Director's Cut???

No, a director's cut doesn't always feature excessive blood/gore, language or sexual content. A lot of time, the director's cut is just an extended version of the film with deleted scenes kept in the movie. 

Could this film have a bit more adult content in a director's cut? Possibly. I doubt it would be anything excessive honestly. Even if the director's cut has a bit more, let's say, volgar language or violence, it will more than likely remain a good film. And, if there is a director's cut, just go for the theatrical version, which will feature the film's PG-13 rated version. 

Alot of people prefer director's cut because it allows us to view what the director had originally intened the film to be like. But, this is a matter of opinion as to whether or not you like this or not.

Godzilla's origin is very dark. You see Godzilla kill families, children dying of over-exposure to radiation. It's not the happy-go-lucky Godzilla of the 60s and 70s.

This 'Godzilla' film, much like the original, is more about the human protagonists as opposed to the title creature. Think of it in terms of 'Jaws'. The film wasn't from the perspective of the shark, and it was much better for it.

In terms of a Director's Cut, no it doesn't 100% mean more gore, violence, and harsh language. That's generally reserved for horror films and raunchy comedies. If 'Godzilla' gets a director's cut, it'll probably be some scenes that were cut for time's sake.

Actually Director's cuts are usually just used to sell videos/dvds/blurays. Most director's cuts feature brief, mouse fart moments of footage that don't equate to anything.

Some director's cuts aren't even director cuts, as with Alien. Ridley Scott always said the original cut of the film was the cut he wanted people to see, but Fox demanded that there be a director's cut, so he had to pull his resources and shove scenes into the film to extend it a bit.

James Cameron on the other hand, feels like all his movies should be five hours long. Some of his 'director cuts' are nearly unwatchable unless you're already a fan of the original product. I think about the god awful amount of footage he added to the Aliens vs the much needed added footage to the Abyss

Director's cuts don't mean, under most circumstances, anything beyond a few moments or occassional dialogue being returned into the film that was cut for pacing reasons. My personal opinion, very few director's cuts are actually superior to the main cut of the film.

Sometimes less is more. 

A 'Director's' Cut can mean anything these days. 

When Director's Cuts first started out, they were actually usually entirely/significantly different versions of the film. It wasn't just extended scenes, but deleted scenes, added/deleted characters, new plot points and alternate endings. 

It literally would mean: "how the Director would have shot this movie, if he didn't have a studio/producter to answer to....but still had their money to make this movie".

To be honest, MOST Director Cuts were worse (well maybe not worse, but definitely not as a popular) as their theatrically released counter-parts.....mainly because any director who gets unhinged can be a little quacky. Creative/Artsy people usually need to be reigned in by some 'Down-to-Earth' force at some level for the mainstream audience to swallow it. That's part of why really famous' directors/authors/singers tend to actually release WORSE work later in their careers. Because in the beginning, they had a boss/editor/producer/label/agent reigning them in. Then they get some latitude with success, and churn out more on their free will...and well....George Lucas or George RR Martin happens.

This doens't happen to everybody, some people continue to make great stuff even after the reigns are dropped, like Christopher Nolan or J.K. Rowling. And some Director's Cuts are HANDS-DOWN better than the wide release version. See Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut for an a good example of that. I'm just saying, these examples are more than the exception, than the rule. 

Regardless of whether or not a Director's Cut is GOOD or BAD, they are becoming increasingly less common. As movie-making has become more.....formulaic....Director's Cuts in the true sense of the word, don't exist anymore, as director's don't go through the process of shooting their own cut, having it rejected, modified, and then re-shot.....I mean, well they do, but definitely not to the same extent. 

Director's cuts nowadays are usually just the untrimmed versions of films. Things that were maybe in it but were cut to save a little screen-time or change the rating of the film. But nothing that like, substantially alters the movie. 

I think what you're more worried about is "Unrated" Cuts, which are different than Director's Cuts. Whereas 'Director's Cuts' are usually based on some type of practical, financial, or artistic difference......"Unrated Cuts" are almost entirely just "stuff we left out so it could be PG-13" or "stuff we left out so we could keep it R (instead of NC-17". 

Unrated cuts come exclusively packed with your gore, swear words, and sex scenes. Director's cuts CAN include some of these things, but usually that isn't what they mean by definition. 

Even most 'Unrated' Cuts are considerably tame. Like the ONLY real change between PG-13 'Live Free or Die Hard' and the 'Unrated' DVD, was John McClane got to finish saying "Yipee-Kai-Yay MotherFucker", instead of it going "Yipee-Kai-Yay MotherF...Gunshot" like it did in theaters.

