What is the difference between the theatrical version of the film and the usual. director's cut

Dedicated to all film lovers! We understand the basic concepts of the world of cinema. What does theatrical version of a film, director's cut and extended version mean? Phrases at first glance are incomprehensible, but after reading the article you will find out all the differences that exist between them. Let's analyze and find out!

What is the theatrical version of a film?

Any film has its own theatrical version - that is, the one that could be seen in the cinema with the preservation of timing, dubbing.

This type of cinema attracts and catches the mass audience, which ensures large cash collections from the rental. This means that censorship is observed in the film, contradictory and sharply philosophical scenes that the mass audience may not understand and those that can injure the psyche are excluded.

The main task of the theatrical version of the film is to interest the viewer and keep his attention until the end of the tape.

So what does the theatrical version of the film mean? Summarizing, we can say that the theatrical version is a version for everyone and for everyone, which contains something that may interest the audience to buy a ticket, come to the cinema, relax and enjoy watching a picture with a gripping plot.

What do you mean by extended film?

What does theatrical and extended version of a film mean? What are their differences?

In the extended version of the film, unlike the theatrical version, there are additional scenes. Whether or not to release it depends on the director himself and on how successful the theatrical version was, how much the audience wants to see an additional picture. An extended version can be released for a film that has gathered a huge number of fans interested in additional frames. In addition, an extended version may exist due to age restrictions, it may contain obscene language and bed scenes, unlike the theatrical version.

Director's Cut VS Producer's Cut

What is the theatrical cut of a film and the director's cut? What are their differences? Since the filming process, in addition to the director, is also managed by the producer, on whose money the filming process is carried out, there can be two different visions of the picture. Most often, the one who pays for the action wins the dispute, therefore, in addition to the theatrical version, there is also an independent director's version of the film.

The director's cut may be fundamentally different from all other options. The director's version is a vision of the picture by the director himself, who can replace the actors, swap the actions inside the picture, motivate the characters with other goals, change the visual content, sometimes even make a completely different denouement, in addition, the director can show the viewer the frames cut by the producer or shoot new ones that match his personal vision.

But there are films in which the theatrical and director's version are the same, for example, in the movie "Blade Runner".

Director's cuts of films often cannot be seen in theaters, they can only be bought. How, for example, can you buy a CD with the director's cut of the Marvel movie "Avengers: Infinity War" with an additional 6-minute information about the main villain - Thanos.

The answer to the question of what the theatrical version of the film means, directorial and extended, has been found. Now you have become one step closer to the elite viewer, who owns the terms and concepts from big world movie!

Filmmaking is a multifaceted process that covers all stages of film creation from the development of its concept and approval of the project to the organization of rental and distribution of licensed copies on optical discs for home video. In this process, the most important aspects are the realization of the director's creative idea, the acting, the use of modern technical means for processing the filmed material and the possibility of making a profit from showing the picture to a wide audience. Screening of a film in the director's or theatrical version may serve as different purposes set by the film company and its production team.

Definition

Theatrical version of the film is a film product intended for distribution in cinemas and on television. It must meet certain marketing requirements arising from the commercial component of the production of a particular film, and at the same time have artistic value, which will attract the viewer and will make this film a box office.

director's cut fully realizes the creative intent of the creators of the film. On film set the director has the exclusive right to choose the means and methods of expressing the idea of ​​the film, enhancing the dynamics of the plot and attracting specific effects that affect the audience's perception. This choice may not always serve commercial purposes project, but it is he who determines the quality of the production and the level of directing skill.

Comparison

The main difference between the theatrical version and the director's version is that it is maximally adapted to the interests of the average audience. When creating a theatrical version, many factors are taken into account that contribute to its popularization: the optimal viewing time, during which interest in the film does not weaken, entertainment, the severity of intrigue, the fascination of the plot, the brightness of the acting.

The theatrical version is created for mass viewing, therefore, as a rule, scenes of violence and explicit eroticism, as well as fragments provoking conflicts based on ethnic hatred or religious beliefs, are excluded from it.

The first screen theaters have the initial right to show the released film. After a week of viewing, the theatrical version goes to other cinemas, which are available to a wider audience. Within two to three weeks, the film undergoes a kind of approbation, including monitoring studies, on the basis of which the production team can predict its payback and commercial success. A month after the first show is held detailed analysis initial release and, if necessary, additional adjustments are made to the theatrical version. Taking them into account, the film company grants the right to broadcast the film to TV channels. For television rental and production of optical discs used in home video, V modern cinema apply digital way Digital Intermediate film production, which allows you to receive an unlimited number of copies from hard drives.

