Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's to one DC movie that don't get the extended cut treatment. Batman V. Superman was bad enough, now Suicide Squad is getting one. Smart marketing WB.
Here's to one DC movie that don't get the extended cut treatment. Batman V. Superman was bad enough, now Suicide Squad is getting one. Smart marketing WB.
I like Director's Cuts if the theatrical release was due to studio or marketing interference. I would much rather see the director's true vision. The final cut of Blade Runner is a better movie. The director's cut of ALIENS is a better movie. The extended editions of The Lord of the Rings films were far better movies. Same with Jackson's KING KONG.
But extended editions that are just marketing ploys? Or "let's monkey with it some more to see if we can make it suck less?" No. When that happens, I always remember Scorsese's answer to why he doesn't do Director's Cuts: "Because I try to get it right the first time."
I like Director's Cuts if the theatrical release was due to studio or marketing interference. I would much rather see the director's true vision. The final cut of Blade Runner is a better movie.
I thought you and I agreed Scott didn't get that right.
I thought you and I agreed Scott didn't get that right.
I don't think Scott understands his own movie. But the theatrical release's "vacation in the country" ending made no sense at all. The Final Cut axing that was warranted.
As for the voiceover everyone hates so much ... I don't really mind it. True, some of it is badly written ("Sushi. Cold fish. Yeah, that's what my wife called me.") And in places it is intrusive and unnecessary (Batty's death). But the style is very much in keeping with the hard-boiled detective film noir movies of the '40s and '50s.
I don't think Scott understands his own movie. But the theatrical release's "vacation in the country" ending made no sense at all. The Final Cut axing that was warranted.
I'm not sure I saw "the final cut." I saw the "director's cut." There were at least three cuts.
Quote:
As for the voiceover everyone hates so much ... I don't really mind it. True, some of it is badly written ("Sushi. Cold fish. Yeah, that's what my wife called me.") And in places it is intrusive and unnecessary (Batty's death). But the style is very much in keeping with the hard-boiled detective film noir movies of the '40s and '50s.
I like Director's Cuts if the theatrical release was due to studio or marketing interference. I would much rather see the director's true vision. The final cut of Blade Runner is a better movie. The director's cut of ALIENS is a better movie. The extended editions of The Lord of the Rings films were far better movies. Same with Jackson's KING KONG.
But extended editions that are just marketing ploys? Or "let's monkey with it some more to see if we can make it suck less?" No. When that happens, I always remember Scorsese's answer to why he doesn't do Director's Cuts: "Because I try to get it right the first time."
I like it if it truly adds to a film like Daredevil or even Batman V. Superman. As I mentioned with Suicide Squad it don't look like they could or should add anything back to it. I hate hearing that a film a movie that a studio put out isn't the "definitive" version of a film. If it happens say a year later or more, I have no real problem with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.