Again, this watering down of alternate cuts is cuz it's expensive to produce/shoot major extra content, so it's increasingly common that they only shoot stuff they have a real intent of being in the film. Unless they KNOW that the extra content is going to sell, like the LOTR Extended Editions which have become pretty common.

Unrated Cuts tend to only be marketed for Horror movies, Raunchy Comedies, and some action films. Godzilla isn't really the genre where an "Unrated Version" would sell more copies. 

I don't think there will be a "Director's Cut" of Godzilla either, just because Gareth Edwards has already talked about the freedom Legendary gave him, and how he wants to save scrapped ideas for a sequel. So Gareth already got to shoot the film how he wanted it pretty much probably, and anything extra that was removed, he'd probably prefer if it was in a Godzilla 2, than a Director's Cut DVD. 

@DINOZILLA0439

You are making some serious assumptions my friend, and as much as I hate to say it, you're kind of making yourself look very foolish.

Mature content doesn't always pertain strictly to bad language or intimate sexual content. It pertains to violence as well, even fantasy violence can influence rating and determine whether or not something will end up in the theatrical cut. If you want an example, the first AVP (as bad as it was) was fairly heavily edited for the theatrical run. When the Predator impales the guy in the warehouse with his spear after Weyland and the others arrive, in the theatrical run there was no blood, just the guy gripping the spear before dying. In the 'Director's Cut', there was blood dripping from the spear and beginning to spread through his clothing.

Having a Director's Cut might also simply include scenes that simply didn't make it into the film. Sometimes they end up as deleted scenes, but not always. Things like that are very common in Director's Cut editions of movies, and just because some of it might seem excessive, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not the one who gets to tell us, the rest of the Godzilla fanbase, what's right or wrong about a Godzilla movie or what goes into it. The things that you seem to hate, other fans might love, and you have no right to tell them they're wrong or that what they enjoy watching doesn't belong in the movie that they enjoy.

So, for your sake as well as ours, please take a chill pill. If there is a Director's Cut, it doesn't mean that there's going to be a bunch of nonsense or mature content. It just means that this cut is going to be slightly different than the theatrical run, and while previously edited violence and language might be a part of it, that doesn't make it inappropriate to the movie or wrong for the rest of the fan base.

So I'll say it again: Take a chill pill and give the movie it's fair chance.

Whether there's a Director's Cut or not, it doesn't mean it's going to be bad or have things that bring down the movie. There have been many examples of Director's Cut versions that were better than the theatrical run, so I advise you to give it a chance. If there is in fact a Director's Cut, which at this piont remains unconfirmed, then at least give it a chance. If you don't give it a chance simply because you've had bad experiences with other Director's Cut movies, then you very well run the risk of robbing yourself of the opportunity to enjoy a version of the film that might even be better than the theatrical run.

So don't do that. Don't be mad if there is a Director's Cut. Even if there is one, give it a chance. If you don't like it, don't watch it. You'll always have the option of watching the theatrical version instead of the Director's Cut version.

TW_G-FAN2014

Dude, I'm sorry, I think I overreacted a bit. :L I'm just not really having a good day today and the last thing I wanted was a disappointment from a movie I'm so excited for. Pretty sure other people can relate to that at least.

I will say, I don't remember telling anyone what was right and wrong with a Godzilla movie. I remember saying that I can't believe fans of Godzilla would want things in there that have never been in a Godzilla film and wouldn't have a positive impact on the movie.

And surely you can't tell me you want a ton of ADULT CONTENT such as really bad language and other things (you know what I'm talking about) in a Godzilla movie. How many people can say that? I was pretty sure I wasn't the only one. But if that's what people want, I'm not sure if I want to be a part of this fanbase anymore, if everyone enjoys watching bloody violence and gore. I love Godzilla, I love his movies, and the dark tone of this new one. I thought everyone did. I DON'T love bad language or other nonsense like that. Don't you agree?

Maybe I made an assumption with the violence and gore part. Maybe some people want that. I guess that's up to everyone. I can't deny that it surprises me.

You're right, though, I shouldn't get mad if there is a Director's Cut, and I won't. It very well could be great. I'll give it a chance. As you're saying, previously edited violence and language doesn't necessarily mean anything.

However, other than the fact that I think you misunderstood my intentions or took them wrong, I agree with your point. Like I said, maybe I did overreact a bit. I just want this movie to be good. Sorry if I came off as making judgements of anyone.

A Director's Cut will not have more adult content, or be a different version, all it would contain is extended scenes and cut footage from the movie.  :D

Thanks for reassuring me, Svanya. I just have younger brothers and sisters who like Godzilla and will want to see the movie. I guess I freaked out a little there. XD