Director's Cuts

I just got done watching a movie I loathe, Daredevil, in it's Director Cut form. And you know what? I liked it. A lot. Heck, I'm even going to buy it and I used to be a confirmed hater of this film. This new cut changed the whole tone and attitude of the film, making it darker and all-around better. Seeing how much this film changed with the quick trim/cut or a subtle addition got me thinking: Why are Director's Cuts ALMOST ALWAYS better than original cuts? I mean, whenever we hear of a DC we get excited and feel like we might have to buy it again. Just look at how many films are (arguably) improved by DC's or Extended versions:
Lord of the Rings trilogy
Blade Runner
Aliens
Daredevil
The list goes on. The only notable extended cuts that are NOT better than theatricals are usually after-the-fact additions that aren't true DC's (like The Exorcist, Star Wars, etc.) Even most of the DC's that aren't decidedly better by added footage are often not diminished in quality by it. So my question is, why do movie studios not trust directors enough to let them convey their true creative vision? WHy do they let marketing numbers and less-than-maximum accessibility interfere with art? If Daredevil had been released originally as the DC, it would have ranked in the top 10 superhero films. So what gives, Hollywood?

I am talking actual director's cuts, not extended unrated versions. I mean versions officially labeled or known as DC's. While LOTR EE's are not official DC's, Jackson has siad that he prefers those. Most of the listed ones were just unrated extended versions that weren't supervised by the director. Plus, how could you not like Blade Runner DC? It's awesome!

Additionally...

Resident Evil

Pitch Black

Lethal Weapon

The New Guy

The Girl Next Door

Nutty Professor II

Spawn

Eurotrip

Harold and Kumar go to White Castle (not out yet, but the cover is just like any of the other mentioned teen movies that shows some nudity to sell itself more)

Van Wilder

Road Trip

Soul Plane

White Chicks

Taking Lives

The Sweetest thing


C'mon, how many of these actually add to the film, and how many just slap the "unrated/director's cut" logo on the cover to sell more copies?

"The Exorcist--The Version You've Never Seen"

"Reindeer Games" (horrible movie either way)

"Underworld" (the additions don't add anything to the movie, so they become flab)

Peter Jackson's "LOTR 2" and "LOTR 3"

"Star Wars I", "Star Wars IV", "Star Wars V", "Star Wars VI"

"Apocalypse Now Redux"

"Blade Runner" (they still can't make this movie worth watching for me)

"Any Given Sunday"

"Nixon"

"Armageddon"

"Pearl Harbor"

"King Arthur" (2004)

I haven't seen either version of "Ali", but if the theatrical cut is a chore to watch, then the director's cut may be an endurance test, too.

The list has the potential to be VERY long...

Depression,

Name 5.

I think it's arguable that the worthless DC's outnumber the worthy ones. It's almost as if you're not "hip" if your not releasing a directors cut to milk a film for more money/ self promotion for the sequel hitting theater at the moment.

While the titles you mentioned add to the film, there are many, many others that are selfishly asking for a double dip riding the craze. Instead of genuinely trying to improve the film, a lot of these movies are just adding table scraps.

Why aren't the new cuts of "The Exorcist" and all five "Star Wars" movies also directors' cuts? The changes were made by the directors (or in Lucas's case, the person responsible for the overall vision of a series) in order to satisfy their artistic desires.

I would add the director's cut of The Butterfly Effect to that list...amazing what an additional 9 minutes and an alternate ending can do.

posters5,

Re: the post where you listed several movies:

I noticed that only ONE included the name of the director.
My enquiring mind wants to know why.

TGP,

Given what is on the market, the "Apocalypse Now Redux" DVD is a better deal than the theatrical cut DVD because of better Video/Audio and the chance to see the extra scenes. However, I feel that those scenes should be available in a "deleted scenes" package rather than being tossed back into the movie. Besides, there's a difference between respecting Coppola's vision and having a personal preference. (This is why I'm against people who distribute bootleg versions of any of the "Star Wars" movies even if I think that Lucas's revisions generally weaken the movies.)

Also, considering how expensive movies are, I feel that it's a bit mis-guided (no matter how well-intentioned) to rail against studio interference. It's one thing if a director put up $150 million of his/her own money to make a movie, but when you spend $150 million of someone else's money, you have to answer to that someone else.

Eddie