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.
Dedicated to all film lovers! We understand the basic concepts of the world of cinema. What means theatrical version movie, directorial and extended? 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!
The production of a documentary or feature film is a long, technologically complex and costly process that not only realizes the creative idea of the director and screenwriters, but also prepares the footage for further commercial use. A film production product that enters wide screens does not always correspond even to the initial idea of its creation.
What are the movie versions?
Any movie in the process of filming and further refinement changes many times and adapts to the needs target audience. final version the picture is most adapted for a wide audience and often does not coincide with the product that the authors planned at the beginning of work on the film.
Some pictures exist in several versions: a theatrical version, a director's cut, and sometimes an extended (full) version. Each of them implements own goals, not always exclusively commercial. At film festivals, for example, they show unadapted versions of sensational films that were not shown to the average viewer.
Theatrical version. What is she for?
The theatrical version of the film is the product that in most cases goes to the cinemas. It has the ability to attract a mass audience and ensure maximum fees from the show. The commercial version of the film is adapted for viewing by a wide audience: it takes into account the requirements of censorship and has artistic value mass art. 
The main goal of the theatrical version is to gather the largest possible audience and keep their attention throughout the film. Comfortable session duration and a dynamic non-banal plot ensure maximum involvement of the viewer in the viewing process.
In the theatrical version of the film, due to its mass character, scenes of a frankly erotic nature, shocking shots and phrases that directly or indirectly call for violence or ethnic hatred are excluded. 
Director's cut. Features and tasks
The director's version of the picture is a true creation of the filmmakers, reflecting the original idea of the authors. Such a product is rarely commercial, it reveals the meaning and emotional component of the plot. As a rule, the author's version of the film is longer than its rental version. It much more clearly traces the director's style, his worldview and vision of the problem that underlies the plot. 
Tapes based on literary works, more consistent with the original in the director's reading. They are distinguished a large number of semantic dialogues, a more detailed plot and an abundance of close-ups.
Director's versions of films are much more often nominated for prestigious film awards than their commercial counterparts, but the average viewer rarely manages to see exactly the picture that has gained recognition from world experts. 
Theatrical and director's versions - differences
- The director's cut is the real intention of the filmmakers, it reflects the author's vision of the picture. The theatrical version guarantees a massive release and is adapted for a wide screening without always retaining the original idea.
- The director's cut is rarely released, being non-commercial. Theatrical - designed to ensure the payback of the picture.
- The director's cut, usually extended, may contain plot twists not included in the rental. The theatrical version is more dynamic, featuring simplistic content and short, concise dialogues.
- The artistic value of the director's version is determined by the assessments of professionals at film art competitions and festivals. An indicator of the level of value of the theatrical version is the number of visitors to the premiere screenings and the final fees.
Sometimes the finished product, released for rent, turns out to be so popular that the creators also display the director's cut of the film on the screens. Numerous fans who have been given the opportunity to view the author's version are in for surprises and discoveries that can turn the viewer's idea of the idea of the picture as a whole.
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!
Today, the term "director's cut" significantly distorts the original meaning, because at first it denoted video versions of those films that were mutilated by censors, producers, distributors, contrary to the great author's intention. Years later, as the director's authority and reputation grew, as well as the film's cult status, it was already possible to afford to redo the cut according to the original drafts.
Sometimes it turned out better, sometimes unexpectedly and controversially. So, to definitely worse - hardly, although the fans " star wars"often resent the constant changes made to the original trilogy (1977-1983), and you can agree with the fans.
Aliens, 1986
Director: James Cameron
All four parts of "Aliens" were awarded specialized publications with significantly extended timing. But in most cases, the added scenes were cosmetic in nature, and only the second "Aliens" really survived the rebirth. Out of nowhere, a full-fledged piece of the plot appeared in them, which was completely absent in the rental and video cassette versions: the life of a colony on the planet LV-426 is shown and how a family of colonists discovers the notorious predatory eggs.
Everything was filmed by Cameron at one time, but the movie was already too long, so the director did not even finish the special effects for these scenes. He did this later, when preparing the first edition on laser discs. And then there were automatic turrets, Ripley's gatherings in a virtual garden, and more, and more ...
