Support NeoGAF

[Cosmic Smash]

When asked if he would be interested in going back and revisiting some of his films in a more long-form, extended cut, such as what Tarantino did recently with “The Hateful Eight,” where he made his film into a Netflix miniseries, Scorsese scoffs at the idea and the idea of director’s cuts in general. Why? Well, simply put, every film he’s released has been his director’s cut.

“No, no, no, no, no!” said Scorsese. “The director’s cut is the film that’s released — unless it’s been taken away from the director by the financiers and the studio. [The director] has made their decisions based on the process they were going through at the time.”
He continued, “There could be money issues, there could be somebody that dies [while making] the picture, the studio changes heads and the next person hates it. Sometimes [a director says], ‘I wish I could go back and put it all back together.’ All these things happen … But I do think once the die is cast, you have to go with it and say, ‘That’s the movie I made under those circumstances.’”
The filmmaker goes on to give an example of when a director’s cut of a film is warranted by bringing to mind Sam Peckinpah’s “Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.”
“You should take a look at Sam Peckinpah’s ‘Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid,’” he explained. “I saw the full version a few days before it opened at a meeting and it was two hours and 20 minutes or so. Then MGM released their version and it was 90 minutes. We all said, ‘Oh no, it was a masterpiece,’ and wished it could be saved.”

He added, “The editor saved a copy and what you see now is what we saw in that meeting. That is a director’s cut. And if the editor said there was another 20 minutes that Peckinpah wanted to keep in there, I would have loved to see those 20 minutes. So I understand the idea of an audience wanting to be entertained for another 20 minutes in that world.”

Source: The Playlist

 

[#Phonepunk#]

IMO release cut is always the ideal option to appreciating an older work. not saying the creator cannot release variations on their work, but that the consumer is best served understanding the appeal of any work (movies, art, literature, music) in it's original "release". this is true for pretty much everything. if you want to hear the Beatles the optimum way, you should listen to a vinyl release, the media in mind when the albums were created. if you want to see Empire Strikes Back the best way to do it is via a VHS or Laserdisc release (the medium of the era).

the "final cut" is an important thing. often the creator wishes they had more time, as an artist you may even be kind of tortured by a self disgust with what you create, so you keep working on it, trying to make it better, going over and over every details, because it's "not good enough yet". when a final cut happens, it ends that process, the creative choices are locked in place. artists are always compelled by lack of time & other circumstances to go with a certain decision, they must be allowed to change opinions, to evolve the story & aesthetics, this is the creative process itself.

the final cut decision becomes part of the film's initial reception. it does not matter if the intent was to eventually change things and the artist is interrupted by a corporation. the result is the result. it is what it is. often when i make my own art, i could spend ages tinkering with it, never fully satisfied, and in order for it to be set free, it has to be finalized. finalization is a sort of death, it is the end of the creative process in a way. whether the finalizing it chosen by the creator or his investors/employers, it ends up coming out a certain way due to the real life circumstances that go into the film. these should not be ignored in favor of deconstruction or re-contextualization (a la postmodernism). these circumstances leading to the final cut are the real world intruding, giving painful birth, the imagined dream of this fantasy work becoming a real world product the rest of us can see and appreciate.

for these reasons, I think that while demos and special editions and directors cuts are great ways to get more out of a work or artist, the best #1 primary place to go will be original release. if for no other reason than to provide an accurate historical version of the work, perfectly preserved as initially released.

 

[sol_bad]

Directors cut can sometimes be very important. There are many cases were films are overrun by the studio and they ruin what could have been a good film. I'm positive some directors careers have been cut short due to studio decisions.

I honestly feel that Scorsese's answer feels a bit arrogant, he is an amazingly talented director and due to this he has a lot of power and like he said he always gets his final cut. Which is great for him but not every director gets that chance. If a director gets the chance to fix their movie that the studio ruined, I say that's great. Actually, he doesn't even seem to understand the question or what the Hateful Eight "miniseries" is. It isn't a "directors cut", Netflix approached Tarantino with an idea and Tarantino found that idea very intriguing, turning a film in to a miniseries.

Exclusive: Quentin Tarantino Tells Us How And Why He Created 'The Hateful Eight' Miniseries For Netflix - SlashFilm

Quentin Tarantino tells us how he personally put together the Netflix miniseries version of The Hateful Eight, and why.

www.slashfilm.com

 

[Fusrodah]

Totally agree with him, if a story has all the right pieces in the right place, why to do that?
Usually a director's cut it's a "personal vision" of the story that is not influenced by cuts for "rating problems" or by studios executives...

 

[Nymphae]

I always watch the theatrical version and never extended cuts. I'm sure the occasional Director's Cut might actually add something, but in general I like seeing things as they were originally viewed.

