Directors cut vs "theatrical" version
 

"Bladerunner"...I think the directors cut version is better

"Apocalypse Now"....I think the "Redux" version sucked......Coppola destroyed his own masterpiece

...Other movies ?

I was just sayin' on the "Donnie" thread that I love the director's cut of this film way more than the original.
Still haven't seen "redux" yet but I'll agree that the director's cut of "Blade Runner" is the superior film.

A lot of times the director's cut gives more body and depth to the movie.


Then again, there are many that just wanted to join the club so bad, they add a bunch of boring bullshit that just drags the movie down.

The Lord of the Rings movies were actually better being almost 4 hours long. they made more sense with the added scenes.

i dunno - i do like the narration in the origional bladerunner ..
i like the idea of a Marlow style character in the future -
I have both versions on laser - they both stand up as good films.

well, Im going to get bashed for this, but I really loved The Chronicles Of Riddick. however, i saw the directors cut, and it had some of the stupidest lines I have ever heard lol.

Its that the one with voice over ?...Does it end with those car shots taken from leftovers of "the Shining" ?
I think there are diffrent endings on the "theatrical" version...

yes the directors cut didnt have such an upbeat ending

strange that they used leftovers from "The Shining"...strange Kubrick didnt protest....:confused:

I liked the director's cuts of Aliens, T2 and Robocop. The Robocop cut is super violent compared to the original (it has some really sick fucking gore in it). I guess at times a director's cut can make or break a movie. Some director's cuts are just simply to long, overblown and self endulgent (I haven't seen Redux yet but it looked like it fell into this category - and it already was a long self endulgent movie to begin with - but good don't get me wrong here). I definatley prefer the Director's cut of Blade Runner particularly for the ending I thought the original ending was just way to happy while the other one leaves you with a bit more to think about because things aren't so happily ended and clear cut. Both versions are fucking great tho.

t2 directors cut got pretty deep with the chip smashing and what not...but relevant...and brought already complex characters more depth...im not too aware and never cared much to view director's cuts....unless it was an extremely important movie to me...i.e. the exorcist...i'm usually cool with the versions i grow up with...or see in theatres.

sometimes I cant even tell the diffrence between directors cut and original release. i.e. Dawn remake

"SPOILER"
The problem with "Redux" is that you get to much information about the main character played by Martin Sheen....In this version he is smiling, fucking and having a good time...When you suddenly see this the character from the "theatrical" version is destoyed....The troubeled, non happy alcoholic psycho exist no more..:mad:

I would agree that the director's cut for both ALIEN and ALIENS were better than the originals. I think that they both had sceens that would have better explained the charcters. For example, the part about Riply finding out that her daughter is died at the beginning of Aliens should have been kept b/c it would explain why Riply fell into a "mother" role with Nute. In Alien the part were Riply finds her crew cocconed would have been needed to better justify Aliens b/c with Alien the alien just killed people in the original cut, but in Aliens we learn that the aliens take the humans to be cocconed. But then again they ignored the whole coccon idea in Alien 3, everybody just died in that movie. Speaking of Alien 3, in the director's cut they should have kept the sceen were they show what a Queen facehugger looked like but then the audience would know that Riply had a queen in her so that would have destoried the movie for the perpose of suspense I guess.

T2 director's cut. Hmmmm...
I'm fine with the original cut.

Chronicals of Ridic.
Hated this movie, I hated Pitch Black so I knew that I would hate Ridic. And the version I first saw was the director's cut b/c I waited to rent it, that way I waste less money.

Aliens had a good one, I agree.

ya i heard sbout that. it was gory enough from the first place anyway. blew off the guy's hand lol. where can I find the directors cut of that?


o btw, the first time I saw that, I was like 6 or 7, and the scene with the guy rolling through the toxic waste gave me nighmares for months lol.

