Movies that you thought were made worse by an extended cut?

[wildclaw]

I don't watch very many extended cuts of movies on DVD, but I wanted to share my experience with a movie I watched recently at a friends house.

The Town - The problem I have with the extended edition of the movie is that the extra 30 minutes made the movie feel like it was dragging its feet in every scene. The pacing of the movie was ruined by scenes, that seemed to linger forever and bored me to tears by the halfway mark. What I liked about the theatrical cut was that the movie ran at a fairly breezy pace and kept me engaged all the way through. One of my friends, who saw the movie for the first time, dosed off about 30 minutes in. I'm glad the fat in this cut was trimmed when they released it in theaters because I probably would've walked out the theater in disappointment.

In short the extended cut killed the pacing of the movie for me, and bored me before I was even halfway through. Most of the added/extended scenes did not feel really necessary or enjoyable to watch due to how sluggish they felt. In the end when I watch this movie in the future, I will make steer clear of this cut.

[Michael P]

The Extended Edition of Return of the King utterly murders the suspense of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

[ryan_filler]

I'm personally annoyed by the Watchmen extended cut. I bought my girlfriend the "ultimate dvd set" or whatever with Black Freighter included, and the only way to watch the theatrical version of the movie is with the digital copy. That meant when we went to watch the DVD with her brother who'd never seen the movie before, and we had to watch the incredibly long version with the cartoons spliced in. This was okay for me since I'd read the book, but he seemed really bored with it because the movie was soooo long. The extended cut has a lot more in common with the original graphic novel, but I think it weakened it as a film by stretching it out and adding in a cartoon that feels very irrelevant while watching the movie.

[jesse_custer]

Lord of the Rings (all three) and Aliens come to mind.

[the goddamn batman]

I love the additional scenes added to Aliens, but I don't think it makes it a better movie. Kinda messes up the pacing.

[StoneGold]

Apocalypse Now is the patron saint of this. Redux totally kills it.

[Castel]

The extended version of the fellowship of the ring is mighty awesome but sadly it's not the case AT ALL for the two following movies.

Especially the last one. (return of the king)

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

Ditto Lord of the Rings. I never bothered with Apocalypse Now Redux. The original shorter film was a sprawling mess that worked for me because I just like Conrad's story that much.

I'd agree not just for Aliens but Alien that whatever was supposedly gained thematically in the extended cut hurt pacing.

Donnie Darko REALLY didn't need an extended cut. Not only did the extended cut not add to the film but the changes in the soundtrack also made the film less fun for me.

[The Black Guardian]

Aliens, definitely.
Apocalypse Now, certainly.
They're not extended versions but Lucas deserves to be spit on for how he butchered the first SW trilogy.

But I won't watch anything but the extended versions of the LotR trilogy.

[The Batman]

Apocalypse Now is the patron saint of this. Redux totally kills it.

Yeah, this was the first thing to come to mind. The added scenes are, for the most part, interesting enough on their own and would be great as part of a thorough deleted scenes feature. However, as part of the movie, they just ruin the film's momentum and grind things to a halt.

[JCAll]

Blade Runner.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, this was the first thing to come to mind. The added scenes are, for the most part, interesting enough on their own and would be great as part of a thorough deleted scenes feature. However, as part of the movie, they just ruin the film's momentum and grind things to a halt.

A couple extra Killgore stuff is fine, it doesn't really mess with the pacing at all, although it kind of changes the mood of the movie a bit.

But stuff like the French villa? Man, that even sucks as a DVD extra. It's like a different movie.

[Gizmoduck]

Superman II (Donner cut)

The turning back time was what they did in the first movie. Why do it again? Everything they changed just made the movie worse.

[Jared Song]

Tombstone. Totally ruins the surprise.

[thwhtGuardian]

See, I really enjoyed Apocalypse Now Redux, the new scenes really made it feel more like Heart of Darkness to me.

[the goddamn batman]

Blade Runner.

no way. :confused:

[Jared Song]

The extended cut of Blade Runner is much to vague and has a bleak ending just for the hell of it.

The original version added much more to the story, especially the plight of the replicants.

[the goddamn batman]

I'm not entirely sure what's bleak about the ending.

[wildclaw]

The Extended Edition of Return of the King utterly murders the suspense of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

How so?

I own a DVD version that is a special edition (I got it for $5), but I never touched it. I don't think I have the patience to sit through a 4.5 hour movie.

