CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Films With Multiple Versions: Where Do You Start?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Films With Multiple Versions: Where Do You Start?

post #1 of 52
12/23/07 at 12:47pm
Thread Starter 
I haven't seen Blade Runner since I was a kid, but I was lucky enough to get the DVD for Christmas this year featuring all 4 versions of the film. I want to watch it, but the problem is I have no idea which version to watch first. I want to see the "best" version first, that way I'll enjoy the movie enough to care to go back and watch the alternate cuts. But when you have a theatrical cut, a director's cut, an international cut, and a final cut, how do you know where the hell to begin?

I have the same problem with Close Encounters. The new set has the theatrical cut, the special edition cut, and the director's cut. Where do you start if you're watching the film for the first time in your adult life?

It's not just older movies that come with this issue. I've never seen the theatrical cuts of The 40-Year-Old Virgin or 1408, but only their altered DVD versions. Am I somehow missing out on something?

I've also run into this conundrum with Dune, Apocalypse Now, and Brazil among others.

So my question is, where do you start when you have multiple versions of the same film? Do you always go with the theatrical cut, because that's how many people first saw the film? Or do you go with the super deluxe final director's cut, because that's what the director would want? Until I can decide, my Blade Runner DVD will just be sitting here in a box.
Reply
post #2 of 52
12/23/07 at 1:00pm
Bah, assuming you're going to watch every cut regardless, I say oldest to newest. Watch them in the order you would've seen them in had you been there from the beginning. Though in Blade Runner's case you can skip the International Cut, it's basically the same as the U.S. Theatrical.
Reply
post #3 of 52
12/23/07 at 1:05pm
Close Encounters: Watch the Director's Cut, then the documentaries, then go watch the mothership scene. Temptation might be great, but you need to know why that mothership scene doesn't belong anywhere near a full cut of the film.

Brazil: Whichever version ends with "'Fraid you're right Mr. Helpmann. He's gone."
Reply
post #4 of 52
12/23/07 at 1:53pm
I have to admit that I've never seen BLADE RUNNER, as big a sci-fi geek as I am. And the only thing that's stopping me is the fact that I'm intimidated by all 23 versions of the film. That sort of nonsense turns me off.
Reply
post #5 of 52
12/23/07 at 2:03pm
I'm not the film's biggest fan, but if the only thing stopping you from seeing Blade Runner is that there's different versions, you can turn in your geek card at the door.

Shit, alternate cuts are the primary reason I started buying DVDs. There's intrigue and a story behind almost every single worthy one.
Reply
post #6 of 52
12/23/07 at 2:07pm
Start with the original and move forward. Know your history.
Reply
post #7 of 52
12/23/07 at 2:08pm
I think you missed my point. I love alternate versions -- LOTR is a great example.

However, with that many cuts of the same film, one doesn't know where to start without research, which sort of turns me off to sitting back and enjoying the movie based on its own merits.

I'll keep my card, thanks.
Reply
post #8 of 52
12/23/07 at 2:12pm
I tend to start with whichever's labeled the director's cut. In the case of Blade Runner, I agree with Phil. I watched the Final Cut first, then the documentary, and should be tackling the workprint next.
Reply
post #9 of 52
12/23/07 at 2:23pm
Not a whole lot of research needed.
The most basic "research" will tell you each cut is progressively closer to what Sir Scott intended the film to be.
Reply
post #10 of 52
12/23/07 at 2:50pm
Thread Starter 
True, but sometimes the director's cut isn't the one that people hold in the highest regard. Take The Warriors for example. I've only seen the director's cut, and absolutely love it, but most people seem to think it's an abomination. That's why doing some research on these things never hurts.
Reply
post #11 of 52
12/23/07 at 3:06pm
Sorry, I should have quoted erik meyers, I was replying to his post while Jim Barged in.

