Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Directors Cut?

Old 07-13-08, 07:48 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,518
Received 108 Likes on 67 Posts
Directors Cut?

After watching the directors cut of Cinema Paridiso and reading on imdb about the diffrences between the theatrical cut and the directors cut it got me thinking. Is a directors cut just footage added back into the film or is it actually the directors initial vision of the film. Like i know Criterion has director approved cuts of the film, which i assume means this was their intentions for the movie. But when a random movie gets released with directors cut tacked on, is this the directors actual intended film, or just a way for the studios to make some more money off sales by tacking on 20 extra minutes of cut footage that may have needed to be cut in the first place.
Old 07-13-08, 08:04 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Director's Cut is usually intended as the director wanted. Films like Lord of the Rings are the Extended Editions not the Director's Cut. There's a difference.
Old 07-13-08, 08:15 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,294
Received 1,011 Likes on 803 Posts
Yeah it's usually how the director wanted. Except for Blade Runner.
Old 07-13-08, 08:34 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,518
Received 108 Likes on 67 Posts
Are these things cut from the film because the studios didnt like them then. Cause as i watched Cinema Paridiso i felt like the love story was kinda tacked on, and then i read basically it was for the directors cut as much of the love story was not in the theatrical cut. Are there any movies that anyone has seen that you think have suffered from the director changing the original movie to fit his mold.
Old 07-13-08, 08:36 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,000
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by beavis69
Are there any movies that anyone has seen that you think have suffered from the director changing the original movie to fit his mold.
Yeah there's this trilogy...
Old 07-13-08, 08:39 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nightmare Alley
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by beavis69
Are there any movies that anyone has seen that you think have suffered from the director changing the original movie to fit his mold.
THX-1138 is the first one that comes to mind. All of those slick modern CGI additions stick out like so many sore thumbs. The new footage is highly distracting and, for me at least, almost ruins the film. Also Apocalypse Now - the inserted scenes only slow the film down. At least Coppola had the courtesy to include both cuts for the DVD release, unlike Lucas.

Last edited by NoirFan; 07-13-08 at 08:41 PM.
Old 07-13-08, 08:51 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mondo Kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 11,660
Received 112 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally Posted by beavis69
Are there any movies that anyone has seen that you think have suffered from the director changing the original movie to fit his mold.
The Outsiders-The Complete Novel
I don't mind the new scenes, but I can't say the same about the new score.
Old 07-13-08, 09:08 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 20,387
Received 680 Likes on 419 Posts
Originally Posted by NoirFan
THX-1138 is the first one that comes to mind. All of those slick modern CGI additions stick out like so many sore thumbs. The new footage is highly distracting and, for me at least, almost ruins the film. Also Apocalypse Now - the inserted scenes only slow the film down. At least Coppola had the courtesy to include both cuts for the DVD release, unlike Lucas.
The only real slowdown disater for APOCALYPSE NOW is the entire plantation sequence. Otherwise, I prefer the extended cut's depth. But it's not fun. It's not funny.
Old 07-13-08, 10:42 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,679
Received 646 Likes on 446 Posts
Originally Posted by beavis69
Are these things cut from the film because the studios didnt like them then. Cause as i watched Cinema Paridiso i felt like the love story was kinda tacked on, and then i read basically it was for the directors cut as much of the love story was not in the theatrical cut. Are there any movies that anyone has seen that you think have suffered from the director changing the original movie to fit his mold.
With Cinema Paridiso, the Director's Cut was released first, in Italy. It was only when it was imported here did Miramax create the shorter cut. So the "Director's Cut" in that case was the original cut as well.
Old 07-13-08, 10:48 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,679
Received 646 Likes on 446 Posts
Originally Posted by beavis69
But when a random movie gets released with directors cut tacked on, is this the directors actual intended film, or just a way for the studios to make some more money off sales by tacking on 20 extra minutes of cut footage that may have needed to be cut in the first place.
It depends. probably 90% of the time, the term "Director's Cut" does refer to the version the director prefers, and 90% of of those cuts add footage.

