These days, scenes are left out in purpose to sell the movie later on DVD.

[starwarsagent]

I don't want to SHOCK YOU! But I think you guys already knew this?

In the old days...it was that directors actually had to cut out scenes because of budget issues, problems with editing etc. And the deleted scenes looked really bad.

These days, scenes are left out in purpose to be put into special features in the DVD. More footage is shot than ever before. Now directors shoot scenes for the release movie and the DVD features at the same time.

I bring this up because of this.
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/confirmed-...director/60267

neeson has been cut from the Hangover part II. Most likely a stunt to sell the DVD with the scene back in.

A good example these days is Avatar...Obviously, Cameron shot all the earth footage and left it out in purpose so he could make a special cut. because whats a DVD without new content?

And this is happening more often these days...


What do you think? false advertising?



EDIT: Ok, how many of you think that Peter Jackson actually shot those extra scenes, and never planned to put them out on an EE DVD? How many of you? LOTR's. Obviously, he planned the whole thing before he shot the movie.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

I don't want to SHOCK YOU! But I think you guys already knew this?

In the old days...it was that directors actually had to cut out scenes because of budget issues, problems with editing etc. And the deleted scenes looked really bad.

These days, scenes are left out in purpose to be put into special features in the DVD. More footage is shot than ever before. Now directors shoot scenes for the release movie and the DVD features at the same time.

I bring this up because of this.
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/confirmed-...director/60267

neeson has been cut from the Hangover part II. Most likely a stunt to sell the DVD with the scene back in.

A good example these days is Avatar...Obviously, Cameron shot all the earth footage and left it out in purpose so he could make a special cut. because whats a DVD without new content?

And this is happening more often these days...


What do you think? false advertising?



EDIT: Ok, how many of you think that Peter Jackson actually shot those extra scenes, and never planned to put them out on an EE DVD? How many of you? LOTR's. Obviously, he planned the whole thing before he shot the movie.

Well, considering A LOT of the extra footage was filmed for the LotR EE during pickups AFTER the Theatrical Run of the movie, that's not completely true. But yes, Jackson had an EE in mind before the movies were released.

And of course scenes are cut from a movie and left out on purpose. It's called editing. Many times scenes will be filmed but to put them in the film would bump it up to a higher rating i.e. PG-13 to an R, so to maximize profits studios will tell the director that he/she cannot leave it in there but they can put it out on the DVD/BD release. It's not shocking, its been happening for YEARS now.

I don't mean to offend, but maybe there should be a little research on a topic before you start something that could be seen as a thread just to get people arguing. Just my thought.

[Beast]

News Flash. Water Is Wet.

And actually cut footage isn't left out on purpose to sell the movie later on BLU/DVD. Yes, it is a draw... but it's not the main reason that scenes are cut from films. It's all about pacing and cutting the film so that it works the best in the theatrical environment. Pretty much every movie has cut footage, since the final assembly and cut is usually one of the last things done. And the director and editor typically like to bring a film in under 2 hours most of the time.

In regard to Avatar, the Earth scenes were originally intended to open the film. But Cameron felt that it took to long to get into the story and most of the information that it delivered could be delivered in the monologue by Jake as he wakes up from Cryo. It also fits to book end the film with Jake "Waking Up". First from his dream as they arrive on Pandora, and then at the end in his Avatar body after the transference through the tree of souls. It simply works better for the theatrical version. And actually I wish they would have kept it that way for the extended, just used the Earth Opening in flashback.

As for Lord Of The Rings, the films would have been far too long for most people in their extended cuts at the theater. Hence why the films were cut down and streamlined. There's no big conspiracy. But for those who care about the original vision which is closer to the books, the extended cuts are more satisfying. And as the poster above me noted, not all of the footage was apparently filmed during the original photography.

People are going to buy their favorite films on DVD/BLU anyway. So the argument is a bit silly and frankly moot. Yes, it's a draw to fans of the film. But so is owning the films on home video so they can watch it anytime their heart desires. So is any of the extras that they include.

[DavePS3]

I suspect part of it comes down to the cashbrought in from 4 2 hour screenings in the theater as opposed to 3 3 hour screenings. More screenings, more money more people, more 20 dollar popcorn sales etc. You just don't make as much in a week with fewer screenings of longer films.

That being said, there are tons of movies that have to cut out little bits here and there for reasons like flow of story, confusion for the audience, lagging scenes that don't have a major impact on the story line. The parts cut out of Avatar and placed back in the director's cut are not critical. The school house scene is interesting just as background information but not critical to the flow.

LOTR is different. To me the extended cuts are far better than the theatricals but some find them tedious. If they had played the extended cuts in the theaters, many would have found them too long and reviews may not have been as great, thereby making others wary of going to see them. I love long epics, director's cuts etc but many don't. Directors and studios have to walk a fine line and I think they guage some of it by how other films have done.

Do they milk the system? Absolutely. Having the regular version and an extended cut on the same disc release, would be my preferance but perhaps those longer versions take longer to put together, conveniently making a door for double dipping.

[bigrob]

The more cinema showings in a day, the more money they make. that's why most major films clock in under 2.5 hours these days

besides, cinema is more of an advert for DVD / BD releases these days.

end of the day, i'll see it at the cinema, if the BD release is extended, it's a bonus.

