Original movie release versus director's cuts
I've been looking to pick up a couple of older movies on DVD. However, many of the original theatrical releases are now accompanied by a "director's cut" or "special edition".
Now I know for technical reasons, a director may go back and improve the sound or colour. But should one go back to edit the content to tell the story in a different way than he/she originally intended? I realize it's their personal work of art but somehow it seems like they're cheating the creative process.
And for the most part, do these "new" versions improve or worsen the story? In my case, I'm looking at two DVD's in particular --Apocalypse Now and The Wrath of Khan. Both have reworked versions.
Now I know for technical reasons, a director may go back and improve the sound or colour. But should one go back to edit the content to tell the story in a different way than he/she originally intended? I realize it's their personal work of art but somehow it seems like they're cheating the creative process.
And for the most part, do these "new" versions improve or worsen the story? In my case, I'm looking at two DVD's in particular --Apocalypse Now and The Wrath of Khan. Both have reworked versions.
Comments
Originally posted by satchmo
"director's cut" or "special edition".
Usually a special edition is different from a director's cut. The special edition either has lots of extra gubbins (possibly on a second disc) like interviews and original trailers and/or has been remastered for better audio & visual quality.
There are ranges like the Criterion collection that emphasise audio-visual quality over anything else, sometimes removing all extras to make room for more quality.
Amazon lists such DVDs separately:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...326104-6148829
Director's cuts usually mean that the director has been messed around by the corporate big-wigs and now that he's got some power and control he's restoring it to how it was intended to be originally.
I *always* buy the special edition or directors cut when available and often wait to purchase if there isn't one. It's like the early years of CD when they just stuck any old crap on the disc and now expect you to fork out again for the remastering that they should have done in the first place.
But should one go back to edit the content to tell the story in a different way than he/she originally intended? I realize it's their personal work of art but somehow it seems like they're cheating the creative process.
The director's cut is usually more what the director envisions. If the director's cut/change comes a long time after the original film, I think it would be blatantly packaged as a new version, so you shouldn't feel cheated. Don't give the creative process more than it's due. It's all just money floating around.
It dropped the admittedly and purposefully bad voiceover by Harrison Ford... both him and Ridley Scott thought it was a bad idea... the studio forced them to do it because the didn't get what was going on and wanted it to be even more like pulp fiction detective movies.
Originally posted by Scott
On director's cut that I hated was Nuovo Cinema Paradiso. It ****ing sucked. It was so bad it ruined the original for me.
Some have said the same thing for Apocolypse Now Redux.
Although it does complete the story a bit more, many have said it is just too damn long.
As far as the creative process, I understand how one would want to correct a wrong, or do things differently upon reflection say 10 years later. But there's something about seeing something the way the director saw it at that moment time. But yes, money could also dictate alot given a re-release can often bring studios bonus money at very little cost.
Weird. AND we're both in NYC.
By the way my desktop is a very exact CG model of the Spinner.
It was the best version of it I've ever seen. The cuts were seamless. All of them added to the story including the infamous scene with Dallas cocooned up on the wall. I remember seeing the movie back in 1979 and wanting to know more about what the alien did to the people it attacked.
I swore I wouldn't be tempted to buy another alien 4 disc package but after seeing this I'm very tempted.
As far as director's cuts go I think they would win my vote every time. A big reason stuff gets cut is that movie execs don't think people will sit still for more than 2 hrs exactly ( no matter what's going on up on the screen ).
Now I know there are some scenes that should be cut because they don't work or they slow the movie down. But a lot of stuff is really important to the storyline like in T2 where Micheal Bein ( from T1 ) comes back to visit Sara Conner in a dream. He's the one who tells her " There's no fate but what we make ". It gave the character closure and added to our understanding of what was going on.
I'd have to say I vote for Director's Cuts everytime.
After all it's their movie.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Dude we wrote that post at the same time.
Weird. AND we're both in NYC.
Synchronicity...must be something in the water
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Synchronicity...must be something in the water
*zip*
Originally posted by Ganondorf
*zip*
Nothing to take offense by, he's the one in Alabama
Originally posted by ThunderPoit
i was thinking more along the lines of "theres something in the water"....zips up pants...
Oh, there's probably much worse than that in the water that comes out of the average NYC faucet (although the natives swear that it's fine).
Blade Runner was actually worse IMO without the voiceovers, as bad as they were. The movie's pace was awful, a lot of scenery and intros could be cut without any harm to the plot or "vision" of the thing. Just long periods of boredom with great action in between makes it feel really uneven. Apocalypse Now Redux was good and bad too, adding some good stuff, but dragging on forever. Overall, I think it's worth it though since the image was so improved, and I never loved the ending as it was. (Actually the film goes downhill after the Kilgore/surfing scene, finding its dearth in Dennis Hopper's performance.)
Overall though, they're better. Too often though, the special editions add 30 seconds that shouldn't have been added at all, but aren't enough to make the movie suck.
Originally posted by bunge
The STAR WARS Special Editions were sickeningly bad.
I'm no Star Wars geek, but I remember when they came out the big thing was that they edited it so Han didn't shoot first. I thought that was dumb. Other than that, what was sickeningly bad about it? (I ask out of curiosity because I don't remember that much about Star Wars Special Edition.)