Not all the time though. Sometimes true Director's Cuts actually remove footage, such as with the Director's Cuts of Blood Simple and The Great Raid. And sometimes the studios slap the Director's Cut label on an edit not actually preferred by the director, but different from the original cut, like with the "Director's Cut" of Alien.
Old 07-13-08, 10:51 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,679
Received 646 Likes on 446 Posts
Originally Posted by RichC2
Yeah it's usually how the director wanted. Except for Blade Runner.
To be fair, the "Director's Cut" for Blade Runner is closer to what Ridley Scott intended for the film than the original theatrical cut was. It was as close as his editing team could get done by the deadline Warner Bros. gave for that edit. The "Final Cut" is really just a tweak of the "Director's Cut," the major changes had already been made.
Old 07-13-08, 11:09 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by beavis69
Are there any movies that anyone has seen that you think have suffered from the director changing the original movie to fit his mold.
The Last of the Mohicans

...and maybe Payback.
Old 07-13-08, 11:20 PM
  #13  
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by beavis69
Are there any movies that anyone has seen that you think have suffered from the director changing the original movie to fit his mold.
a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away....
Old 07-14-08, 04:12 AM
  #14  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Many foreign films, especially older ones, also have the problem of being shortened for international markets.

One curious example of a "director's cut" is Akira Kurosawa's 'Kagemusha', which was released 17 minutes shorter outside of Japan. Currently, the Criterion edition is the only English-friendly release of the film that runs for 179 minutes, rather than 162.

Yet, I am not entirely sure which version should be considered the one Kurosawa wanted us to see. I have read two different reasons for the shorter cut:

1) The original (and longer) Japanese cut was a "rough cut" done in a hurry because Toho wanted its money back quickly. The shorter "international" cut is what Kurosawa considered the finished product.

2) Another source insists that the shorter cut was produced because in Kurosawa's view those 17 minutes were "incomprehensible to an American audience".

This second view seems strange, as Kurosawa often stressed that although he made movies primarily for the Japanese audiences, he was a world citizen. It also raises the question that if Kurosawa intended the Japanese to see one version of the film and the rest of the world another version, does it mean that the "definitive" version of the film depends on where in the world you happen to live? What if you are an American living in Japan? (Or, indeed, what about the rest of the world?)

In the end, I guess there are no "definitive" versions of anything. After all, even the "director's cut" type of re-cuts are only versions that the director wanted us to see at the time when he re-cut the film.

'Blade Runner' is a good example, as the original cut was Ridley's, the Director's Cut also had his involvement (although not full involvement), and then the Final Cut is what he now considers the definitive one. Maybe in 10 years time he'll change his mind again... And I think he has the right to do so, just like we have the right to say "enough, already" or "I like that better".

Anyway, we've explored the Kurosawa bit a little further at AkiraKurosawa.info, if anyone's interested.
Old 07-14-08, 07:47 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,679
Received 646 Likes on 446 Posts
Originally Posted by vili
In the end, I guess there are no "definitive" versions of anything. After all, even the "director's cut" type of re-cuts are only versions that the director wanted us to see at the time when he re-cut the film.
It depends. For the "Final Cut" of Brazil, Terry Gilliam makes the statement in the commentary for the film that he was careful to not re-redit the film to fit how he would make the film now, but to keep as true to the type of filmmaker he was when the film first came out. Thus, there isn't that drastic of a re-editing of the film compared to the original European Cut. With the "Original Director's Cut" of Army of Darkness, on the commentary it's made clear that this isn't a "preferred" cut by Raimi, or the version he'd edit together now, but a snapshot of what the movie was before subsequent studio tampering caused certain changes, some for the good, some for the worse.

'Blade Runner' is a good example, as the original cut was Ridley's....
The original theatrical cut of Blade Runner was not Ridley's cut of the film, as he had lost control of the project at that point. He had officially been fired from the film during post-production, and was locked out of the recording session for the narration used in the theatrical cut. Remember, just because a filmmaker has their name on a particular cut doesn't mean it's a cut they approve of.
Old 07-14-08, 08:42 AM
  #16  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry if this is going too far off-topic from the original post.

Originally Posted by Jay G.
It depends. For the "Final Cut" of Brazil, Terry Gilliam makes the statement in the commentary for the film that he was careful to not re-redit the film to fit how he would make the film now, but to keep as true to the type of filmmaker he was when the film first came out.
A good point. However, I might counter by saying that it could actually rather be considered Gilliam's projection of what he at the time of re-editing the film thought he was like when originally making the film.

Originally Posted by Jay G.
The original theatrical cut of Blade Runner was not Ridley's cut of the film, as he had lost control of the project at that point. He had officially been fired from the film during post-production, and was locked out of the recording session for the narration used in the theatrical cut.
I thought that, despite of having been kept away from the final voice-over recordings, and being told to stay away from some of the post-production work, Ridley pretty much still finished the film? At least in the "Dangerous Days" documentary he talks about the voice over sessions as if he was part of the process up until the final recording, which was done without him (and pretty much anyone else, as Harrison tells us).

