Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

It seems a good 50% of movies out in theaters for the last two years or so is announced to have an extnded cut on DVD / HDM. I'm getting sick of this trend. Before, the editor and the director had one cut to make: theatrical. But lately the theatrical is just a tease to the extended or director's cut coming soon on DVD. I understand some movies were taken away from director's in the past (Alien 3, Spartacus, etc), but I don't see this being the case in recent movies. Discuss.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I'm fine if it's the directors prefered version. Otherwise they tend to be a bit crap. especially with comedies.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I think in many instances extended versions are the cut handed to the studio by the director, as is their right according to D.G.A. rules. The studio normally re-cuts a film which ultimately becomes the theatrically released version.

The extended cut on DVD usually just represents a reversion to the first cut.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Well, there are so many restrictions these days imposed on directors by the MPAA and the studios that directors have to make compromises for the theaters that they would not have wanted to make had it been up to them. So I'm glad there is a market for the film that couldn't be shown in theaters if it does indeed meet with the director's approval or supervision.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

It all depends on the movie.

I'd bet that alot of modern comedies probably aren't really extended cuts. They're just cash-ins with all the deleted material (that should have stayed out to begin with) reintegrated back into the movie with no concern about the quality of the scene or if it negatively effects the overall movie.

When a movie is more or less censored by the MPAA or the director wants a longer version of the movie to be seen but it doesn't go the theater, it's great that there's a way for that version to be eventually seen. I guess I have to take the bad with the good.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

There are several points to consider (I'm currently researching for an article that deals with historical feature films with multiple cuts--so I've been watching a lot of extended versions lately).

There are things like "the Director's Cut"--usually (though not always), this indicates the cut the director would have preferred as the theatrical release but, for one reason or another, it was not possible.

There are "Extended editions". These can be with the director's blessing/involvement (like the extended Gladiator and LOTRs) but they are not necessarily what the director preferred (Ridley Scott explicitly states this at the beginning of the extended Gladiator). Also, they can be released without any director involvement if the studio so wishes and holds the rights to do so. Many comedies are done that way.

Then there are nebulous things like Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. It is said to reflect his wishes, but who knows for sure? Not that it turned out badly, mind you, but still.

So, to answer the title question, for me, it depends. For LOTR and Kingdom of Heaven, I would say I clearly prefer the extended/director's cut versions. For Troy (part of my research, along with Kingdom of Heaven and Alexander--haven't tackled the other two cuts yet), it did not seem to make much difference (except that the transfer for the director's cut looks better). I try to judge them on a case by case basis. But those cases where they simply tack on a bunch of deleted scenes, I'm not usually impressed. Where some care is taken to address some shortcomings in the theatrical release (as in Kingdom of Heaven) or to offer a genuinely different, alternate cut that shows some serious thought (like the LOTRs), then fine.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

The irony of the extended cut trend is that it has sort of backfired on the studios. What was once meant to be a selling point for the DVD is now a deterrent that keeps people from seeing the movie in theaters. With horror movies (especially the PG-13 ones) or raunchy comedies like Knocked Up, I rarely bother seeing them in the theater anymore because the unrated version will inevitably be coming to DVD. #657 on the list of reasons movie attendance is down*.

*By attendance being down, I'm talking about actual # of tickets sold, not box office grosses.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I absolutely adore the theatrical cut of THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN. But the DVD extended cut is 20 minutes too long, ruining the pacing and the timing. The bits are funny, but would have worked much better as separate deleted scenes or using the "seamless branching" option which no one -- in SD or HD -- seems to bother with much anymore. KNOCKED UP is a lesser offender, but the movie's already long without six more minutes tacked on.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I love the extended cuts of Kingdom of Heaven,Almost Famous and LOTR as they round out the stories more. But I hate Robin Hood Prince Of Theives,That Thing You Do and Empire Records as the first and second add stuff that is just stupid and the pace is all wrong in the third.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

NO

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Nope. I, like 'em. I'll take the good with the bad.
What is bad and has been pointed out by another poster is the backfiring effect the extended DVD syndrome has on the theatrical release.
I talk to a lot of people as I have a DVD rental business and most folks do not even bother with the theater any more. One reason that constantly comes up is the extra scenes or extended cuts that show up on DVD.

Buying a DVD and sitting in a proper home theater is a better experience for them also. Heck, even viewing in an improper home theater works for most folks. They just wait for the DVD with extras and spend their former theater money on DVDs.
Heck, they don't even rent much any more, they just buy, and buy used. People are cheap. I'm in the midst of selling around ten thousand DVDs now and ending the business. But that's another thread and topic.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

PaulDA and TravisR sum it up quite nicely.

