On Nov 1, 8:55 am, FoggyTown <foggyt...@aol.com> wrote:
> I suppose a director's cut must be an opportunity for the director to > present a film to the public the way HE (and not the producer) thinks > it should have been presented. And they are also opportunities to re- > launch films so that the general public pays to see it twice.
> Which films have had a directors' cut version released that actually > made a significant improvement to the original release?
On Nov 1, 5:55 am, FoggyTown <foggyt...@aol.com> wrote:
> I suppose a director's cut must be an opportunity for the director to > present a film to the public the way HE (and not the producer) thinks > it should have been presented. And they are also opportunities to re- > launch films so that the general public pays to see it twice.
> Which films have had a directors' cut version released that actually > made a significant improvement to the original release?
Peter Jackson doesn't call them the longer Lord of the Rings films that were released onto dvd Director's cuts but I liked them even more.
<classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 5:55 am, FoggyTown <foggyt...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I suppose a director's cut must be an opportunity for the director to > > present a film to the public the way HE (and not the producer) thinks > > it should have been presented. And they are also opportunities to re- > > launch films so that the general public pays to see it twice.
> > Which films have had a directors' cut version released that actually > > made a significant improvement to the original release?
> Peter Jackson doesn't call them the longer Lord of the Rings films > that were released onto dvd Director's cuts but I liked them even more.
They are called Extended Editions, and are FAR better than the theatrical releases.
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > On Nov 6, 12:08 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" > <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 1, 5:55 am, FoggyTown <foggyt...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I suppose a director's cut must be an opportunity for the director to > > > present a film to the public the way HE (and not the producer) thinks > > > it should have been presented. And they are also opportunities to re- > > > launch films so that the general public pays to see it twice.
> > > Which films have had a directors' cut version released that actually > > > made a significant improvement to the original release?
> > Peter Jackson doesn't call them the longer Lord of the Rings films > > that were released onto dvd Director's cuts but I liked them even more.
> They are called Extended Editions, and are FAR better than the > theatrical releases.
I think it's in the commentary for Return of the King where Jackson says he actually hates a couple of the scenes they put back, but they were filmed and his two female partners like them :)
-- Chris Mack *quote under construction* 'Invid Fan'
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 12:08 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" > > <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 5:55 am, FoggyTown <foggyt...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > I suppose a director's cut must be an opportunity for the director to > > > > present a film to the public the way HE (and not the producer) thinks > > > > it should have been presented. And they are also opportunities to re- > > > > launch films so that the general public pays to see it twice.
> > > > Which films have had a directors' cut version released that actually > > > > made a significant improvement to the original release?
> > > Peter Jackson doesn't call them the longer Lord of the Rings films > > > that were released onto dvd Director's cuts but I liked them even more.
> > They are called Extended Editions, and are FAR better than the > > theatrical releases.
> I think it's in the commentary for Return of the King where Jackson > says he actually hates a couple of the scenes they put back, but they > were filmed and his two female partners like them :)
I like them too, whatever they were, probably, because the filmed scenes that were cut out were almost invariably scenes from the book that were deemed unnecessary for the movie:
1) The final two encounters with Saruman, combined into one; totally cut from the theatrical movie, leaving the fate of Saruman hanging.
2) The parley with the Mouth of Sauron at the gate of Mordor, though this scene did include a dishonorable un-Tolkienish conclusion.
3) Sam seeing the 'star' in Mordor, a brief moment of beauty that would have helped the theatrical version. Book lovers knew that Sam was seeing the Silmaril on Earendel's brow.
4) The 'capture' of Frodo and Sam by the marching orcs in Mordor.
5) Merry and Aragorn as Gandalf and Pippin rode away from Edoras; not in the book, but still a nice scene in the movie about the love of the two hobbits.
|
