Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Off Topic discussion goes here.

Moderators: Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Jerry Horne

Forum rules
Friendly off-topic discussions are welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by mtwentz »

I just recently watched the Director's Cut of Mimic (1997), and I have to say I was a bit disappointed. What really needed to be changed was the ending, which was too happy-go-lucky and never matched well with the rest of the film's tone. The ending needed to be dark or at best ambiguous. And apparently, that was the original vision of Guillermo del Toro.

Unfortunately, this ending, for whatever reason, did not make it into the Director's Cut. The same sappy 'happy ending' which sticks out like a sore thumb, is still there.

Which leads me to the bigger discussion: What alternate cuts of films do you like? Which ones do you dislike? Which ones are just a money grab? Which ones develop truly from a conflict from the director and the producers?

I think I know David Lynch's position on this: he would not like any more than one cut of his film. I think he truly could do an expanded Fire Walk With Me, integrating some of TMP, but I have a feeling he deplores these arguments about which cut is the definitive version.

Here are some notable films with Alternate Cuts:

Blade Runner- So many cuts floating around, causes lots of confusion
Apocalypse Now- at least 3 cuts, theatrical, Redux and the newest version
The Abyss- this is one of the cases where I truly think the Director's Cut improves upon the Theatrical version, others may disagree
Halloween 6- the so-called 'Producer's Cut' almost feels like an entirely different film
Superman II- unusual because two different cuts by two different directors. The Richard Donner Cut, unfortunately, had to fill the gaps with a screen test, so it can only give a hint of what Superman II would have been like if Richard Donner had been allowed to finish the film.

Overall, I think the idea of multiple cuts is not a good one. But if a director's vision was truly whittled away by the studio, I think the idea of the Director being able to go back and go to his original idea may be justified.

But the downside is that we can get to a stage where there is true consumer confusion about which version to watch.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by AXX°N N. »

Yeah, I put off watching Blade Runner for many years because I wasn't sure which version to watch, or where to begin on figuring out how to know which opinions on which version was best were the better informed.

There's one thing about director's cuts I feel ambivalent about but it's a bit of an abstract issue. Many of them (if not most?) are constructed way after the fact, sometimes decades after the film's initial release. And to me, that creates an instant disconnect and creates too much authorial distance between two people: who the director was at the time of release, and who the director was when they stitched together the material. I'm not saying the initial version would have been instantly superior for its closer proximity--but whatever the theoretical final cut would have been had it come out at release is bound to be different from the delayed, belated final cut that gets restored later. So to me, I take director's cuts with a bit of skepticism and don't view them as "the truest version of the film," or anything--perhaps moreso the version truest to how the director, at that time, felt looking back at their old work, which in itself can be interesting.

I don't quite feel the same about literature--I think a book could be endlessly restructured and its final form is really just its final form. Perhaps there are arguments to be had against this feeling. But to me film is a volatile medium with little cooldown. Things like Lucas' ret-con additions and alterations are bound to feel inherently intrusive and revisionary, far more than any author's addendum. Perhaps because cinema ages so fast, obviously, and detectably? Adding new SFX to old footage will never feel truly authentic, and it's sometimes extremely nebulous what can nonetheless reliably date a film to its production year.

I feel the same way about The Missing Pieces or the Blue Velvet deleted scenes. There are small things that make them more stylisticially aligned with Lynch's recent material. If he were to do a full cut of FWWM, it wouldn't be FWWM as it was meant to be, but more like a FWWM as seen through the lens of his later sensibilities, at least in terms of things like editing, staging and sound design.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
JackwithOneEye
Great Northern Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:26 pm

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by JackwithOneEye »

The Abyss - I seem to remember neither cut that great, the Orson Scott Card novelization pretty good with
the character backstories I seem to recall from 30 years ago, I seem to remember liking that more than the film

Halloween 6 - blast from the past - thats after Michael Myers' gets rescued from jail by a cult ? I know I saw that movie
but dont remember much other than Mitch Ryan from Dark Shadows was in it. Had no idea there was an alternative edit.
User avatar
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by enumbs »

It seems to be widely accepted that the extended cuts of the Lord of the Rings trilogy are superior to the theatrical cuts, but I think they are full of scenes that severely affect the pacing, or feel out of place on their own terms. Fellowship is probably best served by the added scenes, but by Return you have long sequences like the Saruman confrontation which simply don’t work. Others clearly disagree, but I appreciate how Jackson has always rejected the term director’s cut for presumably similar reasons.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by mtwentz »

JackwithOneEye wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:42 pm Halloween 6 - blast from the past - thats after Michael Myers' gets rescued from jail by a cult ? I know I saw that movie
but dont remember much other than Mitch Ryan from Dark Shadows was in it. Had no idea there was an alternative edit.
The Alternate Cut is called the Producer’s Cut and is a very different movie.. Completely different (and very dark) ending. More Mitch Ryan too.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by AXX°N N. »

enumbs wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:11 am It seems to be widely accepted that the extended cuts of the Lord of the Rings trilogy are superior to the theatrical cuts, but I think they are full of scenes that severely affect the pacing, or feel out of place on their own terms. Fellowship is probably best served by the added scenes, but by Return you have long sequences like the Saruman confrontation which simply don’t work. Others clearly disagree, but I appreciate how Jackson has always rejected the term director’s cut for presumably similar reasons.
I think the appeal of these is more for fans of the books who want to see certain scenes adapted, not for those who want them to feel more coherent in a film sense. Interestingly, the one scene you mention as the best example of something not working is something unique to the film and occured way different, and at a completely different point in the story, in the books.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by mtwentz »

AXX°N N. wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:12 pm There's one thing about director's cuts I feel ambivalent about but it's a bit of an abstract issue. Many of them (if not most?) are constructed way after the fact, sometimes decades after the film's initial release. And to me, that creates an instant disconnect and creates too much authorial distance between two people: who the director was at the time of release, and who the director was when they stitched together the material. I'm not saying the initial version would have been instantly superior for its closer proximity--but whatever the theoretical final cut would have been had it come out at release is bound to be different from the delayed, belated final cut that gets restored later. So to me, I take director's cuts with a bit of skepticism and don't view them as "the truest version of the film," or anything--perhaps moreso the version truest to how the director, at that time, felt looking back at their old work, which in itself can be interesting.
Exactly this. I don't feel we can say with certainty that the Director's Cut done years later is truly what would have been the cut had the director would have done at the time.

