CUT! A discussion of films with different cuts on blu-ray... (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

I have the Fox set too, Josh, so when I get a chance I will try to compare and report back.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think the Director's Cut of Aliens is superior to the theatrical cut.

I have not watched Aliens in some time. I am not sure which version I watched last but I think it may have been the director's cut. I would need to sit down and watch the theatrical version and then the director's cut again to say which I prefer. I am just not certain from memory what the director's cut changes or if it improved the film. Where Aliens is an action film I think this type of film often works better in a shorter tighter version. I can't say that is the case every time so I would need to watch it again.

I can say I think that Alien works better in the theatrical cut than in the extended version...which Scott does not refer to as a director's cut. It is interesting seeing the additional scenes but having seen them...I think the correct choice was made to cut them.

 

[TravisR]

I have not watched Aliens in some time. I am not sure which version I watched last but I think it may have been the director's cut. I would need to sit down and watch the theatrical version and then the director's cut again to say which I prefer. I am just not certain from memory what the director's cut changes or if it improved the film. Where Aliens is an action film I think this type of film often works better in a shorter tighter version. I can't say that is the case every time so I would need to watch it again.

For me, Aliens works better in its theatrical cut because the extended cut has some scenes that aren't needed. The extended cut has scenes with the colonists on LV-426 prior to the aliens attacking and I think it works better not seeing those people or the location so the audience is in the same place as the characters. That being said, there's a scene where you find out that Ripley had a kid who died of old age during the time that Ripley was lost in space and that informs the whole mother/daughter plot with Newt and absolutely should have been kept in the theatrical cut.

 

[WillG]

For me, Aliens works better in its theatrical cut because the extended cut has some scenes that aren't needed. The extended cut has scenes with the colonists on LV-426 prior to the aliens attacking and I think it works better not seeing those people or the location so the audience is in the same place as the characters. That being said, there's a scene where you find out that Ripley had a kid who died of old age during the time that Ripley was lost in space and that informs the whole mother/daughter plot with Newt and absolutely should have been kept in the theatrical cut.

I think whether not you watch with the colony scene it works in different ways. Without it, there is more of a "mystery" to what happened. But, watching with the scene makes the fate of the colony seem more tragic (especially since you also see some of the children of the colony). One thing I don't like about the D.C. Is that it "spoils" the idea of the Queen (and makes Hudson look unnecessarily dumb)

 

[TravisR]

I think whether not you watch with the colony scene it works in different ways. Without it, there is more of a "mystery" to what happened. But, watching with the scene makes the fate of the colony seem more tragic (especially since you also see some of the children of the colony).

That's true and it's not like the scenes are bad, I just like seeing them outside of the movie.

 

[Tony Bensley]

That happened to a friend of mine who was working at the Grand Canyon when they shot the movie Grand Canyon. Apparently, they shot a bunch of scenes in and around the place he worked, and he was all excited when we went to the movie, but it ends just as the characters arrive at the Canyon.

A film titled GRAND CANYON that barely (If at all?) shows the Grand Canyon?

I generally find such stories a bit of a disappointment. Yes, I get that the main point of it is probably the journey and what happens during that, but for the love of God, give us SOMETHING at the end!

Perhaps the release of an extended cut might be in order?

CHEERS!

 

[Tony Bensley]

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT (1964), for all of its many home video releases, seems destined to never be quite in its original theatrical version, or rather, U.S. and/or UK versions.

The latest 50th Anniversary Blu-ray/DVD combo by Criterion was released in a Director's approved version. While A HARD DAY'S NIGHT is now in its correct (For the U.S, at least!) 1.75:1 AR matte, thanks to Bob and/or Ron Furmanek's spotting of the actual documentation; not everything is quite as originally presented in 1964. For me, the main standout difference is the added fan screams in the film's opening sequence (Which I originally assumed were original, until I was corrected by Bob Furmanek, who IIRC, has a 1967 print with NO opening screams!), which were lifted from recordings that were done during the filming of the Television Theatre sequence. I openly admit to enjoying this mix more than the 2002 Miramax DVD, on which any other existing audio is muted by the music (Derived from an early '80s remix, or rather, song overdubbing, I believe?), but it would be great to have the original audio as well!