[Jared Song]

He'll be on the run for the rest of his life and for what? A replicant who lasts only 4 years?

In the original it's revealed that Rachel is a special model, that she has a normal lifespan, but no one knows that so Gaff lets Deckard and her go, realizing that she won't last anyways.

In the final cut, Deckard throws his life away for a replicant he knows will only last a few more years, living a life on the run, and it's possible she doesn't even really love him.

[the goddamn batman]

So you don't think he's a replicant, then?

[Jared Song]

No, I really hate that angle. It seems like one of those things put in just to be shocking.

The Director's Cut original ending works really well IF Deckard is human. The possibility of happiness in the future has lessened so much that someone like Deckard would be willing to live life on the run just so he could spend a few more years with a replicant who he wants to love him. It's very tragic.

But if he's a replicant too, then it's like, well, they're two replicants who don't want to be slaves to they're preprogrammed occupations so they do it out of mutual understanding almost. Deckard risking it all for someone else is lessened when it's not just about freeing her, but about freeing himself.

Plus, Deckard seems way too human compared to all the other replicants. But even so, regardless of what I view as a bad choice, the way the unicorn scene was done with Gaff making the paper unicorn was pretty well executed. This is probably one of the only films I know of, where you can view it so many different ways successfully. There is no right answer. Such a shame this didn't do booku bucks when it was released.

The only thing I liked about the Theatrical version was Deckard's inner monologue about why replicant's keep so many pictures. Without that I don't know if I would have drawn the connection without it.

[nieman]

The Outsiders: The Complete Novel; thee extra scenes were great for the book but ruined a great film.

Return of the King - did we really need to see another 40mins of ending

[the goddamn batman]

Jared, fair enough. I like it because it can work a bunch of ways, personally. And while there's some interesting stuff mentioned in the monolog, it's largely awful.


The Outsiders: The Complete Novel; thee extra scenes were great for the book but ruined a great film.


Oh god, yeah, that sucked.

[Simbob4000]

The extended cut of talladega nights kills the pacing, which in turn kills the jokes.

[The Black Guardian]

The extended cut of Buckaroo Banzai is okay, but really just wasted space. Seeing what happened to his folks is interesting, maybe, but completely unnecessary.

[Simbob4000]

The extended cut of Buckaroo Banzai is okay, but really just wasted space. Seeing what happened to his folks is interesting, maybe, but completely unnecessary.

The extended cut is a much, much better movie; the new stuff really helps set the tone, it almost feels like a Cronenberg film...to bad it doesn't help the tail end of the movie from going downhill.

[jesse_custer]

The original cut of Blade Runner is just silly with the fucking monologue. Thank God they took that shit out.

Watch Alphaville for GOOD voice-overs in a sci-fi noir.

[thwhtGuardian]

The original cut of Blade Runner is just silly with the fucking monologue. Thank God they took that shit out.

Watch Alphaville for GOOD voice-overs in a sci-fi noir.

Alphaville is great, but I still enjoy the monologues in Blade Runner.

[Chris Lang]

The Outsiders: The Complete Novel; thee extra scenes were great for the book but ruined a great film.

Return of the King - did we really need to see another 40mins of ending

Well, we DID need to see the scene with Saruman just to give his character thread some resolution.

Be glad they didn't use 'The Scouring of the Shire' or else the ending would have REALLY been too long.

[Meadow]

Alphaville is great, but I still enjoy the monologues in Blade Runner.

I wouldn't have minded them if Harrison Ford didn't sound like his family was held at gunpoint while he was recording them.

Overall, the Final Cut is way better than the threatrical cut.

[thwhtGuardian]

I wouldn't have minded them if Harrison Ford didn't sound like his family was held at gunpoint while he was recording them.

True, he sounded pretty uncooperative about the whole thing, you could definitely tell how he felt about it but even so I felt their presence gave the film a unique feel that set it apart from other sci-fi thrillers.

[jesse_custer]

Alphaville is great, but I still enjoy the monologues in Blade Runner.

That's fine. But they're shit. You can tell just by the sound of his voice that Ford wasn't into it.


True, he sounded pretty uncooperative about the whole thing, you could definitely tell how he felt about it but even so I felt their presence gave the film a unique feel that set it apart from other sci-fi thrillers.

It wasn't unique. Again, Alphaville.

[Robotech Master]

I also preferred the directors cut of Blade Runner. The monologue was often stupid, and commited the grave crime of pandering to the audience with *wrong information*. He didn't save him because "he loved all life in his final moment."

