Apocalypse now and blade runner have all these different cuts. It's frustrating. Just make one version and stick with it ffs.
shareEven some of the horror movies.
You'll have someone saying Halloween 6
(Curse of Michael Myers) was so-so, and someone saying, "But have you seen the director's cut"?
Give me a break.
"The Professional" is like that. My friend said the 12 y.o. girl, Matilda and the hitman had a sweet innocent father daughter relationship. I saw the director's cut in which Matilda is repeatedly asking the hitman to sleep with her, gets drunk, and stands by nonchalantly as the hitman kills someone. Nothing innocent about the version I saw. No way would the director's cut have been released in the move theater.
Same with "Spartacus". None of the gay innuendo was included in the 1960 release. I watched the unedited version on TV and some scenes make more sense.
The director's cut of My Bloody Valentine is a major improvement, though.
shareI don't like it.
shareI hate it. It lessens the movie. It's almost like they're acknowledging that the version that was released could have been told a different way. Imagine if there was a different version of the Mona Lisa. That would lessen the value of it.
shareWell yes, but da Vinci didn't have a team of producers and studio executives influencing his artistic vision when he painted the Mona Lisa. He wasn't forced to add that tight-lipped smile because research showed that 80% of art lovers prefer that.. you know?
I can see what you mean about how altering a movie might cheapen the memory of a film, especially if it's one of your favourites, but I also understand why some directors want people to experience their original vision of a film. At the end of the day, you've always got the original version if you're not interested in a new cut.
I also understand why some directors want people to experience their original vision of a film.
"I've heard a few directors not liking the idea of releasing deleted scenes in the special features because they feel it would ruin the perception of the film that exists."
What ruins my perception of a film is anything that breaks the suspension of disbelief , that includes
deleted scenes on the dvd
blooper reels
commentary tracks especially - thats why ive never heard one.
actors hyping it up on talk shows
even having known faces in the film can be a distraction.
Extended versions on the other hand , i'm cool with
"At the end of the day, you've always got the original version if you're not interested in a new cut."
Not always. The original versions of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi have been out of print for many years, and have never been officially released in HD.
Good point!
shareThere are 2 reasons why post-theatrical-released extended editions are very good ideas, neither of which was, not surprisingly, considered by the OP: (1) bladders, tummies and other human imperatives and (2) money.
(1) Fun fact, certainly unknown to the OP: no play by William Shakespeare is ever staged in its entirety. The scripts are too long. The audience would be pissing in their collective pants. Every director of a Shakespeare play decides what to leave in and what is less essential. That does not deprive us of the pleasure of READING the full script of the play at our convenience and savoring its scope, absent pissing ourselves. Home theater provides the same comforting opportunity for the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings. I suppose the alternative would be a portable urinal (rough for the ladies) or a colostomy bag. Neither of these is either attractive or practical. Then there are other issues: food, drink, picking the kids up at school, sex und so weiter. Life intervenes. Home theater lets it. Movie theaters do not.
(2) Movie theater tickets are uniformly priced, regardless of the length of the movie. I recall that Stallone edited Cobra to run for 85 minutes because he could sell an extra showing per day. Do the math. Shorter run time equals more potential for ticket sales per day. If the audience loves the truncated version, you have them pre-sold on the home theater extended version.
Drops mike. Exit, stage left.
Most alternate cuts of movies don't increase the run time by a lot; not enough to make a difference with regard to people's bladders anyway. Extended cuts of LotR are the exception.
When Cobra was released, 90 minutes was the de facto standard run time for action movies. Shaving 5 minutes off of that will only [almost] get you an extra showing if you're showing the movie nonstop, 24 hours a day, with no trailers (1,440 minutes in a day = 16 90-minute movies or 16.94 85-minute movies). Also, Cobra's actual run time is 87 minutes and 3.855 seconds - https://i.imgur.com/liKvd7Y.png
I dont think the wee wee problem is a reel thing .
Dont you remember when films had an "Intermission" They could bring that back if they really gave a shit
Shorter run time equals more potential for ticket sales per day. If the audience loves the truncated version, you have them pre-sold on the home theater extended version.
Thats pretty much it. Money . What business man isnt going to sell the same thing twice if he can.
Lord of the the Rings especially guilty of this .
1) Who the hell needs an extended version of a 3 hour film?
2) The way they stretched, mutilated and absolutley milked the story of "The Hobbit" to fit their "3 films 3 hours 3 years " marketing model was pure capitalism.
I like 'em.
shareI wouldn't exactly agree, but I do think that different cuts should be clearly labelled as such, at the beginning of the film. Any cut made for TV is a bad one, in my experience, for example.
shareWhen in doubt, go with the original.
As long as it is the director doing the changes, I don't mind much.
If it is the studio/production company that has a large committee that wants to delete potentially offensive scenes (that were not offensive when filmed) THAT is a problem.
I would find it endlessly fascinating to view cut scenes/alternative endings to great movies like Casablanca, Psycho or Citizen Kane.