John Sinnott

I read Paul Mavis's DVD review of When Time Ran Out... at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=36432 and...

Great review Paul! Count me in as one of those few people who would have run out and bought this but is skipping it now. I can't believe WB released an edited version of the film! What were they thinking?? As you suggested, they should have released the theatrical version along with the extended cut.

Paul Mavis

Thanks, John -- you know, I haven't seen the extended version in years (a buddy of mine swiped it and never returned it -- some buddy), but who knows? Maybe it and the original theatrical version are marginally better than the edited one here. I certainly would have bought the extended, just to complete my Irwin Allen collection, but unless it's a matter of just not being able to get their hands on the longer versions (which I highly doubt), I can't figure out why Warners would waste their time with this one. Once the news gets out it's cut, no one is going near it.

zyzzle

Agreed on all points... I had been looking forward to this, not only to complete my Irwin Allen collection, but because I actually *enjoy* the campiness of the movie. Much like THE SWARM, this almost seems to have been done as an intentional parody of 50s Sci-Fi / horror films.

I haven't been this disappointed in years in a DVD release. The last time something like this happened was when, to my extreme chagrain, COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT was released on DVD as a P&S atrocity, while that cerebral 1970 biopic is in fact a Panavision film! I'm still waiting for a fix on that one, and it's been what, at least 4 - 5 years since...

Really, I think the 141 minute extended version of WHEN TIME RAN OUT is a better film! I didn't even know a 109-minute cut existed! I'm just puzzled over where / how they turned up a butchered cut of the film. Is it a TV-cut? Can't be, becuase it's scope and not 1.33:1... Or ????

Way to stiff over your last Irwin Allen fans, Warners!

Paul Mavis

Well, I know the first "official" TV cut was re-titled Earth's Final Fury (always a bad sign when they re-title a major motion picture for a TV sale), and that version included the additonal twenty minutes (so that's the 141 minute version).

I suppose this 109 minute version could be another, later TV cut, or perhaps an international one.

And I couldn't agree more about Colossus -- they could have moved quite a few discs for that cult title if they had released it widescreen. A stupid move -- like this one.

Chas Speed

Wonderful review Paul. Your comment about this being Paul Newman's worst movie made me wonder if you have ever seen "Quintet"?

S Galbraith IV

I really wonder what this 109-minute version is. Could the film have premiered at 121 minutes, then was cut to 109 minutes for general release? Seems entirely possible to me....

Paul Mavis

Thanks!
Sure, I actually saw Quintet a couple of times (in the theatre, and on Showtime, I think), and no question, it has big problems. Newman had his fair share of "unsuccessful" films, like any star. Evidently, my comment that When Time Ran Out... was his worst film sparked some debate, because I've had a few emails nominating other titles as his worst - Pocket Money (which I just love); WUSA (which I haven't seen in years); The Secret War of Harry Frigg (which I remember being like an episode of Hogan's Heroes); and even A New Kind of Love (which just puts me to sleep). For me, at least, Quintet trumps When Time Ran Out... simply because it was at least reaching for something different; even in Altman's worst films there are interesting elements. WTRO... was reaching backwards. Also, just from a production design standpoint, Quintet was memorable, whereas WTRO... is actively ugly and cheap.

I don't know, Stuart -- at this point it's just guess work from me because I don't have my 141-minute version to compare (which might have sparked some memory of what I saw in the theatres). I do know that what I saw on Showtime back in the early 80s wasn't that longer version, but it did have stuff in it that's not in this 109-minute version -- such as the revelation that the Edward Albert character is James Franciscus' brother -- that's where that whole "necklace birthright" thing comes in, plus it expands the "betrayal" of Franciscus stealing Barbara Carrera away from Albert. Also, there's more build-up to the tidal wave sequence which I clearly remember in the theatres, and that's gone here. Literally, now you have a scene with people walking around, and then bang, a shot of a tidal wave about to hit the town, and that's about it. So I'm pretty sure that was the 121-minute version I saw in the theatre (and that theatre was a second-run house)...but that was a lot of years ago; memories can be tricky. Maybe there's an Irwin Allen or WTRO... expert out there who can help!

