James Cameron's Best Cut is Always the Theatrical Cut
James Cameron's Best Cut is Always the Theatrical Cut
Plus: Way of Water, Special Editions, Multi-Version Exhibition, and the Unmade T3
In this article, I want to talk about a bunch of things pertaining to James Cameron. Among other things, I will discuss the multi-version theatrical release strategy of Avatar (2009) and make a case for why the best edition of a Cameron movie is actually the theatrical version. I will also share my review of the sequel, Avatar: The Way of Water (2022), and present a theory about why Cameron bowed out of making a third installment of the Terminator franchise in 1997.
Table of Contents:
1. Avatar and Modern Multi-Version Exhibition Practices
2. Avatar: Theatrical vs. Extended Cut
3. The Best Cameron Cut is Always the Theatrical Cut
4. What Makes a Cameron ‘Special Edition’?
5. Avatar 2 is a superior sequel
6. On Cameron’s Unmade Terminator 3Avatar and Modern Multi-Version Exhibition Practices
One of the things that I find fascinating about the state of contemporary cinema is how standardized the presentation of a film in multiple theatrical versions has become over the past 20 years, as movie theaters transitioned from celluloid to digital projection. A given blockbuster might offer a plethora of viewing options upon release today, such as 2D, XD, 3D, Imax, Imax 3D, True Imax, and HFR among others. Each of these will have unique technical specifications and elements.
There can be differences in screen size, aspect ratio (such as those pics composed for multi-ratio presentations and/or with Imax cameras), image brightness, and frame rate. And that’s before we get to potential editorial revisions and technical adjustments for other platforms, such as home video, streaming, or television.
Alternate exhibition formats naturally tend to crop up during periods of technological change, and the digital transition has been a long, long process whose exact starting point is debatable. Imax and Digitally Projected versions date back to the beginning of the 21st century. But I do believe that Avatar (2009) was the trendsetter for multi-version exhibition in the digital era.
Did you know that there were at least 22 different versions of Avatar released in the US alone? 18 of them came out in theaters simultaneously back in 2009, with most being distinguishable largely in terms of how well they were adjusted towards the technical specifications of different theaters.
This was chronicled in a 2010 Hollywood Reporter article, which claimed that the movie could very well revolutionize the future of ‘delivery versions.’ This was at the behest of Cameron, who wanted to ensure that every given theater could show the film with the “highest presentation quality possible.”
“In total, there were 18 different versions of “Avatar” created for the domestic market, plus an additional 92 for international markets, which were released in 47 languages. The international versions included more than 52 subtitled and 18 dubbed versions on film, 58 subtitled and 36 dubbed versions in digital 3D, nine subtitled and eight dubbed versions in digital 2D, and 23 subtitled and 15 dubbed versions for Imax.”
The article emphasizes that the movie was ‘completed’ in three different aspect ratios to accommodate the different screen sizes in different theaters.
“To optimize the experience for different screens sizes, Cameron made the decision to complete the movie in three aspect ratios: Scope (2:39:1), flat (1:85:1) and Imax (1:43:1). “You are not going to see many directors releasing in different aspect ratios, as most pick their canvas and that is their format,” Fox vp postproduction Steve Barnett says.”
Different theaters necessitated different lighting and other technical aspects. And in some cases, a single theater had different versions for different auditoriums.
“Creative decisions involving light levels also led to additional versions. 3D projection and glasses cut down the light the viewer sees, so “Avatar” also had separate color grades at different light levels, which are measured in foot lamberts.”
I cannot say with absolute certainty that Avatar indeed revolutionized the future of delivery versions. But it does seem that it was only after the film’s massive commercial success that studios began to show almost every other major theatrical film in 3D, Imax, and/or Imax 3D formats in addition to the ‘standard’ 2D digital projection, to the point that numerous blockbusters never intended for 3D projection in the 2010s ended up receiving post-converted 3D versions. From this perspective, Avatar had considerable impact on theatrical exhibition.
