Director's (Author's) Cuts or Extended Editions?

[Zero Angel]

In film, one of the things I've almost always enjoyed more than the theatrical version of a movie, are the director's cuts or extended editions (I am not talking about the "unrated versions" that add one or two crap jokes that were too raunchy, although if given the option I will usually watch those).

Three examples:
Spawn Director's Cut R version instead of the PG-13 (although this was really just a couple things (AND ONE OF THEM WAS A RAUNCHY JOKE! -_- ...but it was the first example I was exposed to and thus burned in my mind).

The Lord of the Rings extended editions.

Harry Potter extended editions.

There are dozens more, but these three come to my mind when I think of Director's Cut versus Theatrical Release.

My questions to yins though, is what do you think of an author doing this? Do you know of authors doing this?

We have a film commentary analogue in annotated editions, but I am unsure of any director's cut analogues. I would think this might become a "thing" in the new world of eBooks, but I am curious if it exists elsewhere.

What would be your reaction to an author going back and releasing their "true" vision of a book--or even just going back and including additional scenes. Imagine JRR Tolkien going back and showing us the scenes that Jackson is going to be including in the Hobbit that were not included in the book. What would be your reaction?

Yes? No? Good for fans but of limited appeal and thus confined to the eBook world? Do you think this will start happening now (if it is already happening, do you think we will see more of this?)?

 

[BWFoster78]

My first thought is Stephen King's The Stand. His editior, if I remember the story correctly, made him cut a bunch of it before he was famous. He eventually rereleased it the way he intended. It was longer but not any better.

 

[Graylorne]

Raymond Feist's first book Magician has an Author's Cut, containing all those scenes he had to take out the first time. I've got both versions. The AC gave more background information, but there's nothing standing out in my memory that made it a 'must' to add it.

 

[Zero Angel]

My first thought is Stephen King's The Stand. His editior, if I remember the story correctly, made him cut a bunch of it before he was famous. He eventually rereleased it the way he intended. It was longer but not any better.

This is a troubling quality of what I would imagine many authors would do. A lot of the edits are done specifically to make the story better and more consumable.

I'm sure there are authors that write to the mainstream that would like to write an alternate specifically for their fans though.

 

[Ireth]

...There are Extended Editions of HP?

 

[WyrdMystic]

I can go with a limited edition, maybe special artwork, binding extra content - but not with additions to the story. I can live with it in films, but still it makes me feel like I wasted my money the first time around (unless I waited to get the extended cut first of course).

The Lord of the Rings extended versions were more the normal version and the original version was a cut down version - you can tell this because suddenly Frodo had a rope etc etc. The scenes that were cut were actually neccessary to the story - otherwise, you know, that gun the detective has in his pocket that's never been mentioned before. Go figure.

EDIT -

that's not to say I didn't love the movies!

 

[Zero Angel]

...There are Extended Editions of HP?

Yeah, but they haven't made any more since their initial printings (I think just for the first 3-5 movies). The versions ABC Family plays when they do a "Harry Potter Weekend" are the extended versions usually.

I can go with a limited edition, maybe special artwork, binding extra content - but not with additions to the story. I can live with it in films, but still it makes me feel like I wasted my money the first time around (unless I waited to get the extended cut first of course).

The Lord of the Rings extended versions were more the normal version and the original version was a cut down version - you can tell this because suddenly Frodo had a rope etc etc. The scenes that were cut were actually neccessary to the story - otherwise, you know, that gun the detective has in his pocket that's never been mentioned before. Go figure.

I definitely like the collector's editions for books. As far as LotR goes though, the cut-down versions are the ones cut down to make it more consumable for the mainstream, while the extended are "truer", but also harder to digest (at over an hour more content per film approximately). I prefer the extended 1000000 times over the theatrical (or at least 1 and 1/3 times more).