Trouble with the Aliens Special Edition (or "Director's Cut", whatever) is the early introduction to the doomed colonists changes the angle of the opening reel - if we first see the throb of actual life around the complex, rather than slowly discover evidence that something bad has happened here, but to how many people? (as in the original cut) then the whole feel of the marines' investigation seems rather more predictable.

I always found these scenes in the ghostly complex very effective before the whole backstory of the colonists was inserted.

I agree, but we kind of knew how many people when the guy tells Riply that over 40 families are on LV-426. But I do agree, the only thing really needed from the director's cut is the Riply mother thing and the cool motion tracking gunns those would have been cool to see more of.

As far as the ghostly feeling of the colony, I think that even though Cameron wanted to make a film that was similar to Ridly's Alien in that Alien was Texas Chainsaw Massacure meets 2001: A Space Odyesse. But its clear that Aliens ended-up being more of an action flick so the suspense and ghostly feeling was not totaly neccessary but it was a good aspect to trying to make the movie scary.

Exorcist: Version You've Never Seen

Best 11 extra minutes ever

for real
 

always go directors, it's the money shot son.

Re: for real
 

"Tenebre" (1982)...was cut 11 min......I have the orginal version
:cool:

I liked them!

I'd love one for my front garden.

better served by being on the front of my car

^^Just in case you run into people littering?

that .. and people who dont signal !

I'm begining to think you're a clost homocidal maniac :eek: I should probably watch myself and what I say very carefully :p

Re: Directors cut vs "theatrical" version
 

there's no such thing as destroying a movie with Marlon Brando in.

Re: Re: Directors cut vs "theatrical" version
 

Yeh there is.... His preformance in A.N is just incoherent rambling shit. Just because it's Brando doesn't make it good.

LEATHERFACE: CHAINSAW III, still no masterpiece, but in it's unrated version the restored gore makes it a better and more watchable movie.

On a related note, I like that many DVDs are now coming out with unrated versions, even big movies like BLADE: TRINITY. A decade or so ago, just when I was coming into horror, this was a fairly common practice.

hmm liked number 3 better than number 2...more alike the orginale and not so much comedy..but just seen the theatrical version...
Saw "The Butterfly effect" directors cut...not a big different from the theatrical version

How in the hell can you like part 3 better than 2???:confused:

I mean don't get me wrong I liked part 3 but come on man part 2 has fucking Bill Mosely in it and Jim Siedow.

like I said to much comedy...number 3 has less budget and acting..but more serious horror

DC of aliens3 was better for the simple reason that it showed the alien coming from a dog hince its bone structure.
the dc of legend was super weird with funny music and some added scence that really weren't significant, like a man sitting in the window at the peasent woman's house.
oh yeah, and I couldn't watch natural born killers any other way

Which scenes were the extra ones in that? Was one of them the "crab-walk down the stairs, puking blood" scene? I've only seen "The Version You've Never Seen", so someone fill me in on which scenes were added.

The Crab walk, some extra shit when Regan's at the doctor's and some other shit I can't really remember.

The director's cut of Alien 3 is the biggest improvement ever.

In it the improvements was made to plot, tension and action. It finally made sense.

But why did they cut nearly 45mins of footage in the first place?

A good case for theatrical versions is Sam Peckinpah. Many of his films meander when restored to the director's vision. Fortunately, the inclusions in his masterpiece The Wild Bunch, were so minor, that they were barely noticeable(unnecessary flashbacks). But Major Dundee and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid really get messed up in restoration. Sam never knew when to apply the breaks, and his ego never permitted himself cuts. And one of the main reason's for his ostracism from the Studio system.

Wow! Old thread!

Leone, on the other hand, has improved DCs.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is even better in its uncut form, and so is Duck, You Sucker.

Sucker is excellent in the new version. All the unanswered questions(due to the usual butchering by US editors) are gone, and Leone's real intentions are apparent. The set looks better than ever.

Definitely....The film as aged soooo well.