JIMMY3155

I've been trying to figure out the 121 minute/109 minute issue myself. I've been a huge fan of 70's disaster cinema (for better or worse) my whole life, and I know most of them inside and out. I had seen When Time Ran Out with my two buddies several times in the theater and got to know it pretty well. We started calling it WTRO (pronounced as "Wit-ro", yeah we were dorks). We also watched it several times when it was on an old early cable network called ON TV (kudos to anyone else who remembers THAT) in the early 80's and got to know the thing pretty much by heart. When it came to network TV (though retitled "Earth's Final Fury", it would still always be "Wit-ro" to us). We were thrilled with all the additional scenes/dialogue, and noted everytime something new came on. I taped it on VHS when it was on, and bought the old clamshell VHS in 1985. Though I never saw the theatrical version again, I was always very well aware of what was added for the TV version (and cut from the theatrical version). To my knowledge the theatrical version has never again been shown in about 20-25 years and has never been released in any format anywhere, so I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that not too many people in the entire world have seen it in decades. Though I had a keen knowledge of it back in the day, I haven't seen it myself since about 1982 so my memory is a bit fuzzy. The thing I am quite confident about is what was added for the television version, since my buddies and I noted what was added back in the day (and have been watching the extended version for decades now). I was disapointed when I saw that the new release was only 109 minutes (since it was always listed as 121 minutes) but, having never seen the film in widescreen, I purchased it anyway. Being the WTRO geek that I am, I took a couple of evenings and watched the new DVD literally side-by-side with my old 1985 extended version vhs. WTRO's journey from movie theater to TV was more than just a bunch of added scenes. Someone really spent a whole lot of time retooling a reediting this movie for the small screen. Scenes were added, scenes where cut, different dialogue is sometimes dubbed it, different insert shots are used, different transitions (from one scene to another) are used, in some cases entirely different takes of certain scenes are used, etc. I'm planning on typing this all up and saving it. If anyone is interested, I'll post it so you can check it all out. I really went through every scene with a fine tooth comb, so I've come up with a pretty detailed and thorough look at all the differences. Here's what I've come up with in a nutshell, though - I couldn't find anything that IS included in the extended vhs version that's NOT on the new DVD, which WAS previously in the theatrical version my buddies and I watched so many times. Even stuff previously mentioned as possible deletions from the 121 minute version (Bob's revelation to Brian that they are brothers, the rooster fighting scenes, etc) were NOT in the theatrical version that I was used to. I have no idea where these missing 12 minutes that were supposedly deleted from the 121 minute version to create this 109 minute version are. They aren't in the extended version and, when I watched the 109 minute version, I wasn't seeing anything different than what I saw in the theater and ON TV many moons ago. My question is - does anyone actually have any real proof of this mythic 121 minute version? I know that you can go to pretty much any movie site and see WTRO listed as 121 minutes, and even back in the day when it was on ON TV it was listed as 121 minutes. Could this be an error, and maybe it never was 121 minutes (or maybe it's just the result of some last-minute editing)? I swear, I knew the theatrical version pretty much by heart (my buddies too, who also see no difference between the 109 minute version and the theatrical/cable version we watched so many times). I've also always been well aware of the added scenes/dialogue that were not in the theatrical version. I just wonder if there's any kind of proof at all that there really was a 121 minute version. I know this movie really, really well and even I'm confused. Maybe someone else has some input?

Chas Speed

I think weirder things have happened then a movie always being credited with the wrong length. It's certainly possible that you are right. You would have thought the studio would have made it clear to avoid any criticism for releasing a "cut" version. This kind of reminds me of that movie "Two Minute Warning". It seems like the TV version was totally different then the movie version. You should write an article about it on Video Watchdog, since you might be the only expert on this film.

zyzzle

I would be *very* interested in seeing your in-depth comparison of the DVD / extended cut, JIMMY3155...

