Bad Director's Cuts

[SuperJerk 0]

There are some movies where a director's cut comes along and totally makes the movie better ("Blade Runner" and "Daredevil" come to mind).

 

Other times, the director's cut represents a flawed vision, and ultimately inferior to the verison seen in theaters (for example, James Cameron has said he prefers the theatrical release of "Terminator 2").

 

What are some other examples of director's cuts that were either inferior or just as good as the theatrical versions?

[Guest Vitamin X]

The director's cut of Butterfly Effect is infinitely better than the theatrical, and I feel the complete opposite way about Clerks.

[Crimson G 0]

The director's cut of Butterfly Effect is infinitely better then the theatrical

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe because the

(second-to)

last jump he makes has a purpose to it now. I personally thought the ultimate conclusion of the director's cut was a bit sad and more than a little implausible. The addition of some of the scenes in the DC with a happier, but not too sappy version of the studio cut would have been ideal.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Even though I haven't seen it, anyone that makes Pearl Harbor longer gets no kudos from me, even if they make the movie more violent.

 

And because I haven't seen the old versions of Sling Blade and T2, can someone please tell me what are some of the notable additions to each movie of the extended cuts? I watched both and thought to myself constantly "OK, so was this added?..."

[Guest jm29195]

Speaking of cuts made to movies, I swear I've seen a version of T2 (the first time it was shown on tv in the UK)where there's a scene in which they are driving down a road being pursued by the T2000 as a cop on a bike- Arnie pulls out a rocket launcher and almost blows him in half- is this correct or am I imagining things because I've never seen it on any of the dvd or video releases.....

 

Also is there a deleted scene where the T2000 turns into John Conner, I'd have thought that when Conner throws the T2000 part out of the car and they make a big thing of it that this would lead to something but nothing happened in the versions of the film that I have seen...

[SuperJerk 0]

Even though I haven't seen it, anyone that makes Pearl Harbor longer gets no kudos from me, even if they make the movie more violent.

 

And because I haven't seen the old versions of Sling Blade and T2, can someone please tell me what are some of the notable additions to each movie of the extended cuts? I watched both and thought to myself constantly "OK, so was this added?..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Terminator 2:

 

# After the pre-med students peer into Sarah's room, doctor Silberman reminds the orderlies to make sure she gets her medication. They come in to give her the pills, smack her in the gut with their sticks and force the pills down her throat, then kick her while she's on the floor doubled over in pain.

 

# Sarah Connor has a dream where Reese (Michael Biehn) appears and warns her that THEIR son is in danger and she has to save him. They kiss and then leaves her cell. She follows him and suddenly arrives at a playground full of children and watches as they're blown away by a nuclear explosion. She wakes up.

 

# After the chase in the storm drain. The T-1000 walks over the bridge, in which the "big black truck" crashed into. Firemans are working. Then the T-1000 steals a police car.

 

# After the T-1000 kills John's foster parents, he ventures outside to get the dog to shut-up. He reaches down and snatches the collar off the dog, thus killing the dog. On the collar is stamped the dog's name ''Max''. The T-1000 realizes he has been duped by John (actually the T-800 imitating John's voice) by calling the dog ''Wolfie''.

 

# At the abandoned gas station, Sarah and John talk with the T-800 about learning. He tells them that his CPU was switched to read-only before being sent out. Cyberdyne doesn't want them to learn too much while on the own. John asks can it be switched and he says yes. You then see the T-800's face in a ''mirror'' talking Sarah through the procedure. After the CPU is removed, the T-800 shuts-down and Sarah places it on a table. She picks up a hammer and tries to smash it to render him inoperative. John stops her and says they need him. He starts to show authority for the first time and says to Sarah, ''How am I supposed to be a world leader if my own mother won't listen to me?''

 

# While refueling at the gas station, John attempts to teach the T-800 to smile. He tells him that he looks like a dork because he doesn't smile. He studies a man on the phone and tries to copy him.

 

# Dyson is seen at home working on the Skynet chip prototype. His wife comes in and reminds him he's promised to take the kids to Raging Waters. Dyson explains to his wife what a neural net processor is and how it will change mankind for the better.

 

# At Enrique's house, John and the T-800 are stacking up ammunitions. They start to talk about emotions and fear of death. John describes his childhood and his feelings about his mother's previous lovers.

