Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Cutting scenes for DVD

m

17:03 / 30.03.04

This topic got brought up in some of the old discussions about Lord of the Rings, and I think it warrants its own thread. Is Hollywood leaving out important footage from theatrical releases so that it can be included later as "extra" scenes on deluxe DVD releases? Are theater going audiences not getting the full story any more?
I recently saw Dawn of the Dead 2004, and it seemed to me that whole chunks of action had been edited out of the movie, probably to be included as extra footage on the DVD release. There were several points in the movie where the action was so chopped up that characters seem to teleport from one place to another. I don't think it was sloppy filmmaking, I think it was a case of needed footage becoming extra footage.

17:38 / 30.03.04

If we use the example of Lord of the Rings, then to include the missing material would have required the provision of catheters to the audience, because they would have become very long pieces of cinema. I think it is this, rather than a desire to have additional material for a DVD, that results in the chopping up of films.

19:14 / 30.03.04

I recently saw Dawn of the Dead 2004, and it seemed to me that whole chunks of action had been edited out of the movie

With studio pictures -- especially genre films, like horror films -- this happens ALL the time. Ever see Texas Chainsaw Massacre IV? It has this great paranoid set-up, then totally feels like it got edited into oblivion by execs who didn't get it.
And I don't think it's out on DVD (nor is it all that likely to be).

The profitability is all about the spectacle; weird plotlines just get in the way of the gore/smut/shootouts/whatever.

There's a reason why there's that cliche about winding up on the cutting room floor.

19:17 / 30.03.04

Entirely agree on LOTR. Three hours is a long time in the cinema, longer than most audiences are prepared to put up with.

This thread runs the risk of turning into another bout of Barbeparanoia.

m

19:31 / 30.03.04

Yeah, but Dawn of the Dead isn't very long at all. If footage was left out of the theatrical release, and it sure seemed like it to me, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't for rating purposes or condsiderations of length. I'm sure that a special deluxe unrated DVD with extra bonus footage and/or an alternate ending version of Dawn is on the way, and that it will flow a lot better than the movie I saw in the theater.

m

19:48 / 30.03.04

Grant: I think that in the past heavy handed editing took place in order to sell the movie to as wide an audience as possible. You edit out everything except the money shots so that nobody gets confused or bored. Now it appears that important scenes are being edited out of the theatrical releases in order to boost the DVD sales. The money shots are left out so that people will pay to see what they missed later on.

23:24 / 30.03.04

They're not specifically editing out scenes to boost DVD sales, that's idiocy. Directors are, however, far more willing to excise scenes from their films at the studio's behest when they know they can reinstate them later (on DVD), and studios are very into 'editorial' interference for the sake of ADD pandering in the cinema.

Hollywood is a very peculiar place with the Theatrical-To-Home transition of films right now - It's becoming more and more understood in parts of the industry that, in general, the theater is a place for fast-pace, in-and-out-and-back-again-next-week presentation, and the narrative integrity of films takes a back seat to that. Everyone feels a little less revolted by this because it can always be 'remedied' in a DVD release if need be.

After 1999, where a good amount of fantastic films were released but box office returns were far below what was desired, the studios began taking a more controlling hand again, and financially speaking it's paid off for them.

m

00:07 / 31.03.04

The impression that I'm getting from Dead (and it's really just speculation on my part) is that what's being held back is more of the stuff people want in the first place, zombie's heads exploding and whatnot. The violence and gore. It's not inconceivable that a studio would say to a filmmaker, "Hey, save a little of that for the DVD release." The DVD will come out, and it will be marketed as including "the scenes that were too shocking to show in the theaters." That's not idiocy at all, that's good old fashioned PT Barnum style promotion.

02:57 / 31.03.04

I can see that reasoning - the gore in modern horror films is generally excised as much as possible, but this is generally in the interest of broadening the audience in the theater. The extra bonus in DVD sales is factored, but it usually isn't the motivation - I say this from my somewhat limited knowledge of studio workings, but I may underestimate the

In general, the studios in the last several years have caught onto the idea that the DVD-buying demographic was much different than the movie-going demographic. Once they realized the difference they began marketing two different products with the same film, even to the point of marketing two different films between the mediums.

I'm actually partially agreeing with you, I just don't think they would purposely release an edit that they thought was 'inferior' just to boost the home sales down the line - All the real money comes from initial release & distribution - but they are starting to consciously market different incarnations of films between theaters and home release. That was the initial plan for House of 1,000 Corpse once Lion's Gate grabbed it, to release the real version on DVD later, but they decided they could make more money with a sequel so the unrated cut of the movie was shelved.

21:38 / 31.03.04

And on a similar note, the rash of 'outrageous' teen comedies over the last few years - cut to land a state-side 'R', then promoted over here on DVD as "now including all the stuff too hot for cinema!!!!!" and yet still cert.15. American Pie 3 now has an extended stag party section which abandons linear narrative and continuity entirely and now contains seemingly every weak gag, repetition and inane improv that they filmed 'to sort out in editing' on the day, thrown together randomly .

Yipee. So we may never see Schrader's 'Exorcist' or exactly what Gilliam envisaged for the end of 'Brazil', but who needs that when we have MORE TITZ.

I realise that complaining that not all DVD special features are all that, well, special, is a little like handing your burger back because it doesn't look like the one in the glossy photo on the wall. Maybe I should be grateful that they are releasing alternative cuts in any format and just ignore the films I'm too snobbish to buy. It's just that there is something special about viewing a film in the cinema rather than at home. I'd rather see the 'right' or 'best' version every time. Hell, I know how damned expensive films can be to make and, yes, an extra 40 mins on the running time of 'Two Towers' would have damaged its takings (in terms of number of daily showings). I guess there's no beating market forces in this field, but I reserve the right to sit on my liberal ass and whinge. No-one will care, so where's the harm.

00:54 / 01.04.04

In some cases, like Gilliam's, I think it's best NOT to let the director fiddle with the fucking thing after it's been released. His 'director's cut' of Brazil on the Criterion edition awhile back was a bloated nightmare, lacking any poetry at all.

'Teen Sex Comedies' are probably the best example for the argument that they cut things out of released films to drum up DVD sales and keep receipts up by not offending people. I'll have to think on the phenomenon for awhile...