The director's cut, unlike the theatrical version, is not released, but can contribute to the active promotion of the film on the film market. It is director's versions of films that are most often presented at film festivals and declared in nominations for prestigious film awards.

The director's cut may differ from the theatrical one in some plot twists, contain additional fragments, have a different ending, which in general changes not the content of the film, but its idea. The right of the director to his own vision of the production of the film is not disputed, but exactly what attracts the mass audience and meets its needs gets into the rental.

This does not mean that a film made by a talented director is necessarily edited and remade to suit the commercial goals of the company. The director's version is more often born as an alternative to a film project, in which the author's style is more clearly traced and a certain ideological, social, psychological or political aspect is more pronounced.

You can get acquainted with the director's cut if you purchase a licensed optical disc with a copy of the film you like, the title of which is marked Director's cut.

Findings site

1. The director's version of the film fully corresponds to the director's intention and reflects his personal vision of the realization of the idea of ​​the film.
2. The director's cut is not always commercially viable, so it rarely gets into the box office.
3. The film in the director's cut may have additional fragments, plot twists and an ending different from the theatrical version.
4. The theatrical version of the film is being created for film distribution.
5. The theatrical versions do not include some scenes and fragments that may cause an age restriction for viewing the film.
6. The theatrical version is for a wide range audience and must correspond to a high artistic level.
7. The artistic value of the director's version of the film is determined by the assessments of the commissions and the jury of film competitions and festivals.

The version of the picture released on the screens of the cinema is far from always the only one. Some time after the end of the rental, new versions begin to appear on the network and on media, in the names of which designations such as "Director's", "Extended" or "Uncensored" are found. Let's figure out what is really hidden under these names.

Theatrical Cut

Every film has it, because this is the version that is shown in theaters. If next to the name of the picture there is no signature indicating its ownership, then almost always we are talking about the theater. According to statistics, 98% of films are viewed in the theatrical version, released taking into account the peculiarities of distribution in cinemas.

When preparing a "theatrical" on the picture, various restrictions are often imposed:

• by duration;
• by age rating (to attract as many potential viewers as possible);
• by dynamics (scene and episodes that may seem too long are thrown out).

Director's Cut

The director's cut of the film is called its special edition. This option is distinguished by the presence of moments, scenes and characters that were included in the original script, but later, for some reason, were cut out. Not everything that the director shoots on the set ends up in the final version of the film released on the screens. The director is the creator, but the picture must be flawless not only from an artistic point of view. To earn money, the film needs to please the viewer, and other specialists understand these moments better.

The director often delivers a picture to the studio with several endings filmed. The publisher reviews them and chooses which one is best suited for release in theaters. Here, alas, business interests become decisive. Most often, for a film, the ending is chosen that allows you to most easily and effectively through a short time run a sequel. Far from always, this option will be the best so that the viewer can feel the meaningfulness and completeness of the picture.

In some cases, individual scenes are cut under the influence of:

• cultural characteristics of the rental company;
• pressure from government and religious organizations;
• opinions of various international organizations.

It is in the director's version of the film that the director's handwriting, his view of the world and the problems considered in the film are best seen. In these cases, there are usually more big plans And semantic dialogues, the plot in them also unfolds in more detail. Author's versions of films almost always differ from rental versions in longer duration.

One of good examples- the film "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991). When shown in cinemas, the picture lasted 2 hours 16 minutes 35 seconds. In 2009, a director's cut was released at 2 hours 36 minutes 8 seconds. The directorial second "Terminator" was distinguished by a set of new scenes, as well as a completely different ending - a peaceful future that came in 2029.

A huge number of fans of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" were surprised by the ending, in which an elderly Sarah Connor is shown on the playground with John Connor and her little granddaughter. Director James Cameron intended to complete the story with robots and time travel. However, producer Mario Cassar insisted that such an epilogue be omitted so that sequels to the franchise could be filmed.

Versions for individual markets

In some cases, films are not cut for commercial reasons, but supplemented with separate scenes. One of interesting examples- Released in 2013 "Iron Man 3". For the screening in China, the film was supplemented with footage of Fan Bingbing, a popular actress and singer in that country.