 

# At Dyson's home at night, a series of restored shots show Sarah Connor assembling her weapons, thus building the tension of Sarah Connor stalking Dyson outside in his backyard.

 

# John and the T-800 race after Sarah to prevent her killing Dyson. The T-800 argues that getting rid of Dyson might be the best thing after all, but John replies that killing is always wrong.

 

# At Cyberdyne, Dyson shatters a large scale model of the Skynet chip with an axe.

 

# In the factory after the T-1000 is shattered by the Terminator, we see that it's beginning to lose control of its morphing. Its hand takes on black and yellow stripes when it grabs a black and yellow striped railing, and its feet squish and morph into the steel floor pattern on each step. When it morphs into Sarah Connor, John looks down and sees that the T-1000/Connor's feet have melded into the steel floor right before the real Connor begins blasting away at it.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/alternateversions

[Henry Spencer 0]

Apocalypse Now Redux is awful.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Though I have never seen the non-director's cut of it, and some would argue that it's a horrible movie (though I liked it)

 

Star Trek: The Motion Picture?

[Guest Askewniverse]

Even though I haven't seen it, anyone that makes Pearl Harbor longer gets no kudos from me, even if they make the movie more violent.

 

And because I haven't seen the old versions of Sling Blade and T2, can someone please tell me what are some of the notable additions to each movie of the extended cuts? I watched both and thought to myself constantly "OK, so was this added?..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Terminator 2:

 

*snip*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's also an Extended Special Edition cut, available as an easter egg on the Ultimate Edition DVD. In addition to the scenes already mentioned, there's two extra scenes:

 

1. The T-1000 uses his hands to feel around the walls in John Connor's room. He comes across a poster, rips it down, and finds a box filled with pictures and other stuff.

 

2. There's an alternate ending. Sarah Connor is shown as an old woman sitting on a bench in the park. She talks into a tape recorder, talking about how Judgment Day was prevented. She mentions that John became a senator. An adult John Connor is shown playing with his daughter on the playground. John's daughter runs up to Sarah, saying "grandma, grandma!" Sarah helps her granddaughter tie her shoes.

[SuperJerk 0]

Though I have never seen the non-director's cut of it, and some would argue that it's a horrible movie (though I liked it)

 

Star Trek: The Motion Picture?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The version that was initally available on video (and aired on ABC) had extra footage, but wasn't the director's cut. The director had nothing to do with that particular version, but did make a special "director's edition" which includes special effects that were recently created using CGI.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Wasn't there a Jaws directors cut that people thought was worse than the original?

[Annabelle 0]

Apocalypse Now Redux is awful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no. just their insanely drawn out, pointless, meandering, & torturous stop at that french plantation. fuck, it kills all momentum right before meeting col kurtz.

[NoCalMike 0]

Most hardcore fans of Donnie Darko like the theatrical release better because it leaves more up to viewer interpretation, where-as the Director's Cut explains more. I am torn because a movie in general should be about the Writer/Director's vision, and not if the audience finds it more enjoyable, IMO.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

The director's cut of Butterfly Effect is infinitely better than the theatrical, and I feel the complete opposite way about Clerks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree about Clerks, the ending just comes out of nowhere and (no pun intended) kills the mood

[Jingus 0]

Most of the bad "director's cuts" tend to be because of one really horrible scene that was better left on the cutting room floor. The endless scene at the French plantation in Apocalypse Now Redux is probably the best example of that.

 

Blade Runner is actually the reverse from most director's cuts, as the theatrical version had extra stuff added to it (Deckard's godawful voiceover narration and the "happy" ending) rather than extra footage cut out.

 

The weirdest directors' cuts I've ever seen? The Alien movies in the Quadrilogy series box set. All of them have alternate versions that aren't necessarily superior to the theatrical ones, but just different, like meddling for meddling's sake with the originals.

[SuperJerk 0]

The director's cut of Butterfly Effect is infinitely better than the theatrical, and I feel the complete opposite way about Clerks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree about Clerks, the ending just comes out of nowhere and (no pun intended) kills the mood

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know if that fits under the definition of a director's cut, as Smith voluntarily cut the ending after getting someone advice and acknowledges the ending was terrible.

 

Director's cuts are usually the film the director wanted to make, but the studio interfered (see Daredevil).

