I agree with that - it’s how I feel about the LoTR extended editions. They are wonderful if you have seen the movies already and like them - you get to spend more time in Middle-Earth, which is great.
There are some movies, however, where the longer version substantially changes the tone of the movie as a whole (for good or bad).
My favorite example, mentioned in the OP, is the “international version” of Leon: The Professional. This is a substantially different movie from the shorter theatrical release. Allegedly, American test audiences reacted badly to the tone of certain scenes - in particular, they thought they made the 12 year old girl protagonist out to be more of a sociopath, and worse, added an unwelcome amount of sexuality (she propositions an adult)- and so they were cut. However, that changed the movie considerably - most who have seen it think the longer version is better, though of course, much more disturbing.
I have absolutely no idea why you think this question needed to be asked or has any bearing on what I wrote. Since you quoted my post and appear to be asking me the question directly, I’m replying, but really, I have no idea why you think your question has any relevance at all.
I’ll try and answer, tho: if Casablanca had originaly contained lots of cursing, then yes, editing it out would make it a worse film. Bad News Bears is a worse film after being edited/censored for TV. Pulp Fiction is a worse film after going thru the same revisions. Harvey Keitel’s Bad Lieutenant would barely even be a film if all possibly objectionable material were edited out or “cleaned up”.
Do you disagree that artwork that is altered by a 3rd party after publication is a lesser piece of art than the original?
I have and watched the 5 disc anniversary limited box thing of BladeRunner and you should hear the ending voice overs they didnt go with. They were awful and the delivery was incredibad.
Copland, with about 15-20 more minutes of slight exposition that really does help the film flow along. It’s longer but now it feels shorter than the original. Way better than the original cut, which looked rushed.
The Outsiders, I think again, Coppola added a good 20 minutes, but deleted his father’s score. I know people who disagree with this but I actually liked the period music better than what was there before.
Alexander Revisited. Oliver Stone mistakenly mis-cast Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie in this flick, and realistically it should have been given the “I, Claudius” treatment and spread out over a season or four. It’s the best of the versions out there, but it’s still not great. I think this version adds something like 45 minutes to it.
Apparently there is a 6 hour version of the infamous Cleopatra with Elizabeth Taylor that I think would be worth seeing. Ditto about the 2.5 hour cut of “The Breakfast Club” that only John Hughes’ widow has probably seen at this point.
Sometimes. What is good or bad about art is the art; not the prurient nonsense they add to make it more :edgy’. And most films aren’t art. They are mass marketed and targeted to certain demographics.
Isn’t that scene in the theatrical version? While memory can be faulty, I remember this scene – I even remember discussing it with the person I saw the movie with in the theater – and I don’t think I’ve even seen the director’s cut.
Indeed. That was the long version that really drove it home to me why stuff ends up on the cutting-room floor. I gave up on extended versions after that.
A few people have already mentioned the extended versions of The Hobbit films positively. I’d agree with them - it turns them from fairly bloated snippets of the book to being far more focussed on being a prequel that connects to and complements the Lord Of the Rings trilogy. Things like the growing presence of evil in the land, the wizards as active maintainers of the peace and so on are much more coherently told.
Also one not mentioned by others. This is Spinal Tap has an extended version, not sure if its a directors cut. Includes mainly less gaggy material. Its all perfectly cromulent though, but makes for a much more comically dark tone to the movie. Enjoyed it but not sure it served the purpose of the joke as well as the short version. Worth watching for comparison.
Apocalypse Now had the worst extended version. The movie was long enough where it was, the scenes on the cutting room floor deserved to be there: The French colonials, the Bunny sex scenes, and the surfboard chase added nothing to the movie.
I liked (or did not mind) the extra footage, except for the French plantation sequence. That was a 20 minute detour that, while somewhat interesting, really ground the movie to a halt. The good thing is that you can just fast forward through that whole section and nothing of the movie is lost.
Add me to those who agree the scene with the French colonials brought the movie to a dead stop. I didn’t mind the second scene with the Playboy Bunnies but that it was a needless diversion from the main plot involving Willard to focus on the characters of Chef and Lance. I also appreciated the fact that Coppola was trying to present the two Bunnies (Colleen Camp and I forget the name of the actress who played the freaked out one) as real human beings rather than sex automatons. Still, the whole scene belonged in another movie.
Huh. I kinda’ liked the French Plantation scene. It was a nod to the start of the whole problem and brought to the fore how moronic colonizers could be. Plus it added another surreal scene.
I’ll vote for the LOtR movies also. The extended versions added some important scenes (for the readers of the books) which were filmed but not included in the theatrical release. For instance, the gift giving scene in The Fellowship explained the possession of a number of items, used later, which were not explained (or glossed over) in the theatrical release.
Unfortunately, the one scene that I was most looking forward to was apparently never filmed; the Hobbits frolicking nude in the meadow after meeting Tom Bombadil.