merryowen

In any movie.

Directors seem to think that their evey line is golden and every scene immortal.

Stuff that. I have just seen the DCs of Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now and both would have been greatly improved by reining the directors' egos in and the film editors' out.

DB7

A more honest title would be 'DVD cash-in' as they're often little more than a manipulative attempt to milk money from fans of classic fims.

ChristineCB

If the theatrical cut of BLADE RUNNER was available on DVD, I'd buy that along with the DC version. Fine. Give me a choice.

A Pemberton

There is a case for a directors cut,Films are sometimes badly edited,some films may be edited to suit a commercial market on first release for time and overseas markets etc, and sometimes we are drawn toward the first version we see.A retrospective view of a film and even restoring or editing has brought a new life and deserved missed recognition gained second time around.I would guess editors are under studio pressure to commercialize a film .
I would hope that if a version recieves a "directors cut" it would be a joint original director and original editor cut.
The Wicker Man (70s version) could be cited as an example

Nick Dando

Another example is Once Upon a Time in America, which was butchered on its original cinema release.

Nick

D Cairns

Only in America. In the UK and elsewhere it ran complete with only a few seconds cut from the graphic rape scene (which is rather unnecessarily long anyway).

I'd be interested in a DVD release with the disc break positioned correctly where the intermission was in the theatrical run, and maybe the deleted scenes Leone left out, which there are several of.

Aaryk Noctivagus

I love most Director's cuts and rarely dislike them.

The DC of 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' was actually shorter than the Theatrical release. I don't think the Theatrical has been released on DVD... so it can't be accused of being a cash in either... if I'm correct.

I did dislike the recent alternative cut of 'Alien' though. The famous cocoon sequence is great... but should never be re-inserted into the movie.

BristolUK

Anyone seen both versions of Cinema Paradiso?

I defy anyone to tell me the reduced length original release was an improvement on the restored/full version.

Aaryk Noctivagus

No you haven't. Its never been released yet. What you saw was called the Director's Cut but it wasn't actually so. The real Director's cut gets released later this year 2007.

The Cod Director's Cut of 'Blade Runner' that you saw, was a considerable improvement on the theatrical if only because it removed that appauling voice over track forced upon the theatrical because Executives thought the movie would be incomprehensible because an American test audience said they couldn't understand it, and the Cod DC removes the ridiculous 'happy ending'. Two reasons for embracing the DC even though it isn't really the DC.

Hanseat

If it is truly a different version (most often because of "artistic differences" between studio/producers and director) I very much enjoy watching them and quite often prefer them. There are many examples where the originally intended version simply makes more sense (e.g. "Aliens").

Recently, though, it has degenerated to a mere marketing ploy - do we really need a "recut and even ruder" version of "American Pie" or 30 secs more gore in "Hostel" (although there is nothing wrong with gratuitous gore ).

What really galls me, though, are the constant "reworkers" - Steven Spielberg most probably being the worst offender. Especially when they, like Spielberg, not just re-edit, add or delete but actually digitally alter the images, usually to make them more agreeable for the politically overcorrect (e.g. no cigarettes, or no guns in "Et"). I really, really hate that - and it is one of the reasons why my Spielberg DVD collection is extremely small ... going on zero ...

Alas, one of my biggest dreams for over 30 years now is to see the original version of "Greed". Is there anyone out there who has a few forgotten minutes of that film hidden in the attic?

batman

I am still waiting for the Director's Cut of 'One Eyed Jacks' if any of the unused two and a half hours of footage ever surface. What a film that would be ... and with it's original ending.

I enjoyed the Director's Cut of 'Touch of Evil' put together from Welles' original notes.

Funny how, apart from 'Wicker Man', all of these films are American. Perhaps only the Brits can get it right first time !!!!!

