Original Release vs. Director's Cut

In My Humble Opinion
1

In this thread, dodge_this started a discussion about movies that look dated today.

In the discussion, Blade Runner came up. I have to say that it is one of my favourite movies, but having seen both its original version and the Director’s Cut version that is out on video, I have to admit that I like the original version better. I like Deckard’s narration over the film, and I like the original ending. The Director’s Cut is, to me anyway, a little too bleak and too sparse.

Sometimes, I find this with books, too. I liked Stephen King’s The Stand as it was originally published, but I’m not fond of the longer edition that includes the parts that were not included in the book’s first release. The first release moves well, but I find that the longer version bogs down in places.

I guess I should be on the side of the director or author–especially since I’ve had things published where I didn’t like the editing and I’d love to be able to re-publish so I can include all the parts that were left out. But sometimes, even though it’s not the way the director or author intended, I find that I like the original release of popular movies and books.

What about you? Is there a movie or book that you liked when it first came out, and has been re-released so as to make it more true to the director’s or author’s intent, but you find yourself preferring the original release? Why?

Note that we’re not talking about colorizing B&W movies here–this is about adding material that the director/author wanted to include in the original release but couldn’t.

Any thoughts?

2

The director’s cut of “Basic Instinct” always bothered me. Especially the additional scenes. They showed the original movie, then had a narrator say “These were the scenes editted out of the theatrical release,” and show these scenes. They didn’t show them IN the movie! They waited until the film was over, so there was no real sense of the scenes having any impact on the movie.

3

My darling husband just handed me the director’s cut of The Exorcist, so I can’t wait to get home and watch it!

I hope that those 11 minutes live up to the hype. I will say that I fully expect the film to look terribly dated and cheesy, but oh well.

4

I liked Ridley Scott’s ending to “Blade Runner,” particularly the hint that Rick Dekard himself is a replicant. But on the whole, I think the changes (including the voice-overs) were an improvement. Just because a director is brilliant, it doesn’t follow that his vision should always prevail.

SOMETIMES, great artists need someone with the power and the authority to tell them “No.”

Many novels and many films would be a lot better if a capable editor had the power to chop out large chunks of self-indulgent, meaningless crap.

Some of my favorite rock groups (ELP & King Crimson, especially) would have been MUCH better if they’d had an outside producer with the guts to tell Robert Fripp and Keith Emerson “This song got boring at 6 minutes- no way you’re dragging it out to 15. I’m cutting out some of your pointless, show-off solos.”

5

Blade Runner certainly divides people. Having seen both versions several times, I come down narrowly on the side of the re-edited cut, but mostly because I prefer ambiguity and sparseness to spoonfeeding. I’m well aware that this preference is not shared by everyone, so I don’t bother to argue preference.

To name another movie, I think the four-hour version of Dances with Wolves is inferior to the theatrical cut. I know what you mean by this:

One would think, for purposes of integrity, we should let the director/author/whoever do what they want; as somebody said, a work of art is never completed, it’s just abandoned.

But then somebody else said (Raymond Chandler, I think) that, as an artist, you must “murder your darlings.” In other words, if you’ve got something you really like, or that was difficult to do, you’ll resist getting rid of it, but if it doesn’t belong, it has to go. Case in point is the hot-air balloon thing at the beginning of Dances with Wolves. It was obviously a pain in the ass to set up, and it’s a cool little detail regarding Civil War tactics. However, it doesn’t relate to the plot, and as a seeming anachronism it’s distracting, requiring you to think about it for a moment until you accept it as a possibility, something you just didn’t know before. Unfortunately, in having to stop to think about it, you leave the movie for a few seconds or minutes. Costner correctly cut it out of the theatrical version, but put it back in the longer director’s version, and it’s pretty clear that it just doesn’t work.