Every source I've seen has credited the theatrical version as 121 minutes, so I think what what have on DVD is a re-edited version of the film. I actually have the extended version on VHS, that in fact being the ONLY version I've ever seen. So, I also am going to compare the two, but just glancing through the DVD version, I saw massive cuts to all the dialogue scenes, while the entire 20+ minute bridge-crossing scene is intact!

I thought of something-- not to come to Warners defense in the least, but is it possible that they did not have a scope version of the extended version in their vaults? They certainly did on THE SWARM, which was released in all its 156-minute extended version glory! This STILL is no excuse, for even if they did not, the extra scenes could have been included as a supplement, like the TV-version scenes of TOWERING INFERNO were in 1.33:1, in that fine release.

I wonder if we will ever know the real answers to any of these questions... The simplest answer is probably correct: Warners was lazy, they simply found whatever version was lying around, and slapped it onto DVD without a moment's thought...

JIMMY3155

I'll definitely post the differences between the DVD and the VHS versions once I put it all together. It's pretty interesting. I totally realize we're not exactly talking about THE GODFATHER PT 2 here, so I feel a bit silly analyzing it, but this movie just has an interesting history. It's pretty unique in that it's this major studio release where (despite at least two different VHS releases and having been shown on network and cable TV), the original theatrical version has never actually been released EVER (to my knowledge), and hasn't been seen by most of the free world in decades. I'm inclined to think, as zyzzle implied, that we may never know the answer to this. It looks like the 109 minute version is cut, but not because any of us actually has - or has ever had - a 121 minute version in their hands, but because "121 minutes" is what the movie has been listed as in video guides since the dawn of man. Or, at least, since 1980, whichever came first ; ) I can tell you with all assurance, though, that everything that's on the extended vhs version, which is not on the new dvd, is ALL stuff that was added for TV. If 12 minutes were cut from an original 121 minute version, they're not on the extended vhs or on the new dvd (nor were they in the theatrical/cable version I saw so many times) and - if they did in fact exist - they are likely gone with the wind.

Warners may not have had a scope version of the WTRO extended version, so they just put whatever version they had on hand onto the DVD. The extended version of THE SWARM was available in scope because that longer version was actually the theatrical version internationally. In US theaters, we got the truncated version of THE SWARM with all the really funny stuff trimmed out: Katharine Ross opening that door in slow-mo with the giant bee on the other side, Michael Caine's "the world just might survive" speech in front of a horrible blue-screened explosion - oh man, I'm still on my a** laughing after all these years! The extended version is classic!

Still, it's too bad they didn't include the WTRO deleted scenes as extras. I'd gotten used to extended TV versions of many disaster movies, so it's disapointing that almost none of them contain the extra footage on the DVDs. THE TOWERING INFERNO is the only one, really. Gobs of extra footage from EARTHQUAKE never saw the light of day on the Universal DVD. THE HINDENBURG, METEOR, AIRPORT 79, BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE all have been released without their added TV scenes. As Chas Speed mentioned, TWO MINUTE WARNING is another (and is unique in that about 1/3 of it was completely re-shot exclusively for its TV broadcast, making it an almost totally different experience from the theatrical version). One of the reasons I still have a VCR hooked up to my TV is because I still have the extended version of AIRPORT 77 taped from TBS many years ago. At 3 hours & 12 minutes, it's WAY too long, but it's a kick to check out from time to time. And, of course, we'll probably never see that additional footage preserved digitally.

HGN2001

Paul Mavis, in his review, wrote:
and

I wonder if Mr. Mavis also thinks that it makes no sense for MGM or WB to have released 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in a truncated version, since the *original* theatrical version was around 20 minutes longer.

