Furie Cut
Schumacher Cut
82 Votes in Poll
131,419
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by The Real Mechagodzilla
Respectfully, Arise Etrigan, I have to say that to the best of my knowledge, both Blade Runner and Once Upon A Time In America were neither critically nor financially successful at their initial release. Once Upon A Time was a box office bomb, only making $5 million against a $30 million budget; critics and audiences alike hated it at the time. As for Blade Runner, it underperformed at the box office and just barely made back its budget; critics were divided on it at the time.
(Edited by The Real Mechagodzilla)
Arise Etrigan, all I can say to that is that I simply don't agree that showcasing the director's full vision is a privilege and not a right. That's just how I view things like this, but I understand where you're coming from and why you feel the way you do
You raise many good points, Arise Etrigan. And I agree with much of what you say. Ultimately, the decision to release a director's cut, assembly cut, Snyder Cut, or whatever you want to call it comes down to the studio heads. And I'm well aware that their decision is purely an economic one. But that doesn't invalidate the content that is offered in these alternate cuts. I concede that most director's cuts are probably just added filler that wasn't wholly necessary to the story. And I'm willing to go a step further and theorize that a "Furie Cut" of Superman 4 would go in that category.
But then there are cases like the "Schumacher Cut," the "Ayer Cut," and most extremely the Snyder Cut. Cases where, while uncommon to this degree, there is meddling which causes the original creative vision of the film to be compromised. Whether or not these alternate cuts end up being good is not my concern; I know that many directors aren't going to put together a flawless masterpiece no matter how promising their intent may seem. I'm sure the Schumacher and Furie cuts would have their own set of problems. But I don't care about that stuff. If they're bad, I will criticize them as I would any other bad movie. But ultimately, I will still be grateful that those versions of the film are out there to be seen.
All directors, whether good or bad, are artists, as film is classified as an art form. As is the case with any painter or sculptor, even if their work is self-indulgent or pretentious or just plain bad, they deserve to have their work seen
I can understand that viewpoint. And if you see all this as clinging to something that isn't there, then fair enough. I can't argue against what you personally believe. But likewise, I personally believe that the worst that will come of these topics is a bunch of nerds talking about movies, and I don't believe any of it will cause any widespread harm
(Edited by The Real Mechagodzilla)
I have to disagree with you there. Yes there are certainly many people who either don't understand or don't care about the business aspect of these films. But I would also bring up the point that studios tend to not understand or not care about the creative aspects of these films. And in many cases, it's their meddling that brings about fan disappointment in the first place. I personally think it's reasonable for people to be angry at the studios for altering a film from what the creative team originally intended, especially when those alterations may have made the film worse from its original version. And in general, if a group of consumers have certain requests, the company should be ready to fulfill those requests. Otherwise, that company will naturally lose money. That's how businesses have always functioned
As for these cuts not existing, I will also admit that for theorized cuts such as the Ayer Cut for Suicide Squad or the Abrams Cut for Rise of Skywalker, details on them are extremely hazy and there's no way to tell how feasible a director's cut is. But as for the cuts I've listed here - the Furie Cut for Superman 4 and the Schumacher Cut for Batman Forever - the footage most certainly exists. Superman 4 had a 134 minute cut at one point for test screenings. Batman Forever had a 170 minute assembly cut at one point before WB ordered all the darker material to be cut out. The footage for these movies exists, and they were filmed and edited together. To reconstruct them would just be a matter of locating all the right footage in their vaults and re-editing them back into the full film. Of course the footage would also have to be restored and music and sound effects would likely have to be added, but considering the effort that WB is about to undergo to finish the Snyder Cut, completing Superman 4 and Batman Forever shouldn't be that much of a daunting task for them.
As long as it isn't hurting anyone, then I don't really mind. I think that if a studio messes with a director's vision, then that original version should be seen. I don't necessarily support any of these cuts because I think the version's would be better. In fact, there are plenty of these theoretical director's cuts that I think would be worse. For me, it's just about getting the director's vision out there, whether good or bad. But even for most people who simply just want a better version of a certain movie, I don't see anything wrong with letting them dream