The Theatrical Cut Is A Horrible Bastardization of Filmmaking Art
A few months ago I watched the Director's Cut and then the next day I watched the Theatrical Cut.
That made me realize that the Theatrical Cut is a horrible bastardization of filmmaking art.
With the Theatrical Cut, Scott brutally massacred all of his own filmmaking talents and artistic creativity.
What Scott did with the Theatrical Cut would be akin to if Shakespeare wrote a play, then worried that it was too complex. So Shakespeare then pays a hack Cliff's Notes writer with no talent whatsoever the equivalent to $5 worth of modern USD currency to write a Cliff's Notes plot summary of his play. When Shakespeare receives that plot summary, he throws his own play in the garbage, and publishes the $5 Cliff's Notes summary as if it was the actual play.
I read a statement by Scott wherein he vastly downplays the significance of the bastardization that he did to his own film, and talks as if the viewer can decide which version he or she likes better whilst implying that both versions or more less equal. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Director's Cut is objectively a vastly, vastly, vastly superior film to the Theatrical Cut.
From Scott's statement which equates the two films as being of mostly equal quality, I wonder if Scott knows that his Director's Cut is vastly superior, and if he was simply pretending not to know that and lying in order to pander to lowest common denominator viewers who can't discern that.
Or is Scott somehow no different than his lowest common denominator viewers who can't discern the difference between art and a grotesque bastardization of that same art?
Other posters, please tell me at least some of you know what I'm talking about, and can likewise discern how the Theatrical Cut is a horrible bastardization of filmmaking art in general the Director's Cut in particular.