all 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 59 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Any of the original Star Wars trilogy films.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    It’s probably worth pointing out that the original theatrical release of what we today call A New Hope was just released as Star Wars, wasn’t even called episode four, didn’t have a title crawl, and included that scene with Jabba but instead of it being Jabba it was some guy in a fur suit, so it’s going to depend on which directors cut you’re talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    and included that scene with Jabba but instead of it being Jabba it was some guy in a fur suit

    The original theatrical release did not contain Jabba at all. A scene was shot with a human actor, but never used in the film.

    We wouldn't get Jabba in the film until the 1997 Special Edition, which replaced him with CGI. In the documentary alongside that release we do see the original clip and Han stepping on Jabba's tail is due to Harrison Ford moving around the human actor in a way that doesn't work with a tail in the way.

    We also later got an updated Jabba for the DVD release.

    https://screenrant.com/star-wars-jabba-hutt-human-actor-change-reason/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This is making me question a lot of things… I would’ve sworn that it was in the original cut, I distinctly remember the DVD special features talking about that scene having been restored from the original cut. I’m gonna have to go back and find that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I can't speak to the DVD special features, but the VHS intro has an interview with George (jump to 7:30).

    George definitely talks about it like it was always there. To be fair he shot the scene for the film and intended to include it. So George views it as a scene intended for the original cut, but it wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Lucas has been tampering with the film since the first home release. And he famously refused to hand over the original print for preservation in the National Film Registry. And he refuses to restore and re-release the original cut of the film.

    But…there is an awesome fan project called 4K77 that digitalized and restored the original 38mm film for Star Wars. Meaning you can now download a crisp 4K version of the original theatrical version of Star Wars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The Star Wars Movies have had fans create despecialized editions, to match the theatrical releases. Ive made sure to keep a copy of them on my media server. I really enjoy them.

    I think the intention of this post is to look at theatrical/physical release vs the directors cut.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I might say Donnie Darko as the Director's Cut may complicate the movie a bit for those who prefer the mystery of the theatrical one.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Leon, The Professional. Besson is a creep.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    How does it differ from the original movie? I tried looking it up but I couldn’t find any notes on that. The “International” version seems to be longer. Of course, one of the top results is a Reddit thread where I scroll down and immediately see an “um akshully it’s ephebophelia” comment, which is on-brand for Reddit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    That's pretty much it. They trimmed the sexualization of Portman's character in the theatrical release. The director's cut put it back in. It changes the relationship from flawed underworld father she never had figure, to attempted lover. Jean Reno refused some scenes and forced Beson to take a milder direction then even that as he wanted to go lolita in the film.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't remember the differences (and there aren't many) but Ridley Scott himself was asked to make a "director's cut" of Alien for the Blu-ray release and he did... But he said something along the lines of "It was hard to figure out what to change. The theatrical cut already is the director's cut. I made it the way I wanted it to be the first time around."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    The director's cut of Alien is terrible. All they do is put in more shots of the xenomorph and that ruins the movie in two ways:

    1. The reason Alien works so well is you barely see the alien at all. The build up to the end is incredibly good, and

    2. The shots that were inserted make it clear it's just a dude in a rubber suit. The alien changes from something to be feared to something to be laughed at.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Deadpool 2.

    Theatrical jokes are better.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    I didn't know there was a director's cut of any Deadpool movie. I knew there was the PG-13 version of Deadpool 2 called "Once Upon a Deadpool" that featured Fred Savage like in Princess Bride

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Gladiator. The director's cut adds a lot of unnecessary content, which just messes up the pacing of the movie. And sadly, the theatrical cut is hard to come by (impossible?) in HD format.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    And sadly, the theatrical cut is hard to come by (impossible?) in HD format.

    The theatrical cut is available on the 4K Blu-ray.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    4K isn't HD though. Maybe they like smaller file sizes or didn't have a need for 4K.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The theatrical cut is also available on the regular 1080p Blu-ray.

    Since it's available on Blu-ray, surely someone must have remuxed and encoded it by now. I mean, the Scene guys had to source the movie from somewhere, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Bladerunner.

    They took out the music. Like WTF?

    Although there are like 3 or 4 different cuts. Not sure if it was technically the Director's Cut.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    anything Zack Snyder gets his hands on. literally anything. he'll take an ok theatrical release and then turn into 3 hours of sheer boredom.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Star Trek VI. The director's cut interrupts the extremely dramatic mind-meld interrogation scene with another obnoxious flashback every time a character is implicated. I suppose between releases the director must have lost faith in his audience's ability to follow the story without having their hands held.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    “Directed by William Shatner” basically tells you all you need to know.

    And anyone brave enough to watch the director’s cut, is boldly going where no man has gone before…and returned with their sanity intact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Stargate. The director's cut tried to add to much plot, and the best bits by a mile were the action scenes!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Empire Records. The directors cut tries to make Rex Manning a more sympathetic character but it just works better with him as a villain.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I don't know as to whether Rex was really a villain. He was just an arsehole.

