. The theatrical version makes sense (although with a teensy unnecessary part at the very very end). The director’s version was not only way more depressing but just laughable in concept.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bryan Ekers

As I recall, the original version simply has Arnold saying he has a learning chip, and it goes from there. The extended version makes a big deal about how the chip has to be enabled, how Skynet leaves it switched off by default, yada yada yada.

The scene in which the chip is removed is technically interesting, though, in that it involves a fake mirror and Linda Hamilton choreographing her movements with her twin sister Leslie, who appears later in the film as the T-1000 taking on the form of Sarah Connor.

Also, it has a key moment in which John disagree with, and overrules, Sarah. After all, HE is the great leader, she is just someone who is really good at protecting.

[Seymour_Gams]

@Bryan Ekers

I’m just now watching Team America and wondering if there’s a director’s cut that explains what the deal is with Baxter.

If I recall correctly, the only other version is the “Unrated” edition that adds maybe 10 seconds to the sex scene.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@MaxTheVool

Also, it has a key moment in which John disagree with, and overrules, Sarah. After all, HE is the great leader, she is just someone who is really good at protecting.

You’re right, though I have to admit listening to a teenager say “C’mon, Mom, I’m s’pose’d to be a great leeeeader!” just annoys me.

Of course, it would have been a great moment to change the voice-over from Sarah to John, reflecting this shift in importance.