Main Menu

"Special editions"/Director's Cuts worse than the theatrical cuts

Started by Jim H, September 23, 2011, 06:05:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jim H

Ever watch an extended or altered version of a movie and thought the version you originally saw was better?  What can you name?

I'll start off with the obvious trilogy..

Star Wars - Most of the changes narratively damage the film.  Not always in a big way, but the handful of generally good changes (cleaned matte lines, a pretty good expanded view of Cloud City, etc) are marred by bad changes (the Han/Greedo thing, CGI that already looks dated, a Jabba the Hut scene that is unneeded and out of place, censored violence, etc). 

THX1138 - I hear the updates to this one aren't terrible, but also don't help the film

Lethal Weapon Director's Cut - most of the additions aren't bad on their own, but the scene where Gibson kills a sniper is redundant after the sequence with the Christmas Trees and other sequences don't add much, they just slow the film down.

Last of the Mohicans (Day-Lewis version) special edition - changes aren't huge, but most of the changes seem to lessen the film rather than improve it. 

Godfather Complete Epic - I haven't seen this one, but chronologically editing together the first two films just doesn't seem like a good idea.  The prequel elements were clearly there to parallel events in the second film as they happened.

Robocop - this one I'm mixed on.  The extra violence makes it more cartoony, which sort of fits, but I think it also takes away some of the drama in the more grounded parts of the movie.  Not worse or better, more like it is just different.

Any others?

JaseSF

"This above all: To thine own self be true!"

Flick James

The Lord of the Rings: I'm a fan of them, although they are not without their faults. The extended versions that were released on DVD are a mixed bag in my opinion. Some of the extended scenes are obviously intended for fans of the books and that were (perhaps wisely) kept out of the theatrical releases because they were long enough as it was. Some of the scenese were left out because they just weren't very good or just flat out stupid.

Blade Runner: Some people didn't like the Director's Cut. I went and saw it when it was released in theatres in the early 90's and thought it was great. Apparently Ridley Scott's original version was meant to have no narration in it at all, but he was pressured to because without it the studio felt it was too hard to follow. So he added the narration from Harrison Ford to appease. I've heard some say they prefer it with the narration because the film noir-esque feel of it works, but I preferred it without. Also, the director's cut had an ambiguous ending where we don't know the outcome. The studio pressure Scott to add an upbeat "happy ending" to the theatrical release, and I have to say when I saw the director's cut I was genuinely upset with the ending of the theatrical version. With the intended ambiguous ending my mind was doing cartwheels coming out of the theatre trying to picture what was coming next and it worked brilliantly.
I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Chainsawmidget


claws

I actually prefer the U.S. edited Theatrical versions of Dario Argento's Inferno and Deep Red over the original (extended) cuts. The 'longer' versions include mostly dialogue or extended scenes that aren't that important and only unnecessarily hurt the pacing.

dean


I can really only think of Star Wars off the top of my head.  Extended cuts like Lord of the Rings and Avatar etc seem to be more for the fans who want more anyway, so in my mind they don't count, since you'd forgive the bad, longer pacing when you get more of what you want...

The Warriors directors cut was fine, but I found the comic book parts unnecessary and somewhat conflicted with the late 70s style of the film, but I actually prefer it beyond that.
------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Jack

Star Trek The Motion Picture - seems like they changed it to appease people who didn't care much for it in the first place.  Personally I really liked the original version.  It had a very surreal feel to it, and the changes diminished that somewhat.
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.

- Paulo Coelho

major jay

THE EXCORCIST
There is a powerful scene near the end with the priests, but the rest doesn't fit in very well (kind of cheesy).
One that I do like is Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD.  

RD

Quote from: Jim H on September 23, 2011, 06:05:38 PM


Robocop - this one I'm mixed on.  The extra violence makes it more cartoony, which sort of fits, but I think it also takes away some of the drama in the more grounded parts of the movie.  Not worse or better, more like it is just different.

I grew up watching an R version of this movie taped off Showtime in the late 80s. When I finally watched the Unrated version some of it came to me as a shock, but I didn't feel it really hindered the film. Especially after watching several other verhoeven films, it seemed par for the course. I'd still buy that for a dollar.
=== ===
           Go Robo!

akiratubo

Waterword.  Holy cow, is the theatrical version better.  All of the "restored" scenes were cut for good reason.
Kneel before Dr. Hell, the ruler of this world!

Fausto

I may get some flack for this, but...Legend. The original version was longer and had a completely different score, an orchestral one. However, in my opinion, at least, the new scenes dont really add much, and the score, while nice, isnt as unique or memorable as the tangerine dream one.
"When I die, I hope you will use my body creatively." - Shin Chan

"Tonight, we will honor the greatest writers in America with a modest 9 by 12 certificate and a check for three thousand dollars...three thousand dollars? Stephen King makes more than that for writing boo on a cocktail napkin." - Jimmy Breslin

akiratubo

Quote from: Fausto on October 01, 2011, 08:14:57 AM
I may get some flack for this, but...Legend. The original version was longer and had a completely different score, an orchestral one. However, in my opinion, at least, the new scenes dont really add much, and the score, while nice, isnt as unique or memorable as the tangerine dream one.

I much prefer the theatrical version of Legend, as well.  The director's cut isn't better, just longer.  You are spot on about the restored scenes adding nothing and the superiority of Tangerine Dream's score.
Kneel before Dr. Hell, the ruler of this world!

bob

The regular version of Donnie Darko made a lot more sense to me then the 10th anniversary edition did.
Kubrick, Nolan, Tarantino, Wan, Iñárritu, Scorsese, Chaplin, Abrams, Wes Anderson, Gilliam, Kurosawa, Villeneuve - the elite



I believe in the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Raffine

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. The 'Special Edition' released in 1980 cut out much of Dreyfus' character development and huge chunks of the scenes with his family, making his transformation into an obsessed nut confusing and uninteresting. The discovery of the ocean liner in the desert was neat, but the trip into the interior of the mother ship was, er, "ill-advised".


If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.

Raffine

Not really a 'director's cut',  but the original DRACULA (1931) was released in the 1990s with a very annoying Philip Glass score.
If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.