Less Is Sometimes More In Hollywood
August 30, 2006 9:35 AM Subscribe
Has there been a 'director's cut' of a film that was actually shorter than the theatrical version (save for the example inside)?
Most director's cuts available on 'special edition' DVDs and the like contain additional footage that didn't make it in the theatrical release thus making the cut longer than the original. What I'm curious is if ever a director, in hindsight, determined his/her film was better with some of the fluff taken out and then released this new shorter version as a 'director's cut'. It could also be the case where the film studio had extra footage added to the film (one more car crash!) against the director's judgement that s/he was later able to take out.
A quick Google search found one example: Oliver Stone's Alexander. Is there more?
I'm not asking about longer festival or test versions of films that were later trimmed down for theatrical release. I'm curious about movies that had their run in the theaters and then were trimmed down by the director's choosing for a later DVD release.
Most director's cuts available on 'special edition' DVDs and the like contain additional footage that didn't make it in the theatrical release thus making the cut longer than the original. What I'm curious is if ever a director, in hindsight, determined his/her film was better with some of the fluff taken out and then released this new shorter version as a 'director's cut'. It could also be the case where the film studio had extra footage added to the film (one more car crash!) against the director's judgement that s/he was later able to take out.
A quick Google search found one example: Oliver Stone's Alexander. Is there more?
I'm not asking about longer festival or test versions of films that were later trimmed down for theatrical release. I'm curious about movies that had their run in the theaters and then were trimmed down by the director's choosing for a later DVD release.
Lars von Trier's cut of Breaking the Waves for Criterion was shorter, if I remember correctly.
I also think Terrence Malick's last film was recut (though not sure if it was by him or the studio) and then rereleased theatrically in the shorter version.
posted by dobbs at 9:40 AM on August 30, 2006
I also think Terrence Malick's last film was recut (though not sure if it was by him or the studio) and then rereleased theatrically in the shorter version.
posted by dobbs at 9:40 AM on August 30, 2006
they cut the ending off considerably.
In addition to Blade Runner's trimmed ending, Scott stripped out a lot of the film's content in the form of Harrison Ford's voice-overs. Didn't affect the running time, of course, but it was indeed removal of fluff.
posted by Iridic at 9:43 AM on August 30, 2006
In addition to Blade Runner's trimmed ending, Scott stripped out a lot of the film's content in the form of Harrison Ford's voice-overs. Didn't affect the running time, of course, but it was indeed removal of fluff.
posted by Iridic at 9:43 AM on August 30, 2006
Re: Breaking the Waves: from IMDB: 159 min (theatrical) / USA:153 min (director's cut).
I'm pretty sure that the running times are correct but I don't think the shorter version received a theatrical. I'm pretty sure it was done specifically for Criterion in 1996. To further add to the confusion, when the title was released on DVD in some countries (Canada, for sure), the box and disc had a run time printed of 153 mins. However, the running time of the film itself on those DVDs was 159 minutes.
After the Criterion release went out of print in 1998 or 1999 (I forget which), I don't think it was ever re-released.
posted by dobbs at 9:45 AM on August 30, 2006
I'm pretty sure that the running times are correct but I don't think the shorter version received a theatrical. I'm pretty sure it was done specifically for Criterion in 1996. To further add to the confusion, when the title was released on DVD in some countries (Canada, for sure), the box and disc had a run time printed of 153 mins. However, the running time of the film itself on those DVDs was 159 minutes.
After the Criterion release went out of print in 1998 or 1999 (I forget which), I don't think it was ever re-released.
posted by dobbs at 9:45 AM on August 30, 2006
When the Blood Simple Director's Cut DVD came out, I remember reading that it was a couple of minutes shorter than the original version.
posted by subclub at 9:46 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by subclub at 9:46 AM on August 30, 2006
Also, while not a director's cut by any means, the "Love Conquers All" version of Brazil is a fascinating look at how editing can ruin a movie.
posted by Dr-Baa at 9:48 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by Dr-Baa at 9:48 AM on August 30, 2006
The release history of Brazil is a little confusing, but it looks like the "final director's cut" is the same length (142 minutes ) as the original European release (they're very similar, but there are some relatively minor differences).
posted by kirkaracha at 9:52 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by kirkaracha at 9:52 AM on August 30, 2006
The 1980 "special edition" of Close Encounters of the Third Kind was three minutes shorter than the original 1977 version, but the Collector's Edition is two minutes longer than the original.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:00 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by kirkaracha at 10:00 AM on August 30, 2006
Scott stripped out a lot of the film's content in the form of Harrison Ford's voice-overs ... it was indeed removal of fluff.