I'd just add, Kingdom of Heaven is a bit of an anomaly, in that the theatrical cut was always "compromised" from day one because of the running time requirement, and Sir Ridley and the producers always had a DC for DVD in mind even during production, which is why the DC is so much better than the TC. In contrast, as noted some so-called Extended Editions are really just an excuse to milk consumers by reinserting deleted scenes not worthy of inclusion in the TC in the first place.

Then again, there are those scenes excised to earn an "R" rating and avoid the dreaded NC17, so should we frown on reinsertion (pun intended) of those scenes?

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I always hate when the theatrical version is hard to find when they do this (they DID put out "40 Year Old Virgin" in its theatrical cut, it's hard to find but is out there) One of the most-hyped features of DVD when it came out was the ability to put multiple versions on one disc, but there's been tons more separate releases than ones that do that.

What's REALLY stupid is how Blockbuster and Wal-Mart won't carry anything rated NC-17, so that's one of the main reasons why movies get cut down before release to avoid that rating, but if they put all the naughty stuff back in on an "unrated" DVD then those stores WILL carry it since it has no rating and therefore doesn't violate their policy!

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Most of the "extended cuts" are just marketing gimmicks. As mentioned, very few of them are really worth it. I've yet to see an extended cut that made me wish it was the theatrical cut.

"Directors cuts" are a different issue. But again, this is more often a marketing factor than truly a creative one. In most cases, unless there is a big behind the scenes battle, you are seeing the directors cut in theatres. Many directors are perfectionists who want to keep changing the film later on.

MPAA issues are yet another reason, but in very rare cases. Most often, if you see an "unrated" DVD, it just means that the DVD has had a couple scenes added and hasn't been submitted to the MPAA. It doesn't mean you are seeing an otherwise NC-17 rated film.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Seamless branching is a wonderful concept, but it runs counter to studio marketing philosophy. Why would a studio release ONE disc with multiple versions when it can get people to buy TWO different releases of the same thing for at least 80% more in total? It may not be working out that way, but clearly the temptation for "double dips" rather than using "seamless branching" is too much for most to avoid.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Extended cuts can be fascinating so long as they don't replace the original theatrical version, which unfortunately sometimes they do. I've noticed that some studios have been putting out three versions of a new movie DVD on release date: a single-disc fullscreen theatrical version, a single-disc widescreen extended cut, and a two-disc extended cut special edition. I think (though am not completely positive) that that's what happened with "The 40-Year-Old Virgin".

It's my opinion that the MPAA is out of control as far as what ratings it assigns, and the often secretive and vague process filmmakers are forced to go through when submitting their films. The ratings system was intended to replace the outdated production code (essential self-censorship by the studios to avoid government intervention), and give parents a better guideline for choosing which films were appropriate for their children. People always complain about R ratings being given or not given arbitrarily, but I think what's happening with the PG-13 rating is almost as bad. According to the MPAA, The Bourne Ultimatum and Ocean's Thirteen are exactly the same. I suppose that's all well and dandy, except that Bourne is a hard-edged, intense, action-packed, violent thriller (and a damn good one at that), while Ocean's Thirteen is a lighthearted romp, completely lacking a sense of peril or intensity that Bourne has. But they have plenty of inconsistent R ratings that seem to negate the whole point: when the MPAA tells parents that "Michael Clayton" is as inappropriate for children as "Grindhouse", the system is clearly broken.

The "unrated" cut of "American Pie" is the version originally submitted to the MPAA which got the NC-17, which they then trimmed to get an "R". Yet from a practical point of view, there's nothing in the unrated version that I'd have a problem with my (imaginary) kid seeing if I had been OK with him seeing the R. The R version shows him humping the pie against a counter; the unrated/NC-17 version shows him humping the pie while on top of the counter top. Are you seriously telling me that one of those concepts is so extreme that children shouldn't be allowed to see it in the theaters even with their parents, while the other is totally cool with parental consent? No genitalia is shown in either version, and the implication is exactly the same. It's stupid that the MPAA makes such a big deal about something so insignificant. (Meanwhile, the TV commercials and MPAA general audience approved trailers for the film essentially convey the implication of what he's doing to the pie without really showing it, meaning that it's OK to joke about having carnal relations with baked goods in an "approved for all audiences" trailer, OK to show him getting it on with the pie in an R rated movie, but not OK if he humps it in a different position. Bizarre.) In this case, the "unrated" DVD throws a few brief shots back into the film but nothing of real consequence, and Blockbuster and all of the other places that won't carry NC-17 films will carry it because it's "unrated". It makes no sense whatsoever. The filmmakers shouldn't have had to create a second version to get the R in the first place.

