TRUE ROMANCE - Directors Cut? Again? Where's the original? (1 Viewer)

[Lanny_B]

They have the Director's Cut:

...and now, after all this time... the Director's Cut again!

Where's the theater version! I've watched the Director's Cut already, and it wasn't as good. I've been waiting to see the original on DVD, and after all this wait- nothing! Curses! Will there ever be a fix for this?

 

[Julian Lalor]

I thought the Director's Cut merely added some violence that was cut to avoid a NC-17 rating, in which case I would think there was no difference between the two version aside from this small amount of excised material. It's odd you would say you prefer a less violent version of an already extremely violent film.

 

[HenrikTull]

Sorry. Misread.
Anyway. Director's Cut is the only way to go. More blood and violence just the way we like it.

 

[Dave_P.]

Actually the director's cut had a different resolution. In the theatrical cut the "WOP" guy miraculously gets back up after being shot to kill Chris Penn, while the Director's cut has Alabama shoot Penn.

 

[Bryant Trew]

Well this version should be anamorphic, so happy-happy-joy-joy!

 

[HenrikTull]

But, I guess there should be no real reason why they can't include both versions on this forthcoming 2 disc SE. Having never seen the theatrical cut (the Director's Cut is all we got here in Norway ) it is most welcome on my behalf on this new set.

 

[Dave_P.]

But, I guess there should be no real reason why they can't include both versions on this forthcoming 2 disc SE. Having never seen the theatrical cut (the Director's Cut is all we got here in Norway ) it is most welcome on my behalf on this new set.

I agree. I must have rented the VHS to see the theatrical cut since my laserdisc is also the Director's Cut. It's been a while since I've seen it and would like to have the opportunity to check it out on DVD as well.

 

[Malcolm Cleugh]

Hopefully the will also correct the error in the sound mix.
The UK DVD had the rear channels reversed (left & right rear). This was supposedly corrected on later pressings but I am not convinced.

 

[Lanny_B]

"It's odd you would say you prefer a less violent version of an already extremely violent film."

So, if I let some violence be okay, why not as much as possible? lol. That just sounded kind of funny. Here's a little how I feel.

You know how sometimes what's not seen is more dramatic? But, the director's cut just went as far as to SHOW more gore, and it lost some of the dynamic impact to me. I don't glorify in violence, I'm just moved when it's put in the right places.

Whether or not one likes it more or less violent, they did release it that way to theaters, and that came to be the version I fell in love with, I guess. In fact, this came to be one of my favorite films of the 90's, and part of my college memories. So, that's probably why I'm especially interested in seeing it the way it has impacted me the best.

So, even with all the features, I just think it only right for them to provide a way to see both versions in high quality.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

We only received the director's cut theatrically here in Australia. I guess you can assume that the theatrical cut represented the movie as Warner's legal department and the MPAA thought it should be for mainstream release, and the director's cut represents what Tony Scott and (probably) the cast and crew originally made and wanted to put out in theaters. This in mind, I suspect Scott probably wouldn't be all that motivated to push for the inclusion of the theatrical version, and (feel free to disagree) I'd guess that most fans prefer the longer cut anyway. I'm happy with the specs of the set as they currently stand, and Scott's commentary track will hopefully clarify his preferences for us all.

 

[Julian Lalor]

Whether or not one likes it more or less violent, they did release it that way to theaters.

That version was only released because the MPAA refused to pass the original cut with anything other than a NC-17 rating. The Director's Cut is the original version.

 

[Mitty]

So, if WB can release True Romance, Striptease, etc. in their unrated versions, why the f*ck won't they release Eyes Wide Shut?! Was not some bullshit positioning statement released saying something to the effect of "Warner Brothers is not in the business of releasing unrated movies...?"

 

[Damin J Toell]

So, if WB can release True Romance, Striptease, etc. in their unrated versions, why the f*ck won't they release Eyes Wide Shut?! Was not some bullshit positioning statement released saying something to the effect of "Warner Brothers is not in the business of releasing unrated movies...?"

It is true that WB itself will not release unrated films that would've received an NC-17/X if it had been rated. However, companies working through WB can do so. This means that companies such as New Line and Morgan Creek can release unrated films that would've gotten an NC-17/X. This is why True Romance is getting an unrated release; Morgan Creek is doing it. Likewise, Strip Tease is a Castle Rock film that is only distributed on video by Warner (I don't think Warner was even involved at all in the original theatrical release).
DJ