The Chinese film market was already the second largest in the world in 2013, so filmmakers from the United States have to take into account the interests of the audience. The appearance of a local celebrity was aimed precisely at increasing the chances of the picture being rented in China. The rest of the world was watching the same version of " iron man 3", which was being prepared for American cinemas.

Extended Cut / Unrated

The extended cut is often confused with the director's cut, and for good reason. In both cases, some scenes are cut from the films. However, if the director's cut can turn the entire perception of the movie, then the extended version will only add new elements. They will not particularly affect the flow of the plot and the motivation of the characters.

Often the release of the Unrated Cut is a commercial move to boost the film's post-release sales. The extended version may include only one scene and write on the cover of the disc "Uncensored". If the film is a commercial success, then such a move will be quite working. Having paid again for a copy of the film, the viewer often receives a version in which a scene with nudity, a particularly bloody massacre or drug use is added. From theatrical versions, such moments are often excluded so as not to fall under age restrictions.

What is a director's cut of a film?

In addition to films of a standard type - providing for release and subsequent free broadcast on television, there is a director's version of films for online cinema and private viewing. These films are practically not shown on central TV channels, unless someone makes a program that includes an analysis of the film, its detailed discussion and viewing. The main difference between the director's version and the theatrical version lies not so much in the presence of frames and episodes cut during the editing of the film, but in the ability to show the story as the director himself sees it, which is why the film can differ significantly from the rental version.

What is interesting in the director's cut of the film

When authorship is indisputable

Watching films of the director's cut will be very interesting for all those who are interested in learning something new, seeing the familiar from a new angle, without deleting scenes, without editing in accordance with someone's preferences and criteria. During the filming of a film in this genre, the king, judge and critic are only one person - the director himself. He chooses not only cast for a film reel, but also all means of transportation, location and lighting, music, costume style, and other sets. Of course, such a work is not intended for the box office, these films are more like a personal conversation between the director and the audience. We have selected a list of the best copyright films for you to watch online films director's cut in hd 720 1080 quality. Watch the most popular and sensational film versions that will never be shown on TV or in cinemas absolutely free of charge, at any time convenient for you!

The director's idea does not always reach the viewer in its original form - producers, distributors, distributors often significantly influence the form in which the film is released by their requirements. The Vanishing of Eleanor Rigby by Ned Benson was originally released as two films, but has now been made into a single film. Perhaps someday fans of the film will also see the director's cut, because extended versions of films have now become very common, but so far we have been deprived of this pleasure. In response to this, we remembered where the concept of "director's cut" began, who suffered from other people's scissors more than others, and found out whether the new always becomes the best.

Finished films had to be recut and remixed long before the 1970s, but we chose Sam Peckinpah's western "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" as a starting point for our top list as one of brightest examples confrontation between director and producer. The cooperation between Peckinpah and the then president of MGM James Aubrey somehow did not work out from the very beginning: the studio was running out of time, the director was spending more money than planned, excesses with personnel and equipment constantly arose on the site. However, Peckinpah completed his work and even managed to show a rough cut to his friend Martin Scorsese, and the author of Mean Streets was delighted with her. But the viewer did not immediately see the director's version. First, Aubrey released a truncated and recut theatrical version and crashed, the film collected mere crumbs in theaters, but gave rise to a stable legend about a brilliant director's cut that no one saw, but everyone praised. Only 15 years after the premiere of "Billy the Kid" returned to the audience in the form that the director intended, and justified many hopes, the tape became modern classics equal to other Peckinpah bands.

This is not often, but it happens - sometimes the director's cuts become shorter than the theatrical ones. "Picnic at Hanging Rock" by Peter Weir is a sin to complain about the lack of attention from the audience and critics, the film performed superbly at the local box office, received a cult status, earned many prizes and awards, and was repeatedly noted by experts. For Australia, this was generally a breakthrough on the world cinema arena, with the advent of Weir, critics started talking about a new “Australian wave”. The director himself seemed to have never left the world of his film - the director's version of "Picnic" was released on DVD only in 1998 and was updated to suit the atmosphere over which the director fought so hard. The new version shortened the timing by six minutes, the author got rid of a couple of unimportant scenes, and re-voiced several episodes. All this was done only so that the viewer's attention would not be scattered, but completely absorbed by the mystery.