    Mitchell, however, was a prick from top to bottom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I see them both as representative of faces of capitalism. Mitchell is a leech. His father created the business and did useful work but all Mitchell just consumes. Rex and Musictown represent the corporatization of music. Rex isn't an artist, he is a product being sold.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    I am assuming that you are lumping extended cuts, special editions and all non-theatrical release versions under the broad category of “Director’s Cut”.

    Also to echo what Onomatopoeia posted, all of them.

    With all of that said, I have found every Director’s Cut of James Cameron films to be worse than their theatrical counterparts.

    Cameron tried to clean up the ending of The Abyss and just made it more silly than the theatrical version.

    The additional stuff he added about Ripley having a kid in Aliens wasn’t bad, it was just unnecessary as was the stuff with Newt’s family finding the ship. All of that just messed with the paceing of the movie. Also there is a scene with auto machine guns that has made it into “edited for TV” versions that really don’t belong.

    All the stuff he added to Terminator 2 was meh.

    I am not going to comment on the Avatar non-theatrical cuts as people love to bitch about those movies.

    Cameron is a very focused strong director and it is easy to see why the stuff left out of the theatrical versions of his movies wound up on the “editing room floor”.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    The theatrical cut of Legend, by Ridley Scott, has an awesome prog rock soundtrack.

    The director's cut has some generic fantasy movie musical noodling.

    It's not even close.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Mallrats. The extended cut is just awful and Kevin Smith agrees.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I remember seeing a print release of the Clerks and Chasing Amy screenplays that had an intro by Kevin Smith. He talked about how the reception of Mallrats was really disappointing because the general thrust of most reviews was “how dare he sell out like this?” But there was one review that said “it’s clear Smith loves slapstick comedy but he just doesn’t know how to direct it.” He felt like that was a review of the movie and not of the movement he was imagined to be part of.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    The theatrical Justice League has two things going for it: brevity, and Batman's "just save one" mentor moment with The Flash, which was nice.

    Everything else about Snyder's cut is better. It looks better, it sounds better, each scene in isolation plays better, it has fewer cringy jokes. Most importantly, it retains Cyborg's story arc, which it turns out was the heart of the whole damn movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, to me both were bad and, generally speaking, I've been overdosing on superhero movies, it just never stops and each one is even more slopish than the last. I just remember the director's cut of this one leaving me even more apathetic than the theatre cut, when we were promised that it would make more sense, be more interesting, etc. It was not. The superhero slop has to stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    If you aren't having a good time either way, the theatrical's 90 minute running time is a huge advantage. But then you should probably just walk away, rather than try again with a 4 hour cut. I enjoyed Snyder's version well enough once, but I'll likely never rewatch it just because of the time investment required.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Oh no, I'd die before I pay to watch an american movie. I just need background noise when I'm working on my computer. A movie is good when it actually grabs my attention away from what I'm doing. Both versions did not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Oh no, I’d die before I pay to watch an american movie.

    Glad to hear it, the less money being sent to that country the better. The only money I've given to any film or TV for the past year or more has been to CBC Gem and BritBox.

    I imagine most movies would suck if I watched them the way you do, though. Podcasts or talking head YouTubers are my preference for choring background.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If I may, I'd like to recommend the animated movie Justice League: War (2014). It's basically a shorter version of JL17 and ZSJL, all three films are adapted from the same comic. Of the three, this is the best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

    Alien 3. Though technically not an actual director’s cut (which is bad in and of itself), the assembly cut was sold as being the the next best thing.

    But imo its a sloppy version of the film. The ox scene was nonsensical and unnecessary, the ending scene was ruined with bad fx and bad scoring and I disliked the overal pacing.

    Its like someone just swapped out a bunch of scenes and went "There ya go, all better now!"

    The Legacy cut is imo the best version of the film.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I also prefer the theatrical cut of Aliens. The relationship between Ripley and Newt is just enough. The director's cut mashes the maternal relationship button too hard. Seeing a little bit more with the colonists is nice, but doesn't make up for the other imbalances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Wow, that’s a good point actually.

    The special edition has pretty much been the standard for home video ever since they released the Alien Trilogy Boxset in 1997.

    Meaning I also haven’t actually watched the Theatrical Cut since at least 1997 🤐

    Cameron recently hinted at a 3D re-release following the 40th anniversary, but the movie itself hasn’t aged as well as Alien and I won’t even mention the issues with the 4K ‘remaster.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    In my experience, all of them.

    The directors cut isn't about watching the movie itself, but examining the process of producing a film - dissecting it.

    Two different experiences.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The director's cut for Blade Runner is a massive improvement on the theatrical version because it removes the narration the studio forced in. A lot of director's cuts include a few scenes that make a movie work when they were cut or changed to meet some silly studio meddling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Sonic Adven-wait.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago