Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut.
Oh...my...god (small G). A few nights ago, I went and saw the Director's Cut of Donnie Darko. I would have written about this sooner, but it's taken a few days for the shock to wear off. This post is not going to serve as a review of Donnie Darko, for that go to google.com and enter donnie darko review, or something like that. I'm tried of creating links.
The original theatrical and DVD release ( note the word original ) of Donnie Darko is without a doubt, one of the one-hundred films in my top 10 list. It is brilliantly surreal, pointedly metaphorical, and diabolically bewildering. The whole movie exists in this dream like state that keeps you wondering what the hell is happening. Donnie Darko (the original) is genius for the way it creates this bazar confusion, then quickly pulls it all together at the end of the film. You are overcome with with sense of "ahhh" as the last few scenes play out, yet, enough is left to explore that you're never quite sure what you had just seen.
Now... If you're one of those people that likes everything spoon-feed to them, with no sense of mystery or after-viewing conversations... if you're one of those people who thinks movies should be wrapped up in a nice little ball, every question answered... if you're one of those people who likes movies where every ounce of joy and creativity is mercilessly sucked out as it screams for it's life just to be ended... if you're one of those people... please, go see the Director's Cut of Donnie Darko... you'll love it.
The box-office success of the original release of Donnie Darko was a disaster, grossing only $500,000. It got limited distribution due to it coming out right after 9/11 and a movie about a jet engine falling off a plane into someone's bedroom was not something audiences were told they wanted to see. The movie attracted a small cult following on DVD and then a few years later (I might have time-line wrong -- I'm just making this shit up), some European radio stations started playing the Tears-for-Fears cover song that ends the film, and a new interest in the movie started to grow.
The studio responded with a re-release, but not just any re-release, a re-release of the Director's Cut. And as we all know, the Director's Cut is always better because it's the true vision of the film the director wanted us to see before the pin-heads in studio marketing made them hack it up so the brain-washed masses would accept it better.
But with Donnie Darko, just the opposite seems to have happened. Donnie Darko was re-released with a more mass-appeal cut, rather than the more edgier, more artsty, Director's Cut we're used to seeing. Or are we? I can really only name a few Director's Cuts of films that I thought were better than the originals. Most are just different and everyone but the stark-raving movie buff wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.
Has the term Director's Cut become nothing more then a marketing term to sell more DVD's? Cram a bunch of footage that should have been left out in the first place back into the movie and call it a Director's Cut? You'd think the Director's artistic conviction would win out. Maybe... But after all, they are making money off the DVD, so if it helps and doesn't wreak the movie, why not? Maybe I am just naive and idealistic to think the Director's Cut represents a purer version of the film and Director's will die over defending the artistic integrity of their work.
Stay with me, we're almost done and something vaguely resembling a point is close at hand.
In it's never ending quest to become completely and fully jealous of Hollywood, the gaming industry also releases Director's Cuts of various games. We'll ignore the fact that games don't traditionally call the creative lead a Director, but hell, it's an easy sell for our pin-heads in marketing. The term has built up some cache in the consumer world. Stamped on anything it means more, which we all know means better. 1/3 more fun.
Some of these games include: Medal of Honor: Director's Cut, Grand Theft Auto: Director's Cut, Resident Evil: The Director's Cut and of course, no list would be complete without Hub Gam 3D the Directors Cut.
Not to be out done, GameSpy has the DOOM 3: The Director's Cut Review, which isn't a review of DOOM 3: The Director's Cut, it's the Director's Cut of the Review of DOOM 3. Now that's funny.
Maybe Director's Cut is just a fancy word for Patch.
OK, I lied. There is no point.

Other people's comments:
Posted by DuncanC on Sep 13, 2004 ten past two pm
Posted by Haggis on Sep 13, 2004 quarter past two pm
Posted by LeChuckie on Sep 13, 2004 twenty five to three pm
Posted by Edmundo on Sep 13, 2004 twenty five past four pm
Posted by Otinia on Sep 13, 2004 five pm
Posted by Smac on Sep 13, 2004 quarter past five pm
Game of the Year edition
Every game that is even mentioned in an awards article is re-released as a Game of the Year edition. Some of them are actually good (UT did enclude extra content in theirs). Most, however (like Battlefield 1942 and, I believe, Deus Ex) don't enclude any additional content, but they use the "Game of the Year" edition as a marketing ploy.
Maybe it isn't the same thing, but it is a similar problem.
Posted by Ron Gilbert on Sep 13, 2004 quarter to six pm
Yes, but that's my point. Throwing additional content into a game or movie is not necessarily better, and I'm willing to bet in most cases it's worse. Most of the content that is crammed back in is stuff that was cut for a reason (i.e. cutting-room floor).
