MovieChat Forums > Nightbreed (1990) Discussion > Theatrical Ending vs Director's Cut Endi...

Theatrical Ending vs Director's Cut Ending

posted 10 years ago by NewYorkRipper
14 replies | jump to latest

In the Director's Cut, we learn that Lori is resurrected by Boone.

In the Theatrical Cut on the other hand we see Decker tied up, but then brought back to life. The cinematic effect of this is much greater, seeing Decker with his arms outstretched, although it tells us little and leaves it to our imagination regarding what this means could happen next.

So in the Director's Cut, are we are then meant to just believe that Decker died from his injuries and that was it?

To a newbie watching this for the very first time, they would probably be confused, as Ashberry at the end says, "I have seen their God". You would not know that he was referring to Decker however (presuming this is of course correct), unless you had first watched the theatrical cut, however what it really should do is go on to show Decker being resurrected, just like in the theatrical version.

Who's with me?

[–] TheSolarSailor 10 years ago

No. Decker is NOT the focus of the story. He is merely the catalyst which drives other characters into action. Decker was NEVER meant to take center stage. He is not the central focus in the novel "Cabal", and he was not the central focus in the film either until the studio wanted to cut out huge chunks of the real story and focus more on Decker. The Director's Cut is true to the story Clive wanted to tell. Decker's resurrection is a reflection of studio interference, nothing more. Ashberry referring to Decker as "master" is stupid and makes no sense. He never even sees Decker as the killer. It's just a shock-value ending slapped on to the film with no set up at all.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word LISP to have an S in it?

[–] NewYorkRipper 10 years ago

But this is what is confusing - it makes it appear as a plot hole.

For the first time viewer, it would be difficult to know what Ashberry is talking about when he makes this reference.

Why not leave this part out altogether? It was interesting only because it was something we had never seen before, but as part of the movie (as it stands) it serves little purpose.

[–] TheSolarSailor 10 years ago

I don't understand where you are coming from at all. Ashberry and Decker have no relation at all in the story. There is no reason for Ashberry to care about Decker or even know that he could be a tool, or even think that a resurrected Decker would obey him rather than just kill him, and certainly no reason for him to think of Decker as "master". There is nothing confusing at all about what Ashberry says in the director's cut. he has seen the Nightbreed's god. He was burned by the god, rejected rather than embraced. Now he wants revenge on that god, much like a spurned lover. There is nothing confusing about it. What IS confusing is why Ashberry would resurrect Decker and call him master in the theatrical cut. If I hadn't read Barker's book, I would never have understood the point of the priest at all in the theatrical cut.

Even Mark Goldblatt, who edited the theatrical cut, commented on the special features that his cut leaves the Ashberry material leaving one scratching their head going WTF!

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word LISP to have an S in it?

[–] dementa42 10 years ago

TheSolarSailor nailed this spot-on. I just read the book Cabal before seeing the Director's Cut and that's exactly how it goes in the book. The priest see's their God (just like he said, their god obviously not being Decker but the creator of them, the huge blue entity dwelling below) and that's why he's been changed too. Decker is irrelevant really, just a driving force of chaos trying to use all of these people and monsters to his own benefit. It was also nice to see them follow the novel in the part with Laurie at the end, even if he changed the wording a tad and the opening sequence with Boone saying "I will never leave you" wasn't in the actual film.

[–] jaynobody 10 years ago

I prefer the theatrical ending. Would have been better set up for the sequel that never was.

[–] trekkie313 10 years ago

Anyway to view the theatrical ending in HD without buying the limited Blu-ray?

Listen, do you smell something? -Ray Stantz

[–] arbino-man 10 years ago

He's not talking about Decker in the Director's cut. Decker stays dead there.

Clive Barker was forced to bring Decker back to life in the theatrical version. He's dead in the director's cut.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

What are you talking about? Decker isn't their god. Baphomet is their god. Ashberry sees Baphomet and spills that liquid over his face. He is NOT referring to Decker.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] nddostal 9 years ago

blah blah blah-like it or not, though, the Theatrical ending with Decker is much more powerful visually than what we get in the Directors' cut. It stays with you.

[–] TheSolarSailor 9 years ago

There is no reason to come across as disrespectful. No one here is forcing anyone to like one or the other. The theatrical cut sets up a sequel nicely, where as the director's cut is a better way to close a story that we will never get a continuation of. The only thing folks are commenting on in this thread is how the OP claims the restored scene makes no sense when it actually does, and that he incorrectly claims that Ashberry was referring to Decker when he said "I saw their god."

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

We DO get a continuation of the story if you read the older comics from the early 90's and they did a 2 part Hellraiser crossover as well which was a game changer in the story concerning Cabal. There's also some newer comics from the 2010's as well. Yeah, they're not films but it's better than nothing and there's no other sequel cannon.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dan_Garten 9 years ago

Yeah.