An even worse offense is that the final pan and monologue in the movie was all added by Hollywood after the fact, using footage from a completely different film.

And the directors cut manages to have some of the tone and ambiguity of the novel, even though its still significantly different.

I wouldn't say Deckard is too human to be one either; hell in the book there's like an entire police station of them that aren't even sure if they are.

[David Walton]

Superman II (Donner cut)

The turning back time was what they did in the first movie. Why do it again? Everything they changed just made the movie worse.

Superman I and II were filmed back to back. Originally, the first film was going to end with Superman diverting Lex's nuclear missiles into outer space and freeing the Phantom Zone criminals. When Donner was fired late in the game, they went back and used the 'turning back time' angle in the first film instead.

The Donner cut is somewhat incomplete as a result, since he was never able to go into post-production.

I still prefer Lester's theatrical cut. Hard to say whether that's because it's what I grew up with or not, but I find it flows much better. I prefer Lester's Niagra Falls scene to Donner's fruit stand one, and Lester's "hand in the fire" to Donner's "bullets fired" scene.

[Rudenoodle]

Apocalypse Now is the patron saint of this. Redux totally kills it.

I have a version that forces you too swap dvd's simulating an intermission.

Worst idea ever.

[Chris Lang]

Superman I and II were filmed back to back. Originally, the first film was going to end with Superman diverting Lex's nuclear missiles into outer space and freeing the Phantom Zone criminals. When Donner was fired late in the game, they went back and used the 'turning back time' angle in the first film instead.

The Donner cut is somewhat incomplete as a result, since he was never able to go into post-production.

I still prefer Lester's theatrical cut. Hard to say whether that's because it's what I grew up with or not, but I find it flows much better. I prefer Lester's Niagra Falls scene to Donner's fruit stand one, and Lester's "hand in the fire" to Donner's "bullets fired" scene.

I agree with you about Lester's theatrical cut. Those were definate improvements over Donner's versions.

Of course, one must keep in mind that the 'bullets fired' scene was based on a Silver Age Lois scene that was similiar in some ways. Back in the 50s and the 60s, Lois could be said to be, well, obsessed with Superman. Dangerously obsessed. She went back and forth between obsessing over marrying him, or obsessing over finding out his secret identity.

And there were times where she suspected Clark, causing Superman to come up with crazy stuff to prove her 'wrong'. On one occasion, she pointed a gun at Clark and fired ... causing him to duck under the desk. This caused her to doubt Clark was Superman, since Superman wouldn't have panicked like that. And then she confessed the gun was filled with blanks.

However, Superman couldn't resist the urge to psychologically mess with Lois (as the Internet tells us, he was kind of a 'dick' back in those days), so at super-speed he used his fingers to create bullet-like holes in the window behind him, making Lois believed she'd accidentally fired real bullets at him.

Oh, and this was parodied in Cracked Magazine (Cracked, MAD Magazine's closest competitor back in the 80's) with a one-page strip called 'Final Proof'. The first panel has Lois approach Clark and say "Clark?". He responds with "Yes, Lois?"

The second panel has Lois beating on Clark's chest shouting "You're Superman! Superman! Superman!". This is followed up in the next panel by Clark smiling and saying "Wrong again, Lois."

Then the next panel has Clark at his desk when Lois enters. Lois again says "Clark?", and Clark again says "Yes, Lois?"

The panel after that has Lois shooting Clark several times with a machine gun screaming "You're Superman! Superman! Superman!". The last panel has Clark collapsing to the floor saying "Wrong again, Lois..." and Lois standing there with a stunned expression on her face.

Since this was a parody, we don't need to wonder about what happened next. At least the actual Silver Age Lois knew better than to use real bullets, unlike the Lois in the Donner cut (who does something she has no business doing outside of parody and gambling someone else's life -- not just her own -- on her suspicions).

So yeah, Superman II is a much better film WITHOUT Lois risking Clark's life in an attempt to prove that he's Superman. The 'hand in the fire' thing was, I feel, the better choice.

[David Walton]

Oh, and this was parodied in Cracked Magazine (Cracked, MAD Magazine's closest competitor back in the 80's) with a one-page strip called 'Final Proof'. The first panel has Lois approach Clark and say "Clark?". He responds with "Yes, Lois?"

The second panel has Lois beating on Clark's chest shouting "You're Superman! Superman! Superman!". This is followed up in the next panel by Clark smiling and saying "Wrong again, Lois."