DVD's have special "deleted scenes" sections, which are fun to watch, but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking (ok, ranting) about scenes that are integrated back into the film (or game). It's not the Director's (or Designer/Developers) true vision of the work, it's just crap added for marketing value.
But I guess people like that...
Posted by pumpy jack on Sep 13, 2004 five past seven pm
And of course, don't forget the lovely retail market that will happily pull a product off the shelf after a month or two. At least with a new title, especially one with the ultra-sexy "director's cut" adjective, you can get your product back on the shelves for another month. And all you have to do is make enough content for an add-on lite.
Genius.
Posted by Purple Penguin on Sep 13, 2004 twenty past eight pm
Posted by piyo on Sep 13, 2004 nine pm
And what is with the bold, man? Are you trying to out-GRC the GRC?
Posted by Ron Gilbert on Sep 13, 2004 half past nine pm
The bold text is used to conceal hidden messages. Thousands of years from now, scholars will refer to it as the Grumpy Code.
Posted by LeChuckie on Sep 14, 2004 twenty past one am
Posted by Mess on Sep 14, 2004 five to two am
But I'm seeing what you're saying. Does anyone remember the Night of the Living Dead DIRECTORS CUT from a few years back, wich had an opening scene IN COLOR?
Posted by omloflump on Sep 14, 2004 five to three am
Posted by Darkodoesntsuck on Sep 2, 2005 twenty to nine pm
Posted by Johnny B Good on Sep 14, 2004 twenty past four am
http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/maniac.html
Posted by jjdeu on Sep 14, 2004 twenty to seven am
Posted by Haggis on Sep 14, 2004 twenty to seven am
Now, this is a different situation. The LOTR movies could have been 10 hours long each if everything from the book was included. Peter Jackson and the crew still tried to put in as much as possible, making the movies about four whopping hours each. This is clearly too long for most casual movie-goers who couldn't care less about Tolkien's story, but many geeks will buy the original version of the movie on the 'Extended' Edition DVDs.
Posted by steve on Sep 14, 2004 ten past nine am
But at least they used "Redux" instead of "Director's Cut."
Posted by Ron Gilbert on Sep 14, 2004 twenty five past ten am
Strictly Ballroom
Posted by Joshi on Sep 14, 2004 ten past noon
rantconversation about directors cuts can be complete without a look at X-men 1.5. That was sheer tripe. The movie in itself was okay (no, I'm in no way comparing to Donnie Darko) but the "added scenes" if you could even call them that weren't worth it. All that had happened was someone took the deleted scenes that would have been in the "deleted scenes" secition of the DVD anyway and threw them in wherever they were meant to go, even if that meant having to watch the same scene twice, but one of them slightly longer. They weren't even cleaned up to match the feature, it was as if someone had brought along a hand held camera, threw in some cheap effects and threw it in.I can understand the extended LOTR DVD's, the reason the added stuff wasn't put in the theatrical version was because of 1) pacing, which is established in the cinema, so it doesn't really matter anymore, you don't like it, buy the theatrical version and 2) time, the movies were 3 freakin hours long without the added stuff! Each! But of course, with a DVD, you can stop or pause to go to the lavvy or to sleep and so on. And at least they made an effort with the added stuff, new effects and score and so on.
Oh, and love Donnie Darko, just so my "comment" has something to do with the topic at hand.
Posted by Mess on Sep 14, 2004 quarter to one pm
I only ever saw the director's cut, it'd be a shame if that was the bad version of the movie.
What with the original cut neigh impossible to find.
Posted by Marek on Sep 14, 2004 half past one pm
Posted by Hullabaloo on Sep 14, 2004 five to three pm
Bladerunner - Better ending. No schlocky voiceovers. More mysterious.
Aliens - More background on the main characters and the colony. Some nice additional action sequences.
Saving Private Ryan - The old guy at the end goes on a shooting spree, killing thousands of zombie Nazis which rise up from the ground.
That's all I can think of.
That last one may have never happened.
Posted by Badman on Sep 15, 2004 six am
I enjoyed this a lot more than the director's cut, and I hope we'll finally get the BR "ultimate edition" so I can watch the original again.
Posted by Mess on Sep 15, 2004 quarter to nine am
Posted by Jamie Fristrom on Sep 15, 2004 five past one pm
I saw an interview with Ridley Scott that said the hardboiled voice-over was part of his original intention...too bad Harrison Ford phoned it in, I guess.
The Aliens director's cut hits a false note for me when we find out Ripley's first name.
