Which version is better, Theatrical or Directors cut? - Dances with Wolves (1990) Discussion

[–] Snusmumrikken 12 years ago

For me, the directors cut.

reply

[–] rascal67 12 years ago

Directors Cut. This apparently was supposed to be the original theatrical cut, until Costner was pressured to trim it. Both versions are worth watching, but more is explained in the Dir. Cut and to me it doesn't appear like just wasted footage for the sake of padding it out.

reply

[–] rfdinardo 11 years ago

Are the Director's Cut and the Extended version the same thing?

reply

[–] forgetmenot3-191-68556 12 years ago

The normal cut is good, but I think if more people saw the Director's Cut then the film would be in the Top 100 on this website. Not that the original is not deserving for being at least in the top 250 somewhere. The Director's Cut adds that much more. So good in fact that I still didn't want the film to end, even with it's very long running time.

reply

[–] karlhinze 12 years ago

forgetmenot has it spot on. How can a film so long leave you wanting more? I don't know, but that's exactly what happens with this. Definitely the director's cut. It seems more like there's a bit missing from the theatrical cut than a bit too much unnecessary footage in the directors cut.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile

reply

[–] Vaine84 12 years ago

I just bought the directors cut (at friggin last!) and was looking forward to see what scenes ive been missing. Turns out that its the directors cut that ive seen all along. Heh :)

reply

[–] meteor_storm 12 years ago

Is the director's cut the same thing as the special edition? Whatever. The four hour version.

Original cut: 8.5/10

4-hour cut: 10/10

To me, one of the most perfect and beautiful films made. The four hour cut isn't any slower, it just explains things better and has tons more gorgeous landscape shots.

tinyurl.com/meteorstorm

reply

[–] IkuharaKunihiko 12 years ago

Director's cut. Gives a better picture, overall.

reply

[–] househead1972 12 years ago

I have to say, as much as I love more scenes that explain a movie, I probably prefer the theatrical version for Dances. What kills the Director's Cut for me, the score is recycled too often, and Dances is one of my favorite scores of all time. I think that's what may hurt the long version for me.

Yes there is a lot left out in the theatrical, but I feel the film is so brilliantly paced. Each time I view the long version, if feels too long. Now that I've recently seen the shorter version, I'm going to give the 4 hour another look and make a final decision. Either way, both cuts are still great!

reply

[–] Sophitia36 11 years ago

I completely agree with you about the score. I think the long version has too many repeated tracks and in the end it takes some of the beauty away.

reply

[–] Chanpuru 12 years ago

I hate to be a wet blanket but if you're coming to this movie with expectations that it's going to be like Avatar you may be disappointed. There is an obvious comparison and many feel that one was directly influenced by the other, but beyond the obvious "Gone native" element, the feel and pacing of the films are quite different.

For me I come to it from a different perspective in that I had seen Dances with Wolves and the Director's cut in the cinema and had been truly overwhelmed by them. When asked the dreaded question "So what's your favourite movie of all time" I often have this film floating around in the back of my head. However when I came to Avatar (and being a huge Cameron fan) I was staggeringly disappointed. I honestly almost walked out. Really hated it as a terribly lazy derivative piece of sloppy film making with absolutely no soul whatsoever. Incredible considering how much I like the elements that brought Avatar together <I'm not having a dig at you btw each to their own>.

I guess what I'm saying is come to DwW with fresh eyes. If you're not a fan of slow epic movies perhaps the original edition would make more sense. But if you're asking me which is best and which I own....it's the director's cut for me.

reply

[–] househead1972 12 years ago

Chanpuru.... I totally agree with you on Avatar! I don't mind a recycled story but at least put your own spin on it. When Avatar was over, I thought to myself, "Cameron had five years to make this film (and I was eagerly anticipating it)and this is the best script he can come up with?" The writing was totally lazy! The Titanic script was a masterpiece compared to Avatar!

You may already know this, but check out an in depth review of Avatar on youtube by Redletter Media. Some funny stuff!

reply

[–] MattGuyOR 11 years ago

Theatrical. The directors is interesting to see after you've seen the Theatrical. But it explains too much, and is slower. I prefer the mystery of the abandoned fort, etc.

The UK blu-ray is the Theatrical version and it's region-free.

Roger Ebert 1942-2013

reply

[–] MC1-Bjornson 11 years ago

In the case of "Dances with Wolves", I feel the THEATRICAL cut is the way to go.

The extended version suffers from pacing issues. It is dragged out too long. As the previous poster pointed out, there is more mystery to the abandoned fort in the theatrical version and too much is explained in the longer cut. Much like Goldilocks' third bowl of porridge, the theatrical cut was "just right." The theatrical is a nicer edit and I feel there's a broader sense of awe.