As for your thread, it's doubtlessly useful. I only just read about the director's cut for THE WARRIORS over her eon CHUD a few days ago. If I hadn't, I would have grabbed it as soon as I saw it in a store. Now i'm warned.
Reply
post #12 of 52
12/23/07 at 3:08pm
Apocalypse Now: watch the original cut first (which I think is paced much better) and then watch Redux, which has some interesting additions and some annoying, momentum-halting bullshit.
Reply
post #13 of 52
12/23/07 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supremo
True, but sometimes the director's cut isn't the one that people hold in the highest regard. Take The Warriors for example. I've only seen the director's cut, and absolutely love it, but most people seem to think it's an abomination.
*raises hand*

That's why you always start oldest first. It is an abomination, trust me.
Reply
post #14 of 52
12/23/07 at 3:41pm
The Director's Cut isn't an improvement, but 1 minute's worth of transitions does not equal abomination.
Reply
post #15 of 52
12/23/07 at 3:53pm
Let's not derail the thread here, but yes it does. Those one-minute's worth of transitions completely alter the tone of the entire film. By re-framing the action that way, it changes the way in which the audience views the remainder of the film. Also it ruins the best moment of the movie, the introduction of the Baseball Furies.

But whatever, difference of opinion. My point is that it's easier to decide for yourself which version you prefer if you watch them in the proper order. If you prefer the Director's Cut simply because you happened to see it first, I don't think you're able to judge the differences between the two versions as objectively as you would if you'd seen them the other way around.
Reply
post #16 of 52
12/23/07 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supremo
True, but sometimes the director's cut isn't the one that people hold in the highest regard.
That's why there's no one-size-fits-all right answer for every single movie to which the question applies. It depends on the specific film. And yes, a modicum of research is required, though in most cases it amounts to the five minutes required to start a thread here, followed by a half hour a couple of days later to read the fifty accumulated responses. It's really that simple.
Reply
post #17 of 52
12/23/07 at 5:29pm
We have a winner.
Reply
post #18 of 52
12/23/07 at 5:35pm
Cool! Now, who wants to go ice skating?
Reply
post #19 of 52
12/23/07 at 5:50pm
I would agree with the idea that starting with the movie as it first came out is the way to go. especially a movie like Blade Runner. There have been so many versions, and as someone who never really liked it other than for it's technical marvel, that i think it's important to see what was first shown to the public. See the film that made so many people want so many different cuts.
Reply
post #20 of 52
12/23/07 at 5:54pm
Aliens: theatrical cut
The Abyss: special edition
Star Trek- The Motion Picture: director's cut. Which desperately needs to be re-rendered for HD.
Star Trek II- The Wrath of Khan: theatrical, if you can find it
Legend: director's cut, director's cut, director's cut
Star Wars- The Film That Has No Other Name: see previous page
Close Encounters: theatrical
Blade Runner: tough call. I still like the workprint best.
Brazil: I prefer the American theatrical release, which cuts directly from "Jill! No!" to the reveal in the interrogation chamber. Not available on DVD.
Haven't seen the DC of Last of the Mohicans or the reconstruction of The Big Red One. Any opinions?
Touch of Evil: director's cut, though I liked the studio's choice for the music over the opening shot.
Dune: If you haven't read the book, theatrical. If you don't care that Lynch took his name off of it, extended. If you've read the book, and like Lynch's other movies... skip it.

edited to add Superman II: theatrical. The "Donner Cut" is essential for anyone interested in the history of the production, but it's by no means a complete, coherent film.

And while Fellowship of the Ring is greatly improved in its extended form, I find the other two films better-paced in their theatrical versions.
Reply
post #21 of 52
12/23/07 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervaise
Cool! Now, who wants to go ice skating?
Is that a veiled reference to Peter Jackson's King Kong? The answer is- the 1933 version.
Reply
post #22 of 52
12/23/07 at 6:25pm
What's different in Wrath of Khan's case?
Reply
post #23 of 52
12/23/07 at 7:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7
What's different in Wrath of Khan's case?
At least four scenes contain additional dialogue. Nothing major-- Bones explaining to Kirk that the reading glasses are antiques, Kirk ADR'ing to Spock that David is his son, the bits identifying Ensign Preston as Scotty's nephew. In my opinion they slow down the pace, and at one point the flow of the music is noticeably interrupted.

