OK, so... Star Wars? (LOTR had LE DVD release as well, which had seamless branching with both the extended cuts and the original cuts). Not everyone gets Clerks 2 references.

In the case of Star Wars, the selling point was for the original theatrical versions of the films. This was a selling point because of the distaste some fans have for the changes in the SEs, although not necessarily related to the SEs length. The comparison with The Hobbit doesn't work, since the original theatrical cuts are likely to be released on home video, probably before any extended version.

It's not uncommon for an extended/altered edition home video release to offer the original theatrical edition as a special feature, but it's extremely rare, if not outright unprecedented, for a simply shortened cut to be offered next to the original theatrical cut. The closest I can think of is maybe for Impostor, where the DVD offered the original short film cut of the movie. Even then, it's a case of where the shorted cut was the original cut, and the theatrical was an expanded version.

It's a possibility, but I don't think it's likely. New Line/WB had the opportunity for a shorter cut of The Hobbit series when it was originally two films, and they opted to go longer. They're not going to go against the wishes of PJ, and advertising a shorter cut, even as a special feature on a disc, would likely appear to be of dubious advantage to them, especially as they are already planning on offering a longer version of the film.

Well, I guess some of the 2nd movie and all of the 3rd movie are going to incorporate the LOTR appendices, as a bridge to LOTR, and stuff that happens after ROTK, to bring it all full-circle. So it's not going to be all Hobbit.

There's Alexander. And though the Director's Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture was longer than the theatrical release, it was significantly shorter than the extended cut that was the only one ever available on home video.

Are you seriously playing dumb with my reference? Please.

As for everything else you just posted, you're splitting hairs as usual. I think you must like the typing practice.

According to a spoiler I read earlier...

I'm pretty sure even this first film has bits from the appendices in it. It's sprinkled throughout. Also, I don't think they're putting anything in this series that's post ROTK; the stuff they're pulling from the appendices either happened during The Hobbit, or between The Hobbit and FOTR.


The Director's Cut of Alexander is shorter than the theatrical, but that was at the director's behest, and was more than a simple shortening (30 minutes of footage was removed, but 9 minutes of new footage was added).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexand...Other_versions

The Director's Cut of Bad Santa is shorter than the theatrical, but that's also at director's behest and is a radical reworking instead of just a shortening:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307987/technical

ST:TMP is interesting, but again the shorter Director's Cut was done at the behest of the director and was more than just a shortening of the longer cut, with new effects even. Also, there was a laserdisc release of the original theatrical cut before the extended cut was released on home video:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star...ure_(LaserDisc)


Again, my main point is that films are very rarely just shortened, and (possibly) never without the directors involved and actively shortening the film themselves. If anyone can give a valid example of a studio taking a theatrical cut of a film and offering a shortened version of a film (where the only notable difference is it's shorter), aside from TV or possibly airplane cuts, I'd like to hear of it. For me, the only real chance of shorter The Hobbit is if PJ wanted one, which seems unlikely.

Brazil.

Chile

That was a TV cut that repurposed an alternate theatrical cut that Universal was putting together before they caved and used Gilliam's US theatrical cut. The working theory is that someone at Universal was just lazy when making the TV cut, since the "Love Conquers All" edit was nearly finished and about the right length. The only existing copy still has the fade-ins and fade-outs for commercial breaks.

What's more, Universal never released that copy on home video. It was also removed from TV circulation, replaced with a more traditional shortened TV edit. It wasn't until Criterion was working on their Final Director's Cut release that the "Love Conquers All" was released as a supplement, with Gilliam's approval.

Finally, the "Love Conquers All" edit isn't merely a shorter cut of the film, but a significant re-imaging of the film, attempting to transform an odd-ball dark fantasy into a more conventional rom-com. Scenes are re-arranged, alternate takes are used, and most importantly the ending has been significantly revised to be a "happy" ending. It's the whole reason this cut is notable, as opposed to all the other TV edits (which nearly every film gets) that don't note a home-video release.

Apropos of nothing, I'd still be mildly interested in seeing LOTR in the two part form that was considered.

I can't find a copy of the scripts for the 2-film version online, but here's an extensive review of the scripts:
http://archives.theonering.net/featu...ipt/index.html

Somewhat Hobbit related, a recent interview where Peter Jackson talks about the development of LOTR, including how they originally wanted to make The Hobbit first, and how Miramax almost took LOTR away from them:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli...s-how-20121209

I just spent 12 hours in the theater last weekend watching the LOTR marathon, so 3 hours of THE HOBBIT is going to seem "short" to me this weekend.

Alexander Revisited. That started out as the standard theatrical, then shorter director's cut, and then finally the 4 hour version. I like Revisited the best.

^ And Stone has announced he's working on yet another cut.

I'm not sure what your point is here as I already discussed the shorter director's cut of Alexander.

The Payback directors cut is about 10 minutes shorter than the theatrical.

And about 30 times better. But, that is a unique case where the studio brought in a different director and redid the last third of the film for theaters.

Seriously, another cut of Alexander? Dear god no. Make it stop.

I honestly like the theatrical one way better, and it's a shame that only the director's cut is on blu-ray.

I know this is splitting hairs but the theatrical cut of Alien is 117 minutes and the director's cut is 116 minutes.

The director's cut of The Great Raid is around 2 minutes shorter than the theatrical cut.

The director's cut goes to the dark corners it was meant to...but, while we disagree, i believe (though i am not certain) that there is a uk blu that is region free and has both cuts, if that helps.

Is this thread about The Hobbit or Director's Cuts vs. theatrical?

If the former, then I have decided to try the HFR on Saturday after I see a regular 3D tomorrow night. If the latter, then I think the two that have the best track records in that area are James Cameron and Ridley Scott.

The answer is: yes.

12 hours after watching it... Yeah, it's fucking good.

Go with HTR.