Then the next panel has Clark at his desk when Lois enters. Lois again says "Clark?", and Clark again says "Yes, Lois?"

The panel after that has Lois shooting Clark several times with a machine gun screaming "You're Superman! Superman! Superman!". The last panel has Clark collapsing to the floor saying "Wrong again, Lois..." and Lois standing there with a stunned expression on her face.

LOL! I always enjoyed Cracked magazine.


Since this was a parody, we don't need to wonder about what happened next. At least the actual Silver Age Lois knew better than to use real bullets, unlike the Lois in the Donner cut (who does something she has no business doing outside of parody and gambling someone else's life -- not just her own -- on her suspicions).

So yeah, Superman II is a much better film WITHOUT Lois risking Clark's life in an attempt to prove that he's Superman. The 'hand in the fire' thing was, I feel, the better choice.

Lois gambling her own life makes much more sense, especially coming off the scene where Superman saves the kid. There's a logical consistency to the flow of events there that's lacking in the Donner version.

I also preferred the idea that Clark really wanted Lois to know, so he blew his cover after going to all that trouble to protect his identity. It's a subtle, beautiful moment that has aged well.

[shamone]

Am i right in saying that the alien director cut is shorter than the theatrical version. Prefer the version of bladerunner without the voiceover but with ambiguity of deckard = replicant. It doesnt cheapen it for me if he is a rep, i got the feeling that the message was that the replicants were more human than the humans and that deckard being a rep strengthened the point. But it works with the ambiguity that you can look at it other ways

[Mat001]

Superman I and II were filmed back to back. Originally, the first film was going to end with Superman diverting Lex's nuclear missiles into outer space and freeing the Phantom Zone criminals. When Donner was fired late in the game, they went back and used the 'turning back time' angle in the first film instead.

No, that's not what happened. In 1978, Donner and Reeve were talking about the ending to the first film. They felt that Superman saving Lois in time did not have a strong enough impact as opposed to failing to save her. So they took the Puzo draft's ending where Superman reversed time because Zod broke Lois's neck and applied that concept to the first film. Donner was going to come up with a new ending in 1979 when filming would resume. But then he was fired and Lester came up with the scene in Lois's office, but instead of a magic kiss, he gives Lois a cup of water, but has altered the water to erase her memories of their time together. It was then decided to just have it be a kiss.

For the Donner Cut, they debated about which ending to use. It was decided that the original ending was to be used because the way the story was written, Lois would kiss Superman over Clark Kent.


Lois gambling her own life makes much more sense, especially coming off the scene where Superman saves the kid. There's a logical consistency to the flow of events there that's lacking in the Donner version.

Donner's version was supposed to come right on the heels of the last scene with Lois in the first film, where she talks about Clark and Superman never being in the same place at the same time. If you watch both back to back, you see the intent. The only difference was how the film would start after the opening credits. A sequence was written where Superman stops a fox hunt before realizing he's almost late for work. It was never filmed and it's possible that had Donner finished his film, he might have added an additional sequence in place of that.

[jesse_custer]

Am i right in saying that the alien director cut is shorter than the theatrical version. Prefer the version of bladerunner without the voiceover but with ambiguity of deckard = replicant. It doesnt cheapen it for me if he is a rep, i got the feeling that the message was that the replicants were more human than the humans and that deckard being a rep strengthened the point. But it works with the ambiguity that you can look at it other ways

It is ambiguous, ultimately.

Blade Runner is an interesting film in that its plot holes make it much stronger.

Also, I'm not sure if you're right about Alien (haven't watched anything but the original cut), but it's not like Blade Runner has much of an extended cut, either. I believe the director's cut and final cut aren't more than a minute longer, if that.

[Jared Song]

Am i right in saying that the alien director cut is shorter than the theatrical version.
I'm pretty sure the Alien Director's Cut is actully longer.


SPOILERS


The added scene is Ripley finding a room where all the victims have been cocooned like eggs. Supposedly, the original ending had the Alien ripping off Ripley's head, then taking the seat, and speaking in a her voice, in a message to Earth.




Prefer the version of bladerunner without the voiceover but with ambiguity of deckard = replicant. It doesnt cheapen it for me if he is a rep, i got the feeling that the message was that the replicants were more human than the humans and that deckard being a rep strengthened the point. But it works with the ambiguity that you can look at it other ways

That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that the replicant's weren't needed to act more human, since their actions show them to be more so, but the stripper replicant acted pretty convincingly.
Plus, I forgot about Deckard's line, "how can it not know?" It seems like that line was put in partly for his character.