My current favorite dumb MPAA story: I was listening to Paul Thomas Anderson's commentary on Boogie Nights, and he was talking about how they really didn't have anywhere near as much trouble getting an R rating as one might expect for a movie with that subject matter. PTA recalled that one of the biggest issues was the extremely brief scene where William H. Macy's character walks in on his wife on top of another man; there's obviously no visible penetration but the implication is that he catches his wife having sex with another man. He stops and asks what they're doing, and she says essentially "What does it look like? Go away and shut the door" or something to that effect. As originally shot, the wife's body is thrusting as she says the line, which the MPAA said was a big no-no and NC-17 worthy. To get the R, PTA had to go back and shoot that scene so the wife is thrusting when Macy walks in the door, stops thrusting while she speaks, and then goes back to it when she's not talking. Is one scenario there really more offensive or inappropriate than the other?

"Die Hard" used to be the perfect example of an R-rated action flick; it was a big hit, and that it was rated R really doesn't seem to have effected its popularity one way or the other. The "Die Hard" movies were R rated actioners until "Live Free or Die Hard" came out with a PG-13. Watching that in theaters, it was painfully obvious to me that they had shot an R rated movie, decided to cut it to a PG-13 to try to sell more tickets, but had every intention of releasing an "unrated" cut on DVD, and that's exactly what happened in the end. I went to see Live Free Or Die Hard to watch Bruce Willis blow up some shit and say "Yippee-kay-ya motherfucker" at the end, and honestly, I was a little annoyed walking out of the theater when they covered up the "motherfucker" part with a gunshot sound. I think it's incredibly disrespectful for the studio to be treating its customers that way. On standard DVD, "Live Free or Die Hard" is available in the theatrical PG-13 version as a full-screen single disc; if you want the film in widescreen and bonus features, it's the unrated version. That probably tells you all you need to know about which version the filmmakers considered the "real version" and which version was created to sell more tickets.

So yeah, I'm a little tired of some extended cuts, the kind where it's what the filmmakers originally meant to do, but had almost arbitrary and nonsensical cuts demanded by the MPAA to get an R instead of an NC-17, or a PG-13 instead of an R. I don't blame the studios for that one, I blame the MPAA. There wouldn't be two different versions of American Pie were it not for an overzealous MPAA.

"The Forty-Year-Old Virgin" is another example of an extended cut that seemed unnecessary to me. I liked the film in theaters, but I thought it ran a tad long. It didn't need to be 20 minutes longer for DVD. Sure, "Unrated! The version we couldn't show you in theaters" might look good on the package, but does it help the film? (At the least, Universal could have presented both versions on the same disc as they did for their DVD of "Ray".)

On the other hand, there are extended cuts that I'm fully supportive of. "Almost Famous" comes to mind. On the bonus features, Cameron Crowe mentions that Steven Spielberg got a copy of the script on a Friday, and called Crowe the following Monday simply saying, "It's brilliant: shoot every page." "Untitled" is the film he wanted to make. "Almost Famous" is the film the studio made him put out because he was contractually obligated to bring it in at about two hours. Some people might prefer the shorter version, but that's one case where I think having an extended version is completely justified, and of value to the consumer. They're getting a substantially different film, not something almost identical with an extra few shots the MPAA didn't like.

Since films "live longer" in the home video market nowadays than they do in the theatrical market, the DVD essentially becomes the record of the film that people have access to when they want to see it. They know it's easier to sell unrated DVDs to the home audience than it is to market the R (sometimes NC-17) rated movie to the theatrical audience, and thus more profitable. While commerce and art are always related, I too am a bit fed up with the attitude of making stupid cuts to appease the MPAA and get the lesser rating, with the filmmakers being comfortable in that choice because they know their intended work will be on the DVD. When the theatrical release essentially becomes a commercial for the DVD and not an entity to be respected in its own right, that's a problem. On the other hand, when the filmmakers decide to go back to their work and take another look at it, giving the fans a chance to see an alternate telling of the same story that they believe had merit and couldn't be released theatrically for whatever reason, I think that's worthwhile.

Sorry for the long post, but I think it's a good topic and one worth discussing.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I read the Fantastic Four Extended has two scenes reinserted which basically have the same dialog and intent (apparently to give the production team two choices to chose from during the original shoot).

In the EC *both* were bizarrely put back in, which just goes to show that creative intent is not the primary purpose of most of these products.

I did buy the EC, but what I really wanted was the 2nd disc (as opposed to the EC specifically).

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

V.interesting post , Josh . I've always been bugged by this subject . When dvd was launched one of the upcoming features to look forward to was 'seamless branching' but ( T2 Ultimate apart) it never really happened to such an extend that when 'Gladiator' was released on dvd in 2000 Ridley Scott was unaware of the possibility of it in an interview at the time and added the 'deleted' scenes as an extra feature .

In the HD war we're being promised the exact same thing , multiple cuts on one disc and yet they just released 'Die Hard 4' with the PG13 version only

~M~

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

It really depends on the film. To answer the question though, no I do not mind them as long as both versions are offered. What I hate is when only the extended version is released. I hate the directors version of Pretty Woman. When I bought the 15th anniversary version I was happy because it was finally anamorphic. When we watched it my wife and I were like WTF!!!

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I'm reminded of the scene in Cecil B. Demented when they attack the movie theater showing "Patch Adams: The Director's Cut" and Melanie Griffith spray-paints graffiti on the box office window while yelling out, "Patch Adams doesn't NEED a director's cut, the first one was long ENOUGH!"

It all depends on the movie and the way it's presented. If both the orignal and extended versions are offered in comparable quality, I don't have a problem with the practice. Some extended cuts such as The Abyss, Kingdom of Heaven, Lord of the Rings: FOTR and Alexander Revisited have drastically changed my opinions of the movie for the better. The extended cut of Alien 3 was worthy as well. The extended cut of Stripes was annoying because it had a non-optional deleted scene marker that stayed onscreen for the duration of every new scene. The director's cut of Donnie Darko substantially weakens the movie, as does Apocalypse Now Redux. In all of these cases however, the original theatrical cuts are still readily available and, in a couple cases, included on the same disc in a quality OAR presentation so they are aquitted and free to go.

IIRC, the theatrical cut of The 40-Year-Old Virgin was only available on DVD in "Full Screen?" That was an instance where the extended version added nothing but running time to a movie that was too long already. The extended edition of Nixon also gets a big thumbs-down because the added footage was of VHS quality and not even framed the same as the regular footage--also, the disc was non-anamorphic and the original theatrical cut, which WAS anamorphic, is out of print (I was fortunate to find a used copy for cheap and I hear they will be releasing a better quality edition of Nixon sometime this year).

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

They went back and put out a widescreen "40 Year Old Virgin" a couple months afterwards. It's extremely hard to find in stores though, I had to order it online.

"Live Free Or Die Hard" has BOTH cuts on the widescreen disc, as it should. It was a mistake to insist this be rated PG-13, but that's what they did so I'm glad I get to see how that turned out while also getting to see how it might have been without that setback. I heard the Blu-Ray disc doesn't have the unrated cut because the quality of the source material wasn't good enough for it.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Director's Cut/Extended Cut, blah, blah, blah.

Purely marketing bulls**t.

Blues Brothers was ruined (Thank goodness they reconsidered and included the original in the re-issue). So were Stripes, That Thing You Do and Dune. Amadeus just got more boring. As overwhelming as the mini-series recut is, I'm just about ready to go back to the original theatrical cut of Das Boot. I'm torn over whether I would want a new cut of Blazing Saddles with the television trims put into the feature.

There are rare instances where I think artistic integrity was maintained and story flow improved. I prefer the following special edition cuts:
The Abyss
Aliens
Brazil (although I wish "My God - it works!" had stayed)
The Wicker Man (original British Lion cut)

I'm amazed that there is extended cut of Enemy Of The State while the BD release used the theatrical cut and kept all the supplements of the extended SD.

My most ironic purchase? I suckered myself into the 5-disc Blade Runner as most of the differences in Ridley's final cut (barring the narrative, unicorn, and Tyrell's death) are pretty subtle. (I'm going to get blasted for this, I'm sure). I bought the SD briefcase, and later picked up the cheap 5-disc BD package after acquiring a suitable player. And I'm not even a fanboy. I considered the briefcase a collectible.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Just wanted to add my two cents on a couple extended/director's cut titles that have been mentioned since my way overlong post ("poster's cut", anyone?).

