MovieChat Forums > Dark City (1998) Discussion > The director's cut actually makes a chan...

The director's cut actually makes a change I just don't like...

posted 10 years ago by RockinRickyRialto
6 replies | jump to latest

Yes, omitting Dr. Schreber's narration at the very beginning is a good thing, as it doesn't give us huge clues to the mysteries of the city in the first minute of the film. But they also omit the scene right after, where Schreber watches the city commotion and traffic suddenly stop, instead just going to the titles right after he first looks at his watch.

The visual of the massive deco cityscape in this scene, combined with the first taste of Trevor Jones' great main theme and the mystery of why everyone suddenly falls unconscious, makes for what I think is a much more powerful lead-in than the Doctor just walking by. My ideal version of this scene would keep that footage, but lose the narration.

What I think of your post: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VC4YjOp4Cto#t=10s

[–] dschoenike 9 years ago

Great post. Totally agree.

[–] bozo_500 9 years ago

the editing of the DC is different too. IMO Theatrical cut is best. Even with the narration 

[–] Marcus Laubner 9 years ago

There are some more changes I disliked in the DC:
1) Mae's daughter
The way I see it this scene is about John realizing at his visit that he's not capable of killing and therefore leaves. In the DC John sees her daughter and leaves because of her.
2) When John gets bitten by Mr. Sleep and jumps to the rising chimney, Trevor Jones' music fades out and fades back in in the DC a few seconds later. There are no additional shots here, so the track didn't need any changes.
3) Fingerprints
I see that John evolved, but why have his fingerprints changed? Doesn't make much sense to me. I liked other symbols like the spiral coffee, though.

[–] amadaca 9 years ago

Fingerprints are a metaphor for identity, the main theme of the film. Their presence on certain shots wasn't in reference to him evolving or changing, they were an allusion to John's bemusement as to who he was

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

Sometimes theatrical cuts just work better, sometimes the leave away important bits, sometimes the reveal too much, and sometimes they do both and still work better...
Often when the DC is significantly better, the director just was to ambitioned and the movie got too long (like Lord Of The Rings II and III, which are impossible to cut on a theatrical length without butchering the content). But when it is merely a matter of streamlining, sometimes the input of the people marketing the movie improves the result more than they get credit for.
Cameron Crowe said about the Almost Famous DC that is was for people knowing the movie who want to get out more of it, while the flow of the theatrical cut is better.

[–] wormholeboy 8 years ago

+1 Other than the narration, I think the theatrical cut's opening is better too. I just recommend to people that they mute the film at the start and turn the sound back on when the shot cuts to showing the face of Sutherland's watch.