Jump to content

"Release the -blank- cut" mega-thread


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

I'd watch a cut of The Hobbit that condenses all 3 films into one, if that's even possible. And no 3 hour epic either.

 

That's fine then, the "Tolkien Edit" is 4 ;)

(note I've never watched it, so have no idea if it's any good) 

 

There's some interesting insight into the DC of Kingdom of Heaven in this video, if anyone is interested (there are spoilers, mind):

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, redbloodcel said:

 

That's fine then, the "Tolkien Edit" is 4 ;)

(note I've never watched it, so have no idea if it's any good) 

 

There's some interesting insight into the DC of Kingdom of Heaven in this video, if anyone is interested (there are spoilers, mind):

 

 

 

That was brilliant. I'd forgotten they'd cut the queen's son completely. They really did butcher that film - the director's cut is a stunning historical epic, the theatrical a gutted "action adventure" film that makes no sense. 

 

Such a shame it's not available in HD digitally.

 

Edit: IT IS! It's on iTunes, director's cut and HD! Bought and will watch tonight. On Google play it's just the theatrical cut in SD. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My faves

 

the LOTR trilogy

Kingdom of Heaven

The Abyss

Watchmen

 

the Aliens one  is an interesting curio, but a poorer film.

 

Im going to have to watch Kingdom of Heaven tomorrow now

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alex W. said:

Now that HBO have committed to converting the four-hour assembly cut of Justice League in to a four-hour product, Star Wars fans have demanded a four-hour cut of RotS because that's how long the original cut was:

 

https://www.change.org/p/george-lucas-release-4-hour-long-star-wars-revenge-of-the-sith

 

I just read the text of this petition:

 

Quote

Hello there! The original Star Wars: Revenge of The Sith (2005) cut was over four hours long, and we think that George Lucas should do the right thing and give the fans what we deserve and what is rightfully ours. We love democracy, and we hope he does too. By signing this you are letting your voices be heard. If this petition does go viral, then we will have unlimited power and if George does the right thing then he would be strong and wise and we would all be very proud of him. This whole operation is our idea and we need to ensure that it is done. We will proclaim ah, victory when we achieve our goal. May the force be with you all and have faith.

 

It's a perfect example of Poe's Law! At first glance it looks like a joke, based on the number of r/prequelmemes in-jokes crammed into the paragraph (I think even "rightfully ours" is one of theirs). But given the number of layers of irony Star Wars prequel advocates are up to now, could the petition's creator have circled all the way back around to being sincere? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, moosegrinder said:

 

The turrret scene only shows that the xenos have numbers. There's no out smarting the turrets, they just smash against them until they run dry (or almost run dry. it's been a long time since I've seen it). The scenes are fine in and of themselves but I don't think they add anything that wasn't there before they were cut back in.

 

The aliens actually learn not to rush the guns. Hicks mentions that when they stop before the ammo runs out, showing that the aliens are capable of logical thought. Now that I think about it, this may be why Hicks looks up at the ceiling as he realises the aliens can find new ways into the locked room.

 

I remember when the Special Edition came out originally (still have the facehugger VHS box set). Cameron said that it was not a "director's cut" as he had had full directorial control and was happy with the theatrical version. The Special Edition was just an alternate version for the fans.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh aye, that's right.

 

Still, I don't think it adds anything to the film because the fact they have intelligence is shown in other ways, like when they cut the power.

 

I get the feeling we're nitpicking now, mind :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

That's the interesting thing about Aliens, all the stuff they added for the Director's Cut is really good, but it detracts more than it adds. Especially for those watching it for the first time.

 

In the original, the part where the marines and Ripley go into the base for the first time is incredibly tense. Even though Ripley and the audience have been through the events of Alien, we don't know exactly what's happened here. It's both shocking, scary and disorientating. But in the DC we already know most of what's happened. We know some of what to expect so some of the tension is spoiled.

 

It also foreshadows Newt, so that doesn't come as so much of a shock. Plus, almost the entirety of Aliens is told from Ripley's point of view, it feels like her story. Adding this sequence reduces that.

 

The turret sequence is great but it serves no purpose for the plot. What it does do is make the xenomorphs seem dumber and less mysterious. The first time we meet them in Aliens is when they outsmart a locked door and a motion scanner. That's scary because now we can't be certain about where they are or what they're doing. But after the turret guns they just look like they'll just run blindly into gunfire. That doesn't feel like the same creature from Alien, it's a zombie.

 

And finally there's the issue of pacing. This genre of film should feel be brisk and economical. Both the scenes I've mentioned and most of the other minor scenes don't really add anything other extra stuff happening. That's why most Aliens fans love it so much, it's more of the thing you love. Watching for a second time, the gradual ratcheting of tension isn't quite so important as you already know what going to happen. So extraneous flim-flam is more tolerable.

 

But for people watching it for the first time, the theatrical cut is unquestionably the better version.

 

I came in here to post pretty much exactly this about Aliens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The even more interesting part (not really) is that those scenes from Aliens were in the novelisation and they strangely work far better than in the film (I agree with the comments above about the new scenes not adding to the film's theme). However in the book it fits far better - the turret gun stuff is quite tense in the book as they wonder if the ammo will hold out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they were going for that in the film but it just came across as “wow watch these numbers go down”. Which is another reason to cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/05/2020 at 15:13, Loik V credern said:

I'd watch a cut of The Hobbit that condenses all 3 films into one, if that's even possible. And no 3 hour epic either.