What really bugs me is that there's deleted material from that film that wasn't included on the SE DVD at all. Check out this eagle-eyed reconstruction here.
Reply
post #24 of 52
12/23/07 at 8:48pm
The Last of the Mohicans isn't hugely different between cuts. The music has changed a bit, and a line or two is added for Hawkeye, plus a few small cuts. It's not enough of a difference to recommend one over the other, though I'd go with the Director's Cut, since it's closer to the director's vision.
Reply
post #25 of 52
12/24/07 at 12:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus
Sorry, I should have quoted erik meyers, I was replying to his post while Jim Barged in.
Zing! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

And yeah, research is always best. Haven't seen The Warriors, period. If I can find the theatrical DVD, I'll pick that up.

Have not seen the original Apocalypse Now. Went with a buddy (who'd never seen it either) to see Redux when it played locally and we were floored. Keep meaning to grab the Complete Dossier...
Reply
post #26 of 52
12/24/07 at 12:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
Aliens: theatrical cut
The Abyss: special edition

With all due respect, WRONG!

I saw The Aliens special edition first and couldn't believe what was cut out for the theatrical version. The scene at the begining with her daughter really added to Ripley's relationship with Newt.

The Abyss was awfulin special edition form. I thought the tense claustrophobic film was ruined by the preachy and cliched end. Instead of the aliens helping the people trying to protect them. The ET's saved the whole world, gimme a break.

Most of your other picks were right though.
Reply
post #27 of 52
12/24/07 at 1:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by McIrish
With all due respect, WRONG!
You're entitled to your opinion. With Aliens, the restored stuff is interesting but it also slows the plot waaay down. We've come to watch a thriller and we know, from the very second the settlers are mentioned, that they're doomed. Why spend 15 minutes of screen time pretending they're not, then showing how it happens? The movie's not called Terraformers.

The Abyss has claustrophobia to spare-- I don't mind giving some up in order to learn more about the characters. The Special Edition has the sequence with the Linda Ronstadt song, plus the great shot of Michael Biehn literally staring into the abyss. The ending is hokey no matter how you cut it, but at least the global impact of the crisis is made clearer.
Reply
post #28 of 52
12/24/07 at 1:10am
I like "extremely advanced aliens refrain from destroying the human race upon recognizing humanity's capacity for good" much better than "aliens save underwater oil workers 'cuz they're such nice guys"
Reply
post #29 of 52
12/24/07 at 1:34am
I'm completely with Hammerhead on Aliens and The Abyss. The Aliens director's cut additions bring nothing to the story that wasn't already there. With The Abyss, however, Cameron cut the entire point of the story in order to focus on the romance, which was just dunderheaded.

And as for watching the Blade Runner versions in chronological order, I have to disagree. As someone who saw the original version in its initial theatrical run, that awful, jarring and inconsistent ending left a bad taste in my mouth for many years. It's really not the impression of the film I'd want someone to have on their first viewing, especially representative as it is of studio meddling. It's like watching the "Love Conquers All" version of Brazil first.
Reply
post #30 of 52
12/24/07 at 1:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by McIrish
The Abyss was awfulin special edition form. I thought the tense claustrophobic film was ruined by the preachy and cliched end. Instead of the aliens helping the people trying to protect them. The ET's saved the whole world, gimme a break.
The ET's saved the whole world? Have you even watched it? The ET's were the ones who were going to destroy the world. In the end, they chose not to. Not quite the same thing.
Reply
post #31 of 52
12/24/07 at 2:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
The ET's saved the whole world? Have you even watched it? The ET's were the ones who were going to destroy the world. In the end, they chose not to. Not quite the same thing.
Exactly. It gives more depth to the story.

After watching the SE cut, I saw the theatrical cut on cable some weeks later. Tried to watch it for a half hour, and had to turn it off. It might have been shorter, but it felt like it moved at a slower pace.
Reply
post #32 of 52
12/24/07 at 2:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
At least four scenes contain additional dialogue. Nothing major-- Bones explaining to Kirk that the reading glasses are antiques, Kirk ADR'ing to Spock that David is his son, the bits identifying Ensign Preston as Scotty's nephew. In my opinion they slow down the pace, and at one point the flow of the music is noticeably interrupted.

