MovieChat Forums > Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996) Discussion > Director's Cut is...

Director's Cut is...

posted 15 years ago by lspear76
9 replies | jump to latest

Worse than the original. I just watched the workprint and I'm not impressed. It's more confusing than the final theatrical cut. Sure, it's unfinished, but I can see why Dimension wanted changes to it. The film is told in a flashback way that left me scratching my head as to what I was watching. The only parts I enjoyed were the first scene -- where the girl is killed and turned into Angelique... and the flashback where the gamblers are skinned alive. That flashback happens when Angelique punches the hole through the building to retrieve the box.

[–] Hollowshape 15 years ago

The workprint version ("Director's Cut") is NOT the original film. The film was not originally told as a flashback. From what I understand, the workprint, you just watched, is the result of director Kevin Yagher cutting scenes and changing the order of certain scenes, all to please the producers. Pretty much all of the 17th century scenes were deleted, as the studio wanted to get to Pinhead's part in the story sooner. Some of the 17th century scenes (gamblers death) ended up being flashbacks.

That is why it's confusing.

[–] nuke184 15 years ago

I just got the workprint at a Monster Mania Convention. I am thankful to have seen it. It is worth it for the extended scenes. It is incomplete with a number of INSERT: FX/GORE SHOT HERE spots, but you get an idea of how it would have played out. What gets me is how poorly Dimension Films handled this movie. All this trouble, so that we could see Pinhead earlier on in the proceedings? Idiots! The final cut didn't have to be so short. They could have included more material from Kevin Yaugher's cut. If the three separate timelines were told in the right order of sequence, and if some of the extra material were kept in, this could have been a really good movie. As is, the theatrical cut is decent and far from unwatchable, but the workprint shows the promise of a better movie.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TermlnatriX 12 years ago

I'm at 36 mins in, watching it for the first time and Pinhead just showed up, would this mean it's the director's cut? All the 17th century scenes lead up to this. And this is the Blu Ray too...

---------
:: film education for free ::
http://tinyurl.com/8k2b5wb
---------

[–] HellboundHero 12 years ago

The only officially released version is the theatrical cut. If you bought your version in a store, it's definitely the theatrical. The director's cut is not available at all, not even through bootlegging. The workprint (which can be found online) is somewhere between the director's cut and the final cut, featuring a reworking of the order of scenes (it's still mostly linear like the director's cut but a few of the 18th century scenes appear after the 18th century portion of the movie as flashbacks). Still, this cut is missing a large chunk of the 18th century scenes.

The script is on cenobite.com in the library section if you want to have a good idea of what the director's cut would actually be.

[–] speccyboy 11 years ago

From what I understand, a lot of the 18th Century scenes were never shot due to executive meddling (which prompted director Kevin Yeagher to react the way he did). It's a damn shame, too, because I, for one, would have LOVED to have seen a complete version of this overlooked film, even if it did clock in at around 2 1/2 hours.

[–] HellboundHero 8 years ago

I'm not sure. What I've always heard is that everything was shot(but the effects probably weren't completed), the producers didn't like the rough cut and ordered reshoots which Yagher didn't comply with, resulting in the hiring of Joe Chappelle and Yagher having his name taken off the movie.

[–] LiquidDrainerFilms 10 years ago

If you're looking for the actual director's cut, check out this composite version that's on youtube, which is probably the closest thing: it takes that workprint (which, as others have said, isn't actually what the director's cut would have been) and the blu-ray of the theatrical version, and recuts all of it to follow the original script. Far more coherent, and closer to what the director's cut was actually supposed to be!

in part 2 of the movie, there's this extended portion of the past timeline that was never shot, and the person who assembled this director's cut decided to recreate the scenes in some Sims-looking programs, with voice actors reading the script... personally, I find it really distracting, and it pulls me out of the movie, but I just skipped over that sequence and the film still worked just fine. I do commend their efforts and thoroughness, and I can see how some people would appreciate what they did... but I just didn't think it worked well.

Take a look- it's probably the closest to the director's cut we'll ever get, and the quality is very good! This person did a really good job cleaning up the workprint and mixing it in with the HD footage of the theatrical version!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSpJu7f2sco

[–] jbhutt0 8 years ago

You are a dope OP, what's so confusing about the Past/Present/Future acts linearly following one another? 1) Past - Creation of the box and death of its creator, 2) "Present" - this incarnation of Le' Marchant has a desire to build the Elysium configuration but lacks the true understanding and resources necessary to complete it and 3) Future - the last in the Le' Marchant bloodline has a greater understanding of his ancestors and has made it his life's goal to destroy the box/gateway forever