Not according to the people I know who saw it.
posted by pmurray63 at 10:16 AM on August 30, 2006
Not according to the people I know who saw it.
posted by pmurray63 at 10:16 AM on August 30, 2006
The director's cut for The Picnic at Hanging Rock (the only version around now, it seems) has had scenes removed from it.
posted by JanetLand at 10:32 AM on August 30, 2006
posted by JanetLand at 10:32 AM on August 30, 2006
Not according to the people I know who saw it.
I've seen it, many times, and I think that crap is a better description than fluff but yea, it's much better off without the voiceover. And the stupid cliche escape ending.
posted by octothorpe at 10:55 AM on August 30, 2006
I've seen it, many times, and I think that crap is a better description than fluff but yea, it's much better off without the voiceover. And the stupid cliche escape ending.
posted by octothorpe at 10:55 AM on August 30, 2006
I'm pretty sure Army of Darkness (Evil Dead 3, if you prefer) would apply.
In the director's cut the entire end sequence was removed and replaced with a much darker and shorter conclusion.
posted by quin at 11:40 AM on August 30, 2006
In the director's cut the entire end sequence was removed and replaced with a much darker and shorter conclusion.
posted by quin at 11:40 AM on August 30, 2006
Ridley Scott's Alien as well.
Huh? The director's cut of Alien, when released in the theatre, was longer than the original.
posted by agregoli at 11:45 AM on August 30, 2006
Huh? The director's cut of Alien, when released in the theatre, was longer than the original.
posted by agregoli at 11:45 AM on August 30, 2006
The Brown Bunny was shown at Cannes, where it was universally panned. Then Gallo edited it heavily and it was released theatrically in the states, and the edited version received more critical praise. Roger Ebert said it should be used in film schools as an example of editing done right.
posted by frogan at 12:53 PM on August 30, 2006
posted by frogan at 12:53 PM on August 30, 2006
I think Ridley Scott's Blade Runner counts.
The "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner was not actually done by the director. It was done by the studio. There has been much anticipation surrounding the release of an actual cut of Blade Runner by the director himself.
So, it doesn't count.
posted by scazza at 1:14 PM on August 30, 2006
The "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner was not actually done by the director. It was done by the studio. There has been much anticipation surrounding the release of an actual cut of Blade Runner by the director himself.
So, it doesn't count.
posted by scazza at 1:14 PM on August 30, 2006
Terrence Malick's "The New World" had a limited release before the national release, after which he elected to shorten it. I believe by about 15 minutes. Does that count?
posted by nathancaswell at 2:18 PM on August 30, 2006
posted by nathancaswell at 2:18 PM on August 30, 2006
Control-F'ing "The New World" didn't show up dobbs comment. Sorry.
posted by nathancaswell at 2:20 PM on August 30, 2006
posted by nathancaswell at 2:20 PM on August 30, 2006
It's not labeled as a "director's cut," but after the preview, Stanley Kubrick took about 20 minutes out of 2001 for its theatrical release.
posted by pmurray63 at 2:45 PM on August 30, 2006
posted by pmurray63 at 2:45 PM on August 30, 2006
After 2001: A Space Odyssey premiered in 1968, Kubrick cut 19 minutes from the film taking it from roughly 160 minutes to 141.
The film was edited by Kubrick and editor Ray Lovejoy between April 5 and 9, 1968 and detailed instructions were sent to theater owners already showing the film, in order that they might put the trims into effect. Of course this meant that some of the cut scenes may have been poorly done in a particular theater and, so the initial version seen by viewers early in the film's run may have varied from theater to theater. [Link]posted by yeti at 2:46 PM on August 30, 2006
« Older How to get my iBook to see the internet? | Cheap travel from Estapona to Gibraltar or... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Dr-Baa at 9:37 AM on August 30, 2006