Was The Director's Cut of Gods & Generals Supposed To Be the Original Theatrical Release?

Bryan_C

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Location
North of Fort Stevens, DC
Recently I got a copy of the Extended Director's Cut of Gods & Generals. It almost makes the original theatrical release a completely different film, in my opinion. It definitely flows better as a movie. It got me wondering if it was supposed to be the intended release of the film and not the version we say in 2003. One of the biggest criticisms (and there are many) of the 2003 version is that it is "poorly edited" and many of the supblots are not developed. But the Director's Cut makes a lot of things make more sense. I'm wondering if it was originally supposed to be the 2003 release and then, for some reason, I don't know why, it was "poorly edited" to be the film as most of us know it.

One thing I've noticed in the difference between the two films is the order of some of the scenes is different. In the theatrical release the scenes go like this:
  • Introduction of Adelbert Ames/20th Maine (caption reads "Camp Mason, Maine, Spring 1862")
  • Jackson salutes his troops ("You are the First Brigade!")
  • Hancock and Couch meet with Burnside to argue for sending a light force troops across the Rappahannock, November 1862
But the director's cut flips the order of these scens and offers more information:
  • Jackson says farewell (instead of "Godspeed") to his troops (he was reassigned to the Shenandoah Valley) November 1861
  • Introduction of Adelbert Ames/20th Maine in August 1862 ( in the summer of 1862, President Lincoln called for 300,00 more volunters- "We Are Coming, Father Abraham, 300,000 More-" and the 20th Maine was one of those regiments which answered the call. The regiment was not formed until August 1862 and the date was deliberately changed for the movie.)
  • Battle of Antietam (movie gets the date wrong :frown: )
  • Hancock and Couch meet with Burnside to argue for sending a light force troops across the Rappahannock, November 1862
 
No it's still not the full cut. Maxwell's original movie was right at 6 hours and the directors cut is 280 minutes.

I know they shot 6 hours of film and probably more than that. But I was asking about what was supposed to be released in the theatre. Can you even make a 6 hour movie for the theatres these days? A movie theatre would probably have to charge 3x as much as a regular ticket just to make it worthwhile.

In any case, I would not be surprised if another Gods & Generals EXTENDED extended release comes out someday.
 
I know they shot 6 hours of film and probably more than that. But I was asking about what was supposed to be released in the theatre. Can you even make a 6 hour movie for the theatres these days? A movie theatre would probably have to charge 3x as much as a regular ticket just to make it worthwhile.

In any case, I would not be surprised if another Gods & Generals EXTENDED extended release comes out someday.

Maybe someday they'll cut the silly woman out and we can all rest in peace.
 

I just find that entire scene from around where the slave master woman and the slave woman are arguing over if the slave and her family should stay back or not to the point where the Union soldiers knock on the door to find the slave woman and her children claiming that it is there home to be unintentionally hilarious. :wavespin:
 
I just find that entire scene from around where the slave master woman and the slave woman are arguing over if the slave and her family should stay back or not to the point where the Union soldiers knock on the door to find the slave woman and her children claiming that it is there home to be unintentionally hilarious. :wavespin:

I mentioned in another post that I have a love-hate attitude about Gods & Generals. There are parts of the movie that I really love; and there are parts that are just plain ridiculous, particularly the depictions of slavery. Through displays of affection and respect (hugs and kisses from the Beale family), Martha Beale is treated like a well-loved paid employee instead of a slave. And when Jim Lewis meets Stonewall Jackson with a handshake and a one-on-one, eye-to-eye conversation, it's like he's on a job interview instead of what I believe really happened: Jackson met with Lewis' owner, shook that man's hand and discussed hiring Jim out to the General. Lewis may not have even been in the room during the transaction. To be fair to the story, there are at least two documented occurrences of Lewis being paid by Jackson (Robertson, James I. Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend; p. 290).

Like Jim Lewis, Martha Beale was a real person. Perhaps there is historic fact to back this up but I don't understand why she tells General Hancock she is desperate for her and her family's freedom, yet she doesn't leave with the army when they leave the town... like slave John Washington did in April 1862. And whenever I see the Christmas party scene in the movie (an event which Jim Lewis and another slave cooked for [Robertson, p. 669]), and General Lee toasts his glass to "our Southern women," and it is no accident that Martha is not there. I always think no glass is raised for her. Even though she saved the Beale house from looting and damage, she is a slave and not on the list of "our Sothern women."
 
