Watch Directors Cut or non Directors Cut?

When you haven't seen a film before, say, a classic. Would you watch the Original Theatrical Edit that made the film popular (and watch the Directors Cut later) or delve straight into the Directors extended cut?

i watch the original because usually directors cuts are garbage.

i also stay away from extended versions of things.. all that footage usually was taken out for a reason and you can clearly see that reason when you watch

I read some reviews first of which are the "definitive" version.

depends on the film.

starwars 4-6 original before lucas rubbed his digital cock all over it.

blade runner - see the ultimate d-cut the one that was bought out a few years ago w/ the work print.

so i dont know.. just look at reviews on amazon and made your mind up.

personally I watch the director's cut...i figure if this is how the director originally wanted it, watch it that way...but then again im not a huge film critic, usually end up enjoying most.

yeah I guess it depends. Lucas has lost the plot alright

  On 1/24/2010 at 12:49 AM, G. I. Raffe said:

yeah I guess it depends. Lucas has lost the plot alright

i suppose in those situations I get confused as to what "Director's Cut" means, because I would consider the re-edited Star Wars exactly that, re-edits...Director's Cut for me implies that it was the full film as originally and initially filmed and recorded

That's a hard one because every now and then the director really fucks up what was once a great movie. Like it or not, Donnie Darko was alright to begin with. Didn't really need any changing but Richard Kelly went back and destroyed it completely by adding new scenes that didn't need to be added and he also changed the music and Frank's voice.

The Lord of the Rings Extended Editions on the other hand are great. Yeah, they're long as hell but the new scenes fill in a lot of gaps... but they kinda overdid it with Return of the King.

I say 9 times out of 10 the non- directors cut is better. Usually a film's story is stronger with "trimmed fat". Sometimes a director can become overattached to a "vision" that ultimately doesn't serve a story.

yeah i like LOTR director's cut better than the originals. though i would recommend the originals for someone who's never seen them. more efficient.

  On 1/24/2010 at 12:56 AM, Squee said:

That's a hard one because every now and then the director really fucks up what was once a great movie. Like it or not, Donnie Darko was alright to begin with. Didn't really need any changing but Richard Kelly went back and destroyed it completely by adding new scenes that didn't need to be added and he also changed the music and Frank's voice.

i am in TOTAL agreement here - i have quite a few director's cuts of films, and every one of them has been an improvement on the original. except that goddamn awful piece of shit called Donnie Darko Director's Cut.

of all the director's cuts i have, i would rate Aliens and Blade Runner Final Cut to be the best of them. the one that was the most impression-changing was Alien3 Special Edition - as a young'un i wasn't very keen on that film, but after seeing the special edition with the re-inserted footage of

my opinion changed of the film. Alien Resurrection, the only good thing about that Director's Cut is the WalMart joke.

directors cut + directors commentary = me being one happy son of a bitch

i didn't really like the Aliens special edition/directors cut, showing the people on the planet before they were wiped out kind of ruined some of the mystery for me of the film. i prefer the original. but some of the scenes they added were interesting for sure i just overall wasn't too thrilled by it

  On 1/24/2010 at 12:56 AM, Squee said:

he also changed the music and Frank's voice.

wtf, when did Richard kelly get Lucas syndrome?

yeah he did, the box was probally worse then the phantom menance

  On 1/24/2010 at 1:53 AM, Awepittance said:

i didn't really like the Aliens special edition/directors cut, showing the people on the planet before they were wiped out kind of ruined some of the mystery for me of the film. i prefer the original. but some of the scenes they added were interesting for sure i just overall wasn't too thrilled by it

 

 

completely agree.

Directors Cut

Director's cuts usually are worse because a director will include extra scenes out of bias because of difficulty of shooting said scene, or just general excitement over certain shots etc. For example on Jaws, Speilberg wanted more shots of the shark cause they spent so much work on getting it look decent in the water

  On 1/24/2010 at 2:08 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 1/24/2010 at 1:53 AM, Awepittance said:

i didn't really like the Aliens special edition/directors cut, showing the people on the planet before they were wiped out kind of ruined some of the mystery for me of the film. i prefer the original. but some of the scenes they added were interesting for sure i just overall wasn't too thrilled by it

 

 

 

completely agree.

Agreed.

  On 1/24/2010 at 2:01 AM, chris moss acid said:

yeah he did, the box was probally worse then the phantom menance

Damn... I haven't seen any of his other movies and I'm kinda glad that I haven't because everything seems to have gone downhill for him. Oh, and apparently Cameron Diaz ruined the ending of The Box at a press conference. But since I haven't seen it I can't verify whether or not the ending she revealed is true or not but if there's any kind of truth to what she said then all I can do is lean back, put my hands on my stomach and burst into laughter.

  On 1/24/2010 at 4:38 AM, karmakramer said:

Director's cuts usually are worse because a director will include extra scenes out of bias because of difficulty of shooting said scene, or just general excitement over certain shots etc. For example on Jaws, Speilberg wanted more shots of the shark cause they spent so much work on getting it look decent in the water

this is a very very good point