I'm a fan of this one. I think it's an interesting example, and it's funny, I just happened to watch both versions a couple weeks ago after not seeing either for years. To me, it seemed like director Richard Kelly had a very specific idea of the story he was trying to tell, at least a specific idea of what the sci-fi elements meant, and the meaning and intentions behind them, the film's inner logic. To get the running time down, he chopped out a bunch of that material. The result was a film that seemed to be more mysterious and up for interpretation than the director intended. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Donnie Darko fans seem split on this. I'm glad both cuts exist separately and both as high quality versions. I got the original version for under ten bucks, and I got the director's cut for maybe twelve... essentially I paid $22 for a three-disc special edition, so the price was right too. I like the extended version a lot. It's not perfect, but I love that it's more openly a sci-fi film. There just aren't a lot of quality sci-fi movies being made these days, and while I really, truly enjoyed the original version of Donnie Darko, it felt a little bit like "there's a great sci-fi movie in here somewhere that someone is afraid to let out." There are a couple shots in the director's cut that I think are awful additions, but the benefit of 20 minutes of extra scenes that made me feel more immersed in the movie outweighed the negatives of literally 10 or 15 seconds worth of cringe-worthy footage. I love the commentary track on the director's cut, by the way, and how Richard Kelly states that it's not his intention to replace the older version, but to compliment it and allow the viewer to have his own preference. There are some extended versions that for me negate the original theatrical; I will probably never watch the theatrical versions of LOTR again. But I'll watch and enjoy both Donnie Darkos for different reasons. Somehow my brain is able to separate them, I have no idea how or why it works for that movie and not for some others.

The two disc set that came out and could be gotten for about ten bucks a couple years ago was a great purchase, I thought. I don't have an ideal version for this one, personally. I know some people that love the Redux, and some who think it's trash. My ideal version is probably somewhere in the middle. The film itself is kinda like one long nightmarish dream, so what I liked in the Redux version were scenes that made me feel more immersed in the experience, where I felt I was back in the jungle. But the French Plantation scene, in my opinion, is awful, just awful. An interesting concept, certainly something I was curious to see, but not something that I think belongs in the film. If I could get a version of Redux without it, that might help push Redux ahead as a preferred cut for me. But whether or not one likes it, it certainly felt to me that it was assembled with more care than some of these made-for-video extended cuts that are clearly just marketing rather than substance. Whether or not you like what Coppola did, you can't say that it was done thoughtlessly to sell a few extra DVDs.

Completely agree, it's a horrid DVD. Rented it from Netflix since I hadn't seen the film since it first came out, and wow, it was unexpectedly awful, one of the few times where the presentation was so horrible that I couldn't look beyond it to enjoy the merits of the changes. I'd be willing to give a true director's cut of Nixon another look, but only if it looks like I'm watching a movie and not switching between a DVD and a VHS tape.

Wasn't the original DVD of Dune non-anamorphic? Here was a chance for Universal to redo the original DVD, and give a bonus to some fans that had been very vocal about getting this extended TV version on DVD. I had heard at one point that Universal was talking with Lynch about him going back and making a true director-approved extended version, but for whatever reason, that didn't happen. I liked that I got to see the longer version. It's another one of those movies where I'm not completely in love with either cut. The theatrical is technically superior, and of course, if I could only have one version it would be that one. But some of the scenes in the extended version (if properly completed) would have been great to see in the film. I didn't read the book until way after I saw the movie, so when I say that the film felt like it was supposed to be an epic and fell short, it's not because of a bias from being a fan of the book. It's because it seems that the first two-thirds of the movie are about one thing, and then in the course of five minutes of screen time, they're like, "OK, now fast forward two years to the final battles." Had Lynch been able to craft a longer, more complete version with the best bits of footage in the extended version, there might finally be a version of the film that felt complete, that I could recommend without any kind of "but...." (If the "extended" version had been released as a solo DVD, and not on the same disc with the theatrical version, I probably wouldn't have bought it.)

I like the way this discussion is going and how we all seem to more or less be on the same page:
- extended cuts for the sake of extended cuts to sell more DVDs are obnoxious
- filmmakers holding back stuff on purpose to get a lower rating and being OK with the compromise because their true version will be on the unrated DVD, thus giving us a compromised theatrical experience, is not a practice we'd like to see encouraged
- extended versions or director's cuts done for films that for whatever reason couldn't be completed the way the filmmakers wanted (way too long for a general audience, fights between the studio and the director, having an alternate take on the film or wanting to expand the world of the characters within it) are pretty cool things to have, so long as the original versions remain in existence and easily accessible.

I like when studios do what New Line did for LOTR and said upfront, we're gonna put out a theatrical version in the spring/summer, and the extended version in the fall/winter, so it's coming if you want it. I like how the T2 Ultimate Edition gives you both versions. (I don't like that the "extreme" edition only has the longer version, and is the most commonly found version in stores.) Or how both Donnie Darkos can be gotten for cheap and both give you good value as far as bonus content.