Avatar: Theatrical vs. Extended Cut
Aside from the numerous exhibitor variations, there are four different versions of Avatar differentiated by editing.* Following the release of the Theatrical Cut (161 min.), the film was theatrically re-issued in a 2010 “Special Edition” (171 minutes) before receiving a Blu-Ray “Extended Edition” (178 minutes). And then, of course, there was the 2022 theatrical re-issue, which seemed to be the theatrical cut with a few additional seconds restored to tie into the upcoming sequel, The Way of Water.**
*Not counting the “alternate family-friendly audio track” available on the Blu-Ray, which presumably is used for broadcast cuts of the picture.
** At the very end of the picture, when the company people are being sent home to Earth, Parker (Giovanni Ribisi) has a new exchange with Jake before he leaves. He asks: “You think this is over?” The addition is only a few seconds, but it clearly works as a bit of foreshadowing for a potential sequel. I haven’t seen any official comment on the moment but I assume this was initially shot for the first film then cut to avoid having a lot of sequel-bait. Yet, given where Avatar 2 ends up going, the restoration makes sense.
I’ve only seen two cuts: the 2009 theatrical cut and the Blu-Ray Extended Edition. And I will tell you: in my opinion, the theatrical cut of Avatar is overall the best version. The extended cut has an interesting yet distracting prologue, some additional bits of character development that are overall unnecessary, and a really good final scene for Tsutey that unfortunately doesn’t quite work due to its placement in the assemblage.
The exclusion of the Earth-set sequences, imo, was absolutely the best decision for the movie. The theatrical cut just jumps right into the story, quickly summarizing things with a couple of brief flashback inserts. The extended cut’s opening, meanwhile, just meanders. But more than that, it gives us way too much information about Earth, information you can actually infer from the movie itself.
The death of Tsutey is by far the most interesting addition to the extended cut. It feels like a true curtain call for a character that arguably deserved better and is emotionally engaging in a way a lot of the movie isn’t. But I believe cutting it was the right decision, as it comes right on the heels of a much bigger and more important emotional moment for the movie, where Neytiri cradles Jake Sully’s true human form for the first time. The picture then cuts to Tsutey’s death scene, where Jake suddenly reappears in his Avatar form, undermining the impact of the scene right before it. Each of these scenes is individually great. But together, they don’t work that well.*
*Tbh, I wish Cameron had retconned Tsutey’s death in the sequel, revealing that he survived his fall in Avatar, as a key plot point in The Way Of Water would make perfect sense for him, rather than some random Na’vi that's never been seen before. It would also make sense in terms of longform storytelling and characterization to keep Tsutey around.
I discuss these and other issues pertaining to Avatar and/or James Cameron with my friend and colleague Elvis Dutan in a recent Unsourced Wall podcast episode, which we recorded in anticipation of Way of Water. You can listen to it here:
The Best Cameron Cut is Always the Theatrical Cut
The Avatar Extended Edition illustrates Cameron’s general approach to re-editing his films. Whereas some Hollywood filmmakers tend to make a large number of tiny, almost imperceptible edits to the theatrical cut (eg. Ridley Scott and Michael Mann), Cameron specializes in restoring new full scenes and subplots. Because of this, when you watch a James Cameron movie’s theatrical cut and special edition one after the other, you can for the most part easily identify the changes.
And where the theatrical cut is often cut down to its barest essentials, making for a tight unified edit with excellent pacing, the special edition is longer, slower and shaggier, with scenes that typically provide additional character development yet don’t truly advance the plot. The bulk of the new footage in the special editions of Aliens, The Abyss, and Terminator 2 consists of additional character scenes that apparently did not fit the constraints of the theatrical running time.
““I see it not as a fix, but as an opportunity to do greater justice to the characters who live and breathe within the 136-minute confines of the film,” he says. “This ‘Special Edition’ in no way invalidates the theatrical cut. It simply restores some depth and character made omissible by theatrical running time and now made viable again by the home theatrical/laser-disc format… It’s a good lesson for people who are interested in film to see what is necessary--and what is not--to tell a story.”