BTW, what version of Blade Runner did you decide on and what did you think of it?
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by AXX°N N. »

mtwentz wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:46 pm BTW, what version of Blade Runner did you decide on and what did you think of it?
The Final Cut, and it was a pretty easy decision:

1) It lacks the happy ending that was stapled on in one of the cuts.
2) There are no inserted-after-the-fact expository voice-overs, a type of executive meddling I especially hated in Dune.
3) The other most-extensive cut lacked the entire score by Vangelis, which defeated a big part of why I wanted to watch BR in the first place.
4) It's the only one that Ridley Scott did himself.
5) It included everything that seemed vital from other cuts, plus things never in other cuts.
6) It was the one with a restored/remastered print.

4 was enough for me to choose it on principal, but the others only substantiated my choice.

I liked it very much, but it was less interesting on its own than the fact so many versions of it exist.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by enumbs »

AXX°N N. wrote: I think the appeal of these is more for fans of the books who want to see certain scenes adapted, not for those who want them to feel more coherent in a film sense. Interestingly, the one scene you mention as the best example of something not working is something unique to the film and occured way different, and at a completely different point in the story, in the books.
Yeah, the sequence was originally meant to conclude the second film, but Jackson thought it felt like an anticlimax after the battle of Helm’s Deep and Sam’s monologue tying all the plot threads together. There were then some reshoots to try and make the confrontation work as an opening to film 3 (“So you come here for information?”) but it didn’t feel right there either.

I actually think the scene was poorly handled regardless of structure and pacing, due to elements such as Legolas’s unnecessary assassin of Wormtongue and the rather tacky Hammer Horror nod. It’s a tricky one because Saruman’s story does feel unfinished in the theatrical cuts, so it kind of comes down to whether you prefer a clunky conclusion or no conclusion at all. In retrospect they should have adapted these elements from The Scouring of the Shire in a more elegant way, but I think they made the right call with the footage they had.
User avatar
Stavrogyn
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:22 am
Location: Croatia

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by Stavrogyn »

I have a question regarding The Godfather trilogy: I love those films and have seen them many times throughout the years, but never the alternate versions. So, has anyone seen The Godfather 1901–1959: The Complete Epic, which lasts for 7 and a half hours and includes many additional scenes? I have a copy of it waiting, but because of its length, I keep postponing watching it.

And has anyone seen the 2020 version of Part III, Mario Puzo's The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone?
All those years living the life of someone I didn't even know - Knight of Cups (2015)
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by mtwentz »

Stavrogyn wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:56 am I have a question regarding The Godfather trilogy: I love those films and have seen them many times throughout the years, but never the alternate versions. So, has anyone seen The Godfather 1901–1959: The Complete Epic, which lasts for 7 and a half hours and includes many additional scenes? I have a copy of it waiting, but because of its length, I keep postponing watching it.

And has anyone seen the 2020 version of Part III, Mario Puzo's The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone?
I knew there was a combined cut of I and II, but I had no idea there were extra scenes. Since the originals were perfect films, I am a little reluctant to dive into scenes that won't add anything to the story.

As far as III, not sure that film is salvageable (for me at least), but it might be worth a try. I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy. Part of the reason I did not like this film is that it just didn't measure up to I and II, it just had too big a hill to climb. The other thing was Sophia Coppola.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
Stavrogyn
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:22 am
Location: Croatia

Re: Alternate Cuts/Versions of Films? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Post by Stavrogyn »

mtwentz wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:09 am I knew there was a combined cut of I and II, but I had no idea there were extra scenes. Since the originals were perfect films, I am a little reluctant to dive into scenes that won't add anything to the story.
What makes me concerned is the structure, because in the alternate version the story is told chronologically, which changes things dramatically. As for the extra scenes, I'm actually excited to see Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, and others in new material.
mtwentz wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:09 am As far as III, not sure that film is salvageable (for me at least), but it might be worth a try. I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy. Part of the reason I did not like this film is that it just didn't measure up to I and II, it just had too big a hill to climb. The other thing was Sophia Coppola.
I always liked Part III and still do, but yes, parts I and II are such masterpieces that the third film will always be in their shadow. However, as far as I know, the new version is supposedly an improvement, so I'm planning to see it, of course.

My feelings regarding Sophia Coppola in that film are lukewarm. I don't find her good, but I don't think she was that bad either. I don't think people would dislike her performance nearly as much if she wasn't the director's daughter. I think Talia Shire has some scenes in The Godfather that are much worse, like when she yells at Michael because of her husband Carlo Rizzi's death at the end of the film - and she's Coppola's sister. (But I do think her acting improved with each following installment.)

Originally, Winona Ryder was supposed to play Michael's daughter, and since I'm a big fan of hers, I would have loved that.

One more thing that Part III also needed was Robert Duvall.
All those years living the life of someone I didn't even know - Knight of Cups (2015)
Post Reply