MovieChat Forums > Almost Famous (2000) Discussion > Which cut do you prefer Theatrical Or Ex...

Which cut do you prefer Theatrical Or Extended?

posted 11 years ago by GameofMoans
21 replies | jump to latest

I can't believe I'm saying this since I usually love directors cuts and any extra bit of footage we get to behold as fans but the extended cut of Almost Famous is a great example of less is more. I prefer the theatrical cut. I had only seen the original cut when I implused bought the region free-extended cut-import-bluray(say that ten times fast) which for whatever reason included only the extended version when most titles give you a choice with both versions on the same or separate discs. I couldn't believe how slow the pace was although in hindsight the 161 minute runtime should of been a big clue. How could a seemingly light hearted character driven period piece sustain itself for that long? It buckles under its own weight where as in its original form Almost Famous was a free flowing, tightly paced, breezey coming of age tale. I've only watched the extended cut the once yet when the paid movie channels have the 124 minute original on demand I have to watch. Film wise I don't think I've ever witnessed such an interesting case of less is more, in fact when I saw Almost Famous for the very first time I remember thinking it could of been maybe 5-10 minutes shorter(that opinion doesn't hold up now though its perfect as is in its 2 hour form). What does everyone else think? Theatrical or Extended? Also can anyone think of any other films where a directors/extended cut has actually negatively impacted the film?

[–] Yawsbass 11 years ago

I prefer the extended cut, but I won't argue over which is better. It's really just personal preference. I like the extra, smaller character scenes, like the interview with Larry Fellows or the radio scene. But, even though I love it, the film didn't have a specific A to B to C plot to begin with; rather, it was almost a series of vignettes in between a framing story, and the extra scenes could get tiresome with less patient viewers.

As for other movies with detrimental extended or director's cuts, well, just about any "unrated, never seen in theaters" release that I've seen doesn't really benefit the movie. They're just deleted scenes reinserted into the movie, and more often than not it's obvious why they were deleted.

[–] DavidStHubbinsUSA 11 years ago

I also prefer the extended version... Just little details that made it better..

Don't count on hell ever running out of room

[–] MinimalistLiving 11 years ago

I also prefer the extended version... Just little details that made it better..

Exactly. Although I also think it establishes the connection Penny and William have quite a bit better.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] quert8-1 10 years ago

I just saw the extended cut and yes it didn't bring anything to the movie. It slowed it down and showed stuff that was plain boring. Editing for the win.

[–] Michael Dorsey 10 years ago

Untitled by a mile. I loved his first movies: Say Anything is one of my all-time favorites. Singles is an underrated. Seeing Jerry Maguire is one of my favorite movie experiences (and I love it to this day). So, imagine how strange it felt to see Almost Famous and be completely underwhelmed. I didn't connect with any of these people. There wasn't enough of the getting to know you part that movies like this need. William isn't established as an outcast and he seems thrown out on the road with the band to quickly. I feel like the "boring" stuff is like the Marvin Gaye "whoo!" in 'What's Happenin' Brother'. I like how you feel the fatigue at the end of Untitled that William does. I mean that in a good way. You don't want the movie to end, but you want William to come back to reality and catch his breath.

Wallace: "It's YOU!"
(Spoken to Feathers McGraw after he removes the red glove disguise.)

[–] stockjacob 10 years ago

The extended version was far worse. The extra scenes added absolutely nothing.

[–] fignewton85 10 years ago

Definitely the theatrical cut. There are only 2 scenes in the directors cut that I wish they had kept. The scene where Russell talks to William about the "hoo" in that song (I forget which song) and how the little things make the difference. And the scene where russell and Jeff talk and make up near the end. The rest if the extra scenes were ok but totally unnecceasary.

[–] theendisnear1 10 years ago

I just came here to comment on this very matter. I bought Untitled by accident in Beijing, and it's just this bloated, long and meandering mess. I absolutely prefer the theatrical cut. It just flows better and the points are still made.

"Veronica, why are you pulling my dick?"

[–] anthony-nasti 10 years ago

I remember being very nervous when I finally got my hands on the Bootleg Cut. Almost Famous had been my favorite film for nine years and I had grown so accustomed to the the theatrical cut that I wasn't sure if I can accept the film as I know it having the narrative and pacing so briskly altered.

My fears, of course, turned out to be unfounded. Is every scene in the extended cut necessary? Not really, but there's no scene in there that compromises the integrity of a particular plot point. Some scenes, like the radio interview and the extended birthday party scene for Penny, have become favorites.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CJay 10 years ago

see both versions at least once is good advice for folks liking any, imo.

the dir commentary in the longer Untitled version features RC's mom btw. #thumbs up

----
'Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog' (last words): "Don't worry. Captain Hammer will save us."

[–] WildHamster235 10 years ago

Tough call. Let's talk about Untitled first. I like a lot of the changes made in this version. We get a better understanding of the characters and their situations, and some of the other new additions are just a lot of fun to watch (For example, Russell talking about the song, "What's Happening, Brother?" and how it's what you leave out of a song). There are even a few scenes in Untitled that I wish had made it into Almost Famous, something of a rarity in director's cuts (The scene at the end when Dennis leaves and gives the band a lesson in mystique. Why take that out?).

But, then, there's the negative stuff. For starters, Untitled clocks in at 162 minutes. Look, I have nothing against long movies (some of my favorite movies are three hours or more), but for a story like this, 162 minutes feels like overkill. I also think that because Untitled is so invested in everyone, the story becomes muddled and harder to follow, and we don't get a clear focus or any sense of direction. I saw Untitled before Almost Famous, and I had no clue what was going on or who the main character was. Was this about William? Was it about Russell? Was it about Penny Lane? Good luck figuring it all out.

That problem is fixed with Almost Famous. William is the main character here, and the focus is on him, first and foremost. It's also a much shorter film. Only 123 minutes. There's a clearer beginning, middle, and end. The pace is faster. And it's so much easier to follow. If this is your first time watching the film, I highly recommend watching Almost Famous first.

But it's not perfect. Almost Famous is so simplified that a lot of the character depth is sacrificed in the process, even when the movie needs it. Take the aftermath of Penny Lane's overdose, for example. Untitled adds some extra moments between William and Penny Lane, increasing the screen time between the two and establishing a better relationship between them. In Almost Famous, nothing really happens. William just saves Penny and within a minute, she's already boarding a plane.

So, as you can see, neither one is necessarily better than the other. I guess if you're asking for my personal favorite, I'll say Almost Famous, just because I like faster pacing, and clearer storytelling. But it's not like I'm going to get upset if someone prefers Untitled.

FREEDOOOOM!!!!!!!