 

[Penpilot]

There's always the danger with extended cuts of anything that the reintroduced material will weight things down and kill the pacing. Films and books are different things. I think films can get away with extended cuts because they tend to cut seconds out and/or a few minutes at most, so it's less noticeable. With books, I think it would be more jarring.

To me the expectation with books is they're in the form they need to be with all the unimportant things cut out. I not sure why, but I'm more forgiving of movie extended cuts, but the idea for books to do the same doesn't work for me.

 

[MadMadys]

I would say it's different for books and movies for the most part. I think a prime example would be comparing the original release of Bladerunner with the Director's Cut (though there have been like 50 of them or so). Speaking nothing of the book it was based, one of the big differences between the two was the voiceover that came with the original was taken out in Scott's cut as he did not plan to have it in there. It was the studio that thought without that voiceover the audience would be confused. I don't exactly blame them but the movie works much better without it. In general, a studio has a lot, millions, invested in a movie and are very picky about what gets on screen being bankable.

Now compared to most books and I think it's slightly different. The investment is usually never as big so the risks aren't as high for as many people. In editing a book, you're typically working to help with story flow, clarity, dialogue, etc. Now the same goes for movie editing too but then take that a step further and they're thinking about editing out that one joke or scene that makes the difference between a R rating and a PG-13. That small cut is made without regard to flow or feel of the movie and more so making a much bigger box office draw. That's why, after that theatrical run is done and it's coming out on DVD, they can throw those extra scenes in and slap the "the way the director wanted you to see it" on there because the money has been made (for the most part).

Of the very few times I've read books that had an "author's cut" available, I never came away feeling different about the work, overall. Movies, on the other hand, are a different story, for me anyway. Kingdom of Heaven (and here is Scott again) in it's original release, I thought, was not all that good. The director's cut was a vast improvement to the overall story and made me feel differently about the work. Now, I wouldn't say that a director's cut is, by rule, better than the studio cut (American History X could be a prime example if you know how that whole situation unfolded) and something like the LotR, while I loved the extended cuts, I don't think I could manage them in a theater. I mean, I can do that at home when I can pause, get something to eat, sprawl on the couch, take bathroom breaks, but in a theater I would probably not even buy a ticket. It's just too much for me.

 

[Shockley]

On a total side note, the PG-13 Saving Silverman is a thousand million times better than the Unrated/Extended versions.

The Hobbit as we currently have it is, basically, a Director's Cut.

 

[Leif Notae]

The digital age will usher in a hybrid of the two for books. There will be hyperlinks fused in with the text where a name might be confusing, where someone might want to pull up a map where someone is, or even a family chart. There will be interviews about the chapters and scenes attached to the projects, and of course, sites where you can find more information.

This will cost a lot more too. We are talking paying for programming now, not just words.

 

[Zero Angel]

The digital age will usher in a hybrid of the two for books. There will be hyperlinks fused in with the text where a name might be confusing, where someone might want to pull up a map where someone is, or even a family chart. There will be interviews about the chapters and scenes attached to the projects, and of course, sites where you can find more information.

This will cost a lot more too. We are talking paying for programming now, not just words.

A lot of this isn't too difficult to do. Of course, you need to develop the content, which takes longer. Although, one nice thing is you can have the base book put out, and then continue developing content and including it in future editions with no cost and where anyone that "owns" the book (or rather, "rents the digital content") can download the new edition for free.

In fact, this is the model I am using for my digital books. I put out the first edition with the main text, and then each subsequent edition adds additional content.

 

[WyrdMystic]

A lot of this isn't too difficult to do. Of course, you need to develop the content, which takes longer. Although, one nice thing is you can have the base book put out, and then continue developing content and including it in future editions with no cost and where anyone that "owns" the book (or rather, "rents the digital content") can download the new edition for free.

In fact, this is the model I am using for my digital books. I put out the first edition with the main text, and then each subsequent edition adds additional content.

The next age of books is already in the works - it will be augmented reality and visual graphics. Not too long from now digital books will need developers as well to infuse the story with action.