[Matt Young 0]

After watching The Butterfly effect about 15 times this month on Starz and renting the DVD to see the director's cut, I definitely agree with VX. I understand why they went with the ending they chose for the theatrical release, but I feel that the DC ending fits much better with the story, and was even foreshadowed in the scenes where

Evan had his palm read by the fortune teller/psychic and when he met his father ("He has to die! It's the only way!")

 

As for Clerks, I bought Clerks X soon after it came out, but only watched the director's cut once while I was high. I'll have to watch it again to see what all the fuss is about.

[Sideburnious 0]

The weirdest directors' cuts I've ever seen?  The Alien movies in the Quadrilogy series box set.  All of them have alternate versions that aren't necessarily superior to the theatrical ones, but just different, like meddling for meddling's sake with the originals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I will admit that most of the new versions are just adding a 3 minute scene, just because it wasn't there before, Alien3, the directors cut is leaps and bounds better than the theatrical release. It's almost like a totally different (and better) movie.

 

 

How has nobody mentioned Lucas going back and fucking up Star Wars countless times yet?

[spiny norman 0]

Blade Runner is actually the reverse from most director's cuts, as the theatrical version had extra stuff added to it (Deckard's godawful voiceover narration and the "happy" ending) rather than extra footage cut out. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know I'm in the minority in this, I always am, but the theatrical version of Blade Runner surpassed the Director's Cut.

 

I can't ever think of a Director's Cut truly ruining a film, though added scenes such as the aforementioned French plantation in Apocalypse Now along with the interjection of Dallas in Alien as Ripley stands as the last survivor. Both jarringly ruin the flow of both movies, but I can't say they ruin the experience of the film for me.

[Guest guerillagenius]

I think the Army of Darkness DC is worse than the theatrical.

[Guest M. Harry Smilac]

The 'Blues Brothers' version that's on dvd.

 

They couldn't find the old director's cut so they just inserted every cut scene they could find in to the movie.

 

After the demolition derby in the shopping mall Elwood parks the Bluesmobile in a hiding place beside an electrical power box. (John Landis explains that Aykroyd thought this would show how the car gets its incredible endurance, but also goes on to explain that it never did make any sense, so the scene was cut.)

 

Yes it doesn't make any sense, but since we can't find the DC let's just stick this in there anyways.

[Guest JMA]

Most hardcore fans of Donnie Darko like the theatrical release better because it leaves more up to viewer interpretation, where-as the Director's Cut explains more.  I am torn because a movie in general should be about the Writer/Director's vision, and not if the audience finds it more enjoyable, IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I prefer the director's cut (which also seems to be much more popular with critics).

[Sideburnious 0]

The 'Blues Brothers' version that's on dvd.

 

They couldn't find the old director's cut so they just inserted every cut scene they could find in to the movie.

 

After the demolition derby in the shopping mall Elwood parks the Bluesmobile in a hiding place beside an electrical power box. (John Landis explains that Aykroyd thought this would show how the car gets its incredible endurance, but also goes on to explain that it never did make any sense, so the scene was cut.)

 

Yes it doesn't make any sense, but since we can't find the DC let's just stick this in there anyways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I thought it just explained where they hid the car from the police. It made sense to me

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

The Spawn director's cut changed all of one scene, and didn't do much for the movie. It's still an enjoyable little piece of shit, but a piece of shit nonetheless.

The scene in question:

In the theatrical version, when the gov't ops set Al on fire, they walk away and put on their gas masks as they arm the bombs.

In the director's cut, Al is lit on fire, and then screams out "WANDA" while on fire before everything explodes.

 

I know the Aliens SE added a LOT to the story, ditto T2, so why does Cameron dislike the T2 director's cut?

[SuperJerk 0]

I know the Aliens SE added a LOT to the story, ditto T2, so why does Cameron dislike the T2 director's cut?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He might have just said he PREFERS the theatrical cut.

 

Something about it running better or was paced better. It was on the T2 X-Treme Edition commentary.

 

 

How has nobody mentioned Lucas going back and fucking up Star Wars countless times yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A special edition is different than a director's cut. A director's cut restore what was once in the movie. A special edition adds brand new material.

[NoCalMike 0]

I prefer the Aliens DC to the theatrical release, because I enjoyed getting more background about the colonization that the Marines were sent to.

 

Also, Alien 3 DC is a very different movie then the theatrical cut.

 

 

I also hear Superman 2 has basically an entirely different cut floating around that hasn't been released yet. I think it was a different director that started it and he quit or was fired, and when the second director took over they basically started almost over from scratch.