Keepers, 2009
Directed by: Zack Snyder
The original version of the most epic comic book movie of all time was 162 minutes long, then there was a director's cut for 186 minutes and an "ultimate" version for all generous 215! In fact, you don’t really have to guess what exactly was hung on this already incredibly rich film: of course, what was in the original graphic novel, but did not fit in the movie.
The main thing: animated inserts with the history of the Black Schooner. If you watch a movie for the first time, they can completely confuse the viewer, but for the second, third and one hundred and forty-fourth revision, these 215-minute Watchmen should definitely be chosen.
Apocalypse of our days, 1979
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
By turning on the extended version of the great psychedelic war trip, you will immediately stumble upon a minefield of surprises. First of all - a massive scene at the estate of French planters, another meeting with the girls from the Playboy (they are ready for anything for a couple of barrels of fuel) and the funniest moment of the film - stealing a surfboard from a crazy lieutenant colonel.
Alexander, 2004
Directed by: Oliver Stone
The expensive biopic about Alexander the Great merged at the box office and caused such discontent among critics and the public that the unprecedented happened: the film patriarch Oliver Stone apologized to honest people and admitted that he allowed himself too much during editing, which ruined the picture. After these words, everyone was on their guard, because, logically, a new director's version of the tape should have appeared.
And so it happened: as many as three options followed. In the very first "director", Stone cut out 17 minutes, but added another 9. The film has become more solid and cheerful, and that is why those who saw it for the first time on a TV screen often wonder why all the viewers were so indignant back in 2004- m.
Blade Runner, 1982
Directed by: Ridley Scott
In total, as many as five versions of this cyberpunk dystopia were mounted! Working version (it failed on test screenings), extended working, American distribution, international distribution (harder than American), television (on the contrary, with cut violence), director's and, finally, the final 2007. In them, of course, the devil himself will break his leg, but Ridley Scott assures that the final one is fully consistent with his author's vision. All the lost "international" violence, all the unicorn dreams, as well as suspicious hints about the nature of Detective Deckard were returned there.
Seal of Evil, 1958
Directed by: Orson Welles
The canonical and, as is commonly believed in the hardcore environment, the latest film noir was barbarically recut, partially re-shot and released without the approval of the director. Discouraged but unbroken, Wells scribbled a 58-page notebook with notes on what the thriller was supposed to be. But only 15 years after his death, in 1998, editing editor Walter March restored the original version as much as possible, meticulously following the master's notes.
Leon, 1994
Directed by: Luc Besson
In the director's cut, Besson allowed himself to loosen up a little and made the relationship between Leon and Matilda more sexually ambiguous, not forgetting to add more vivid shots with pumping killer skills in Natalie Portman.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, 2002
Directed by: Peter Jackson
The extended version of the first series of Frodo's adventures did not bring any grandiose changes, although it filled in the plot gaps (in particular, the distribution of elven gifts). The third part, already long, in the director's cut turned into an endless one.
As a result, the best balance was achieved in the second series of The Lord of the Rings, where in total amount 15 scenes added and 17 expanded. The most memorable bonuses relate to the adventures of Merry and Pippin in Fangorn, as well as smoking trophy tobacco. The parting of the hobbits with Faramir was also not in the rolling version.
I am a legend, 2007
Directed by: Francis Lawrence
The finale of this post-apocalyptic story in the theatrical version was not that bad, but it smacked too much of Hollywood pathos. In the director's version, the audience was in for a surprise: the whole original essence of the film was turned upside down, the ending turned out to be radically different, moreover, it became ideologically closer to the original book. Which is always commendable.
Payback, 1999
Director: Brian Helgeland
It is known that already at the final stage of work on the film, the studio fired director Helgeland in anger for his addiction to especially dark films. A strikebreaker was hired to reshoot nearly a third of the film, if not more, reshape the plot entirely, and even pull new characters up his sleeve. As a result, the director's version of the neo-noir with Mel Gibson in leading role we saw only in 2006. There is no one kidnapping the son of the head of the crime syndicate, there is no voice-over, changed color palette, a completely different soundtrack, and the ending is unexpectedly more peaceful. Which is better is a purely individual question. The difference in the films is so significant that the imdb movie site considers them as two independent works, allocating separate pages to them.