Yes, we all know the 2001 story - Kubrick trimmed the film after release and destroyed those cuts. It seems that Mr. Allen and Mr. Goldstone are not afforded the same consideration.

I find Jimmy3155's story compelling. And isn't it possible that Allen/Goldstone/Warner Brothers decided to trim the film after its disastrous opening in theatres? Isn't it possible that a 121-minute figure got jotted down as the official length and was never changed (probably due to lack of interest!)?

I'm in no way comparing WHEN TIME RAN OUT... with a great film like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. This film is a mess and a disaster in its own right. Still the DVD provides a historical record of that disaster, and as such it's welcome. To lambast the studio for releasing a shortened version, when in fact this may BE the official, played-in-theatres version, seems a bit harsh.

I can understand the criticism of the studio releasing this film in a bare-bones edition, perhaps without multiple versions and/or trailers, and with a fairly high list price. Those are valid criticisms. But I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on the film's length.

The transfer looks gorgeous.

Harry

Paul Mavis

Harry, weren't you upset that I missed the music substitution on The Fugitive Season 2, Vol 1? Now you're upset that I didn't miss the edited version of When Time Ran Out...? If I want that kind of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't conversation, I'll talk to my wife.

Harry, if I had neglected to mention that run time discrepancy in my review (as you say, giving Warners the "benefit of the doubt" with absolutely no proof to the contrary), I would have had emails and postings from people hounding my ass ("Is Mavis so stupid that he didn't even catch that the run time on the DVD says 109 minutes, when every source lists the film at 121 minutes? It's another Fugitive fiasco!"). So far, every source I've seen lists it originally at 121 (and I remember it being a long haul in the theatre - but again, that's an almost thirty-year-old memory!). We can guess that it was cut from the original LA and NY premieres, but do we know that? I haven't heard from anyone connected with the film or with Warners or with Allen who was around at that time, who can definitely say for certain one way or the other. All any of us are going by, is memory. If someone comes up with some solid proof, I'd be happy to change that part of the review.

You seem upset that I would "lambast" the studio for releasing a truncated version, but in my review, I was just as upset by the fact that they didn't release the longer version - which we do know exists. You bring up Kubrick and 2001's destruction of footage as if that gives weight to your guess that When Time Ran Out... was edited for general release. But again, it's just a guess on your part. I haven't seen any review or article on the net that discusses a post-premiere edit on the film, backed up by facts and named sources. If you can find it, I'd be grateful for the info.

The film is terrible, as you yourself say. My review isn't going to change sales one bit because significant sales, as I said in my review, would have been predicated, most probably, on Warners offering the extended version we all know exists, as they did with The Swarm (or at least including the extra footage as a bonus, if they don't have widescreen elements for them). We all know the film blows, but most of us would have bought this title sight unseen if that extended version was featured or included. If the 121 minute version had been here on this disc, without the extended version (or the extra footage as a bonus), you know, Harry, that people would still be bitching about this disc.

HGN2001

Mr. Mavis,

I questioned only the wording of your review, squarely accusing WB of a "screw-up". Do we *know* if it's a "screw-up"? Do *you* know for sure if it's a screw-up"?

My point is that I don't think there's a clear answer. Jimmy3155 here brings up some interesting points, and a Mr. Eric Vedowski over on the HTF has posted results of his research in the following:

Assuming his ability to do research, that's fairly conclusive evidence that something is amiss with the listed running time of this film (and I use that "film" term very loosely!).

I also stated clearly in my post, in agreement with your review, that there's a lot of valid criticism due Warners for this release - the lack of features, the lack of perhaps multiple versions, and its rather high list price for what it is. And you noted all of the above in your review.

Again, my point is only that you accused the studio of making a mistake, when no one apparently knows that for sure.

Yes, your review was correct to point out the discrepancy, but not to dump on the studio for what may in fact be the (shortened) correct theatrical version that most people saw. Not including TV-version footage is a shortcoming, but not a tragedy, IMHO.