Sometimes, disciplining oneself to cut out the fat is the best thing for a work of art. It forces you to really think about what the piece is saying, what it’s about, and to remove everything that doesn’t relate to it. You may have a scene, or a chapter, or even a paragraph that’s really pretty or eloquent, but if it doesn’t belong, it has to go. A fair number of so-called “director’s cuts,” I believe, fall into this trap, failing to distinguish between what actually assists the movie (e.g., the subplot about Ripley’s daughter in Aliens) and what’s just extra (e.g., the automated hallway guns in the same movie).

Good idea for a thread. I’ll be curious to see what others have to say.

6

I’ve only seen a few “director’s cuts” verisons that really impressed me. James cameron seem to be the worst for re-adding scenes that were really unneccesary and probably got cut for a reason. Aliens is a good example. The only part that seemed important was the subplot of Ripley’s daughter which explained why she had such a maternal instinct towards Newt. The other scenes showing Newt’s family and the hallway guns didn’t really add anything but time. Same with The Abysss. It was a fairly good movie, but the scenes that were added, such as the group sining of “Willin’” and the wave at the end neither explained anything or added much to the plot.

The best I’ve scene is Terry Gilliam’s final version of Brazil which is now avaiable on a Criterion DVD. The re-added scenes (which I heard about for a long time) make Lowrey’s final fate and the complete beaurocratization of the system seem much more real.

7

answer this silly question. In this threads and others, I have read about the fact that Blade Runner has an original, and a Director’s Cut. I have seen the movie Blade Runner, but I do not know if it was the Director’s Cut or the original. Could someone please answer me, or give me a site, or another thread, where they discuss both versions, and tell(spoil) what are the differences? Thanks

8

Regarding the original theatrical release of Blade Runner:

Its suddenly happy sunshiny “let’s go drive through the country” ending felt like a complete cheat. The voiceover felt like a hastily applied patch applied by studio accountants who were terrified the audience would be sad :frowning: and thus less likely to come back to the theater.

The director’s cut, in leaving some ambiguity, was 100% appropriate to the rest of the story. Sure, it was bleak, but that made Deckard’s resolve to value life and love–however brief–all the more powerful.

If any movie ever screamed for the director’s cut, Blade Runner was it.

The original theatrical (voiceovered) ending of Blade Runner was precisely the type of tacked-on happycrap that Altman mocked with the end of The Player.

9

Original theatrical release: you saw a pretty drive through the country, with Deckard’s voiceover explaining that–oops–it turns out Rachel is the new and improved synthetic, with a nice, long life. Happy ever after.

Director’s cut: the movie ends darkly as Deckard and Rachel leave his apartment, presumably so they can be together through her final months or years.

10

Or, indeed, his.

I meant to mention: I also hated, hated, most of what George Lucas did when he revised Star Wars and the other movies for the Special Editions. Some stuff was cool – the new Bantha effects were effective, for example – but Greedo shooting first? The scene with Jabba at the spaceport? No, no, no!

11

First BladeRunner

Read the book! Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
So different from them film and in many ways superior. The feeling that Deckard is a replicant is much bigger in it.
As for directors cuts I am divided. I guess it comes down to why? You see right now Robert Wise is redoing Star Trek The Motion Picture. There will be effects that were originally planned by never because of money and time and being a big Trekkie I really want to see it.

But…

Speilburg is doing a directors cut of ET for the anniversary and adding back in scenes that were cut. Also Disney is releasing Beauty and the Beast in IMAX format with a new number (from the B’way show) added. WTF! I think both of those movies did pretty well and don’t really need to be helped. Also the director is not the only artist involved. If you re-do the special effects for say Star Wars you basically say to the original F/X artists that their work (which was oscar worthy 20 years ago) dosen’t cut it today. Also each film is a snapshot in time for when it was released. These are the f/x available. These are the attitudes of the time. (some Disney shorts are having things edited out that are now considered inapproiate) This is the style of acting and directing and editing that the film industry had when the film was released. There are times when the studios don’t like long movies so if you go back to a film of that era and add in 20 min. of footage it really changes the historical frame of refrence.
So basically I am for not changing a thing. For better or worse that was the film released by the group of people who made it (producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, costumes, ect., ect.)