Cheers, ~ MC1
"The reservist formerly known as JO2"

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (9347176) 11 years ago

There is an obvious comparison and many feel that one was directly influenced by the other

Why the ambiguity? Makes it sound as if you're saying there's a possibility that "Dances" was influenced by "Avatar." Unless you think Doc Brown kidnapped Kevin Costner in 1986, took him to 2009 and forced him to watch "Avatar," that is...

-Rod

reply

[–] Chanpuru 11 years ago

Why the ambiguity? Makes it sound as if you're saying there's a possibility that "Dances" was influenced by "Avatar." Unless you think Doc Brown kidnapped Kevin Costner in 1986, took him to 2009 and forced him to watch "Avatar," that is...

I wish Doc Brown would go back in time and stop me from watching Avatar......there's a couple of wasted hours of my life that I'll never get back from James Cameron.

reply

[–] TracesOfLove 11 years ago

Well if you have the option, I would say watch the Theatrical Version first. If you love it then watch the Director's Cut. Because if you love it, you'll want to watch it again and again. And the Director's Cut gives you more to see and enjoy. And if you don't exactly love it, then the Theatrical Version won't drag for you as much. I'm the type to watch it again and again. And what's cool is that the Director's Cut answers mysteries that the Theatrical Version didn't. But if you watch the Director's Cut first, you'll never experience the mystery.

SPRING BREAK FOREVER BITCHES!

reply

[–] Sophitia36 11 years ago

I second that. I am a huge fan of Dances With Wolves, so for me getting the Director's Cut after so many years was a huge treat.

To be honest, there are a number of scenes that I really like in the extended version, and I think some of them should have been kept. Some of them really bring more complexity to the story and makes it less of a romantic dream (I'm thinking about the scene that happens just before the Buffalo Hunt).
I also loved a few of the added domestic scenes with the Lakota, especially those related to the wedding.

But otherwise, I think there are several scenes that were better left out. Things are explained in the director's cut (and it's interesting to see that when you have seen the short version dozens of times, it's like finally getting answers to your questions). But in the end, I rather liked the "mystery" of the original version. You don't need to explain everything.

I also think some of the scenes are repetitive or not really necessary.

Also, I never thought the theatrical (shorter) version was slow or boring, contrary to what many people say. It may be 3 hours long, I don't mind, I love every scene in it and I never find myself wishing it would move on to the next scene quicker.
Whereas in the long version, which is almost 4 hours, I did experience that kind of feeling from time to time. I think the pacing of the short version is better.

So yeah, in short, I would also advise people to see the short version first, and the long version if they liked it.

reply

[–] rickyfan3956 11 years ago

Get the Director's Cut. The theatrical version is good and all, but after I viewed some of the Director's Cut when it aired on ABC back in 1993, I found that the theatrical version just left me wanting more.

reply

[–] jajceboy 11 years ago

I prefer the Original cut. That is a perfect film and a definite 10/10. Stunning, impressive, beautiful and amazing.

The Director's Cut I would recommend only for Die-Hard fans of the original film, because it actually slows the film down. It is to low-paced and drags on. Most of the scenes, if not all, are added just because of the visual impact without actually doing anything for the plot. And instead of wanting to see more you wish they would just end al-ready
I would give this version 7/10.

For me it works better in the Theatrical Version. The flow is better and the film is more complete. Sure some scenes are not necessarily for the plot but that's a minor fault.

reply

[–] thirdeye55 10 years ago

Disagree with this, in particular the extra scenes where Kicking Bird takes Dunbar on that trip - really helps solidify their relationship and for me adds a ton of strong context to the overall movie.

reply

[–] DocCasualty 10 years ago

Count me in for the Director's cut. That said, I agree with others who suggest that first time viewers watch the Theatrical version and then go to the Director's cut if it resonates with you.

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum for this question, but I wonder why the Director's cut BD doesn't offer you the option of watching either version? When DVDs were first being released I remember options like this being touted as an advantage of the medium. The only disc I recall ever watching that offered this option was Apocalypse Now. I couldn't program my way out of a paper bag but it seems like this should be a no brainer. I suppose there may be artistic and/or legal reasons why this isn't the norm but with a film like this, why not?

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

[–] politicaldefiance 10 years ago

For what it's worth, I have only seen the 4-hour extended version (which is now labeled as the director's cut on the Blu-ray, even though Costner admitted to not working on it) and it's magnificent. I have no way to compare it to the original theatrical cut because I've never seen it, but if you can only track down the extended version then I'd say give it a shot. I've seen it twice, and it's definitely long, but it's never boring and really ranks up there among the great screen epics.

reply