Bats.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

christoph404

:

Blade Runner as we all know is based on a bleak Novel by Philip K Dick, " Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep2, Ridley Scott thought it would be a good idea to stay faithfull to the book and produce a thought provoking film with a shock ending (deckard is in fact an android himself) Nervous production heads with an eye on the box office thought otherwise and decided to add a monotonous voice over and ludicrously stupid and risible happy ending which to my mind makes a mockery of the whole film. Remember Harrison Ford had recently come off Star Wars and was regarded as a flash gordon type superhero and studio excecs were rather nervous about depicting him in any other way and eager to cash in on this persona, hence any ambiguity about his character and whether he is a replicant is totally erased!! I think Blade Runner is a good example of how studio bosses with zero taste and witless ideas can use their power and non creative influence to ruin what would have been a brilliant film.I would say Ridley Scott mereley wanted to stay true to the source material rather than flex his own ego, for one thing RidleyScott is not that kind of filmaker,I would say he is very dedicated to his craft and has always sought to serve the story and the movie in the best way he can rather than serve his own ego, yes there are directors out there who are out to serve their own egos but I think its a mistake to lump Ridley Scott into that category. I have on DVD "The Original Cut of The Futuristic Adventure" also known as "The Directors Cut" of Blade Runner.To me this is s different film to the altered theatrical release so I guess you pays your money and makes your choice, I prefer the original cut as the writer and director intended. On the subject of Apocolypse Now, again financial reasons dictated that this movie be chopped down to a managible length for theatrical release, very long films are never popular with studio heads because a cinema might only be able to schedule only one screening per evening rather than two. I actually think that many films get ruined by the meddling of non creative studio executives who come along and make idiotic changes to movies at the last moment for pureley commercial reasons, it just annoys me that directors and writers can be ridiculed and accused of having monstrous egos for simply trying to protect a creative vision from the hands of,,,well,,,,,dumb money men in suits!! Put it this way, if you are Ridley Scott and you have spent six months working on a film based on a well known sci-fi novel and give it your best effort and turn in a brilliant film, then someone you have never met before who has probably never read a book in his life or looked through a camera viewfinder sends you a memo to say, yeah great film but lets add a voiceover to explain it all to the stupid Star Wars audiencewho are going to come and see Harrison in his new film, and oh yes, lets forget that idea about how Deckard could be a replicant himself, too confusing for the kids, and oh yes.....got to be a happy ending, he gets the girl and drives into the lush mountains.....aaaarghhhhhhhh.......what crap!!! I just can't beleive any one would not prefer the original vision, but there you go,each to their own.

Aaryk Noctivagus

I've never seen Steven Spielberg as a particularly bad offender in this matter. OK, things were altered in 'E.T.' which I agree with you should not have been touched. There was talk of adjusting the shark in 'Jaws' but as far as I know nothing has come of that. Apart from 'E.T.' and 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' (Only the first theatrical is available on DVD currently, rather than the better Special Edition) are there any other occasions where a Spielberg movie has had a reviewed cut? I suppose 'Dual' might be cited... but that was more a case of removing foolish studio additions. Ah almost forgot '1941'.

I think fans would call George Lucas the worst offender... hence the infamous cries of ' George Lucas raped my childhood ' from folk who seem never to have left much of their childhood behind - lol. Peter Jackson has also famously reworked several of his movies (improving them each time)... 'The Frighteners', 'The Fellowship of the Ring', 'The Two Towers', 'The Return of the King' and 'King Kong'.

I do not think Spielberg is usually seen as a particular offender beyond what is becoming increasingly common - and often warranted.

christoph404

:

there is a version of "Close Encounters" on DVD called The Collectors Edition. Its a two disxc edition, it contains all of the edits from "The special Edition" but deletes the extended scene at the end inside the mother ship, but that extended scene is viewable in the features section of the DVD along with another 11 deleted scenes.It also has a 100 minute documentary. I have the Special Edition on video and the theatrical edition on DVD and the two disc collectors edition. In my opinion the Collectors Edition is the one to have

Aaryk Noctivagus

In my opinion also

When I said 'Special Edition' I was not refering to a DVD release but to a movie release.