[shamone]

Just checked the directors cut of alien is 6 mins shorter !

[edhopper]

To put in my two cents.
All LOTR extended were better.
Apocalypse Now Redux, much better, the movie Copolla wanted to make. Adds a lot of depth to it. It's not an action war movie, its a allegory (as well as an adaptation)
Blade Runner, much better, the voice over ruined any sort of character arc for Deckerd. And Scott says he IS a replecant.
Aliens, I like the extra scenes.Especially the early scenes on the planet with Newt's family.
Watchman, extended, not the one with the cartoon. Like the extra scenes and it did not slow down the film.
And the best directors cut of all (as an improvement on the original) Abyss.
*spoilers*
The studio forced Cameron in theatrical cut to bring it in under 2 hrs. He took out the entire World on the verge of destruction and replaced it with the silly love story. In the directors cut Harris' sacrifice is so much more powerful.

Yeah I know, this is the opposite of the threads goal.

[Alex6166]

The Extended Edition of Return of the King utterly murders the suspense of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.



I actually ran the DVD through the credits and I could swear they were 20 minutes by themselves.

'Thanks to the Lord of the Rings Fanclub'

All 500,000 members listed in alphabetical order.:smile:

[Powerboy]

No, I really hate that angle. It seems like one of those things put in just to be shocking.

The Director's Cut original ending works really well IF Deckard is human. The possibility of happiness in the future has lessened so much that someone like Deckard would be willing to live life on the run just so he could spend a few more years with a replicant who he wants to love him. It's very tragic.

But if he's a replicant too, then it's like, well, they're two replicants who don't want to be slaves to they're preprogrammed occupations so they do it out of mutual understanding almost. Deckard risking it all for someone else is lessened when it's not just about freeing her, but about freeing himself.

Plus, Deckard seems way too human compared to all the other replicants. But even so, regardless of what I view as a bad choice, the way the unicorn scene was done with Gaff making the paper unicorn was pretty well executed. This is probably one of the only films I know of, where you can view it so many different ways successfully. There is no right answer. Such a shame this didn't do booku bucks when it was released.

The only thing I liked about the Theatrical version was Deckard's inner monologue about why replicant's keep so many pictures. Without that I don't know if I would have drawn the connection without it.

I've never seen the alternate or extended version of Blade Runner. But back in 1982, when I saw the movie, a friend and I were walking out and he said, "Man, I would have hated that movie were it not for the ending. It was so bleak and hopeless and I thought the ending was going to be more of the same. That ending really changed how I felt about it."

[shamone]

Blade runner revels in its let the audience choose ending. Which is why it sucks that ridley said he was a replicant. The documentary is great though

[jesse_custer]

I've never seen the alternate or extended version of Blade Runner. But back in 1982, when I saw the movie, a friend and I were walking out and he said, "Man, I would have hated that movie were it not for the ending. It was so bleak and hopeless and I thought the ending was going to be more of the same. That ending really changed how I felt about it."

I wonder if he still likes the movie. Usually when I only like an ending, I wind up not appreciating the movie after rewatching it because I realize the thing isn't that good as a whole.

[Jared]

Blade runner revels in its let the audience choose ending. Which is why it sucks that ridley said he was a replicant.

Harrison Ford says he's human, if that makes you feel any better.


Lester's Superman II not only has a better ending (even if it is a bit jarring, in hindsight, to see Supes kill with glee), it has a much better opening line to the first confrontation with Zod. "Would you care to step outside?" THAT'S awesome. "Haven't you ever heard of freedom of the press?" That's lame. Really lame.

I did like that the Donner cut isn't full of slapstick comedy spots during the battle. I really think the zoners should be freed a direct result of Superman reversing time at the end of the first film. Wasn't that actually the plan at some point? I'm sure there's some combination of the two versions waiting to be made (or a fancut that already has) which would result in the best possible version of Superman II.

[Wenatchee the Hatchet]

I haven't seen the Superman films in years but I'd read that how Donner wrapped up one was that one of the nuclear weapons he redirected to foil Luthor's scheme detonated i nspace and released Zod and compoany from the Phantom Zone. The studio, so I've heard, wouldn't let be the cliff-hanger end of the first film and so the time-travel angle was put in. But if that's totally bogus someone fill in the correct details. I haven't seen either film and years and this stuff I "remember" could be total bunk.