Starting a conversation about the film by Tinto Brass "Caligula", it is worth coming to an agreement on the shore which version of the picture you intend to discuss, because the erotic historical drama about one of the most famous Roman emperors has, perhaps, largest number screening options in the history of cinema. The Brass tape off the pasteboard was gone in at least ten various options, and the ubiquitous rating is to blame. Since Penthouse acted as the customer for the filming, and such an odious person as Tinto was directed, the result turned out to be such that he could only get on the screens in certain cinemas. Hence the fan of editing possibilities - "Caligula" exists both in a television version lasting less than an hour and a half, and in a full XXX format lasting 3.5 hours. Even Brass himself did not decide which of the options to consider "director's", leaving it at the mercy of the audience.

It also happens that director's versions of films do not reach the viewer, leaving only legends and rumors. Ridley Scott thinks the best option of his “Alien”, one that, unfortunately, has not been preserved, is a mounted black a new version lasting 192 minutes, did not satisfy anyone except the director himself. However, the classic version, which saw the screen in 1979, became a cult one; for many, space fantasy began on board the Nostromo. However, if the full cut of the director's cut was lost, then some fragments, takes, angles, scenes filmed by Scott survived - from them in 2003 a new version of the film was assembled, which does not particularly change the structure and connections, but complements and expands the idea of heroes famous painting. With filigree editing, Ridley Scott shortened the rental version exactly as much as he decided to add new material, so that the rental version and the re-release differ in timing by only one minute.

I must say that the stubbornness of the directors does not always mean they are right, sometimes the director's version not only does not look better than the rolling one, but is also capable of burying the picture in general. Such sad story happened with Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate. Carried away by the production, the director missed all the deadlines, got out of budget, quarreled with half the actors and a good majority of producers and studio bosses. But all this could be endured, because Cimino's previous film The Deer Hunter won five Oscars. All hopes for a brighter future were dispelled when the director brought to the studio his final editing version - "The Gates of Paradise" in his vision should have lasted five and a half hours! Nobody could agree to such a thing, for half a year, under pressure from United Artists, Cimino cut off pieces and reached a version lasting 3 hours and 40 minutes, and since it was no longer possible to drag it out further, the film was released. The result was horrendous, the audience did not ignore, but smashed the tape to smithereens so that it was removed from the cinemas on the second weekend. 44 million dollars of the budget turned into losses for United Artists, already mowed down by the crisis, and for Cimino, such a reception became a “black mark” for the rest of his life.

While United Artists tried to persuade Michael Cimino, Warner Bros. with their excessively independent creative units dealt with in much more radical ways. The conflict between the studio and the director of the second film about Superman ended with the fact that Richard Donner, who shot three-quarters of the picture, was simply put outside the WB doors. Two years after that, the picture hung around idle, and then Richard Lester was forced to fill in the missing scenes and redo a few already finished ones, so that a single piece would turn out from disparate pieces. The film received tinned enthusiasm from the audience and praise from critics, and therefore it would be quite possible to put an end to Donner's version and forget it forever, if not for one slip. In 2001, the studio undertook to restore the theatrical version for a DVD release. After digging into the original footage, WB discovered a lot of Donner's footage and inadvertently reported it to the press. And then the Man of Steel fans took the initiative - they finished off the bosses of the WB, and they agreed to release in 2006 a special edition of Superman 2, assembled from what Donner shot thirty years ago. The work was rewarded - "Superman 2: The Richard Donner Cut" is considered the best director's cut in the history of cinema.

Buy
ticket

Ridley Scott can be safely called the leader in the "version race" - almost every one of his films becomes the subject of controversy between producers, viewers, critics and the director himself. All this leads to the fact that his tapes appear in a variety of variations, as, for example, in the case of Blade Runner. The first was the working version, which was shown to a focus group at the final stage of work on the film - the testers were dissatisfied with the gloomy ending, and Warner Bros. I decided on the last day to change the ending to a happy ending. In this form, the picture existed until 1990, until the illegal video markets were flooded with the "pirate" of the very original version, which prompted the studio to decide to release the Ridley Scott version officially. By the film's tenth anniversary, a hastily edited "new old" version was released, which minor changes was also produced for other anniversaries of the tape.