 

[Master Of Illusion]

IMO release cut is always the ideal option to appreciating an older work. not saying the creator cannot release variations on their work, but that the consumer is best served understanding the appeal of any work (movies, art, literature, music) in it's original "release". this is true for pretty much everything. if you want to hear the Beatles the optimum way, you should listen to a vinyl release, the media in mind when the albums were created. if you want to see Empire Strikes Back the best way to do it is via a VHS or Laserdisc release (the medium of the era).

the "final cut" is an important thing. often the creator wishes they had more time, as an artist you may even be kind of tortured by a self disgust with what you create, so you keep working on it, trying to make it better, going over and over every details, because it's "not good enough yet". when a final cut happens, it ends that process, the creative choices are locked in place. artists are always compelled by lack of time & other circumstances to go with a certain decision, they must be allowed to change opinions, to evolve the story & aesthetics, this is the creative process itself.

the final cut decision becomes part of the film's initial reception. it does not matter if the intent was to eventually change things and the artist is interrupted by a corporation. the result is the result. it is what it is. often when i make my own art, i could spend ages tinkering with it, never fully satisfied, and in order for it to be set free, it has to be finalized. finalization is a sort of death, it is the end of the creative process in a way. whether the finalizing it chosen by the creator or his investors/employers, it ends up coming out a certain way due to the real life circumstances that go into the film. these should not be ignored in favor of deconstruction or re-contextualization (a la postmodernism). these circumstances leading to the final cut are the real world intruding, giving painful birth, the imagined dream of this fantasy work becoming a real world product the rest of us can see and appreciate.

for these reasons, I think that while demos and special editions and directors cuts are great ways to get more out of a work or artist, the best #1 primary place to go will be original release. if for no other reason than to provide an accurate historical version of the work, perfectly preserved as initially released.

Unless it's Blade Runner or Kingdom Of Heaven.

Studios can go fuck themselves sometimes.

 

[brap]

I always watch the theatrical version and never extended cuts. I'm sure the occasional Director's Cut might actually add something, but in general I like seeing things as they were originally viewed.

I'm sorry but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Director's cuts are usually the way to go unless it's like Sex Drive where it takes away from the movie. That's the way the movie was supposed to be. It's like watching the edited for tv versions of South Park instead of the original the next day online.

 

[Nymphae]

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

lol ok. Just saying I can't really think of a DC that stands out in my mind that I've seen, and "extended cut" versions literally just add in shit that was edited out for time or to lower the rating, from my experience the movies are better without this additional content. One example of this from recent memory is the Dumb & Dumber extended cut. They just added in a handful of stuff that was left on the editing room floor (IIRC there was one bit where Lloyd calls Harry a fag for something lol), and this near perfect movie I had seen like a million times didn't feel the same with this previously edited shit added in.

 

[MaestroMike]

Unless it's Blade Runner or Kingdom Of Heaven.

Studios can go fuck themselves sometimes.

I wonder if that Amazon show is any good I never see Orlando Bloom anymore I like him Kingdom of Heaven DC was dope I need to watch it again

 

[brap]

lol ok.

Ok I edited my post. I forgot the beginning.

(IIRC there was one bit where Lloyd calls Harry a fag for something lol)

Ok that is NOT ok. Thank god that got cut.

Adding back in the edgy shit the pussy ass MPAA cut out is usually better if it's R-rated or a horror movie. Action too. Imagine not watching the uncut version of Once Upon A Time In America. Imagine. Just awful.

 

[sol_bad]

lol ok. Just saying I can't really think of a DC that stands out in my mind that I've seen, and "extended cut" versions literally just add in shit that was edited out for time or to lower the rating, from my experience the movies are better without this additional content. One example of this from recent memory is the Dumb & Dumber extended cut. They just added in a handful of stuff that was left on the editing room floor (IIRC there was one bit where Lloyd calls Harry a fag for something lol), and this near perfect movie I had seen like a million times didn't feel the same with this previously edited shit added in.

Extended cuts are generally studio derived and pointless.
Director cuts generally come from the creative side. It usually means the original film was tampered with by the studio and the directors vision was not met.

 

[Shifty]

Indeed, in an ideal world, the release cut should always be the director's intended cut.

Unfortunately the world of Hollywood is anything but ideal.

 

[Tesseract]

sometimes they good, sometimes they not

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Unless it's Blade Runner or Kingdom Of Heaven.

Studios can go fuck themselves sometimes.

yes. tho sometimes i think without a studio, the movie would never get finished. plus the studio is always going to have a say in the final release of a large production. even if they do not have final cut they control promotion, distribution, sales, marketing, etc. preserving an artist's vision is important, but shouldn't be at the expense of dismissing theatrical cuts.

a creative can get caught up in reshoots and tweaks. sometimes having a deadline is a good thing. it can even drive creative inspiration through sheer necessity.

 

[BigBooper]

I feel like he probably had more ability to control the production and editing than most do, so he would naturally feel less like doing it.

I think it's kind of a silly way of thinking about it. Most people like 4k remasters of classic movies even though what most people had at the time of release was much worse quality. This seems the same to me.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

I can see where he's coming from, but not many directors have the clout to tell the studio execs to sit down and shut up.

I judge these things on a case-by-case basis. The extended cut of the LOTR trilogy is much better than the theatrical cut IMO, but the 'colorized' version of Young Frankenstine looks like weapons-grade ass.

 

[SirKicksalot]

Depends on the director.

Peter Jackson's director cuts of LOTR and The Hobbit are the theatrical versions. He made the extended versions for the fans but considers they ruin the pacing. Same for James Cameron except The Abyss.

Ridley Scott is on record saying he's fine with butchered theatrical releases because it's the studio's money lol. Kingdom of Heaven and Legend are extraordinary in his extended home versions, Gladiator and Alien are interesting but I could live without them.

Troy is much better in the extended cut. Alexander, which was my most painful theater experience, was turned into kino of the highest quality.