He was also in charge of shooting the "happy ending", wasn't he? In fact, I don't think anyone really (physically) took the editing process from his hands? Moreover, I think that both "Dangerous Days" and "Future Noir" note that Ridley willingly added both the voice-over and the happy ending (the major late changes) following the reactions that he had got from test audiences and his producers.

But perhaps you are still right about Ridley having lost (at least some) control over the project by that point. He for example keeps talking about how he himself thought at that point how the voice-over narration was actually needed and should be added -- an idea he now seems to consider was the result of him listening to the test audiences too much (a "mistake" he has said he did again with 'Kingdom of Heaven').

Which is pretty much what I tried to say in my previous post -- at any given moment you make decisions that you think are at least on some level right at the time. Whether or not they are decisions that you are entirely happy with, you at least consider them the best (or the only) roads to take. And I don't think that this is fundamentally different from something like Ridley's 'Final Cut'. Although it probably was produced under much less pressure, I'm sure that it, too, had compromises, not least based on the available footage and the limits of current technology to manipulate it.

In the end, film being the type of an art form that it is, with so many people and other factors involved, the final product ends up being a compromise.

But I must say that your points are still quite valid.

Originally Posted by Jay G.
Remember, just because a filmmaker has their name on a particular cut doesn't mean it's a cut they approve of.
Sure. Although, has Ridley actually said somewhere that he didn't at the time of release approve of the original cut?
Old 07-14-08, 09:46 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,679
Received 646 Likes on 446 Posts
Originally Posted by vili
A good point. However, I might counter by saying that it could actually rather be considered Gilliam's projection of what he at the time of re-editing the film thought he was like when originally making the film.
If Gilliam had made any significant changes, you may have a point. However, the only difference between Gilliam's original director's cut (the European Cut) and the Director's Final Cut is the use of the opening from the US Theatrical Cut (which was the only change made to the US cut that Gilliam actually liked).

I thought that, despite of having been kept away from the final voice-over recordings, and being told to stay away from some of the post-production work, Ridley pretty much still finished the film?
Ridley Scott did work on Blade Runner until the end of production. However, he was officially fired from his role as director before that.

From a post I made years ago on Usenet about the book "Future Noir":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.v...764b76b4e48a82
In chapter 9 of the book, pages 207-208, it's reported that Tandem fired both Scott and the Producer Micheal Deeley. The film, "would now be completed by Tandem Productions"(207). While this had no appearent effect on the surface (Scott and Deeley continued to work on the picture), Tandem started to exert more artist control on the film. Ultimately, Tandem now had final say on any decision about the film.

He was also in charge of shooting the "happy ending", wasn't he? In fact, I don't think anyone really (physically) took the editing process from his hands?
It's doubtful that Ridley Scott was physically in charge of the editing process in the first place. I think being locked out of the final recording session, which he had no input on the script for, is a clear sign of who was really in charge of the editing process at this point though.

Ridley may have shot some of the footage that was later used for the "happy ending," although some of that footage is extra footage from The Shining, but that doesn't mean he approved of the way it was finally used. The actual footage itself, Deckard and Rachael on a train, isn't that drastic of a change, we know Deckard and Rachael fled together from the previous scene. It's the voice over used with the footage that makes the "happy ending."

Plus, directors will often shoot scenes that they have no intention of using, simply to appease producers' concerns. For example, the DVD for the movie The Interview contains a deleted "alternate ending" for the film that the director of the film never intended to use, but was shot during production to appease some of the producers concerned about the planned ending. Even footage that director's do plan to use get cut due to the editing process. So just because it was shot doesn't mean the director thinks it should be in the final cut of the film.

Moreover, I think that both "Dangerous Days" and "Future Noir" note that Ridley willingly added both the voice-over and the happy ending (the major late changes) following the reactions that he had got from test audiences and his producers.
Again, from my earlier post on the book:
While [producer Michael Deeley] claims that Scott willingly added the happy ending back in after the Dallas sneak (300), Scott himself says the ending was "tacked on" by the studio and some of the film's producers (377).

Regarding the cut unicorn scene:
Scott explains that he didn't object at the time because the early sneaks caused insecurity in him about the film, so he didn't fight to keep it in (378).