Except for Star Trek I and Blade Runner because that voice over of Deckard is just wrong.

12

The simple way to tell:

The “Original” has a Deckard voiceover throughout the film.

The “Director’s cut” has no voiceover at all.

I prefer the Director’s Cut, but only after having seen the original because the voiceover is helpful in a lot of ways, IMHO. Once I had the gist of Deckard’s thoughts in my head, I didn’t need the voiceover anymore. I don’t know what I would have thought if I’d seen the Director’s Cut first. Since it’s my 3rd favorite film of all time as it is, maybe I wouldn’t have liked it as much. I don’t know and I’ll never know.

Eq

13

Bravo used to show director’s cuts: I’ve been without cable for a while so they still might.

Fanny and Alexander was shown on Bravo some years ago in a five hour director’s version: I don’t know if the longer version is available on VHS or DVD.

Das Boot was also shown in a four or five hour version, reportedly cut down from fifteen hours of original programming (I think it was originally a mini-series for German TV.)

Would love to see Terry Gilliams final version of Brazil. I saw the original on opening day in D.C.(at the KB Janus the weekend after Gilliam stole the print and showed it in LA): it ended with Sam in the torture chair. I understand that after the very first release the ending was changed somewhat. I also saw the special late-night TV version with the happy ending: what a shock that was!

I like the Coen brothers take on director’s cuts: they ended up making Blood Simple five minutes shorter. “…what was glacial is now merely slow…” and something about not really wanting to show off the mistakes they made when they were 22. Good attitude.

14

Brazil is one of my favourite movies. Several years ago I bought it on VHS and if I remember correctly the movie was 121 minutes. The Directors cut (Criterion version) is 142 minutes. The movie that I bought, and remember from the theater is roughly the same. The Love Conquers All version is 94 minutes long.
The 94 minute version is a version that the studio, Universal, wanted made to begin with. It is much shorter, scenes appear in different sequences, focuses more on Sam and Jill and it has a happy ending. The Criterion version includes a documentary called The Battle of Brazil and explores the lengths that Gilliam went to to get his version released. Needless to say, in the end Gilliam won.
The Love Conquers All cut is what was shown when the movie was shown on TV. The Criterion release has both versions of the movie. And it really is 2 different movies. If you’re a fan of Brazil or of Terry Gilliam you can’t do wrong by renting or buying the Criterion release.

The version of Dune that was released in theaters and on video and DVD was the director’s cut. There is a 4 hour version that is shown on the Sci-Fi channel, but is an “Alan Smithee” film.

Count me as one who thinks that the director’s cut of Blade Runner is better than the one with the voice over.

15

For anyone interested in the Brazil controversy, there’s a book called The Battle of Brazil (from which the documentary mentioned by adam yax takes its name) by Jack Mathews that goes into a lot more detail, with memos, newspaper articles, and all sorts of stuff. I don’t know if it’s still in print or not; I found it in the 99-cent bin at a used-book store. Snapped that baby right up, I’ll tell ya.

16

Darn you Cervaise! Darn you to heck! As knower of many Obscure and Fascinating Factoids, I wanted to talk about “Battle of Brazil” (the book). I figured I was the only one who bought a copy.

But let me add that the book is an amazing document, not just because it tells the story behind the making of “Brazil,” but it reprints the studio’s version of the script it wanted. The author then takes the script apart, almost line by line, and explains not only why the studio wanted the scene cut this way, but why the cuts would have violated Gilliam’s intentions behind the story.

In general, the Monty Python crew and their solo works help answer the question of why artists should not be censored. “Brazil” had a lot of trenchent commentary about society’s attempts to suppress an individual’s spirit reflected perfectly in a studio bosses’ attempt to do the same to Gilliam. The studio’s version would have made a hash of it, and of Gilliam’s reputation as well.

The Pythons have always been a lightening rod for the censors. Another excellent book is “Monty Python: The Case Against,” which details the ludricrous lengths they’ve had to go through to preserve their material and their vision. They’re an inspiration to any artist.