director's cut / uncut movies

  • Thread starter johnny k
  • Start date
  • This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

johnny k

Doctor of Teleocity
Ad Free Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Posts
16,217
Location
France
It seems there is a reason why movies are cut the way they are cut, usually it is to keep the rhythm flowing. I watched re-animator extended but yesterday, and it seems to me that some scenes were reshoots. There are 2 guys talking in a living room, and then you can see one guy on a totally black background. It is weird.

Another movie was apocalypse now. There are 2 different cuts of it, one with the sargent cracking jokes, and one without. I saw the one with the jokes, and i thought it was a bit weird.
 

Chester P Squier

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jan 16, 2021
Posts
6,465
Age
77
Location
Covington, LA
I have a similar opinion of "alternate takes" such as one sees on boxed sets. I've always thought there was a reason they were not put on the album. And a good reason.

Not to change to subject, the subject being movies.
 

Boreas

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Posts
20,704
Age
70
Location
Adirondack Coast, NY
Now that movies are often 3+ hours, probably everything is a director's cut now. Hey, you pay actors by the job, not by the hour...
 

Vibroluxer

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Posts
6,210
Location
Kittanning
I used to own VHSs of all of the original Star Trek Series. They sucked because they told exactly what made them a directors cut: in the beginning of the movie to include spoilers

I stay away from them now.
 

bumnote

Friend of Leo's
Ad Free Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Posts
2,195
Age
56
Location
Northern Virginia
There need to be a good reason....I'm looking at someone in particular.
IMG_0329.jpeg

If there's a poster child for leave it the hell alone, it's George.

IMO he's the worst offender when it comes to director's cut. You can't see the original versions of the first three movies anymore, just Lucas' re-dos.
It's like The Beatles re-recording "Sgt. Pepper" because..."We always intended to have a Key-tar on but they hadn't been invented yet."
 

bumnote

Friend of Leo's
Ad Free Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Posts
2,195
Age
56
Location
Northern Virginia
Another movie was apocalypse now

This guy's done a very long, in-depth series of documentaries into the making of that a film that will explain a lot of why and how it's final form(s).
This one explains a lot of tone shift, dialogue, etc.

 

ClashCityTele

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Posts
4,451
Age
63
Location
Washington, UK
'Apocalypse Now' is my favourite film of all time, and there are actually 4 versions of it.
1 The theatrical release (2 hours 30 mins) 1979. This even has 2 versions. One with Kurtz's compound being bombed & one without.
2. The Redux version (3 hours 16 mins) 2001.
3. The Final Cut (3 hours 3 mins). Redux with the abandoned Playboy Bunny's scene removed. 2019.
4. And for real A.N. fanatics - The Workprint (5 hours 30 mins).

"Never get out of the boat. Never get out of the boat".
 

Mike Eskimo

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Posts
28,417
Location
Detroit
Saw Apocalypse Now first run/first release in a really small/really crappy theater with my running buddy at the time .

We were 15/16

The devil’s cabbage came with us.

To say that movie made quite an impression on us knuckleheads is a vast understatement.

Any slightest inkling of joining the service after high school was obliterated that night.

Plus US had only been out 4-5 years at that point . It was still fresh .

I don’t know if we could have seen that extra long French dinner party* version or not.

Our brains could barely deal with the original theatrical release !

1746024700298.gif


* Am I getting that right? I remember seeing it on TCM one time
 

Texicaster

Friend of Leo's
Joined
May 9, 2018
Posts
4,588
Location
It Varies.....
I'm a sucker for directors cuts and deluxe expanded editions.

I think they've figured out you can darn near double your money by rereleasing an expanded directors cut a few years later, I think they do it on purpose now! As well and knowing the audience has attention limits. I rarely get through a 2 hour movie in one sitting anymore.

I found the Hobbit and LOTR directors cuts much better!

Welle's Touch Of Evil directors cut way better too!
 

Toto'sDad

Tele Axpert
Ad Free Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Posts
68,782
Location
Bakersfield
A movie should run 90 minutes including credits. Not 89, not 91, 90 minutes. Anything more than that should be tossed, leave out the beginning and ending if you have to but get it cut to 90 minutes.

If a director violates this protocol, he should be strapped to a gurney and made to watch YouTube shorts endlessly. Well, not until he dies, but until he's learned his lesson. (Whichever comes first)
 

FMA

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Posts
5,700
Welle's Touch Of Evil directors cut way better too!

Stopped by to say that. Welle's original vision was perfect. The studio edit detracted somewhat from the story and the tone. That said, it is a great movie.


As for Apocalypse Now, I still like the first version. There seemed to be a good reason why some of the scenes in Redux were cut from the first version. That said, I still think Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece and would have easily been Coppola's best film if it weren't for The Godfather and Godfather II. (Don't get me started on Godfather III.)
 

johnny k

Doctor of Teleocity
Ad Free Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Posts
16,217
Location
France
A movie should run 90 minutes including credits. Not 89, not 91, 90 minutes. Anything more than that should be tossed, leave out the beginning and ending if you have to but get it cut to 90 minutes.

If a director violates this protocol, he should be strapped to a gurney and made to watch YouTube shorts endlessly. Well, not until he dies, but until he's learned his lesson. (Whichever comes first)
90 mns is the perfect lenght, to me.
 

CCK1

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Posts
2,383
Location
North Of Atlanta, South of Disorder
A movie should run 90 minutes including credits. Not 89, not 91, 90 minutes. Anything more than that should be tossed, leave out the beginning and ending if you have to but get it cut to 90 minutes.

If a director violates this protocol, he should be strapped to a gurney and made to watch YouTube shorts endlessly. Well, not until he dies, but until he's learned his lesson. (Whichever comes first)
SO agree with you. I will rarely watch a movie filmed after about the early 70’s. If you can’t start, and end the plot in 90 minutes, something is wrong.
 
Top