Editing classic films

[Brad Russ]

Does anyone else agree with me that certain movies should not be edited? I was watching the Wizard Of Oz the other day, and when it ended I thought to myself, as great as the movie was, it would have been much better had it been three hours long instead of a little over an hour and a half. After watching the DVD, I noticed that there were several scenes in the film that unfortunately because of time restraints were taken out of the movie. For a movie lover like me, I think it is extremely unfortunate that we will never get to see these scenes. I realize that the reason movies are typically under two hours long is so that the movie can be played more times in a day, which would allow the film to make more money, but I think that two versions of every film should be released. An edited version, as well as an unedited version. Do you guys think this would be a good idea?

[Mijada]

I don't think they should be edited either. They should be seen the way the directors intended them to be seen.

[Jem]

Originally posted by mdntrider7
An edited version, as well as an unedited version. Do you guys think this would be a good idea?

That sounds like a good idea. That way, people who want to see either version would be happy, and it might be a good way for the film marketing industry to try to make more money. Another idea would be having more space on the DVD if there could be like VHS can tape on ep or slp as opposed to just sp.

[webuster]

WELL, since all these scientists have come up with ways to make cd's that hold like 100 Gigabits- then a dvd should be able to hold EVERYTHING related to that movie. I mean three seconds of extra footage of a scene, that isn't really noticeable if it wasn't there- could be edited in, and every outtake and goof and alternate take able to view seperately, and extra scenes. I've never read wizard of oz or any of Baum's Oz books- but I can bet there was at least one big part of the book left out of film, and a few small, yet amusing parts too.

[Georgia's on my Mind]

Originally posted by Mijada
I don't think they should be edited either. They should be seen the way the directors intended them to be seen.
I agree with you, and the extra scenes to be added to dvd features, ect

[BrandonS]

Originally posted by Mijada
I don't think they should be edited either. They should be seen the way the directors intended them to be seen.
Exactly. I don't think an edited version should be released either. How about making a simplified version of "The Last Supper" or "The Mona Lisa" for museums that don't want people hanging around one spot too long? Hitchcock withdrew "Vertigo" and "Rear Window" from circulation because of television networks that made promises about the way they would be shown (not cut, I think) and then broke their word, and these two films were only made available to the public again when he died.

[Crimson and Clover]

Originally posted by Mijada
I don't think they should be edited either. They should be seen the way the directors intended them to be seen.

i agree. i dont care if its a classic or not no film should be edited.

[Brad Russ]

I'm glad to see that some of you agree with me. As I mentioned before, one of the movie industries reasons for editing certain films so much is that they feel like the longer the film is, the less money it will make. I totally disagree with that theory however, because if you notice, many of the top grossing films of all time have been extremely long. Look at Titanic, it was over three hours long, and it's the top grossing movie of all time. Also look at movies like Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, and various other top grossing longer films. movie goers have proven time and time again that they want to watch longer, and less edited films. All you have to do is look at the amount of money that these longer films usually make, and it's clear to see that they can do just as good, and in most cases better then shorter films. I mean if you went to the video store and saw two versions of any classic film, one being two hours, and edited like crazy, and the other being three hours, and unedited, which one would you rent? Of course most people would rent the longer version, so in my opinion this idea of longer, and less edited films making less money is absurd.

Another thing that the movie studios, and theatres can do if they're really that worried about longer movies making less money, is why not keep them in the theatres for an extra month or two? That way it would make up for them being played less times throughout the course of the day.

Anyway, I just hope a new movie studio will come along soon that will allow writers and Directors to make the exact movie they want to make without having to unnecessarily edit content. I think a movie studio like that is just what diehard movie fans need.

[Jack1000]

Classics or not there are just certain films that should never be shown on commercial television because the edited dialoge makes no sense to the movie:

Al Pachino's grandslam Oscar nominated brilliant speech at the conclusion of And Justice For All will never be shown on network telivision as it was meant to be shown.

The Breakfast Club is a joke on network television!

Try watching Raging Bull on network TV! (Although Turner Classic Movies did a good editing job where they did not ludicrously try to dub the offensive dialogue.)

Blazing Saddles loses all of it's humor on network TV

The Jerk absurdly calls Navin's dog "stupid" instead of "****thead!"

48 Hours has all offensive language cut including the great classic red-neck bar scene!!!!

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is almost a different movie uncut!

The only movie that I liked better edited was/is Good Will Hunting because the F-word was way overdone, and you could take out the language, if you do so carefully and still have a good story--which the networks did.

Jack