Should film directors be allowed to tinker with their films after release?

Question

I'm starting to get a little frustrated with all the director's cuts and special editions at the DVD store. I also don't like it when directors go back years later and make changes (i.e. Spielberg with ET and Lucas with the Star Wars movies). I know it is about making more money, but I feel protective of the movies I fell in love with as a kid. What do you think?

Okay, I know I don't have to buy the director's cuts and special editions but that realy isn't the point. I am asking about whether the original expression of the filmmaker's art should be respected and protected.

Answer 1

Guys like Lucas and Spielberg are complete cowards, and they have lost all of the genius they once possessed. Neither of them have the ability to tell good stories anymore, only update special effects. Think about it, for Lucas, all three of the new star wars movies were pale comparisons (story wise) to the first three. Of course the effects are better that is a result of technology. In Spielberg's case has anyone else seen that steaming pile of manure called War of the Worlds? How about making Han Solo fire second or taking guns out of the hands of police in ET?

Both of those men were genius's in their youth but have lost their talent in their old age. Now they are destroying their legacies by their own actions.

Just to Add one other thing, once you release a work of art to the world it no longer belongs to you. If Di Vinci wanted to destroy the Mona Lisa the world should not allow it.

Answer 2

I am also frustrated with the process too....it goes from "special edition" to "collector's edition" to "special director's cut" to "extended director's cut" to "ultimate edition" to "special collector's extended director's cut ultimate edition." Sheesh, it's just so annoying that studios think we're so stupid.

But, see, I think in most cases, it's the studios, not so much the directors, who are to blame. They want to keep their share of the market, and have to constantly come up with new and "better" editions to do so, make their stockholders happy, blah blah blah.

In some instances (Blade Runner and the recent Kingdom of Heaven), it drastically improves what was already a good film. And in the case of Peter Jackson, he knew AHEAD of time that his LOTR films wouldn't play well in theatres at the intended length, so he planned for that with a longer dvd release, which I think is a great idea.

But do we really need the "uncensored cut" of Dodgeball? When it was only, what, two minutes of missing scenes added in, when they could have just been put on the extras of the original release? That's the studio at work, not the director.

Monty Python poked great fun at this with their Holy Grail release, which I think proudly lists something like "seven seconds restored!"

So, just send the studios a message, and just buy the ones you're fond of. I tend to wait for a while, let the release come and go, and wait for the "uber-fantastic-super" edition anyway (it's for this very reason I still don't own Kill Bill, one of my fave flicks....you KNOW Quentin is going to put out a SE in another five years or so).

Now, as far as SHOULD directors be ALLOWED to tinker with their films? Well, if da Vinci wanted to paint a huge wart on the nose of the Mona Lisa after he was done....it's his painting. Same goes for the film director....they spend years and years getting them made, and if they don't like what the studio forces them to release, I think they have the right to complete it the way they intended, for better or worse.

just read your UPDATE: This is, of course, ASSUMING that what was released was the director's "original expression"....what he intended. This is VERY rarely the case, as there are so few directors in Hollywood that get final cut. So, what would be the point of "protecting" a director's "original expression" if that wasn't what he wanted released to theatres in the first place? We still don't know what Greed, The Rules of the Game, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil might have been....the studios made sure of that.

I don't think it's right to assume, just because we pay eight bucks to sit down in the theatre, that we're justified in demanding the same experience at home. We have the CHOICE to go to the movie or not, buy the dvd or not. In most instances, the director does NOT have that choice. What is released is what the studio head wants released, not what the artistic visionary had in mind (look no farther than the "happy ending" version of Terry Gilliam's Brazil for a perfect example).

It's their work. Yes, they have the right, if they have the legal permission, and studio support, to achieve their original intention.

Answer 3

As long as they still leave the theatrical versions available for purchase like the Lord of the Rings films.

In some cases the "money" factor is more from the theatrical release. In the case of the BRILLIANT film "Amadeus" the longer director's cut is a FAR superior film, but it was too long in the 1980s to release a film that LONG.

Also, the director's cut of "Dances with Wolves" another GREAT but somewhat long film... the director's cut is even longer... and in fact, a better film.

Sometimes it is just easier to watch a 4 hour film in the comfort of one's own home.

Movies are like most any other industry, they are there to make money.

Answer 4

It's the producers of a film that usually call the shots - they put up the money for funding the film. In alot of cases, the "director's cuts" are how the director wanted the film to end up originally, but due to time limitations or if a scene was too violently or sexually graphic that scene was chopped. But I do agree with you about taking older movies and making additions to them now that everything is coming out on DVD. I felt the same way when they desided to colorize old black/white movies - to my it ruined them!

Answer 5

I don't have a problem with is as long as the originals are still available. I think a director owes something to the audience that made a particular version of a movie successful.

Answer 6

I feel the same way. I even began to wonder why no else was mentioning this. But it's their movie so they think they can do whatever they want, even if its just to make more money-as if they don't have enough. But some people would do it too for all kinds of reasons. And they don't think of the original fan base--if it wasn't for them it wounldn't be around today, so they better watch out!--

Answer 7

It's their movie, so really I guess they can do whatever they want with it.

If you don't like the director's cuts, don't buy them. Buy the good old classics you like and cherish them. You don't need to buy the special editions they come out with.

Answer 8

Just for the record, I HATE Appocolypse Now Redux.