My feeling...don't mess with things people like!
Posted by omloflump on Sep 16, 2004 quarter past one am
That WAS a joke right?
Posted by Ron Gilbert on Sep 16, 2004 half past eight am
That WAS a joke right?
Nope. Have you seen it?
Posted by Someone on Sep 17, 2004 ten to three am
Posted by Robert Lacey on Sep 17, 2004 twenty five past two pm
I really need to watch Donnie Darko. And, it would appear, Strictly Ballroom. Now go watch Amelie, guys...
Posted by Yufster on Sep 17, 2004 twenty to three pm
Yeah. Baz Luhrmann is awesome. His movies have a vibrant, colourful, flamboyant style that's pretty unique to him.
Moulin Rouge is definitely worth watching. It's cheap and cheerful, but has the most amazing visuals. And not as in special effects (which it does have, aplenty), but moreso in the actual set designs, costume designs, etc... and of course the music. It's complete eye and ear candy from beginning to end, and it's completely crazy.
If you don't know what Ear Candy is, you probably haven't seen Moulin Rouge. Check it out. You'll love it, I promise.
Posted by Yufster on Sep 17, 2004 quarter to three pm
Why? The only thing I reproach him for is having that terrible, terrible actor, Leonardo Dewossname, in Romeo and Juliet.
Although Leonardo Wassname was actually pretty good in Catch Me If You Can, so I don't hate him quite as much any more.
Posted by Jeff on Sep 18, 2004 twenty five to one am
Then there's M. Night "One Trick Pony" Shymalayn and "Unbreakable" -- where he decided the scene that had Bruce Willis showing compassion (by breaking down in the shower) made him too human! It had to go! So instead he's totally a robot.
Posted by Mess on Sep 18, 2004 twenty five to nine am
Posted by Edmundo on Sep 18, 2004 twenty five past six pm
Posted by kurtisaurus on Sep 18, 2004 ten past seven pm
Posted by JasonR on Sep 21, 2004 four pm
Posted by Vangelis Karaplios on Sep 27, 2004 ten to eight am
I am from Greece and I am a huge fan of your games. I would be extremely happy if you could contact me and have a small chat with a faraway friend and fan of your work. I would be very very glad. Hope you are making again a new adventure game sometime!
I'm hoping for an answer! Monkey Island had an influence on me, just so huge!
Farewell sir!
megavag
megavag@hotmail.com
Posted by Chris 'The Tingler' Capel on Oct 26, 2004 twenty to eleven am
Posted by Philip Banks on Oct 27, 2004 five past four pm
I also think that Aliens(Directors Cut) dropped the ball in one major area - a large part of the tension and ambience in that film is thanks to the unknown. We don't know what the colony was like before the aliens over-ran it so, seeing the devestation as the marines first search it, our imagination did a lot work in filling in and involving us as viewers. To then have the colony shots destroys that tension and further makes it a little too obviously film contrived by showing us Newts father as being the primary vector. The other extensions are great though including the extra history for Ripley and seeing some of the higher tech gear the marines have. (The original film never made much sense as to why the marines felt they even stood a chance at holing up and waiting for a rescue given that the colony had been over-run before and they were short on ammunition.)
As for Donnie Darko it is a film I love and I haven't seen the directors cut. Based on what you outline in the grump I doubt I'll want to see the directors cut. It sounds like it makes precisely the same mistake Aliens DC partially does - destroys the mood by refusing to leave space for the viewer to interpret things for themselves.
Posted by PGJ on Nov 3, 2004 twenty five past noon
Posted by Rosalie on May 15, 2005 five past nine am
But seriously, the most insane "Directors Cut" Is Sonic Adventure: Directors CUt.
Apprently, nowadays, Directors cut better chracter models and 8 fun Gamegear games! from action-orientated 3D titles. Am I the only one who sees how little sense this makes?
"Directors cut" would be giving people the removed beta levels that Sonic fans so sorely want (see, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 Beta), but the only thing they from that was retexturing one area with what resmebles a beta version of the texture, and doesn't even look as good.
They could ahve ptu back in the multi-player mode, removed levels, or put in director(Yuki Naka)'s commentry, but apparently not ;/
Posted by Adam on Jul 10, 2005 quarter to six pm
But hey! good to see it on the big screen. and still heaps better than the rest of the current crop of BlOCkBuStErS!!
hmm.
Posted by Verwandlung on Jul 11, 2005 twenty five past two am
Posted by Sveinn Gunnarssoon on Aug 24, 2005 half past eight pm
Posted by bladerunner on Aug 25, 2005 ten past one am