Which Film's Director's Cut was Superior to its Original Cut?

[Beastiel]

I'd call the lord of the rings EE directors cuts because they're quite literally PJ's cuts. Those are the movies the ways he wanted them, pacing and all, before trimming them down for theatrical release.

I really don't know...but that dream sequence was already in "Fellowship" - so that would have been some long planning ahead (as it really should have been...looking at you, SW 7-9)

Majority of the fellowship scenes were actually the last scenes of the trilogy to be filmed, but I don't think they'd ever plan on having both the return of the king saruman/grima scene AND the scouring of the shire. iirc it was briefly considered but they felt it was important that the shire retains the motif of being a home and safe haven

[Skizzit]

Films improved by Director's Cut:

- Apocalypse Now

That one is debatable. Many people, myself among them, think the redux and/or Final Cut versions of that movie don't really add much beyond an extended running time. The added scenes don't add much of substance to the movie at all. I think the original version is still the best version.

[Ivanstone]

Once Upon A Time In America

The director's cut is excellent. I haven't seen the original cut but from what I've read its supposedly a train wreck.

Same goes for Touch of Evil.

Daredevil director's cut is a better movie than the original. Both cuts are still mainly interesting because of Colin Farrell's Bullseye performance.

[Stormspark]

Films improved by Director's Cut:

- Apocalypse Now
- Almost Famous (called Bootleg version for hollywood politic reasons)
- Waterworld*
- Sucker Punch*
- Watchmen
- BvS*
- Daredevil*

* - Still not great (or good) movies, but director's cut made them better

I don't consider the LotR films to be director's cut since the extended editions were available immediately when they hit DVD. I see some responses about Alien/s which I would say are good, but I don't think the director's cut really added that much (probably because they were already great) to be worth mentioning; unlike the ones I listed above in which the director's cut added substantial elements to the movie that notably elevate them.

As for the 2nd question, I'd recommend the films listed above that don't have an asterisk.

I somehow missed Watchmen...I have the super extended edition that has the animated comic, and it's awesome.

Also, Avatar, the extended edition made it a lot better too.

[Steelangel]

The LOTR extended editions actually aren't better than the theatrical films. They're just longer, really, for people who can't get enough. For example the Saruman scene at the beginning of ROTK doesn't fit the pace of the film and feels quite strange. The theatrical cut feels much smoother, but Christopher Lee was disappointed that he wasn't featured. The original cuts of Fellowship and Two Towers are basically perfect movies, and the new content only slows them down.

The best part of the extended editions were all the awesome bonus features.

Hard disagree; the extended cuts may not be better films as films, but they are much better in line with the form that the books take.

[FatGandalf]

Aliens
Alien 3
Almost Famous
The Abyss
LOTR
Kingdom of heaven
Watchmen

[Verdugo]

(even if he's still there because he's the heir of some nobility)

Isnt that how it worked back then?

[ParanoiD84]

Kingdom of heaven, so much better with the directors cut it's one of my all time favorite movies.

And of course Apocalypse Now also one of my favorite movies.

[caervek]

Aliens, Terminator 2, both of which make much more sense than the cut down versions.

Oh, and because I'm British an Honorable mention for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (IIRC we were the only country not to get the uncut version lol).

- - - Updated - - -

i find directors cuts or extended cuts to detract from the value of a film.

It varies from film to film, for some it's a load of stuff that was cut down to make the film better (I.E Men of honour), for others it's good stuff cut to hit a running time (I.E Aliens) or good stuff cut to drop the age rating (I.E Terminator 2).

[Absintheminded]

Aliens, Terminator 2, both of which make much more sense than the cut down versions.

Oh, and because I'm British an Honorable mention for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (IIRC we were the only country not to get the uncut version lol).

- - - Updated - - -


It varies from film to film, for some it's a load of stuff that was cut down to make the film better (I.E Men of honour), for others it's good stuff cut to hit a running time (I.E Aliens) or good stuff cut to drop the age rating (I.E Terminator 2).

You talking about 1990 or the 2014 shitshow?

Edit: ah 1990, I see now where UK and Germany had edited out versions with no nunchucks and shredded Shredder.

[Wezmon]

I found the T2 extended to be much much worse.

The good was the extended scene where they adjust the terminator's CPU and the awesome practical effects they did for it, but...

They added a scene with Dyson that humanized him by showing his family and I think that was a big mistake. The original did better having him be some potentially sinister guy that's going to destroy the world, right up until his little boy lays on him crying just before Sarah can "terminate" him and making her realize what she's doing. I think the audience knowing he isn't a bad guy before that moment weakens it and so cutting the earlier scene with his family was a necessary move.

One bit I can never get why they cut, was after the T1000 is shattered at the end, he struggles to hold himself together. There's a small 5 second part with his hand getting stuck to a railing. Then in the final scene when he is pretending to be sarah, the real sarah comes up behind him. In the original, john just "knows" which one is his mum, but in the directors cut he looks down and see the melty feet. For 10 seconds of more film time they cut a whole load of sense.

https://youtu.be/yiBHj8Xs4sg?t=16

[Kersey]

I am Legend