The Directors Cut ...

[WhiteCrowNZ]

We probably have Blade Runner to thank for the phenomenon of "The Directors Cut", where a film is released in a different movie to the theatrical version, with usually extra material added.

Which is ironic, as the Directors Cut of Blade Runner ran shorter as it lacked the whole happy ending which was tacked on.

But Directors Cuts can be a mixed bag. Sometimes you can't help feel a little cynical and feel they're just a way to make money by releasing the theatrical version on DVD and 3 months later releasing the Directors Cut, hoping some people will buy it twice.

But what films do you enjoy/not enjoy the Directors Cut. Which ones do you think they shouldn't have bothered?

[WhiteCrowNZ]

To me the most dramatic Directors Cut is the Abyss. It was an alright movie, but the DC version you realised what seemed to be missing.

Part of the main plot was international tensions between America and Russia, and how as the crew of the underwater rig were battling to survive, above them a whole war was threatening to blow up.

All of this was cut from the theatrical release. It's reinclusion makes the movie really belt along much better.

One film I'm not too keen on the DC version though is Lord of the Rings. I love the movies, but I do feel the DC version just makes them feel too damn long. I do like they're out there, and they have the extra detail, but can't rewatch them regularly.

[Andrew Curnow]

Sometimes you can't help feel a little cynical and feel they're just a way to make money by releasing the theatrical version on DVD and 3 months later releasing the Directors Cut, hoping some people will buy it twice.

That's what I usually think! 'Directors Cut' makes it sound rather arty, but in many cases it's just 'extra footage tacked back in' which isn't really the same thing.

[Martin Penny]

I honestly can't tell the difference between all the Blade Runner Director's cuts...they all seem the same to me.

I own the Lord of the Rings extended editions, and enjoy them (though rarely put them on). Peter Jackson himself does say that he doesn't consider them 'Director's cuts' though, as he prefers the theatrical cuts - and just did the extra long cuts to get as much material from the book as possible.

I like the DC's of the Alien films as well, I got the Quadtrilogy boxset (probably the best box set I've ever bought) and they are all included there alongside the original versions. There are some nice extra scenes that actually help explain/foreshadow a few things, and the cut of the third film is interesting, when you learn what a mess the production of that film was.

I'd really like some Director's cuts of the Star Wars prequels, as I felt that the deleted scenes on the DVD's helped add to the movies, particularly the ROTS scenes which show the birth of the Rebellion. There's also loads of material that didn't even make it onto the DVD's, but which was definitely filmed.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Aliens the movie is definitely helped by the DC - it gives a lot more depth to the characters, sets up what happened on LV426, sets out Ripleys motivation (lost daughter) etc.

With Blade Runner the main difference is,

* voice overs which give it a gumshoe feeling are lost. The director and Harrison Ford hated putting them in. In fact in a documentary, Harrison Ford says he tried to sabotage them by reading them badly.

* the ending where after 120 minutes of being in a dark polluted city, Deckard and Rachel escape in the country is removed. Instead ends with "shame she won't live, but then again who does".

* hints that Deckard is a replicant. A scene where his eyes flash red (all replicants are seen to do this in the movie). He also dreams of a unicorn, which Gaff makes an origami version of at the end as a potential warning that he's next. Ironically 20 years later, Edward James Olmos would still be hunting down human looking machines trying to emulate humanity. Talk about typecasting ...