What's new

DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Daredevil - Director's Cut (1 Viewer)

David Williams

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2001
Messages
2,288
Real Name
David Williams

It didn't feel that way... a couple of scenes she's in are actually extended in the new cut. The difference between the theatrical cut and the DC is enormous. It went from an OK movie to one I would enjoy watching again. The ending especially flows better (i.e. DD now has a reason to go after Kingpin vs. in the theatrical cut where it seemed there was this huge leap in logic about 75% through the film).


My only beef with the DC is the lack of extras (they couldn't port over the TC extras?), but at $12.99, a definite :emoji_thumbsup:
 

Chris Farmer

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
1,496
Her part isn't diminished at all Tim. The only scene she's in that was actually cut was the love scene, and frankly having to sit and watch some other guy get it on with Jennifer Garner is something I can do without (makes me jealous :D ). Her presence however is much reduced. While in the theatrical cut she was on nearly equal ground with DD himself, in this new cut, there's a massive amount of new material that almost exclusively deals with DD, so the balance has shifted considerably. It's not that she loses stuff, it's that Matt gains it. Stevens' said it best in the brief featurette

As for extras, more would have been nice, but I definitely get the feeling that Fox is billing this as a complement to the theatrical cut, and not a replacement edition. This goes double after watching the featurette. Seeing the Fox producer trying to defend his cut as superior was nothing short of hilarious, and you can really see Stevens' frustration come through with the cuts that were made to get things trimmed down, but I don't see Fox as trying to give the impression this was the better version, even though it undoubtedly was. Either way, I don't mind, given that I own the theatrical cut already and would just as soon not pay again for extras I already own. In that way though this is almost the reverse of the LotR EEs, in that the theatrical cuts of LotR were entirely about publicity and marketing specific to those cuts (TV specials, trailers, web featurettes, etc. with little or no making-of) and the EEs were all about making the movie, and much of what was discussed applied to both. With DD the TC was all about making the movie and is relevant to both versions, while the DC has extras devoted specifically to the separate cut and nothing else.

Oh, and while "I want a bloody costume" was arguably the best line in the original cut, for some reason I can't explain, "I want a fuckin costume" works far, far better. Maybe it's Farrell's pitch-perfect delivery of the line, I dunno, but I had to pause the movie I was laughing so hard at the different version.

In the end though, for anyone who enjoyed the original cut at all, you owe it to yourself to check out the new one. It probably won't convert those who saw nothing redeeming at all in the TC, but if there was anything about it that you found to like, the DC makes an unbelievable difference. I would say that the difference in quality is even bigger then found in the LotR EEs (of course, those movies had a lot less room for improvement going in).
 

Tim Glover

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 12, 1999
Messages
8,220
Location
Monroe, LA
Real Name
Tim Glover
Thanks Chris and others for your remarks. I'll check it out. The price is pretty cheap on this too if it's good as you say.
 

Ray H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
3,570
Location
NJ
Real Name
Ray
You better hurry up though! The $12.99 sales should end today and the price should raise a staggerng $2! :D


I'm actually listening to the commentary on the DC as I type this and during the train scene, the director and the producer have a debate about DD letting the guy die. The director's argument is that the movie's about a guy losing his soul, and through the course of the film, he regains it. It gives the character an arc because it's an origin story of sorts and by the end of the film, he finds his way and becomes the DD from the comics.
 

Andy Patrizio

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
136
Isn't it amazing how DVD is exposing the weasel producers who mucked up a director's vision? We see it here, and we saw it in the Alien 3 extras on the Quad. No Fincher there to defend himself (and God I wish he did), but it was obvious who was to blame for that mess. Right, Charlie? ;)

The extras, and director's cuts, are really vindicating directors and showing they really need to be trusted to execute the damn movie.
 

Mark Maltais

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Messages
198
Location
Ontario Canada
Real Name
Mark
I'm surprised they left in the producers comments in the featurette after the way he came off...woulda seemed smarter to just leave in the director's and leave it at that...now everybody will know the producer is a moron!
 

Drew Reiber

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 2000
Messages
534


Except that in the case of Daredevil and Lord of the Rings, the weasel producers have not only managed to get away with it, but to make money off of us at the same time. That's why I skipped seeing Return of the King, I wasn't about to go through the disappointment I had with the theatrical cut of The Two Towers again. I didn't like the Dawn of the Dead remake (actually, I hated it), but the majority of my problems with the film turned out to be continuity that was reinstated in the Unrated Cut. This crap is becoming obscene.

If the studios want to continue using their domestic theatrical releases as glorified commercials for their "DVD extras", as Daredevil producer Gary Foster likes to call the Director's Cut, then I guess I'll have to continue saving my money and my time by waiting for the inevitable special editions. It's just a shame that because of these producers, the people who put years of their life into the films have to take all the harsh criticism during initial release and possibly never regain the attention the work might deserve (I still can't convince some people that Daredevil is better now).