Seamless branching was supposed to allow us to have these things, but it seems that whenever commerce comes up in a battle against what's the best solution for the consumer and filmmaker, commerce wins. It's not a surprise, of course, but it's unfortunate that we were sold on a technology that was going to give us this best of both worlds situation, and while the technology is there, few studios actually bother to use it. If anything, it's not that they forget to use it, it's that they intentionally don't so they can make extra money. It's not a surprise at all. Just annoying that they were all like, "Upgrade to DVD! We can give you multiple versions of the same movie on the same disc so you can have it all in one place" and then were like "...well, maybe not so much."

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

I can see the merits of the DC but, to me, it felt like Richard Kelly was overly concerned that there might be someone in the audience who didn't absolutely, positively and without a doubt understand precisely what he was going for so he explained everything to death and eliminated the mystery that made the original version so compelling to begin with. I'm guessing the "cringe-inducing" footage you're referring to are the flash cuts to the dictionary definitions defining the concepts as they come up in the movie? All of those things I could have forgiven but what ruined the DC for me was that they changed my favorite musical moment by removing The Church's "Under the Milky Way" from the party scene. One thing the DC had that was much better than the original cut was better poster art. Some of the additional scenes were also quite good but most of them are on the original DVD as deleted scenes along with a commentary track where the director explains the entire movie for anyone who didn't "get it." I had both versions but ultimately sold the Director's Cut.
In addition to the plantation sequence, I wish FFC would have left out the second encounter with the Playboy Bunnies--a scene even more pointless than the plantation sequence IMO. Redux also alters the Martin Sheen character significantly. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as the added scenes make him seem more "human" than he was in the original version. All of the additional footage in Redux is interesting to see and I'm glad to have it but, IMO, none of it added to the experience of the movie. My Apocalypse Now collection consists of the original DVD (which I'm keeping because it doesn't require a disc change, contains the trailer and the "destruction of the Kurtz compound" sequence), the Complete Dossier and Hearts of Darkness. Altogether, a pretty good 4-disc set.
What surprised me most about the extended cut of Dune is that the one area of the movie I thought/hoped would be extended (namely the passing-of-time montage or, as Josh succinctly put it, "OK, now fast forward two years to the final battles.") was exactly the same as it was in the theatrical cut.
This one hasn't been mentioned yet but it's another case where the "Special Edition"--You know, the one where they digitally replaced all the guns with walkie-talkies and re-inserted some deleted scenes that added nothing--absolutely ruined the movie. Plus, they took the iconic image of the bicycle in the moon and put it over the Universal Logo, apparently assuming that everyone in the audience had already seen the movie. Fortunately I was able to get the original 1982 release when it first came out on DVD but that is now out of print and the bastardized 2002 version is the only one out there. I'm surprised Universal let 2007 go by without doing a 25th anniversary re-release.

I could also go into the Star Wars special editions but I think enough internet bandwidth has already been dedicated to that particular discussion.

And, at the risk of encouraging Anchor Bay to do yet another release of an Evil Dead movie, the Director's Cut of "Army of Darkness" is significantly better than the theatrical version and, if they were one day able to clean it up so that it doesn't look like a bootleg, I would gladly rebuy it.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

re: Donnie Darko

I don't know that I got that vibe, myself, but I understand where you're coming from. I actually had a long conversation with a friend of mine the other day about the DC, which he hadn't seen and didn't want to see because some other friends had told him to stay away. His point was similar to yours: that he was afraid all of the mystery that made the film so exciting to him in the first place would be gone, and that the "it's up to the viewer to decide" aspect would be sorely missed. It's a perfectly valid point.

My counterpoint was, OK, imagine you're the writer/director. You spent all of your time creating a movie where there were specific reasons for the events of the film, explanations for why things happened this way or that way, where what you intended to make was an obvious sci-fi movie. All of that gets stripped away, so that all of the same things happen in the movie, but the "how" and the "why" (and, to a lesser extent, the "who" and "where") are gone. People love the quirky movie, and feel since no explanation is really given, there really isn't one, and it's up to them as the viewer to decide what it all means. What if you didn't want to make that movie, didn't set out to make that movie? What if it wasn't meant to be up for interpretation, what if the director intended a very different kind of ride? And, in the end, my friend said, "You know what? I never thought about it that way. Maybe there is some merit to at least seeing what the guy had in mind in the first place." I don't think he's watched it yet, but I'm curious to know what he'll think.