What really bugs me is that there's deleted material from that film that wasn't included on the SE DVD at all. Check out this eagle-eyed reconstruction here.

I agree the theatrical cut is much better. The two extended scenes that bugged me the most were Scotty's nephews death, that has some bad expositional dialogue inserted that kill the tone of the scene, and the tracking shot of the space station scientists arguing about what to do about the Reliant. Where they use a completely alternate take where they spell out that they'll go hide in the asteroid, which kills the sense of Kahn may have killed everyone when Kirk and co are searching the station. The take itself is also acted a fair bit worse than in the theatrical
Reply
post #33 of 52
12/24/07 at 4:29am
It's becoming a peeve of mine that when these director's cuts and special editions come out, they're considered the final word, and we're supposed to accept them, and no release of the original version is even considered. If you're going to monkey with the film, release both versions. I'm grateful to Spielberg for that.
Reply
post #34 of 52
12/24/07 at 4:34am
The autogun scene in Aliens was a nice little bit of tension, but it does take some time to explain them and set them up, so I can see why it got axed.
Reply
post #35 of 52
12/24/07 at 4:41am
Plus, it uses that setup time without forwarding the story one iota. I'm of the belief that movies are all about concise and efficient storytelling. If a scene isn't moving the narrative forward, it's got to go, however cool it may be. The autogun sequence was great as a DVD extra. As part of the film, it's a waste of valuable time.
Reply
post #36 of 52
12/24/07 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
It's becoming a peeve of mine that when these director's cuts and special editions come out, they're considered the final word, and we're supposed to accept them, and no release of the original version is even considered. If you're going to monkey with the film, release both versions. I'm grateful to Spielberg for that.
Now if only he'd release the theatrical cut of 1941 (no laughs from the peanut gallery, please!) which is vastly superior (I said no laughing!) to the extended cut, the only version available on DVD.

Looks like Ridley Scott has a better track record in terms of making all of his previously released cuts available. But then, he's also got more director's cuts under his belt than Rabbi Cinemastein at the Hollywood Newborn Filmmaker's Hospital.
Reply
post #37 of 52
12/24/07 at 5:30am
Wow, I had no idea that there were multiple versions of 1941. I'm going to have to backtrack and remember how I first saw it to know which one I watched.
Reply
post #38 of 52
12/24/07 at 5:53am
Interestingly, I don't think the DVD cut of 1941 is radically different, nor does it have any major new deleted scenes added. But it is slightly different throughout, with some extra bits and extensions here and there. Most notable for me is that the pacing and build of Aykroyd's whole "Let's show those lousy Huns what we got!" speech is butchered in the extended cut.
Reply
post #39 of 52
12/24/07 at 5:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrid
the tracking shot of the space station scientists arguing about what to do about the Reliant. Where they use a completely alternate take where they spell out that they'll go hide in the asteroid, which kills the sense of Kahn may have killed everyone when Kirk and co are searching the station.
It's worse than that. Somebody asks Dr. Marcus what they're going to do, and she says "That's for us to know and them to find out," a truly idiotic line. What, she's afraid the audience will overhear her and go tell Khan? Wouldn't it be better if she actually told her crew what the plan was? No wonder so many of them get killed.

Moving on. Donnie Darko: theatrical, if you can find it. Kelly ruins everything by explaining it all in the director's cut.
Reply
post #40 of 52
12/24/07 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Interestingly, I don't think the DVD cut of 1941 is radically different, nor does it have any major new deleted scenes added. But it is slightly different throughout, with some extra bits and extensions here and there. Most notable for me is that the pacing and build of Aykroyd's whole "Let's show those lousy Huns what we got!" speech is butchered in the extended cut.
There's a long, not-terribly-funny sequence at the beginning where the lead guy steals a zoot suit from the department store by simulating an air raid. But, as a trade-off, the extended cut does have a Dick Miller cameo.
Reply
post #41 of 52
12/26/07 at 3:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration
Interestingly, I don't think the DVD cut of 1941 is radically different, nor does it have any major new deleted scenes added. But it is slightly different throughout, with some extra bits and extensions here and there. Most notable for me is that the pacing and build of Aykroyd's whole "Let's show those lousy Huns what we got!" speech is butchered in the extended cut.
I bought the DVD for three reasons: it was $6, the extras were good (the Belushi teaser is great) and the John Williams isolated score.