I don't see it getting better, either. This style of butcher and repair for the sake of home video is gaining momentum. And the argument will always be, "Well, you get what you want eventually, so shaddup!"
 

David_Blackwell

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
1,443
I need to get the Daredevil DC because it interests me to see what got cut and it siounds lieka much better version of Daredevil. I wasn't much a fan of the theater cut evn though some of the things in it did work. I do wish I did get the theater cut used since they didn't port over any of the extras from the theater cut.
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
Well, it the case of LotR, it doesn't have much to do with idiot producers, but more with the fact that it is difficult to release a film longer than 3 hours. Considering also the financial hit theaters take for doing something that that, it made more sense to do a shorter, theatrical version (which, IMO, are perfectly good on their own merit), and release extended versions later.

For me, I'd like to see a director's cut of The Avengers. While it might not be a great film even then, it was obvious when I saw it in the theaters that it was cut all to hell.

Jason
 

Drew Reiber

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 2000
Messages
534


Then why bother making it? Why bother releasing it? It didn't stop Lawrence of Arabia. The real problem is that it IS the producers. They sign deals at the pre-production stage that directors (Jackson, Johnson, Romero, etc.) must deliver a film that comes to a certain running time and/or under NC-17 or R, regardless of the quality of product. They are more concerned with hedging their bets to ensure a large as profit as possible then with the initial impact the film has on audiences.

LoTR only came out alright because the more important deleted elements did not become as much an issue until The Two Towers and Return of the King. It's clear that there was no true plan outside of Peter Jackson's original contractual obligations to the theatrical cuts of the films, because of the problems that arose in post-production of the final entry. As audiences are already aware of the fact that there are extended editions coming and they have the books to guide them past the rough spots in the theatrical product, the LoTR trilogy had multiple safety nets to fall back on.

As much of a boon as DVD is, it's also a curse. More and more productions are being pushed into the argument "well, you can have your own cut eventually" or "we need stuff to put on the DVD". Sony made a fortune off of re-releasing previous titles, additionally bolstered by the two versions of Hellboy released back to back. Now they're leaning on Sam Raimi to produce an all-new cut of Spider-Man 2 when he didn't even feel it was necessary to do so. The version in theaters WAS his director's cut. Yet he'll make another one anyway because Sony signs the checks.

DVD is no longer just a place for people to fully realize visions previously hindered by ill-advised production decisions. It's a place where you can manipulate creative talent at the origin point, before a feature film is even finished, to intentionally mutilate a vision and produce additional product again and again to further exploit the entertainment market. This trend could have potentially catastrophic consequences if it continues in the direction it is heading. What's even scarier is that The Lord of the Rings was large enough to train most of the consumer base to see this commercial strategy as somehow benefitial or even smart.
 

Ray H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
3,570
Location
NJ
Real Name
Ray
For LOTR, Peter Jackson has stated he prefers the theatrical cuts. Though many feel he's lying, I'm willing to take his word for it. The difference between something like this Director's Cut and something like an extended version for DVD is that this was a troubled production that was heavily cut in the editing room at the demands of the studio. Something like the extended versions of LOTR and Hellboy seem to just be released as novelties.
 

Drew Reiber

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 2000
Messages
534


I think you missed the whole point of what I said. The studios release them as novelties, regardless of what the directors originally wanted. They get to decide how the longer cuts are marketed and distributed. These titles mean nothing, just look up the history of the Alien: Director's Cut (you don't want to get me started on that). As for Del Toro, he actually calls the Hellboy director's cut his preferred cut, yet it was a difference of 20-25 minutes in mostly extensions. Clearly it was not a content issue for Revolution Studios, but rather about pumping out a faster cut that would promote more screenings.

As for Jackson, I also believe he's full of it. Again, for someone who claims to prefer his theatrical cuts, it does not explain his inability to deliver product that resembles the film his cast and crew seemed to believe they were involved in. Seeing as how he loves to bend backwards for the studio system and putting as much distance between himself and his older work, I've since stopped taking him seriously when it comes to his statements. Structurally, his "preferred cut" of The Two Towers was all over the place and only served to characterize and/or explain newer characters properly once completed for home video.

Watch the featurette on the Daredevil Director's Cut and count how many times Mark Steven Johnson goes out of his way to defend any decision made by the producers involving the theatrical cut. Listen to Gary Foster's proclamations as to how the "better cut" and "movie" was the one released theatrically. See Johnson describe "the director's cut" as if it's this thing that is somehow completely unrelated to him, yet obviously bear out his frustrations when speaking about how everything seemed to make sense to the people at the office once he was allowed to cut his version after the initial release.