CHEERS!

 

[Robin9]

A film titled GRAND CANYON that barely (If at all?) shows the Grand Canyon?

I generally find such stories a bit of a disappointment. Yes, I get that the main point of it is probably the journey and what happens during that, but for the love of God, give us SOMETHING at the end!

Perhaps the release of an extended cut might be in order?

CHEERS!

Twilight Time has the remedy on offer: their splendid Blu-ray disc of Edge Of Eternity, starring Cornel Wilde and the Grand Canyon!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, because we have a new cut of Apocalypse Now, a new cut of The Cotton Club on the way, and Coppola wants to create a new cut of the third Godfather film I thought I would bring this thread out of dark corners of the Home Theater Forum attic or basement or wherever it was.

Plus I enjoy reading what people think of all these different cuts of all these films.

 

[AshJW]

So, one of the great things about DVD and Blu-ray is that these formats introduced the opportunity to get our paws on new and different cuts of films we love.

The first thing when I see or read CUT is to think about cuts because of too much violence or nudity or whatever.
So my reaction to CUT is somewhat allergic

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The first thing when I see or read CUT is to think about cuts because of too much violence or nudity or whatever.
So my reaction to CUT is somewhat allergic

I always thought on that side of the Atlantic, Thomas, they only cut films for violence or cruelty to animals. On this side, they always preferred to cut out the nudity or anything sex related...even if it was just talk. Here violence is fine, even worshipped...sex though, that's about being kind and loving to another person so that should be censored. Don't want to give anybody the idea that sort of consideration for a fellow human being is a good thing, might make them less inclined to use their gun.

Anyway, while this thread is not really about censorship, I guess that can affect the cut of a film but now with the option to present a film for home consumption in an "uncut" form where you don't need to subject it to censors that should not be much of a concern any longer. At least I think that's one of the advantages of Blu-ray.

 

[titch]

Thanks for bumping this thread again!

There is a major difference in quality between films, where scenes were cut because they interrupted the narrative or flow of the movie, or just didn't "fit in", and films where scenes were cut (often by the studio) because of the commercial need to reduce running times, in order to fit as many screenings as possible per day. Films cut for censorship reasons are also usually against the director's wishes and are made because of contractual obligations.

I revisited the entire Alien series last week, listening to the director's commentary on each version. It is interesting to note that Ridley Scott considers his original theatrical cut of Alien to actually be his director's cut. James Cameron, on the other hand, says on the commentary track for Aliens that he was originally obliged to deliver a final theatrical cut of no more than two hours and 15 minutes, in order for the movie theatres to be able to fit in two - three showings an evening. Multiplexes did not exist in 1986, as they do today. Cameron struggled to shorten and remove scenes in order to get the running time down and removed the "colony scene" at the suggestion of Gale Anne Hurd, who he was married to at the time.

There's a fairly decent list of films recut by the studio here (although it looks as though the list has not been updated for 10 years):

https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_films_recut_by_studio

 

[TravisR]

James Cameron, on the other hand, says on the commentary track for Aliens that he was originally obliged to deliver a final theatrical cut of no more than two hours and 15 minutes, in order for the movie theatres to be able to fit in two - three showings an evening. Multiplexes did not exist in 1986, as they do today. Cameron struggled to shorten and remove scenes in order to get the running time down and removed the "colony scene" at the suggestion of Gale Anne Hurd, who he was married to at the time.

She made a great suggestion.

 

[AshJW]

I always thought on that side of the Atlantic, Thomas, they only cut films for violence or cruelty to animals. On this side, they always preferred to cut out the nudity or anything sex related...even if it was just talk. Here violence is fine, even worshipped...sex though, that's about being kind and loving to another person so that should be censored. Don't want to give anybody the idea that sort of consideration for a fellow human being is a good thing, might make them less inclined to use their gun.