[Guest Vitamin X]

As for Clerks, I bought Clerks X soon after it came out, but only watched the director's cut once while I was high.  I'll have to watch it again to see what all the fuss is about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm telling you right now, it sucks. It really, really does.

 

Clerks works very well as a comedy and a bit of a social satire of people that get stuck in that kind of job and/or time in their lives, many of the scenes that are included in the director's cut kill the overall pacing of the movie, and don't really keep the more upbeat, entertaining mood constant. The worst thing about the DC is the ending, though.

 

I have Clerks X as well.

[Exslade ZX 0]

I'm thinking the new, Not another Teen movie one will be pretty, well, not crap, but not much different from the first one. I mean, what can they add?

 

And it seems pretty much everyone and their mom has/has seen the movie who'd get it..so who's gonna buy the directors cut..?

[Matt Young 0]

Me. The only DVDs I own are from the Christmas DeepDiscountDVD sale, so my collection is only 15 deep.

[SuperJerk 0]

I also hear Superman 2 has basically an entirely different cut floating around that hasn't been released yet.  I think it was a different director that started it and he quit or was fired, and when the second director took over they basically started almost over from scratch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was curious about this myself.

Here is what I found out:

 

Off-screen problems hampered production of this movie: like other Salkind productions such as The Three Musketeers (1973) and The Four Musketeers (1974), this was filmed at the same time as the first Superman movie to be a direct sequel. However, Marlon Brando filed suit over his percentage of the first film's profits, so as a response his scenes were excised from the second film. Director Richard Donner argued with the producers over their attempts to make the film 'more campy,' in his opinion, which led to his removal and replacement on the project by Richard Lester. Following that, Gene Hackman declined to return for any reshoots by Lester, which cut down the amount of scenes he appears in the final cut (or with a few scenes where a body double was obviously being used).

 

Despite all the difficulties, and with only a few noticeable shifts in tone between the two directors' scenes (Lester's scenes tend more to camp and humor), it is still considered a remarkable and coherent film (in its eventual original theatrical version, in the normal version, there is a confusing plot hole), highlighted by the movie's battle sequence between Superman and the three Phantom Zone prisoners on the streets of Metropolis.

 

However, in the years since the film's release, the controversy continues to be fueled, while the film itself has achieved cult status. In 1983, Alexander Salkind's production company pieced together an "Expanded International Cut" of the film for television using approximately 19 minutes of footage not shown in the theatrical release, some of which was original Richard Donner footage shot before Richard Lester became director. The "new" footage expanded on the film's many subplots, including a further explanation of the villains' task on Earth, Superman and Lois' romance, and an alternate ending involving Lex Luthor, the three Kryptonian villains, and the final fate of the Fortress of Solitude. This 146-minute expanded version was released only in certain countries in Europe (the initial expanded U.S. ABC and Canadian CBC telecasts, though edited differently, were derived from the European TV edit).

 

In 2005, several Superman movie fans attempted to bring the film closer to Donner's original vision by creating their own professionally-made video restoration of the "International Cut" and offered free DVDs of it on one of the many Superman fan sites, but their efforts were thwarted by Warner Bros., who are reportedly threatening legal action.

 

As of 2005, the original Donner footage (including some that have not been seen publicly, including Marlon Brando's scenes) has not been released officially on video, and thus Donner's original vision of "Superman II" has not been officially released either, although there has been talk of a future video release.

 

Most of this controversy lies around a very large plot hole in the movie, where Superman had given up his powers using a "molecular chamber", becoming a normal human, and his mother's hologram telling him that once he uses it, there would be no turning back, the process being irreversible. When the three Kryptonians cause disaster, Clark decides to return to his Fortress of Solitude, calling upon his father, finding the green crystal that created the fortress that was spared from destruction as it was buried in snow... the scenes after show Superman turned back to his super-powered self, without any explication in the rest of the movie, resulting in a lot of confusion for the viewer.

 

This was due to Marlon Brando's scenes cut from Superman II: When Clark returned to the Fortress to see if anything could be done about it, he put the green Crystal back in the machine. When this happened, Jor-El's image reappeared, telling him that him and Lara had suspected that he would repent of what he had done and return. He did get his powers back, but at a cost; the holographic projections (which were almost like artificial intelligences) of his parents would be destroyed, their powers being drained to restore his powers.

 

credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_2

 

Details on the changes for the alternate version:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081573/alternateversions