Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:15 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Director's Cuts that are actually improvements 
Author Message
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
Do you guys think there will be a dramatic difference in quality between Watchmen theatrical and director's cuts?


Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:52 am
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
Quintaros wrote:
kudzu wrote:
Brazil.


Haha. I watched the "Love Conquers All" version once just to see how bad it was. Not a terrible movie but certainly not Brazil.

I never fully understood just how much power the editor has over a movie until I saw that version.


Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:20 pm
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
MGamesCook wrote:
Do you guys think there will be a dramatic difference in quality between Watchmen theatrical and director's cuts?

The director's cut will be longer and even more boring? (please please please let me be wrong :()


Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:21 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1562
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
All I can say is amen on the Blade Runner and Aliens ones. I'll also add:

The Abyss director's cut

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:22 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1290
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
Quintaros wrote:
The documentary Heart of Darkness features a nice sequence of Coppola rationalizing the decision to cut the French Plantation sequence from his original cut. In 1978 he certainly recognized the sequence didn't work but somehow he had forgotten that by the time he made Redux. I definitely prefer the original cut. The only addition I kind of like is when Willard steals one of Kilgore's surfboards and the helicopters follow them around with Kilgore on the loudspeakers asking to have it back.


For me the definitive cut of that film would be the Redux MINUS the additional Playboy Bunnies bit (largely unnecessary and needlessly shows why they ended up needing fuel so badly when they reached the last outpost) and the entire French Plantation segment (it's far too literal in its damning of the Vietnam situation compared to the rest of the film).

Sadly, one film which will never have a definitive cut is "Superman II." Both the Lester and Donner versions are mixed bags.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Profile
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
MGamesCook wrote:
Do you guys think there will be a dramatic difference in quality between Watchmen theatrical and director's cuts?


I really loved the theatrical version and also loved The Directors cut even more.

LotR all of them.

I always felt that some of the Harry Potter movies, particularly Prisoner of Azkaban and Half Blood Prince would have benefited from having extended versions released on DVD.

Other than that, I tend not to check out Directors cuts as they're marketing devices to drive up DVD sales.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:14 pm
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
Pedro wrote:
Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut, I feel, is better film than the original. However, it ends up being a better film by putting pages of The Philosophy of Time Travel on the screen, and paraphrasing Richard Kelly, "Yeah, because everyone wants to read when they go to the movies." Subtitles aside, I know what he means. The pages make it inherently less cinematic, which contradicts the very cinematic first cut. But man that first cut doesn't make sense. I don't think Kelly wanted to make it as attractively convoluted as it is (which is weird, because that's why most people like it). At the same time, he also doesn't think his director's cut is the definite version, so at least he's not bitch-slapping the fans who like the "trippyness" of the first cut. (For the record, I enjoy both of them for different reasons. I like the first one because, like most people think, it's weird and cool and it works on a weird and cool level. I like the second one because it feels more complete and developed.)


I'd have to say I'm more inclined to the original cut for the same reasons as Jim Emerson: where is the wonder in the film if it explains its mysteries away? Also, it unfortunately alters the best scene in the film (the one set backwards to the cover of 'Mad World').


Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:25 pm
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Sadly, one film which will never have a definitive cut is "Superman II." Both the Lester and Donner versions are mixed bags.
The Donner version is essentially the rough draft of the hypothetical definitive cut. And, given that this thread merely requires that the director's cut be an improvement, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut certainly qualifies.


Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:18 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1290
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
Ken wrote:
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Sadly, one film which will never have a definitive cut is "Superman II." Both the Lester and Donner versions are mixed bags.
The Donner version is essentially the rough draft of the hypothetical definitive cut. And, given that this thread merely requires that the director's cut be an improvement, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut certainly qualifies.


The biggest problem for me lies in the ending(s). The Donner cut merely reuses the ending from the first movie, which a) more or less negates the entire movie, and b) shows that Superman could pretty much do this any time he wanted (James pointed this out a few years ago in an article he wrote comparing the 2 cuts). Then in the Lester cut you have the 'kiss,' which totally goes against the idea that Lois is attracted to Superman, not Clark. *Sigh* if only the Salkinds would've let Donner finish... :evil:


Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:55 pm
Profile
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
Stanley had directors cut
He needed no improvements
Few have had this luxury
Rob


Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:29 am
Post Re: Director's Cuts that are actually improvements
H.I. McDonough wrote:
The biggest problem for me lies in the ending(s). The Donner cut merely reuses the ending from the first movie, which a) more or less negates the entire movie, and b) shows that Superman could pretty much do this any time he wanted (James pointed this out a few years ago in an article he wrote comparing the 2 cuts). Then in the Lester cut you have the 'kiss,' which totally goes against the idea that Lois is attracted to Superman, not Clark. *Sigh* if only the Salkinds would've let Donner finish... :evil:
The Donner Cut doesn't reuse the ending, so much as put it back where it was supposed to be in the first place. It was never intended to be used in the first movie.

The reason the time travel ending is superior to the kiss ending is because of the huge difference in motivation. The basic premise of Superman II is that Superman abdicates his responsibility to protect all the people of the world. The consequences are disastrous. First, the Kryptonian prisoners seize Texas, then the United States. We can logically assume that they plan on taking over the whole world, after their brief detour to the Fortress of Solitude. Putting it lightly, these guys caused a lot of trouble.

Superman could not allow this to stand. He made a dreadful mistake and the costs were astronomical. So he traveled back to a point where he could right what went wrong.

This does not negate the movie, because the entire point is that he must make the hero's choice: leave everything the way it is and attempt to salvage his chance at love, or destroy his chance at love so that the world may live in peace. He has only the memory of his brief time with Lois to carry with him for the rest of his life. He can never talk to her about it, and he can never otherwise unload his terrible burden.

The kiss ending seems to miss the point. Superman defers his chance at human kinship, but the world is still in a shambles. It really is just a quick and dirty way of resetting his relationship with Lois to the status quo, without any greater effect. Not only does this seem to overlook any sort of heroic motivation, but it also sets up a huge logical failure: what happens when Lois goes outside and sees the apocalyptic results of what was happening during the time that she can't remember?

By tacking the time travel sequence onto the end of the first movie, it really does come off as more of a selfish, "emergency reset button"-type move. In this case, I would argue that JB's criticism is valid. But, again, it was never intended to be there, and was only put there as a result of executive meddling.


Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:13 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr