Sure, I love those DVD extras but why the heck don't they just put those deleted scenes back in the movie? I mean, they were probably taken out to decrease the theatrical running time but when you're sitting at home with a beverage of your choice and a bowl of popcorn, who cares how long you're sitting there?

Inquiring minds - well, my inquiring mind wants to know.

Jim

It's not always running time. Sometimes it's a story-telling issue. Having that extra scene in there is just repetetive to other scenes earlier or later. Sometimes they just found a simpler way to get the point of the scene across...a big conversation between two characters could essentially boil down to one or two lines each.

"The Fugitive" - Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones - the scene in the tubes in the dam. When TLJ has Ford at the edge, holding the gun on him, originally there was supposed to be a whole big conversation in there between them...a lot of expository character stuff. But after looking at the scene and how the film had gone up to that point, they decided that"I didn't kill my wife!"
"I don't care." was all that was needed. Those two lines told you everything you needed to know about the characters motivations at that point.

Listen to the director's & other people's commentary next time you watch the deleted scenes, or the film itself. Lotta comments about what's really needed to tell a story, vs what they thought they needed when you're just reading the script.

A great example of a scene that shouldn't have been deleted is a scene of about 30 seconds that was cut from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (it was in the book) - Harry, Ron and Hermoine (sp?) are looking through the Wizard cards that come with some candy, and one of them features someone who becomes a plot point. When that time comes, Harry recognizes this person's name for no apparent reason, even though no one else does. The later scene makes no sense without the former, and the tiny bit of running time is no good reason to cut it. The missing scene only helps the plot...otherwise, someone unfamiliar with the book is going to be scratching their head a bit.

A great example of how to fix it right is James Cameron's brilliant film The Abyss - a whole subplot was deleted from the theatrical version due to ILM having severe problems with the F/X. However, without that subplot, the rest of the movie loses most of its meaning and ultimately just becomes a fun underwater sci-fi adventure flick.

Something that is really becoming a pet peeve of mine is this idea that many people seem to have that movies are about conveying information. More is not neccessarily better.

It is not about length. With over a hundred years of films behind us, we have become used to certain rhythms in the storytelling. When people complain about a movie being "overlong" it usually isn't the actual length, but the breaking of these rhythms. For instance, this week I saw SUPERMAN RETURNS, and there is simply no reason for it to go on so long after the climax. This is a case where there should have been some major cuts in the writing stage.

I have a screenwriting book which talks about the "17 page rule." By page 17 of a screenplay (approximately 17 minutes into the movie) the writer should have established exactly what the movie is about. I've recently noticed this is true of many movies I see. One I found most interesting is the new version of THE PRODUCERS. At the 17 minute mark, Leo comes up with the idea for making money off a flop and Max literally lays out the plot of the rest of the movie. However, they also cut a major musical number from the beginning of the movie. In the first cut of the movie, the scene where they come up with the idea would have been about 22 or 23 minutes in. Did they look at the movie and say, "this scene needs to come at 17 minutes?" No, they looked at it and said it is just taking too long to get to this point.

I'm sure fans of the stage show miss the number. I'm glad it is included in the deleted scenes of the DVD. But the fact is, cutting that scene made the movie better.

Having worked on a few movies, I can say without much risk of controversy that movies have a hidden life beyond what is seen on the screen. I think the deleted scenes and extras are very valuable artifacts that tell the story of that hidden life - and unless the director thinks it's important that those scenes be added back to, say, a "director's cut", they should remain as artifacts that can inform a veiwer who wants to investigate the film's creative life further - but shouldn't be considered as "missing" from the finished film. Scenes are deleted for a variety of reasons, but usually for how the extended length or existence of a scene might disrupt the flow/rhythm/pace of a film.

I voted for the "director's cut" as the only appropriate place to add deleted scenes back to a movie.

John O.

you're sitting at home with a beverage of your choice and a bowl of popcorn, who cares how long you're sitting there?



Jim
Agreed. :thumbsup:

i didn't vote . i actually think with today's technologhy they should be able to give one the option of viewing with or without . and that day will probably come .
for the most part i feel the deleted scenes were left out for a reason . they either detract from the flow or just plain don't need to be there .
i do watch them just to see what they are .
and besides if they put 'em back in they wouldn't be deleted scenes any more ay .
hb

Release movies in both versions in the same DVD. The theatrical version and the restored/extended/whatever you want to call it version. Then people can watch whichever one they want to.

How much more can it cost to put 2 movies in the DVD instead of just one?

Although, that would not make business sense. Better to release different versions on different DVDs. Makes people spend more, hence more profit.

James :)

I wish DVDs would come with original theatrical, director's cut, and long version with everything and the kitchen sink thrown back in. Making the soundtrack music match what's on the screen would probably be the trickiest part.

The only problem with adding loads of additional content is that it means the movie must be subjected to more compression -- in other words, it won't look as good.

Qapla'

SSB

It's not always running time. Sometimes it's a story-telling issue. Having that extra scene in there is just repetetive to other scenes earlier or later. Sometimes they just found a simpler way to get the point of the scene across...a big conversation between two characters could essentially boil down to one or two lines each.

Great point, Ziz! I've found the scene in Star Wars where they added the conversation with Jabba is painfully repetitive. If they'd have replaced the dialogue with something that would have added to the movie, I'd enjoy the scene much more.

I wish DVDs would come with original theatrical, director's cut, and long version with everything and the kitchen sink thrown back in. Making the soundtrack music match what's on the screen would probably be the trickiest part.
Although there is a justification for a director's cut (even though it is usually just a marketing stunt) there is no reason for a "kitchen sink" cut. Even the most incompetent hack tries to create something that will play with an audience. They spend a lot of time and effort trying to balance the various elements to make a movie work as a movie. To say "forget that, just show me everything you shot" is an insult to all filmmakers.

Movies are not cars. You don't get to customize them to suit your particular tastes.

Movies are not cars. You don't get to customize them to suit your particular tastes.

Agreed.

I watched all the deleted scenes from "Donnie Darko" (one of my favorites). When the director's cut came out I rented it right away. He added all the scenes and then some. What a difference it made. Not good.

I'd say in 90% of movies they were left out for good reasons. I like having them on the DVD. If the movie is interesting enough they help fill in some background even if they don't make a better movie.

An interesting debate.

When DVDs first came out (and I was still in the VHS world), I was under the (apparently incorrect) impression that you could mix and match on a DVD. You know, watch it with or without deleted scenes, watch it with alternate endings, etc. Alas that never happened.

One change I thought was well done was Lucas' change to the pod race on the Episode 1 DVD. He upgraded the race in the movie by adding a few scenes and included the full uncut version of the race as an extra.

Jim

My copy of "There's Something About Mary" give you the option to watching the theatrical release or the restored scenes release. Very simple. One click with the remote is all it takes.

It depends on the way the studio decided to do it. The Alien Quadrilogy box set allows you to watch both versions on a single disc, while the Stargate Ultimate Edition gives you two separate discs - one for each version.

I'm not against director's versions with extra scenes, but I think anyone expecting them to be better all the time is bound to be disappointed. I would have hated to buy the director's cut to find what I really wanted was the original. Best solution is to have the DVD to allow viewing of either.

I think it needs to be a case-by-case decision. Some of the directors cuts are real improvements over the original version, The Big Red One I saw in theaters in the 80's was a mediocre WWII movie with some good performances, the much longer director's cut is one of my favorite WWII movies. But for every The Big Red One there are a bunch of Apocolypse Now Redux, imho opinion that director's cut turns an almost perfect movie into an exercise in tedium. Or my other pet DVD peeve, Das Boot. I own the extended and extra-extended versions, and they're good, but I'd like the lean & mean subtitled undubbed version I originally saw in theaters, which has never been available on DVD.

I don't think you can (or need) a universal rule for deleted scenes vs. directors cut. Hopefully as the technology improves we'll get more options via seamless branching.

I agree that there are many instances where a "Director's Cut" has actually weakened the movie.

My personal choice for worst director's cut would be Blade Runner. I always liked the noirish narration that was added by WB, and the happy ending without the stupid unicorn. I hope that they finally get that one out to DVD.

As far as watching either one on the same disc, it has been done many times, and is about to be done again.

New Line will release the three LOTR movies this fall in two-disc sets. The first disc will include BOTH the original theatrical release and the extended versions. They will play through the use of the same technology as the Alien Quadrilogy. The seamless branching seems to work real well. The only issue is that the extended versions will not be as good a quailty as their four disc cousins, and the DTS track will be missing.

On the plus side, the second disc will contain all new documentaries about each film, along with new deleted scenes and behind-the-scenes footage.

It depends on the way the studio decided to do it. The Alien Quadrilogy box set allows you to watch both versions on a single disc, while the Stargate Ultimate Edition gives you two separate discs - one for each version.



That's interesting, I have the regular release of Stargate, and it has both versions on the same disc, exactly the same as Alien. For Stargate (and dare I say Aliens) the theatrical release is way better than the Extended cut. In the extended release of Stargate O'Neil doesn't come across as disturbed and injured, he comes across as a jerk.

i didnt vote. i usually enjoy watching the deleted scenes, and sometimes like watching the movie with them back in place, but as has been said many times so far in this thread (and you hear often int he commentaries), they were deleted for good reason.

one exception to that general rule that i didnt see mentioned in the poll is when the cuts were made solely to satisfy the mpaa. (this really applies to horror films more than anything else.) in that case, the theatrical audience didnt get to see what the entire filmmaking crew (director, writer, editor, studio, et al) had intended because of an outside agency deciding what was good and appropriate for us to see. in that case, definatly give me the unrated version, thank you.

Speaking of scenes deleted to satisfy the mpaa, I have heard rumors that some scenes or versions of a scene were shot mainly to give the mpaa something to cut. The idea being the director was worried that the mpaa would cut "scene A", so they gave them a "worse" "scene B" to cut hoping they would then leave "scena A" alone.
Bizzare as this sound it apparantly happens.

On the commentary for Land of the Dead, Romero talks about adding CGI gore effects specifically for the DVD director's cut, he didn't even attempt to get them by the MPAA for the theatrical release.

I've noticed that too...a lot more films are coming out with "unrated" versions. It's their way of pacifiying the MPAA, saying "OK you 'goody two-shoes' party poopers, here's what YOU think people will want. We'll see who has the last laugh when the DVD comes out." And more often than not, the filmmakers are right. Stores do seem to go through a lot more of the "unrated" versions of films than the theatrical release versions.

I'd say in 90% of movies they were left out for good reasons. I like having them on the DVD. If the movie is interesting enough they help fill in some background even if they don't make a better movie.I agree. I've rarely seen a deleted scene that I've enjoyed watching. Most of the time I say, "yep, good call". But they are interesting to watch as a window into the process.

Speaking of deleted bits, although it was a good call to cut out the middle section of the reactor scene in Galaxy Quest, it did create a bit of a continuity error. ;)

I've seen scenes from Good Bad Ugly, American Graffiti, and assorted Star Wars, and they added nothing to the movie. Put them in as extras for the curious.
I never hear of singers who want to add another verse to their old hit song.

I never hear of singers who want to add another verse to their old hit song.

Mmmm ... the recording industry has done pretty well by including extra songs and alternate takes on CDs - especially on re-issues of "classics". It's sometimes quite interesting to see or hear what didn't make the original cut.

I've noticed that too...a lot more films are coming out with "unrated" versions. It's their way of pacifiying the MPAA, saying "OK you 'goody two-shoes' party poopers, here's what YOU think people will want. We'll see who has the last laugh when the DVD comes out." And more often than not, the filmmakers are right. Stores do seem to go through a lot more of the "unrated" versions of films than the theatrical release versions.

Interestingly enough, the "unrated" version of Date Movie didn't show Allison Hannigan's boobies. They still kept the "Julia Gone Wild" graphics. Darn them...

Speaking of scenes deleted to satisfy the mpaa, I have heard rumors that some scenes or versions of a scene were shot mainly to give the mpaa something to cut. The idea being the director was worried that the mpaa would cut "scene A", so they gave them a "worse" "scene B" to cut hoping they would then leave "scena A" alone.
Bizzare as this sound it apparantly happens.



I did read an interview with Roger Corman where he said they did exactly that about Death Race 2000. They got the film where they wanted it, then shot a bunch of really gory scenes that they added with the intention of removing. Let them release the film they wanted and make the censors feel good all at the same time.