[Al_The_Strange]

Even older films have an extraordinary amount of footage filmed that were mostly cut down to 150-minute or less cuts. If I remember right, "Silent Hill" originally had three hours of footage. "Apocalypse Now!" and "Dune" both had five hours or so. Even though the latter two have extended editions, some footage might never be seen again.

[P@t_Mtl]

Directors love to film more, the more they have the easier it is for them to edit things in a certain flow later on. That is why so many pick up scenes are needed, they sort of realise it as they are doing the edit that something is missing to make the scene works.

The major differences is now they can actually offer these scenes in the DVD or Blu-ray releases. While 20 years + ago, these scenes were just put in the garbage, no one tought they would have much use once the movie was completed

[bigrob]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

because whats a DVD without new content?

A DVD? back in the days of VHS, there were no special features apart from a small making of, trailer and perhaps if you were lucky, a deleted scene.

The only way you could get these luxuries was to fork out for expensive Laserdisc collector's sets (like i use to), when DVD came onto the scene, the major driving force behind the success of it was the improved picture and sound quality and bonus feautres. why do you think we get some many double dip editions now

[livewyre]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

I don't want to SHOCK YOU! But I think you guys already knew this?

In the old days...it was that directors actually had to cut out scenes because of budget issues, problems with editing etc. And the deleted scenes looked really bad.

These days, scenes are left out in purpose to be put into special features in the DVD. More footage is shot than ever before. Now directors shoot scenes for the release movie and the DVD features at the same time.

I bring this up because of this.
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/confirmed-...director/60267

neeson has been cut from the Hangover part II. Most likely a stunt to sell the DVD with the scene back in.

A good example these days is Avatar...Obviously, Cameron shot all the earth footage and left it out in purpose so he could make a special cut. because whats a DVD without new content?

And this is happening more often these days...


What do you think? false advertising?



EDIT: Ok, how many of you think that Peter Jackson actually shot those extra scenes, and never planned to put them out on an EE DVD? How many of you? LOTR's. Obviously, he planned the whole thing before he shot the movie.

Also Liam Neesan was cut because they needed to do reshoots and he wasn't available.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Some directors, such as Steven Spielberg, are reluctant to show deleted scenes.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Some directors, such as Steven Spielberg, are reluctant to show deleted scenes.

Which is their choice. Though I wish he'd include the ET ones on the eventual BLU release.

They're on the laserdisc boxset. Including the cameo by Harrison Ford.

[starwarsagent]

You guys are lead to believe that the scenes are cut off...that's the trick..the truth is that these days....and i'm talking current movies...they film the scene and save it for the DVD as a special feature to sell more copies. extra features and different editions sell more...

notice how these deleted scenes are really well lit and shot..with great acting...it's planned.

yes the main reasons scenes were cut off in films...older than 96...was because of time constraints...today..they are cut off...some of them in purpose to later attract buyers..meaning they don't want to give you everything at once....they even come out with the effects and everything...

its a hook.

[Beta Man]

I think you're right.

But I'll liken it to product placement..... nothing you can do about it

I typically don't get all crazy in the pants for 2 minutes of additional footage even if it's one of my favorite new films..... so to me, this is like complaining that the trailer shows all the good parts.....

[42041]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

notice how these deleted scenes are really well lit and shot..with great acting...it's planned.

um, what are they supposed to look like? no one shoots scenes specifically to cut them

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Neeson's part in Hangover was cut because it did not flow with another scene that was also cut. Todd Phillips said the scene with Neeson would make no scene with context. He wanted to reshoot with Neeson but he was unavailable. This is not some big conspiracy to sell the DVD and Blu. It will sell great with or without that scene.

[Post Prod]

that's nonsense.


you can say they shoot extra stuff they know that will only be shown on on the dvd, espcially behind the scenes stuff.

But to cut a scene from a movie, with the main reason being to sell a dvd later, that is pure nonsense.

But hey, I'd love to hear of some actual evidence of this, besides just seeing a dvd has deleted scene and pulling it out of your ass.

HINT: the example of Liam and Hangover 2 is not valid. That scene is in the movie, they just used a different actor for the reshoot as Liam was not available. It might be on the DVD, but the reshoot was not done to "sell dvds".

[starwarsagent]

Well, I tell you what..they are probably going to include the neeson scene in the DVD and make a big deal outta it..and I'm gonna have to buy it cause i'm a sucker for neeson..


its that proof for ya?

[42041]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

because whats a DVD without new content?

A perfectly good DVD... like the first Avatar release. Which sold very well.

No filmmaker/studio is going to risk their investment of time and money and compromise their film theatrically to squeeze a few more bucks out of it on home video. If a scene was cut, it's because the filmmakers thought it wasn't a vital piece of the film.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

Well, I tell you what..they are probably going to include the neeson scene in the DVD and make a big deal outta it..and I'm gonna have to buy it cause i'm a sucker for neeson..


its that proof for ya?

Um... no it's not. They may include the scene but it won't be put back into the movie. They will most likely just put it in the deleted scenes of the special features.

[Post Prod]

yeah that is not proof. it's not even evidence.

it's you saying you like an actor and want to see a scene that was cut for continuity reasons.



the only middle ground I will meet, is that a director might shoot something they suspect the MPAA will force them to cut to get an R, because they know at least they can release an unrated version on DVD, which is financial suicide to do in the theater.

But that's still not the same thing you are talking about.