I'm watching G&G- extended version right now; I tried watching the original and turned it off after about 30 min, got distracted...trying to sit through the new version and doing a bit better, but I admit- it's not sucking me in like Gettysburg did. I'm not feeling a coherent "story", more like a collection of set-pieces all grouped together (variations on a theme?). It's definitely "The Stonewall Jackson Story", with some other bits thrown in. The battle sequences have a real sense of "sameness" to them. Long camera shots, close ups. Men load, fire. Men are hit, fall down. Things blow up, men go flying. But I don't know any of these men, so there's no sense of real loss. I cared about Chamberlain, Kilrain, but also about the guys from the 2nd Maine, about the other guys from the 20th. I couldn't tell you much about any of Stonewall's men- granted, it's a different view of the battle, regiment vs. brigade, but still...

No real sense of how it all hangs together either. Manassas? Antietam? What do those mean? If you're interested in the CW, you know. If you have an average 8th grade understanding, you recognize that battles were fought at these places but that's about it. What else was going on during this time? Where's Lee? It's just too broad, and at the same time too narrowly focused.

Anyway, that's how I see it up to Fredericksburg, that's tonight.
 
I'm watching G&G- extended version right now; I tried watching the original and turned it off after about 30 min, got distracted...trying to sit through the new version and doing a bit better, but I admit- it's not sucking me in like Gettysburg did. I'm not feeling a coherent "story", more like a collection of set-pieces all grouped together (variations on a theme?). It's definitely "The Stonewall Jackson Story", with some other bits thrown in. The battle sequences have a real sense of "sameness" to them. Long camera shots, close ups. Men load, fire. Men are hit, fall down. Things blow up, men go flying. But I don't know any of these men, so there's no sense of real loss. I cared about Chamberlain, Kilrain, but also about the guys from the 2nd Maine, about the other guys from the 20th. I couldn't tell you much about any of Stonewall's men- granted, it's a different view of the battle, regiment vs. brigade, but still...

No real sense of how it all hangs together either. Manassas? Antietam? What do those mean? If you're interested in the CW, you know. If you have an average 8th grade understanding, you recognize that battles were fought at these places but that's about it. What else was going on during this time? Where's Lee? It's just too broad, and at the same time too narrowly focused.

Anyway, that's how I see it up to Fredericksburg, that's tonight.

I think that's why I like it for class. I can do a battle per day. :smile: Set pieces. Brilliant. You figured it out!
 
I mentioned in another post that I have a love-hate attitude about Gods & Generals. There are parts of the movie that I really love; and there are parts that are just plain ridiculous, particularly the depictions of slavery. Through displays of affection and respect (hugs and kisses from the Beale family), Martha Beale is treated like a well-loved paid employee instead of a slave. And when Jim Lewis meets Stonewall Jackson with a handshake and a one-on-one, eye-to-eye conversation, it's like he's on a job interview instead of what I believe really happened: Jackson met with Lewis' owner, shook that man's hand and discussed hiring Jim out to the General. Lewis may not have even been in the room during the transaction. To be fair to the story, there are at least two documented occurrences of Lewis being paid by Jackson (Robertson, James I. Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend; p. 290).

Like Jim Lewis, Martha Beale was a real person. Perhaps there is historic fact to back this up but I don't understand why she tells General Hancock she is desperate for her and her family's freedom, yet she doesn't leave with the army when they leave the town... like slave John Washington did in April 1862. And whenever I see the Christmas party scene in the movie (an event which Jim Lewis and another slave cooked for [Robertson, p. 669]), and General Lee toasts his glass to "our Southern women," and it is no accident that Martha is not there. I always think no glass is raised for her. Even though she saved the Beale house from looting and damage, she is a slave and not on the list of "our Sothern women."

That's a great post and reply. No one is doubting that events like that didn't take place in reality. But that is the movie's ONLY depictions of slavery, and the happy dancing slaves when Virginia, I think, decides to secede and the U.S. flag is taken down from the pole. None of them were mistreated or okay with being in the position they were in, but would also like to have some time off from their "job?"
 
Alright, back on topic...I would love to see the extended and deleted scenes if they are mostly battles. I wish/hope the extended version comes out on dvd, because all I see anymore for Gods and Generals and Gettysburg is blue-ray, if I want to see more than the theatrical release or even the theatrical release + the 30 minutes of bonus footage that came out with the gift set in 1994.
 
Alright, back on topic...I would love to see the extended and deleted scenes if they are mostly battles. I wish/hope the extended version comes out on dvd, because all I see anymore for Gods and Generals and Gettysburg is blue-ray, if I want to see more than the theatrical release or even the theatrical release + the 30 minutes of bonus footage that came out with the gift set in 1994.

When (hopefully) this comes down to a clearance price (around $20-$25) I'll definitely buy it. It's DVD and not Blu-ray.

gandg.png
 
Back
Top