I am willing to bet money that these guys sign in their contracts a very specific clause involving the marketing and support they have to maintain for whatever decisions are made regarding their films if they are to recieve the backing for their own cuts. We already know that the development of DVD extras for major studios begin in the pre-production phase. Jackson somehow expects us to believe that the 40+ minute longer versions of his LoTR trilogy is a bonus created by circumstances, but not part of his true vision. Really? Is that why he ends up with so much material that is absolutely necessary to the story and continuity? Is that why characters are using the Elfen gifts in the theatrical cuts even though they were introduced in the Extended editions?

No, he's just happy that a studio was eventually willing to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to the production of three features before anyone has even seen one (which cost Michael De Luca his job...). I give him 10 years before he turns around and admits how difficult and frustrating it was to work within the confines of the theatrical cut guidelines given by New Line. He'll be the next George Lucas with the kinds of revisionist history we'll become privy to.
 

Chris Farmer

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
1,496
Hey Drew, you realize that Jackson was under contract to deliver three TO hour Lord of the Rings movies? New Line let him exceed the limits they put on him from the very get-go. Besides, there was no New Line producer over his shoulder like there was with Daredevil, Jackson also produced all three films, so the decision of what was cut and what stayed remained his.

As for over three hour movies, yeah, they're possible. Return of the King was the most recent, and 3 hours 20 minutes. However, they're extremely rare. Three hours is generally the hard limit on movie length these days, and even then it's at the upper limits. To bring up a 30 or 40 year-old movie like Lawrence of Arabia as support that 3+ hour movies can work theatrically is nonsense, because it would never get released today. Plus, I have to ask, did it have an intermission? How many movies are released these days with intermissions? Sure you can argue that this is more examples of studio meddling, but that's an over-simplification. The short version is, people have a limited attention span, and the theatrical cuts of movies have to get their stuff done within that span. Once on home video, those limits are gone, because you can always pause it to go to the bathroom or even stop it and finish it tomorrow. I much prefer the extended cut of The Two Towers, but there is no denying that the pacing has been shot to hell compared to the theatrical cut. It's a great movie, but it's also an extremely long one that feels the length of every one of those 43 added minutes. While I would pay to see Two Towers extended in theaters, it wouldn't have had nearly the appeal it did at that length.
 

Drew Reiber

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 2000
Messages
534

You mean like the Weinsteins did? I'm sorry, but from the sheer amount of PR BS that has come out of the production of the films since it began, any such arguments will mean next to nothing to me. I understand where you're coming from, but for me to take any of those "facts" seriously would mean that I would have to buy the party line to begin with. Again, I say give it about a decade and you'll hear a whole different tune out of everyone involved.
 

Chris Farmer

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
1,496
Oh hell, that was a typo. The original contract specified that each movie clock in under two hours, so New Line was giving him 50% more running time already. As for the Weinsteins, they had input when Miramax was gonna do LotR, but when they sold the rights to New Line, they lost all creative control over where the movies went. Their executive producer credit was more about the work they did in getting the movie off the ground to begin with before they sold the rights off, they wanted to get everything in two movies, then later down into one. New Line was the studio where Jackson pitched them two movies, and the guy in charge asked why they wanted to do two movies when there were three books.

There are times criticism is deserved, but New Line literally did nothing less then bet the continued existence of their studio on the success of Lord of the Rings, and you're not gonna get any criticism from me on how things turned out.
 

Matt Thompson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
182
On the director/writers commentary track, during the Saruman scene, Jackson says that he's happy fans are able to see the confrontation, especially since he believes the Extended Editions will be considered the definitive versions of the films.
 

Andy Patrizio

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
136
Lord of the Rings is a really bad example to use in the director's cut argument. The EEs are a gift to the fans, and announced along with the theatrical cuts. You could decide from the get-go if you wanted the theatrical cut or extended version. Ditto Hellboy and The Chronicles of Riddick (David Twohy addressed the whole issue in an interview that I have on my site).

The ones that bugged me were the unannounced, short turn-around double dips. Underworld, Gothika, Eternal Sunshine... Those really got my goat, and the latter two weren't even longer cuts of the movies.

The Daredevil director's cut was something long rumored but held off on because, from what I understand, it took a while to justify the release. Daredevil was not exactly a hit.

What Daredevil also shows is how positions of power matter. Mark Johnson was a relative newbie, with only one directing effort under his belt prior to DD. Avi Arad, on the other hand, is a major player. So he called the shots, and look at the results.

If you trust a director to shoot your $80 million movie (or whatever the cost), then trust him to cut it.
 

Drew Reiber

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 2000
Messages
534


No, it was Gary Foster. Avi Arad's relationship to Daredevil was mostly in bringing the property to New Regency, helping to setup development and working to protect the intellectual property from ideas that may conflict too much with it's relationship to the original material. The films where Arad is truly a major player are the Artisan/Lion's Gate features (Punisher, Man-Thing, etc.), where Marvel holds considerably more sway.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,672
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top