 

Get that American Actor who does this sort of thing as a hobby to do it for you, he's apparently pretty talented at doing it.

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/07/topher-grace-the-hobbit-fan-edit-blackkklansman-1201989456/

 

 

Can Disney release the Gareth Edwards original version of Rogue One?, I'm curious how much Tony Gilroy changed of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alex W. said:

I think they were going for that in the film but it just came across as “wow watch these numbers go down”. Which is another reason to cut it.

Yes they failed to convey the dread that was definitely more successful in the novelisation - by the peerless Alan Dean Foster :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a testament to how bad Alien Covenant was that even his novelised version was terrible.
 

He did genuinely great novels of all the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ROTS needs to be a 12 part hour per episode series to have any hope of salvation.

 

Even then, they should just have adapted the Thrawn Trilogy which is a million times better than the new movies.

 

As above they should just have adapted the excellent comics instead of releasing the mess that was Alien 3. Seen the directors cut. Meh. Gotta say that I prefer the directors cut of Aliens though by quite some margin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

As a few people have said, I’d say a lot of this is cyclical and usually down to a new trend or technology meaning studios have a new way to exploit old products (while stroking the ego of directors). After owning home video releases became affordable in the early 90s, studios needed more content so they started releasing directors cuts like Aliens or Apocalypse Now. DVD came along so they started releasing more directors cuts like Unrated editions. The good old “double dip” release was now popular. 
 

Now we’ve got streaming platforms and “content is king”, right? But where are the studios going to get this content without spending billions like Netflix? So what better than to go into your vaults and release exclusive director cuts of films that are now so long they need to be a fucking TV series!!! What better way to keep your customer retention rates high!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to teach BA film and while the Snyder cut doesn't interest me in any way the concept of having two dramatically different versions of the same underlying story does* (not counting the whole Hollywood doubles thing like Ant Z and Bugs Life and Event Horizon and Pitch Black and so on).

 

Am sure it's been mentioned and I missed it but the directors cut of Alien 3 is miles better than the TC. 

 

Personally I would like to see as much of a cut as could be put together of Lord and Miller's Solo, before it was changed. I actually like Solo loads (and don't feel the hate for it is justified. It's a good Star Wars story which imo Last Jedi and others aren't). But I'd love to know the direction of the film that Lucasfilm saw and was getting nervous about.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, c-cat114 said:

I used to teach BA film and while the Snyder cut doesn't interest me in any way the concept of having two dramatically different versions of the same underlying story does* (not counting the whole Hollywood doubles thing like Ant Z and Bugs Life and Event Horizon and Pitch Black and so on).

 

A while ago I wondered if any film had ever been released in two versions, as a conceptual project: one from all the best takes of each shot, as usual, and one from all the second choice takes. Obviously no mainstream movie would do it, but I wondered if it had ever been done as an art film project or something - an experiment in how a film is perceived, a bit like the Kuleshov effect comparisons but extended over a whole feature film.

 

I asked about it here once - nearly ten years ago! :o

 

 

You could take it further and release multiple versions: one from all the most energetic takes, one from all the most subdued ones, one from all the takes with fluffed lines and other mistakes (not a blooper reel, a full movie with the mistakes included)...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/05/2020 at 10:45, Festoon said:

Any Director's Cut that isn't shorter is shit.

 

Exception: Kingom of Heaven.

 

And also except Dark City.

 

The theatrical version had an opening narration that completely spoiled the big twist midway through. Like the studio didn't trust people to follow what is quite a simple film to understand. Shame that the director Alex Proyas went a bit.....odd in later years.

 

I would've loved to see the Directors Cut of Event Horizon which was apparently so gory that people fainted in the test screenings. Though sadly a lot of that footage has been lost. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gambit said:

I would've loved to see the Directors Cut of Event Horizon which was apparently so gory that people fainted in the test screenings. Though sadly a lot of that footage has been lost. :(

 

I was just coming here to post about wanting to see an extended Event Horizon. But not the gore stuff - there was 30 minutes of additional footage that has been lost, so there's no possibility of a director's cut, but I remember thinking when watching the original that the story had obviously been cut to ribbons. The most obvious bad edit was that Sam Neill is just suddenly nuts between one scene and the next, pretty much out of absolutely nowhere - his experiences to that point in the film wouldn't have pushed him over the edge in such a bizarre way. There must have originally been some interesting connective tissue there. Paul WS Anderson has said that they only had 4 weeks to edit the movie because it was pushed up due to Titanic being delayed. He reacted to a test screening where the movie was judged far too long, by chopping it to pieces in a panic because they simply had no capacity to edit the film to the pacing they would have come up with if they had more time. Unfortunately we will never get to see what it could have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Longer the better for me. If I really like a film, I love to watch a super long version with extra scenes and stuff.  Every time.

 

I get that a shorter theatrical cut might be the best thing to release in cinemas, or be the best way to watch first time, but if I've already seen the film and I like it, I want all 10 hours of it plz.


A shorter director's cut?  Fuck that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.