When I tried to watch the movie at a buddy's house, we were bored to death within 20 minutes and turned it off halfway. I haven't tried to watch it since, but would like to give the theatrical cut a chance, should that ever appear on DVD.
Reply
post #42 of 52
12/26/07 at 4:03am
I agree with Phil! The Final Cut should be watched first.

I think so for the same reasons he's listed.

If you watch the other versions first, you won't be watching the 'story'. You'll be watching the art of it. I'm a Blade Runner dork, and I've watched it enough times, in many versions, to have a great experience at The Final Cut. I felt as close as I think I could have to watching it for the first time. However, there were emotional connections I made to characters that I hadn't before, and that makes me think you should start with Final Cut, watch them all chronologically after that, ending with The Final Cut again.

If you can deal with that much BR.

I can.
Reply
post #43 of 52
12/26/07 at 4:50pm
Since everything else in the OP has been addressed, I'll suggest you never worry about theatrical cuts of Apatow comedies. The "unrated" versions aren't directors' cuts so much as they are the theatrical cut + more hilarious shit that got cut for runtime or rating purposes. Sure, the pacing changes a little, but you also get more funny. I've not watched the theatrical version of an Apatow movie other than when it's still in theaters, and I see no reason to start.
Reply
post #44 of 52
2/10/08 at 6:57pm
post-revamp bump
Reply
post #45 of 52
5/7/11 at 1:10pm

I was searching this thread for a mention of the DC of Last of the Mohicans which I picked up on Bu ray, and I came across this embarassing post from my past. I was wrong and Hammerhead is correct (so's Greg David for that matter, though he's almost always right, it's annoying). Having since watched both films I now tire of the extra stuff in Aliens and enjoyed the Special Edition of The Abyss, though it should be said I don't love them unconditionally anymore. I was wrong.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by McIrish View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
Aliens: theatrical cut
The Abyss: special edition

With all due respect, WRONG!

I saw The Aliens special edition first and couldn't believe what was cut out for the theatrical version. The scene at the begining with her daughter really added to Ripley's relationship with Newt.

The Abyss was awfulin special edition form. I thought the tense claustrophobic film was ruined by the preachy and cliched end. Instead of the aliens helping the people trying to protect them. The ET's saved the whole world, gimme a break.

Most of your other picks were right though.


 

Reply
post #46 of 52
5/7/11 at 1:31pm

I still prefer the Aliens Special Edition.  For that movie, for me, more is better.  I miss the James Cameron who made that.

Reply
post #47 of 52
5/7/11 at 1:33pm

Wow, a blast from the past! And I still haven't seen the DC of Mohicans.

Reply
post #48 of 52
5/7/11 at 5:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supremo View Post

True, but sometimes the director's cut isn't the one that people hold in the highest regard. Take The Warriors for example. I've only seen the director's cut, and absolutely love it, but most people seem to think it's an abomination. That's why doing some research on these things never hurts.


I  much prefer the theatrical American Gangster to the DC

Reply
post #49 of 52
5/20/11 at 7:29am

No love for Payback; Straight Up?? In these times we should look back and reflect on a film that represented a Mel Gibson closer to reality than we had any idea about at the time. Especially in this 'original vision' released on DVD a few years back where he pummels his wife (alas not while she blows him)

Reply
post #50 of 52
5/20/11 at 8:10am

The Special Edition of ALIENS is a perfect example of why The Directors Cut isn't always the best cut. I'm not a fan of that film anyways, but the Special Edition fucks the pacing of the film completely and makes you feel EVERY minute of its near three hour runtime and all for the sake of some turrets and Newt exposition.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Films With Multiple Versions: Where Do You Start?