Source: Cameron on the T2 Special Edition, Dec. 3, 1993 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-12-03-ca-63361-story.html
Now, on principle I have nothing against the addition of new or extended character scenes – indeed, I like a good number of the new sequences in the Aliens Special Edition - but I would argue that this tends to detract from James Cameron’s strengths as a filmmaker, while showcasing his weaknesses as a writer.*
*Of course, Cameron regularly works with other screenwriters but even in such cases, his scripts tend to suffer from the same issues.
Because let’s be honest: Cameron’s narratives regularly color within familiar lines and often feature characters that are rather broad, archetypal, larger than life movie figures. His dialogue is largely functional, hardly memorable (one-liners aside), lacking in subtlety, and sometimes just bad. (Though I don’t think it ever reaches Lucas-level insipidness.)
Trailer for the T2 Special Edition, uploaded by The Following Preview in HD
Where Cameron excels is in the technical construction and execution of a visual narrative. His stories tend to be well structured and composed on the page, and this plays well into his strengths as a visual perfectionist and a maestro of staging, action, shot composition, editing, sound, music, VFX, etc. Thus, when a Cameron movie is edited down to its barest essentials, when every scene is subordinate to advancing the plot, the resulting experience tends to be so beautiful, well-paced, exciting, and immersive that you hardly if ever notice or pay attention to the flaws of the writing.
When it isn’t, the pacing suffers, the immersion weakens and the script issues become more pronounced, more distracting and less forgivable. In addition to the Extended Avatar, the theatrical version of which was already a bit too long, I’d say the same problem plagues the special editions of Aliens, Terminator 2, and The Abyss.* Thus, the extended Avatar perfectly illustrates the fact that, as a rule, a Cameron movie’s theatrical cut is qualitatively superior to the special edition.
*Though I’d be first to admit that this problem is least evident in the case of Aliens, perhaps owing to the fact that it has what is arguably Cameron’s best screenplay.
None of this is to say that I think Cameron shouldn’t release ‘special editions’ of his movies at all. On the contrary, I love that he is willing to release multiple variants that can be collected, compared and contrasted. But I do believe that Cameron has yet to release a special edition that can be said to truly surpass its theatrical counterpart in terms of quality.
What Makes a Cameron ‘Special Edition’?
One thing I’ve always found interesting is that Cameron generally refrains from applying the term ‘director’s cut’ to the re-edited versions of his movies. (The one exception being Aliens, though its official label has also been “special edition.”) He explained this in a personal essay on the restoration of The Abyss Special Edition, which was released on laserdisc and later DVD.
I recommend reading this essay, which can be found as part of a special feature called “The Abyss In-Depth” Chapter 26, in its entirety, for it provides a lot of insight into the nature of creating alternate cuts for the video market. Here, the director questions the very application of the term ‘director’s cut’ to re-edited versions that appear on home video and considers what their release could mean for film history.
Here are some interesting excerpts from this essay:
“Why do it? Why re-edit and lengthen a film almost four years after its initial release? Isn’t this a revision of history, however self-inflicted by the filmmaker, somehow disturbingly wrong? A bastardization of art? Answer: maybe.”
“Sometimes these products come about when the director has not had final cut. The film comes out and is a big hit or is considered critically important, but the director always feels it is flawed because the Suits cut his masterpiece… This was hardly the scenario on “The Abyss”.
“This new cut of the film fulfills all the original goals of the script. It would be inaccurate to call it “the director’s cut”, however, with the implication that the 1989 version was not. I had final cut in 1989, and the film we released was the director’s cut. Or a director’s cut. This is merely another one.”
When Cameron produces a re-edited special edition then, he is not necessarily doing so from a desire to restore his ‘true’ or ‘original’ vision but rather to offer a different experience. After Aliens, he apparently managed to retain final cut for theaters and has never been in a situation where he felt his movie was altered against his wishes.
Given that I find his theatrical cuts to be usually superior to the special editions, I would say that Cameron is an example of a filmmaker, whose work really is at its best when informed by the commercial demands and restrictions of theatrical exhibition.
Avatar 2 is a superior sequel
Like many of you, I went and saw Avatar: The Way of Water in theaters back in December. Having followed the production of the sequels for a while, I knew there was a good chance that Cameron could potentially make a follow-up that improved upon the original. After all, he was now working with a whole group of writers on the screenplays and would probably be able to take stock of what worked and what didn’t the first time around. Cameron did not disappoint.