But I think my liking of the DC comes from it addressing things that seemed like they had been missing from the original, rather than it ruining the mystery. I'll admit my bias, I'm a total dork for intelligent, creative sci-fi that dares to reach, even if ultimately its reach is greater than its grasp. I didn't get the sense watching the original that it was a film that was meant to be a mystery, where the director wanted my interpretation of events to carry the film. I felt that there was a very definite story being shown, but that the inner workings behind it were missing. Not that it was meant to be up to the viewer, but that an extra element had somehow been lost in the process. The DC restored a lot of that for me. (I should mention that although I saw the original version before the DC, I had not watched the deleted scenes or any other bonus features on the DVD.) The DC was unashamedly the sci-fi movie I thought the original wanted to be but wasn't.

Actually, a perfect example of the point I'm trying to get at (and probably not explaining very well) is the use of music in the opening sequence. On the commentary on the DC, Richard Kelly states that he wrote and directed the sequence always intending for INXS' "Never Tear Us Apart" to be heard underneath it. It was choreographed and shot to fit to that song. It was edited to that song, and only after they were unable to get permission to use it was it changed to Echo and the Bunnymen's "The Killing Moon". Fortunately, that song worked pretty well in its place. Does it mean that you're wrong if you prefer The Killing Moon for that sequence? No, of course not. But shouldn't we consider that the director had a different song in mind and that he wrote, directed, shot and edited the sequence to fit around a different song and was forced to change it at the last minute due to budgetary reasons? If we're really fans of the film (and not just fans of what we interpreted it to mean), don't we owe it to the director to see what he had in mind if presented with that opportunity? Maybe "owe" is a bad choice of words...but isn't it a legitimate thing that the director wants us to see it as he had always planned it to be? Shouldn't that be a consideration? I'm not sure that there's an answer one way or the other, and in the end, I think the question is more interesting than the answer anyway. But that's what I like about the DC, and what I love about the commentary on it, that Kelly isn't saying that you're wrong if you like the original version more. He's saying that this is the movie as I always saw it to be; maybe you'll like it more, maybe you won't, but here's where I was coming from. You can either accept the new version and all of the further explanations that it contains, or you can reject it and say "I always thought the original was meant to be about X, Y, and Z, and I like my original interpretation better."


Actually, that's one of the things I loved about the DC! I had always felt that the book was integral to decoding the events of the film, and was always frustrated that the original version teased us by letting us know that Donnie had a book, and that everything it described was happening to him, but that we never got so much as a glimpse of what was inside it. The pages don't stay on the screen long enough for you to read every word, but long enough to give you the necessary information and convey that there's a lot more. Often sci-fi falls flat when it creates really cool, mysterious phenomena and then comes up with pseudo-scientific explanations for every minute detail of it. (See: "Phantom Menace, The" and "midichlorians") The pages tease at a larger picture, and had the effect of telling me that there was a lot more at stake than a boy, his girlfriend, his bunny rabbit friend, and a jet engine. I like the idea that there's a lot more going on, but that we only get a window into part of it... the DC still doesn't give you everything, and I don't find what it presented to be restricting... it opened everything up even wider to me.

The "cringe-worthy" shots were any of the flash cuts that showed that grid superimposed over the picture, and that had text flashing around. It looked like the Terminator's POV shot, not something that belonged in Donnie Darko. Get rid of that awful grid, get rid of the rapidly flashing text, and I'm a lot happier. (In a way, it kind of makes sense that that's the part that stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Those shots had obviously been newly created, as opposed to being original production footage re-inserted. Even though the shots inside the book were newly created, the actual book and content had been created during the original production.)

One thing that I love about the DC, hands down: the much improved sound mix. They didn't have time to finish a proper mix for the original, and I think the soundscape is vastly improved in the DC. It made it a lot more atmospheric and immersive for me.

re: Apocalypse Now

A confession: I never saw the original version in theaters, only on home video, but I did see Redux when it came out. Perhaps I perceived the added footage to be the reason I was more immersed in the story, when it was seeing it on the big screen that was the real reason. You hate to think it was more the presentation than the film itself that swayed you, but it does happen.

If I could only have one version of Donnie Darko, I'd probably take the DC. If I could only have one Apocalypse Now, I'm taking the original.


I had the exact same reaction! In the theatrical cut, I had always assumed that the film was running long and that that was the easiest place for them to take a shortcut and trim half an hour out with some wipes and dissolves and voice-over. I found one of the bonus docs to be very revealing when it came to that particular part of the film: when they were shooting it, they were literally out of money, out of time, and they knew the film was way too long anyhow, so instead of shooting that middle part of the story, they just rewrote it as that one segment! "Dune" is so frustrating, there are parts of it that I think are breathtaking, and then there's so much of it that's a mess due to lousy optical compositing work, awkward transitions, strange and unmotivated jumps in plot and time, things that seemed too over-the-top even for that film, etc. It's the one film that Lynch doesn't like to talk about at all, but in many ways for me it's the most fascinating of his because of the seemingly unlimited potential that was there.


Seriously? That sucks. I remember when the original DVD came out that at first it was only going to have the newer version, and that you could only get the original by buying a lavish, expensive collector's edition set, and then Spielberg found out about that and demanded that the original version be included in the regular edition too. It seems unfortunate that something he apparently felt so strongly about back then has been forgotten or ignored since then. I've never seen the new version of E.T., and frankly, never want to.

Then again, didn't I just criticize someone for not wanting to see the DC of Donnie Darko for the same reason? Goes to show you what I know!

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

This is probably the best/only real justification for doing a "Director's cut."

I'm glad Richard Kelly was able to put Donnie Darko the way he always wanted it, just like I'm glad he hasn't suppressed the original version like some revisionist directors I could mention *cough*George Lucas*cough*. I do wonder, however, if Donnie Darko would have gained the same cult following if the director's cut had been released first. Part of what made the movie a home video phenomenon was the speculation over what it was all about. Sometimes Directors fail to realize that the limitations they were forced to work under were precisely what led to the work turning out as well as it did and to its being embraced by the audience.
Consider yourself lucky .

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

...and that's exactly why I can't bring myself to get rid of my copy of the theatrical version, and also why if I'm watching the movie with someone who's never seen it before, I show them the theatrical. It's not my preferred version, but it only seems fair that if someone hasn't seen Donnie Darko yet, but seems interested based on what they've heard over the years, to show them that version they've heard about most, the one that was the cult hit.

I agree with you about limitations; I had a professor who loved to say that "art thrived on limitations" and I tend to agree. To use an unrelated example: Star Trek The Motion Picture had basically an unlimited budget, and we've all seen how well that turned out. (I actually like it, but it's by no means the great film it aspires to be.) On the other hand, Star Trek II was made for a fraction of that cost, and it's probably still the best in the series.

re: having not seen the re-done E.T.

I didn't say it was an accident that I missed it I saw the trailer and I was like, E.T. is supposed to be a rubbery puppet, not a gelatinous CGI blob!

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Here're the Extended/Director's/Alternate Cuts I prefer. I'll keep this as a list. Going alphabetically, of course.

The Abyss
ALIENS
ALIEN³
Army of Darkness
Brotherhood of the Wolf (Le Pacte des Loups)
Cop Land
Dances with Wolves (I'm gonna import the Korean release of the Theatrical for completists sake.)
The Frighteners
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes
HellBoy
Highlander
Infernal Affairs
The Last of the Mohicans (I'm also going to purchase the Theatrical from DVDFromKorea.com Basically have a 2-disc thing with both cuts.)
LEGEND
Léon: The Professional (I already own three different releases of this. I'm looking for even more. Sans the US release version. Literally one of my all-time favourite films.)
Lethal Weapon
Lethal Weapon 2
Lethal Weapon 3
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Punisher
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
RoboCop
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
STARGATE
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
TOMBSTONE

There're alot of other Extended/Director's/Alternate cuts of films in my collection of which I haven't gotten around to watching yet. With alot of what I own, I've seen the film in cinemas yet haven't watched the copy I bought. Anyone else have this issue? Regarding all of the Asian films I own/in my wishlist, I highly prefer the Uncut, Undubbed and Unrescored editions compared to alot of the crappy releases in Region 1 US. With a few minor exceptions for Dragon Dynasty, of which I'd own more for their extras compared to other factors. Same thing can be said for HKL, their extras are top-notch most of the time and the transfers leave alot to be desired.

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

Yes. There are probably 15 or so such discs on my shelf. Largely a time (or lack thereof) issue though. Oh well, some day...

Re: Anybody Getting Tired of Extended Cuts?

WRT: The Last of the Mohicans - The Director's Cut

While I do like this version better than the original, I sincerely hope Fox will one day release the theatrical cut on DVD. I miss that funky Clannad song which played over the search montage and all the hokey action-hero one liners ("Just dropped in to see how you boys was doin'!") that were excised from the DC.

I also wish George Lucas would see fit to release the original version of THX-1138 but I'm sure it "doesn't exist anymore" and is now an "Unmovie," to use some Orwellian newspeak.