Why would there be a director's cut? Didn't the director do the original cut? He was the producer; if he didn't do it, it was because he didn't want to.

[–] TheImpressiveX@piefed.social 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This line from the article really sums it up:

He also supposedly plans for a "director’s cut" – sorry, then what was it we watched last fall, exactly? Someone else's cut – called Megalopolis Unbound: longer, weirder, maybe some dream sequences. (Was the whole movie not his own dream sequence?)

In all seriousness, the "director's cut" is mostly used nowadays as a marketing term, it seems.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

It always was a marketing ploy.

[–] hydrashok@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The way I think of it, the “directors cut” is the version the director wanted without outside influences. The theatrical release was cut by a group with the director, editor, producers, and studio all having a say in the final result.

[–] Foni@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 months ago

Normally yes, I agree with what you say, but in this case the director, producer, editor and editor were the same person or were 100% supervised