That might be right, but I buy US-DVDs of BDs also, so it's important that these are also uncut.

Anyway, while this thread is not really about censorship, I guess that can affect the cut of a film but now with the option to present a film for home consumption in an "uncut" form where you don't need to subject it to censors that should not be much of a concern any longer. At least I think that's one of the advantages of Blu-ray.

Well, and here we have a the differences.
In Germany it is not necessarily so that DVDs or Blu-rays are uncut on principle. Often there are cut versions on the home entertainment media. Especially films of the horror or action genre. I must do research to get uncut versions, eventually buy outside of Germany. Sometimes it's tricky.

 

[Dick]

AVATAR has three different cuts, but unfortunately the two extended ones are only available in 2-D. I wish Fox and Cameron would put out the 178-minute edition in 3-D also. It has some cool bits and back story that I feel should have been left in the theatrical. Perhaps as a promo ahead of the upcoming sequel..?

 

[Johnny Angell]

AVATAR has three different cuts, but unfortunately the two extended ones are only available in 2-D. I wish Fox and Cameron would put out the 178-minute edition in 3-D also. It has some cool bits and back story that I feel should have been left in the theatrical. Perhaps as a promo ahead of the upcoming sequel..?

I didn’t know there was a third cut. I have the 2D extended version. Is the 3rd cut available?

 

[Dick]

I didn’t know there was a third cut. I have the 2D extended version. Is the 3rd cut available?

The re-issue was released with 8 minutes of additional footage the year after the original theatrical. Then, I believe for the 3-D special edition (still available -- see below), that footage was added to with yet another 9 minutes of footage, for a total of 178m. It is only available through that set, which is all 2-D:

https://www.amazon.com/Avatar-Exten...atar+3-disc&qid=1558296928&s=movies-tv&sr=1-1

 

[Johnny Angell]

The re-issue was released with 8 minutes of additional footage the year after the original theatrical. Then, I believe for the 3-D special edition (still available -- see below), that footage was added to with yet another 9 minutes of footage, for a total of 178m. It is only available through that set, which is all 2-D:

https://www.amazon.com/Avatar-Exten...atar+3-disc&qid=1558296928&s=movies-tv&sr=1-1

I have extended collection. I had forgotten that there were 3 versions in the set:
-Theatrical
-Extended with 16 additional minutes
-Special Edition Re-release with 8 additional minutes

I’m guessing the Re-release was released to the theaters and Extended is only on blu ray. I presume the 16 minutes include the 8 from the Re-release?

I recall liking the additional footage, but whenever I watch Avatar I really want to watch it in 3D. Why can’t we have the extra minutes in 3D? Do you suppose it’s because Cameron has to approve it and he won’t spend the 2 hours it would take to do it?

 

[Dick]

I’m guessing the Re-release was released to the theaters and Extended is only on blu ray. I presume the 16 minutes include the 8 from the Re-release?

Yes.

I recall liking the additional footage, but whenever I watch Avatar I really want to watch it in 3D. Why can’t we have the extra minutes in 3D? Do you suppose it’s because Cameron has to approve it and he won’t spend the 2 hours it would take to do it?

I agree with you!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Why can’t we have the extra minutes in 3D? Do you suppose it’s because Cameron has to approve it and he won’t spend the 2 hours it would take to do it?

At the time the extended version came out on disc, 3D was still new to home viewers and wasn’t widely adopted. I believe that Panasonic had also paid some big bucks to have the 3D disc version of Avatar as a hardware exclusive to their brand for a period of several years, which meant that Fox couldn’t put out a general release at that time.

By the time that the period of exclusivity ended and the original theatrical version was released on 3D disc to the general public, the writing was on the wall that 3D wasn’t selling as hoped. Fox may have seen little point in putting it out in that market. I don’t think they’ve ever given an official reason.