Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[Snarf Zagyg]

OK, I can sum up my opinion of both pretty easily. Both were exercises in self indulgence and did nothing to improve on the original work. That anything failed to improve on the first is, quite frankly, an illustration of just what depths the director could fall to, as I didn't think that worse was possible.

That's fair. My own opinion is somewhat different, and since I opened the door...

JLA- Snyder's cut is better ... as in the whole movie makes more sense and has better character development. But it's also not a "director's cut" (it involved additional filming and a budget reported at $70 million, but rumored to be higher), and .... it's four hours long. That's not a movie that could have been released in a theater. So I don't think it counts as a director's cut, so much as a vanity project.

Blade Runner- This is a movie that has so many different cuts, that there's one collection with five different cuts ... and that doesn't have all of them. That said, if you do like Blade Runner (and I do, since it's one of the most influential movies in terms of the look and tone of "the future" to ever be released), I think that the usual points of contention are the Ford voiceover, the "happy ending," and the unicorn.

Personally, I like the version without the voiceover, but I also have seen people get very confused without it. As for happy endings? I dislike happy endings almost as much as bards.

 

[Deset Gled]

Director's Cuts that are worse that the theatrical cut.

Controversially:

Alien and Aliens. The theatrical cuts both have better flow, and tell a better narrative story together. The extra lore and scenes are all interesting, well made, and fun, but are better placed in a separate viewing than in the main movie.

The Hobbit Trilogy: It's just too darned long. I felt this especially during The Battle of Five Armies. The shorter theatrical version is just a better watch.

Not controversially:

Cowboys vs. Aliens. The original cut is slow and boring to start with. Drawing it out longer makes it practically unwatchable.

 

[RealAlHazred]

Care to elaborate?

@billd91 covered it, but I saw the American version on television at some point when I was channel-surfing late at night, and it outraged me enough I had trouble sleeping. The original is a classic of dystopian media, and giving it a happy facelift completely destroys the whole point of the exercise.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The Hobbit Trilogy: It's just too darned long. I felt this especially during The Battle of Five Armies. The shorter theatrical version is just a better watch.

In fairness, I'm pretty sure that the one lesson Peter Jackson learned from the LoTR trilogy is that you can never have too much ... ESPECIALLY ENDINGS!

But yeah, that trilogy already suffered from taking a single book and turning it into a trilogy, and then taking the movies in the trilogy (that were already overstuffed and had pacing issues) and just adding more stuff? No thank you.

 

[payn]

That's fair. My own opinion is somewhat different, and since I opened the door...

JLA- Snyder's cut is better ... as in the whole movie makes more sense and has better character development. But it's also not a "director's cut" (it involved additional filming and a budget reported at $70 million, but rumored to be higher), and .... it's four hours long. That's not a movie that could have been released in a theater. So I don't think it counts as a director's cut, so much as a vanity project.

Blade Runner- This is a movie that has so many different cuts, that there's one collection with five different cuts ... and that doesn't have all of them. That said, if you do like Blade Runner (and I do, since it's one of the most influential movies in terms of the look and tone of "the future" to ever be released), I think that the usual points of contention are the Ford voiceover, the "happy ending," and the unicorn.

Personally, I like the version without the voiceover, but I also have seen people get very confused without it. As for happy endings? I dislike happy endings almost as much as bards.

I always felt like the narration was an unwelcome guest on a trip I was taking. I like my occasionaly high context film. Though, focus groups couldnt follow along, as you note, and they added the narration. I was down on it for a long time, and still prefer the DC, but ive come around as its been explained as giving the film a noir detective feel.

 

[Ryujin]

That's fair. My own opinion is somewhat different, and since I opened the door...

JLA- Snyder's cut is better ... as in the whole movie makes more sense and has better character development. But it's also not a "director's cut" (it involved additional filming and a budget reported at $70 million, but rumored to be higher), and .... it's four hours long. That's not a movie that could have been released in a theater. So I don't think it counts as a director's cut, so much as a vanity project.

Blade Runner- This is a movie that has so many different cuts, that there's one collection with five different cuts ... and that doesn't have all of them. That said, if you do like Blade Runner (and I do, since it's one of the most influential movies in terms of the look and tone of "the future" to ever be released), I think that the usual points of contention are the Ford voiceover, the "happy ending," and the unicorn.

Personally, I like the version without the voiceover, but I also have seen people get very confused without it. As for happy endings? I dislike happy endings almost as much as bards.

Three and a half hours of Kurosawa can hold my rapt attention for the entire length of the movie.

I think that I made if to almost two hours through The Snider Cut before I fell asleep.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I always felt like the narration was an unwelcome guest on a trip I was taking. I like my occasionaly high context film. Though, focus groups couldnt follow along, as you note, and they added the narration. I was down on it for a long time, and still prefer the DC, but ive come around as its been explained as giving the film a noir detective feel.

I'm in the same boat. I prefer the version without the narration, but I don't hate on the narration; it does give it a different feel, and I don't begrudge those who like it.

 

[Ryujin]

I'm in the same boat. I prefer the version without the narration, but I don't hate on the narration; it does give it a different feel, and I don't begrudge those who like it.

As a fan of '30s/'40s Film Noir I appreciate the voiceover version. I suppose I should post something in the Geek Confessional thread about it but to me it's just good, not the great cinema that so many think it is.

 

[overgeeked]

As a fan of '30s/'40s Film Noir I appreciate the voiceover version. I suppose I should post something in the Geek Confessional thread about it but to me it's just good, not the great cinema that so many think it is.

I love film noir but prefer the non-voice over version of Bladerunner. But I am one of those people who thinks it's one of the maybe 10-15 perfect films ever made.

 

[Cadence]

I'm in the same boat. I prefer the version without the narration, but I don't hate on the narration; it does give it a different feel, and I don't begrudge those who like it.

I saw the narration version first, and like the non-narration a lot more now.

I wonder if narration is better for some first time viewers.