When Michael Cimino pored over his Heaven's Gate, cutting out something suitable for a theatrical release from a five-hour picture, he was at least allowed to do it himself. With Sergio Leone in the case of Once Upon a Time in America, they acted much more meanly, they simply got rid of him at the editing stage. Yes, Leone filmed for ten hours, but he reluctantly reduced his offspring to six hours and offered the studio to release the picture in two films of three hours each, but such a move was not appreciated at WB and Leone was put out the door. For distribution, Once Upon a Time in America was cut to 139 minutes, but what's worse, all the scenes were built in chronological order, and after all, Leone so masterfully built the uncertainty in the relationship of the characters, carefully mixing the times and places of action. We are no longer talking about the fact that violence came to the forefront of the film, and not emotional condition, - from this, not only the authors, but also critics were horrified. And the audience did not appreciate the mutilated masterpiece. All this prompted the restoration of justice in relation to the author, and in 2012 the light was restored under the strict supervision of the children of Leone, a version lasting 251 minutes. It is now considered to be the closest to the director's vision.

But that we are all about the sad and the sad, then the director was kicked out of us, then the money ran out, then the audience did not like the ending. In the case of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings, everyone was satisfied (with the exception of the completely hopelessly pushed goblins and orcs), and therefore there was no need to redo something in the trilogy. Actually, Jackson himself, with his usual smile, says that the director's versions of the films are exactly those that were shown in the cinema, but for fans of Middle-earth, the filmmakers still released an extended version. The film crew had a few scenes that were not included in the final cut, and they made up the addition of the extended versions. There were a decent number of scenes, so the total duration of the trilogy increased by two hours and a tail. And that's not counting the extra credits, where Jackson pointed out countless hobbit fans.

You should not assume that the wars of producers and directors are things long ago past days, the echoes of this eternal confrontation roll through Hollywood to this day. Even comic book heroes, who now seem to be especially favored by fate, did not escape this, however, this was before comic book adaptations became the business engine for Disney and WB. In 2003, during the final stages of Daredevil, Fox had a disagreement with the film's director Mark Steven Johnson about how general mood paintings. The studio insisted on a softer rating and got one of the most loose and faceless comic productions as a result. recent years. The director's cut, released a little later, made it possible to re-evaluate the film: the picture became more gloomy, ambiguous characters were added, and in general the image of Daredevil approached what fans are used to seeing on the pages of magazines. Although the new version has positive reviews and justified the creators, an unpleasant aftertaste remained, and Daredevil disappeared from the screens for a dozen years.

It also happens that the director is so deeply immersed in the topic that he cannot get out of it. long years. Something similar happened to Oliver Stone when he started work on the biopic of Alexander the Great - this work did not let the director go for several more years. At first, Stone had no particular complaints about the theatrical version of the film, but then it turned out that the director was preparing a director's cut for the DVD release. The world is waiting, but new version rather disappointed, Stone added quite a bit, but cut out a few bright scenes. The audience shrugged and wanted to forget about what happened, as the director announced that he was working on a completely new version of the editing. The "Revised Final Cut" was released in 2007, "grew up" compared to the director's cut by as much as 50 minutes, and even received a revised internal structure. It would have to stop here, but in 2012 there was news that the final version of Stone did not suit him and he was working on the “final” one ... The fourth version was released in 2013, but, it seems, no one was interested except for Stone himself.

And again, Ridley Scott ... A misunderstanding between the director and Fox studio arose even at the stage of preparing the picture - in the "Kingdom of Heaven" the company saw a historical adventure movie, a kind of analogue of "Gladiator", while Scott swung at the epic canvas, revealing the era. On that they collided at the editing table - the producers shortened the option, recognized by the director as optimal, by 50 minutes to make the tape acceptable for cinemas. It benefited only nominally - the audience came, but 200 million fees with a budget of 135 million cannot be called a victory. It was then that Scott laid out his trump cards - the director's version, released in 2006, appealed to both the audience and the critics much more: here the motivation of the characters became clear, and the characters emerged more clearly, and the sense of the era sought by the director was betrayed brighter. Only now time has already passed - you won’t return to cinemas with such a release, you won’t earn huge money.

Let's end our list with one of the most underrated films of the new century - Zack Snyder's superhero Watchmen. Having sent a rather difficult and controversial story of “retired superheroes” into the raging ocean of the mainstream, Snyder, of course, took a risk, and therefore did not resist the fact that the studio somewhat shortened his statement about the unbridled defenders of the world. The theatrical release earned $ 185 million, which did nothing to protect the producers from losses, but Snyder got the opportunity to show the audience his view of what Watchmen should be. First saw the light of day director's cut, which was replenished with 24 minutes of footage, and then the collector's edition on DVD came out "Maximum Cut", grown by another half an hour, which included an unreleased animation segment of the story. All doubts about Snyder's talent have disappeared, now he is entrusted with more impressive comic book heroes.