Directors Cut/Theatrical Cut/Special Eddition/Chronological Version - Which are we meant to choose?

[SkScotchegg]

I've seen 4 different words as posted above in the title to discribe the different versions of movies, but why so many and what do they all mean?

It got me thinking, do you guys know of a website that has been setup that list all movies and their different versions and explains the details of each version and which is best sort of thing.

I'm just hoping someone will know of such a website for me to store in my favourates because such a website would come in handy.

Lets say tonight I decide, right, I'm going to watch memento, but there's 4 versions, which do I choose? I then head to that website, spend 60 seconds reading about each version and see using comments below and star rating and then I decide, right I'll watch the chronological version for example.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Vonhelmet]

imdb or wikipedia will have the info, but whether or not it's readily accessible I'm not sure.

I also can't think of many films for which there will be a "chronological" edition, and such an edition may not even be any good. Memento is an obvious one, but there it's a curiosity and detracts from the quality of the film rather than adding to it. Pulp Fiction could have one as well, but as I recall if that were chronological, the film would end with Bruce Willis and the girl riding off on the chopper with Willis saying "Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead." which would be a rubbish ending.

Invariably, the theatrical cut will be the best, because generally editors do a good job, and a director should be involved in the editing process enough to get a decent film out. Sometimes, they can't, due to pressures from the people in charge, in which case sometimes, though not always, the director's cut is a better bet. This will often be the case where a film would be too long or would get too high a certificate for the target audience at the cinema, at which point there may be scope for releasing a better cut on DVD, but that's not guaranteed. Special editions? Platinum editions? Turbo-charged-extra-4-minutes-of-navel-gazing editions? Most of them aren't worth much, and it's often just an excuse for releasing another overpriced DVD boxset or whatever, a la Lucas and Star Wars.

 

[Droolinggimp]

I would always go for the Directors cut personally. They tend to have the extra bits or scenes the Director wanted from day one (or extened (more in depth) story line. For example; The Lord of the Rings) and like what Vonhelmet said, pressure from people above could prevent the Director editing the one he wants for the Theatrical release.

As for Chronological cuts, the only one I can think of which benefited from this was the God Father. Although watching the normal versions is best as the second film is superb and when it switches to the early days its a great feeling.

 

[SkScotchegg]

Thanks for your replies.

Well I thought it was important to look this stuff up, two examples of when this came into play for me are; I went through most of my life watching the original versions of aliens and then when I saw the special edition with the sentry guns I really enjoyed it and couldn't believe I'd never seen that footage before.

Also Avatar, I saw it in the cinema and then later got the extended edition and it had like 30 mins extra footage, like at the star the footage set on earth with him at the bar and the bar fight and then later in the kids school on the avatar planet etc.

And also I saw the lord of the rings extended editions and they had loads more footage too.

Does extended edition mean the same as directors cut btw?

 

[tom_e]

There is a website that shows you all the differences between different versions but I can't for the life of me remember what it's called. Not much use I know but at least now you know there's one out there somewhere

 

[cm1179]

I went through most of my life watching the original versions of aliens and then when I saw the special edition with the sentry guns I really enjoyed it and couldn't believe I'd never seen that footage before.

then you need alien 3 SE in your life. also watch what the original idea for the film and its setting was going to be in the special features.

 

[Flibster]

Taking Blade Runner as an example:

There was 2 versions of the theatrical release, a 'Directors Cut', the Final Cut and the Workprint

It could be as easy as there were some cuts required to get a certain certificate in the UK and at a later date they release the uncut version of the movie as the Extended version, when it was how it was meant to be seen in the first place.

Sometimes due to the studios the directors are forced to cut the movie in a certain way and it's not what they wanted, so at a later point the Directors original version becomes available. For a good example of this take a look at Payback and it's Directors cut.

Chromological cuts are a rarity. Only one's I'm aware of are fanedited versions of Pulp Fiction. They tend not to work very well at all as the film wasn't intended to be watched that way.

I tend to watch the directors cuts when possible, when they are actually done by the directors that is, not by the studios and then released as the directors cut.

As for Chronological cuts, the only one I can think of which benefited from this was the God Father. Although watching the normal versions is best as the second film is superb and when it switches to the early days its a great feeling.

Of course! How could I have forgotten that! That version is my favourite version of the Godfather films, but it is 10 hours long iirc. It's also entirely in 4:3 rather than widescreen. It's on my wishlist for Bluray releases.