Question:
I know its a dumb question but on chanel 5 the other day there was a filum on and in the paper the snipet under the filum said "Directors cut so some sceans missing from the Big Screen".
I always thought that the Directors cut was the final cut before the BFC (think its the BFC that edits the filum before release).
Thank You
MR_MAN
The Directors cut is the version of the film that the Director prefers.
This is sometimes altered by the studio before it is released to theatres.
The BBFC will also insist on cuts (if they feel they are needed) before the film is released.
Depends on the film really. The director has his version of the film but sometimes that dosen't all ways tie up with the studio's. So bits get cut out for length reasons, because they don't really add to the story, to get a lower certificate or because test audiences don't like it.
Now more recently thanks to video and DVD Directors sometimes get a chance to release there vision of the film.
As far as i know Spielberg started this all off with Close Encounters and since then James Cameron just can't stop churning out diffrent versions of his film.
The studio's tend to be happy because they can sell the same film twice.
Special mention must go to the Coen Brother for actually doing a Directors cut of Blood simple that was shorter than the original release.
Special mention must go to the Coen Brother for actually doing a Directors cut of Blood simple that was shorter than the original release.
Isn't David Lynch's preferred version of Dune actually shorter than the one the studio prefers?
At the end of the day it's all a con, if a director had any clout he would release the the "Directors Cut" first time round.
All studios are out to make money, don't fall for the directors version or the uncut or the unreleased version, at the end of the day all the studio whants you do too is buy all of them.
Of course the studios are out to make money, but I hardly think it's fair to blame directors as well. You only have to look at the trouble studios gave Ridley Scott and Terry Gilliam with Bladerunner and Brazil, and these were very singleminded directors with a couple of well thought of films already under their belts.
I think the director's cut basically means the version the director intended you to see rather than what you actually saw in the cinema.
Originally posted by Bluenose
At the end of the day it's all a con, if a director had any clout he would release the the "Directors Cut" first time round.
Most Hollywood directors - the overwhelming majority, in fact - don't have that kind of clout. Usually, the best they can hope for is something like three contractually guaranteed test screenings before the film's financiers take over.
In Europe, especially France, directors usually have far more control over the final cut - which is why you get hardly any "director's cuts" on this side of the Atlantic.
I always thought that the Directors cut was the final cut before the BFC (think its the BFC that edits the filum before release).
Thank You
MR_MAN
Answers:
The Directors cut is the version of the film that the Director prefers.
This is sometimes altered by the studio before it is released to theatres.
The BBFC will also insist on cuts (if they feel they are needed) before the film is released.
Answers:
Depends on the film really. The director has his version of the film but sometimes that dosen't all ways tie up with the studio's. So bits get cut out for length reasons, because they don't really add to the story, to get a lower certificate or because test audiences don't like it.
Now more recently thanks to video and DVD Directors sometimes get a chance to release there vision of the film.
As far as i know Spielberg started this all off with Close Encounters and since then James Cameron just can't stop churning out diffrent versions of his film.
The studio's tend to be happy because they can sell the same film twice.
Special mention must go to the Coen Brother for actually doing a Directors cut of Blood simple that was shorter than the original release.
Answers:
Special mention must go to the Coen Brother for actually doing a Directors cut of Blood simple that was shorter than the original release.
Isn't David Lynch's preferred version of Dune actually shorter than the one the studio prefers?
Answers:
At the end of the day it's all a con, if a director had any clout he would release the the "Directors Cut" first time round.
All studios are out to make money, don't fall for the directors version or the uncut or the unreleased version, at the end of the day all the studio whants you do too is buy all of them.
Answers:
Of course the studios are out to make money, but I hardly think it's fair to blame directors as well. You only have to look at the trouble studios gave Ridley Scott and Terry Gilliam with Bladerunner and Brazil, and these were very singleminded directors with a couple of well thought of films already under their belts.
Answers:
I think the director's cut basically means the version the director intended you to see rather than what you actually saw in the cinema.
Answers:
Originally posted by Bluenose
At the end of the day it's all a con, if a director had any clout he would release the the "Directors Cut" first time round.
Most Hollywood directors - the overwhelming majority, in fact - don't have that kind of clout. Usually, the best they can hope for is something like three contractually guaranteed test screenings before the film's financiers take over.
In Europe, especially France, directors usually have far more control over the final cut - which is why you get hardly any "director's cuts" on this side of the Atlantic.
1 2