Ridley Scott was a man with his hands tied. He had gone over budget and was now at the mercy of a production company that frankly didn't like him that much. He was technically fired from the production, and was being insisted upon to make changes he didn't agree with. On top of that, the test screening seemed to illustrate that audiences didn't like his preferred cut of the film, giving more ammunition to his opponents for their changes. The most he could've done at this point is walked off the film, which would've hurt his film career, lost him any slight bit of control he still had on the picture, and possibly his name still would've stayed on the film.

As a director, when you're a work for hire, sometimes you just gotta bow down to the authority and make the mandated changes, whether you agree with them or not.

Although [the Final Cut] probably was produced under much less pressure, I'm sure that it, too, had compromises, not least based on the available footage and the limits of current technology to manipulate it.
I'm not sure what limits those could've been, considering they reshot the Zora shooting scene, which was one of the most techincally glaring errors of the original. I guess the biggest limitation was that they didn't shoot any of the scenes that were cut before being filmed, but from an editing standpoint, the Final Cut had even less limitations on it than if Ridley had previously had final cut on the original theatrical release.

In the end, film being the type of an art form that it is, with so many people and other factors involved, the final product ends up being a compromise.
True enough, which is why Director's Cuts exist, so that a version with less of those compromises, and much closer to what the director would've done if he/she hadn't had to compromise at all. It's not surprising at all that the vast majority of Director's Cuts are for films that had the director's name on the original cut as well.
Old 07-15-08, 05:31 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Then theres The Mist. Where the Directors Cut is basically the same film in black and white.
Old 07-15-08, 09:13 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BEAVIS69,
So did you prefer the director's cut or the theatrical cut of CINEMA PARADISO?
Old 07-15-08, 10:10 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mondo Kane
The Outsiders-The Complete Novel
I don't mind the new scenes, but I can't say the same about the new score.
You're crazy. The Outsiders is one of the few recuts that produce a far superior film, and dumping Pappy Carmine's music for period-appropriate tunes is a large part of it.
Old 07-15-08, 10:16 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
Director's Cut is usually intended as the director wanted. Films like Lord of the Rings are the Extended Editions not the Director's Cut. There's a difference.
Well no, a true director's cut is a rough version of the film that the director is allowed to make when production wraps. At that point the studio can say, "Good start. Keep at it," "It's shaping up well, but we have a few notes," or, "This is a complete disaster. We're going to take over and tell the editor how to fix things." This cut represents the director's intent, but it is not a finished product that he'd want the public to see.

DVD marketers have glommed onto the term for any sort of alternate cut that the director prefers to the theatrical release.
Old 07-16-08, 01:05 AM
  #22  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the response, Jay G.! The Usenet post you link to sums up things pretty nicely. I'm still not sure if we should really call the original cut anyone but Ridley's, though.

But I haven't read Future Noir for a long while, so I mainly remember what they tell us in the Dangerous Days documentary, and since it's part of the Final Cut package, perhaps everyone there is just trying to be nice to each other and not really telling/remembering things as they were at the time of production...

Anyway, I think we've taken enough space in this thread.
Old 07-16-08, 01:55 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,299
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by vili
Thanks for the response, Jay G.! The Usenet post you link to sums up things pretty nicely. I'm still not sure if we should really call the original cut anyone but Ridley's, though.
Let's just call it the "Compromised Cut"
Old 07-16-08, 01:58 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,299
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let's not forget that half the horror flicks on Blockbuster's new release wall are the "Unrated Director's Cut". It's often a marketing ploy to sucker people into watching the same movie for 10 extra seconds of blood & tits (and blood on tits).
Old 07-16-08, 02:19 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,299
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NoirFan
THX-1138 is the first one that comes to mind. All of those slick modern CGI additions stick out like so many sore thumbs. The new footage is highly distracting and, for me at least, almost ruins the film.
The car chase insert with Duvall's car going from an isolated tunnel to suddenly darting back and forth on a busy CGI freeway is fucking ridiculous.

Replacing the tunnel midgets with CGI monkeys is, you guessed it, fucking ridiculous.

All the changes made to give expansive views of this underground society take away the claustrophobic feel I loved about the film.

At least the one sequence Lucas didn't tamper with was the prison without walls. Guess he figured there was no way to "expand" an endless all-white palette. (Who knows, maybe he did add more white but we just can't see the difference between white and white)

But I swear, those goddamn monkeys...

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.