Yes, much like the first picture, The Way of Water suffers from a monotone voiceover by Sam Worthington that the picture would be better off without (though it does help get a lot of expository setup out of the way quickly), but this is overall a bolder, more confident movie, one that improves on the first in almost every way.
Case in point: even though it’s longer than Avatar by 30 minutes, Way of Water never feels sluggish or boring, thanks to much improved pacing. And even as it moves quickly, it never comes off as rushed or as though there is anything being skipped over (with one notable exception). Moreover, while Avatar sagged in the middle, Water soars in its second act, which introduces a brand new clan of water-based Na’vi called Metkayina. The film here continually gives us beautiful, eye-popping imagery, as we see Jake, Neytiri and their kids adapt to their new surroundings and meet new kinds of visually arresting Pandoran sea creatures, such as the whale-like Tulkun.
Speaking of the kids, I will say that the new film benefits tremendously from having a larger ensemble of main characters. Water has the unenviable task of introducing and developing about five new young protagonists, each of whom gets some time to shine in the spotlight, ensuring we don’t get bored with Jake Sully, who still remains the blandest and least interesting lead in the narrative.* I was pleasantly surprised by how compelling the movie makes all of the kids’ stories, particularly that of Jake’s youngest son Loak (Britain Dalton), who comes to dominate the second half of the film.
*Thankfully, the film practically jettisons the boring human characters left over from its predecessor, with Parker (Giovanni Ribisi) and Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore) being relegated to what are essentially extended cameos.
Even more surprising is how well it brings back and utilizes the previous film’s antagonist Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang). I’ll be honest, I’m really not fond of how often action-scifi sequels these days revive dead antagonists (cough, Palpatine, cough) while failing to do anything truly new or interesting with them.
Way of Water though avoids simply repeating itself with Quaritch by turning him into a Na’vi and giving him a son in Spider (Jack Champion), allowing for some intriguing new dynamics that reposition Quaritch as a character with a longer shelf-life.*
*Really, the whole idea of ‘recombinants’ is fascinating, though it feels in the context of Water like more of an excuse to keep Lang around than a fully-formed narrative concept. That is, there are a lot of logical questions that the Quaritch plotline raises that are never really explored by the film. Like, does Na’vi Quaritch have any human rights? Can he just return to life on Earth after his current mission is over? Does he own anything, any possessions that belonged to his human self? Does he have free will?
In other words, is he free to do what he wants in this Navi form or is he a slave of the RDA? What awaits him once the mission is complete? I hope the future Avatar pictures delve into these issues and flesh out just what being a recombinant means.
And the action! My god, Cameron is still the master of clearly staged, visually exciting action sequences. Way of Water has some excellent set pieces, both big and small, and I like how the movie incorporates into them some clear visual references to Cameron’s past accomplishments, including T2, The Abyss, and Titanic.
All in all, I feel like Cameron has finally made the proverbially good mega-budget scifi movie he’s been trying to make since 1997. That this auteurist blockbuster, which Cameron made on his own terms, exists at all is something of an achievement unto itself in contemporary Hollywood. I’m very happy that it’s doing great business in the multiplexes, ensuring that we’ll at least get to Avatar 4.*
*Given Cameron’s predilection towards reissuing his movies in longer cuts, there is a good chance we shall see an extended special edition reissue of the movie before too long. If I had to guess, I’d say such a hypothetical new cut would expand on some of the stuff that happens after the Sully clan leaves the Omatikaya in its second act, some of which I felt was skipped over a little in the theatrical cut. In particular, I hope there will be some clarification on how Quaritch learns that Sully has left the forest and ‘gone to ground.’ This is never explained in the movie, which moves rather quickly to the next plot point, and though it’s not a major issue, it does feel like a bit of connective tissue is missing here.
Thanks for reading! If you like this article thus far, please consider sharing it or cross-posting it (if you are another Substack author).On Cameron’s Unmade Terminator 3
One of the most interesting things I’ve learned during the Avatar 2 press tour is that there was actually a chance James Cameron might have made Terminator 3 towards the end of the 1990s. This was something I don’t recall ever having heard before. For the longest time, my impression was that Cameron was done with Terminator after T2.