I only brought up 2001 because it's a famous and vaunted film that we know had additional footage at its premiere and was trimmed due to critical reviews. That *seems* to me what *may* have gone on here, and yes, that is all conjecture, but that conjecture is starting to prove perhaps true with the research noted above.

In summary, your review is mostly right on. I just felt it was a bit unfair to the studio, if, in fact the version on DVD is what ran theatrically in most places. As a reviewer, you should be used to disagreements, challenges, etc. Don't take it personally. Especially with this wreck of celluloid!

Harry

[addendum] Oh, and regarding your statement that I was upset about your FUGITIVE S2V1 review, no, I wasn't. In fact, I was upset about the changed music, not necessarily with your review.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-reviews...ml#post9305618

In fact, I believe I defended you when others began to dump on you at the HTF thread.

Paul Mavis

Oh, Harry! If you've read any of these forums involving me, you know I love a good argument/discussion/debate/fight -- I didn't take it personally at all. You're the one who seemed upset, but if you're not, that's cool. I'm glad you liked the review.

As for those run times listed in newspapers, I can tell you from my own experience managing a theatre, not to put too much stock in what appears in the newspapers. We would show movies that ran 90 minutes, and showtimes would be listed at 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. Obviously, that didn't mean the film was two hours long. But it worked the other way, too. We might have had a film that ran a shade over two hours, but it was still listed at 2, 4, 6, etc.. It was rare that we started a show right to the minute of the newspaper listing (particularly if we had a full lobby). It doesn't take that long to switch over a platter.

If anything, that Chicago time listing seems key to the 121-minute version going out to most theatres: if Warners or Allen were going to edit it, that would have most probably happened after an audience sneak, a critic showing, or a premiere...in L.A.. I mean, this film wasn't Heaven's Gate; it wasn't that important. After the studio got a look at it, and after figuring out how much dough they'd already wasted on it, I'd seriously doubt they'd spend too much time editing however many prints were out there, or striking up new ones, once it made it out to places like Chicago.

But again, it's all guesswork at this time....

krylonman

I think the reason for this may be that the long version of 'The Swarm' was actually prepared for theatrical release, whereas the long version of this was strictly a TV affair and possibly edited on video, with no film print of that version actually existing...just the footage, still sitting around in the disconnected pieces from which it was taken, if it still exists at all.

If this is the case, putting out a DVD version that was sourced from film (rather than just a dupe of the pan & scan broadcast tape) would require a lot of reediting and preparation, and in short be a lot more trouble than it was worth.

Gunnar_S

For what it's worth, when this film was submitted to the Swedish censors (Statens Biografbyrå) in 1980, the running time of the film was recorded as 1:48:55, so apparently 109 minutes corresponds well with the version shown theatrically here. (It was released with no cuts)

zyzzle

Is the mystery now more clear? If a 109 minute-version was indeed shipped for overseas distribution, it seems Warners then used the International version of WHEN TIME RAN OUT, just as was done with THE SWARM for the DVD release.

But, see the following review, particularly where it talks abour "deleted scenes" and a "two hour theatrical running time":

http://www.coolcinematrash.com/cctmo...-time-ran-out/

krylonman

I'm starting to think the 109-minute version *is* the theatrical version, to be honest. Erroneously printed running times have happened before. The two most common versions of 'Exorcist II,' a similarly hated and heavily reedited movie, are 117 and 110 minutes, but its first couple of video releases had "118 minutes" on the box (and they were of the short version!).

I was thinking of linking to the Cool Cinema Trash review myself, because everything it describes as being in the theatrical version—places it's cut, places it has footage not in the extended version—is exactly what's on the DVD. "Two hours," unfortunately, doesn't clear much up when both 109 and 121 minutes are in that neighborhood.

It would clear things up more if the theatrical version had been on VHS as well, right? I thought it hadn't, but if not where did that review's screengrabs come from?

jimweb

Oh yes.. The Movie is awful!