Open Forum Friday: Extended Cut DVDs — Cash Cow or Creative Freedom?
Here’s an interesting debate that started up earlier this week regarding the announcement of an extended cut of Black Hawk Down. When is it appropriate for a studio to release an extended edition of a movie and when is it nothing more than a cash grab? I think it’s important to distinguish between the terms “Director’s Cut” and “Extended Cut”. A Director’s Cut is usually a chance for a director to go back and re-edit the movie without creative restrictions, restoring the original vision that may have been hampered by disagreements with producers or length/pacing issues required for a theatrical release. Some good examples of this are Ridley Scott’s own Director’s Cuts of Legend and Blade Runner. On the other hand, an Extended Cut is usually just the result of inserting deleted scenes back into a movie, without any discretion as to whether or not those scenes actually enhance the movie. It’s important to realize that the vast majority of the time, deleted scenes are removed for a good reason, and the movie is weaker with them included. Sticking with Ridley Scott as an example, the Gladiator Extended Edition is not a Director’s Cut (and Scott gives a personal introduction to the DVD informing us of this fact). Of course there are grey areas as well… where do Peter Jackson’s Extended Editions of the Lord of the Rings movies fit into all this? Regardless, I think it’s safe to say that there are times when we want to see extended cuts of a movie, and times when we don’t. For me the key factor is whether or not the director was involved. What do you think? Are you a completist who needs to see every scene from your favourite movies? What are some of your favourite extended cuts?
Comments (11)
I think one mistake is to always think of a ‘Director’s Cut’ as a good thing. Sometimes a director can be so attatched to his/her work that he/she are blinded and don’t have the outside perspective needed to realize when something doesn’t work or when additional scenes destroy the pacing of the film. Sometimes it’s good to lay down the law and make the cuts that are needed. However, if the cuts are made based on business rather then the good of the film, it could be disasterous. A good example is the many battles Terry Gilliam has gone through in regards to his films being cut by studios, most notably his film Brazil. But whether or not his extended director’s cuts are better are purely subjective.
Posted by Jay C. on March 31st, 2006This is true, I know many people prefer the original cut of Blade Runner to the director’s cut. I think there still needs to be a “creative vision” behind what is being added back to the movie though.
Posted by Sean on March 31st, 2006Personally I never watch deleted scenes. As stated many times, they’re deleted for a reason. I think ‘Extended Cuts’ and ‘Director’s Cuts’ are fine, just as long as the theatrical release of the film is also available. There seems to be alot of movies being released to DVD directly as extended or director cuts. A good example is The 40 Year Old Virgin. The DVD release is longer then the theatrical release and features many additional scenes, some of which seemed to stick out. The option of watching or at least buying the theatrical version should be available.
In certain cases, I guess it’s best to just release the the multiple versions in a collector’s set. George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead has been released in multiple incarnations, finally seeing a four disc release with multiple versions of the film.
When it comes down to it, I think the theatrical version should ALWAYS be the definitive version as far as DVD releases are concerned, with Director’s Cut’s left as a choice (multiple purchase or available on the same disc) for those interested. Afterall, look at George Lucas’ recuts of the original Star Wars trilogy. These are now the definitive versions of the film seeing as they’re the only release available. This is a good example of a Director having TOO MUCH control, leaving the audience optionless.
Posted by Jay C. on March 31st, 2006the new ‘directors cut’ of Alien was labeled as such but is not, even though many crtics thought it was better with the new footage back in.
this also brings up the ‘unrated editions’ of movies. I thought ‘40 year old virgin’ was a fine film on its own merits, as did a lot of critics. the extended DVD version though, really hurts the film, as with all comedies, they just stuck more extended boob scenes and extended swearing in rather than keeping the flow of the movie going. either the ‘unrated’ cut needs to start being its own seperate track, or be used more sparingly altogether, probably only by movies that are NOTHING more than a cheap teen flick, which 40 year old virgin WASNT.
Posted by Goon on March 31st, 2006i disagree with Jay about deleted scenes though, but it really depends on the movie. i barely watch deleted scenes, but if its say, a Christopher Guest movie where so much was improvised and they have to mesh with each others stories, or they’ll have a character go on an extended pointless tangent – those are must see.
the Spinal Tap deleted scenes for example, are over an hour long, and were edited chronologically into their own little movie in a way. best deleted scenes special feature ever.
and of all movies, Bruce Almighty. I didnt care for the movie much at all, but the deleted scenes are almost worth the rental alone.
Posted by Goon on March 31st, 2006When I buy a DVD I like to get my money’s worth. I like the extras of all kinds. Some are good and answer questions to the deeper meaning and making of the film. Some aren’t and they can be self indulgent and feeding the ego of hte director and the actors.
Favourite features?
Making of Featurettes
Audition reels
Deleted scenes
Alternative intos/endings.
Stuff that is “fucken ghey”.
Music Vidoes
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on March 31st, 2006Blooper reels
‘gag reels’ are 99.9 % crap, probably the lowest possibility of being a good feature on any DVD.
Posted by Goon on March 31st, 2006I should have added earlier, that if a movie is released more than twice, it is a cash cow.
At first you have your more basic DVD and an upscale with all the extras the second time around. That is ok. But in the case of the Black Hawk Down’s 8 minutes extra footage (not in the 3 disc set) is lame.
Best just to wait until the deluxe edition anything is out, if you choose.
It may also be done to help offset the loses from the reselling of used DVDs. (How come that is allowable and intenet music sharing isn’t?)
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on April 1st, 2006Well the sale of used DVDs is still at least somewhat controlled. The original distributor may not get any money from the used sale, but at least it can only happen to one person at a time. File sharing on the internet means an unlimited number of people can get something for free.
Posted by Sean on April 1st, 2006I know its not exactly the same, but my point is that Store A can sell new copy to person A, who brings back to A, A resells to B, B brings it to pawn shop C who sells to person C….etc.
What about lending copies out to people? Thats sharing.
Posted by Bassmasta-Baychuk on April 1st, 2006Again, lending out your own copy means you can’t watch it while that other person has it. While I’m sure studios would much prefer if your friend bought his own copy, at least there’s still only one version changing hands.
Posted by Sean on April 2nd, 2006Leave a Reply