But apparently, in 1997, there were serious talks going on behind-the-scenes at Fox to make a T3, with producer Bill Mechanic attempting to secure a deal with Cameron, producer Gale Ann Hurd, and star Arnold Schwarzennegger. The main issue was that Mechanic didn’t actually have the sequel rights to the Terminator franchise, 50 percent of which were up for sale in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in October 1997 following the 1995 bankruptcy of Carolco Pictures, the studio that produced T2 (1991).
Mechanic apparently believed he would be able to easily procure them. But the matter grew more complicated when Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, the co-founders of the defunct Carolco, made their own bid for the rights, setting a minimum of $7.5 million. Cameron had “committed only to writing and producing” T3 at the time but there was a chance he would direct it as well. Ultimately, none of this came to pass, as Cameron chose to bow out of the process after Kassar and Vajna’s entered the story.
Now, why exactly Cameron dropped out is not entirely clear and I haven’t found any instances of Cameron openly discussing the Kassar/Vajna situation. The official story in October 1997 was that Fox realized it would be spending too much money - securing everyone’s deals and getting the rights was going to cost Fox around $100 million - and this convinced Cameron and the studio to withdraw.
But the 2002 LATimes article on the BTS history of T3 paints a different picture. Apparently, Cameron was friends with Kassar and Vajna post-Carolco and had invited them to an early screening of Titanic, after which they enjoyed a meal together. Per Vajna, it wasn’t until that Titanic screening that the two became aware the rights were even available for auction. And Cameron was ‘furious’ to discover that the producers were now making a play for the rights.
““Neither mentioned an interest in “Terminator 3,” so the director was reportedly shocked and furious to hear that within days, the pair had made a deal with bankruptcy court to snatch Cameron’s baby out from under him...”
So, Cameron seemed to have taken this quite personally. But the article doesn’t make clear why. Indeed, why did Cameron become ‘furious’ at Kassar and Vanjya for attempting to get those rights? Why did he then decide to not even try to have Fox outbid them, assuming this is indeed what happened?
Here then, I wish to offer an interpretation: reading between the lines, I believe Cameron withdrew because he felt personally betrayed. And he felt that way because he gave away the fact that he was working on T3 during his meal with Kassar/Vanjya.
Keep in mind: according to Vajna, he and Kassar had no idea the T3 rights were avai-lable for auction until the Titanic screening and it’s confirmed they made no moves on the rights until a few days after their meeting with Cameron. In other words, it is pretty much guaranteed they found out on the day they met with Cameron. And this, in turn, means there’s a strong chance they learned about the rights from Cameron himself. Perhaps he told them in confidence. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue.
Either way, the “friends” Cameron trusted used the info they gleaned from him to exploit the situation to their advantage. This would explain why Cameron was furious and why he wouldn’t want to work with them or continue with a project associated with them. A line had been crossed, both personally and professionally.
Again, this is only an interpretation and I don’t know this for a fact. But I do believe this scenario is the one that makes the most sense.
Looking at what he would ultimately come to do with Avatar, I have to say that I am sad Cameron’s T3 did not come to pass. Because, after Titanic, Cameron would very likely have made a mega-budget, 200+ million sci-fi epic with Terminator 3. Assuming he would’ve directed it, we could’ve got another groundbreaking film and a complete trilogy from one of Hollywood’s biggest filmmakers.
Instead, we got a whole bunch of mid-level sequels, each of which failed to get a new trilogy off the ground. On the other hand, the rights situation is also what ultimately allowed for the existence of the excellent and criminally underrated Sarah Connor Chronicles television series, so I’m not too sad about it.
Still, it’s fun to think about what could’ve been…
But what do you think? Are any of Cameron’s special editions indeed superior to the theatrical ones? Is Cameron a better writer than I claim? Was Avatar really responsible for the proliferation of multiple delivery/exhibition versions? Would Cameron have made an excellent Terminator 3?
Interested in reading more of my thoughts on how James Cameron revises his movies? Then check out: