calhoun07

Watchmen is the most recent movie to make me think of this...there is A LOT of material removed from the movie to get it to the 2.5 hour running time we have.

And you have movies like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and such that do have longer cuts available.

Even some movies that weren't nearly as high profile had longer cuts, such as the Fantastic Four. (And with FF, I really think the extra footage added QUITE a bit to my enjoyment of the movie.)

Often these longer cuts are reserved for extended DVD releases. But why not release them to the theater as well?

I realize for marketing there wouldn't be as a big of a demand for a four hour LOTR movie or a 3.5 hour Watchmen movie, but what if they were like special 3-D showings? What if they were released to a limited number of screens across the country and you had to pay a few bucks more to see the longer cut?

I guess I don't understand why the studios don't do this...and I can't think of a time they have ever done it. Perhaps you get the extended cut released to theaters long after the movie initially came out (such as with Blade Runner) but you never see them released side by side and the movie goer given a choice.

DonnachaOne

Ha! Do you know how much that would cost for the minimal reward from such an infinitesimal audience? Next thing you'll be asking why multiplexes don't show documentaries.

wnyx1440

I would love to see extended cuts of films in the theater. It would definitely be a lose-lose for the studio though. It would be more expensive for them to market and distribute the film plus it would probably result in fewer purchases of DVD sales since people will have already seen it. Since DVD sales are a huge revenue stream and studios make virtually nothing at the box office, I don't see why they would.

I think it would be great to have a limited theatrical release in select markets. It would allow at least some people to view the version in the theater while perhaps initiating 'hype' for the forthcoming DVD resulting in a boost of sales. But I admit I'd be pissed if it wasn't playing near me... and might result in not buying the DVD, maybe just renting it instead.

OldBoy

i like a lot of directors'/extended cuts of films, LOTR especially, but honestly i can't sit in a theater for that long. of course the financial aspect to studios is the biggest thing, the movie-going public unfortunately nowadays as we all know have the attention spans of gnats and a studio would never in a million years benefit from an extended release.

and most likely only die-hards/fan boys of original material could stand for such girth in these films (as "Watchmen" can attest to, it seems that people who don't know the source material at all won't even come out for a theatrical cut)

forget about the biological nature of the beast, i just don't have the mentality to sit for 3+ hours in one place, stationary, just watching. 2.5 seems to be a pretty good maximum for what i can endure no matter how great the movie is. am i looking forward to an extended cut of "Watchmen"? yes, i am, but at home, viewing it on my terms.

i would be much more inclined to watch an opus at home at my leisure and enjoying the heck out of it because i am relaxed, i have all the amenities at my disposable and would be much more relaxed when i can pause for a minute or two.

islandclaws

I like having the opportunity to see an extended cut of a film at a special screening or something along those lines, but I understand why that doesn't happen very often. Personally, unless the extended cut is released simultaneously with the theatrical cut I'd rather just wait for the BD and watch it at home.

Jedi Master 33

Harry Potter has extened cuts?

Supermallet

FWIW, the extended cuts of Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers were shown at the Arclight prior to the release of Return of the King. And prior to the release of Watchmen, I heard talk about the director's cut getting a limited release to coincide with the DVD.

I'd say with digital cinema becoming more and more common, it would be cheaper for the studios to release these extended cuts, but it would still only make sense for huge moneymakers. And the theaters aren't crazy about it, either, because those cuts are so long that they would only be able to get a few showings in a day. Less ticket sales, less food sales, etc.

Also, you'd have to be crazy if you think that a studio would go back and do a 3D version of a film that's already been released for a limited extended re-release. It will never happen.

Sonic

It wouldn't work in many theaters if there are crying children and cell phone beeps because sometimes one wants to run out!

dugan

Steamboy, IIRC, was released like this. Dubbed and subtitled versions were both shown in theatres, with the subtitled version being longer.

PopcornTreeCt

First thing that came to mind when I read the OP too.

fumanstan

Yup, as far as I know the first two had extended cuts that aired on TV.

PopcornTreeCt

Oh, that doesn't count. Tons of movies are extended when they're aired on television.

fumanstan

Doesn't count as what?

It was just brought up as talk of extended cuts in general. And from what I remember it was a decent amount of more scenes. I don't think that many movies have extended versions on TV.

Ash Ketchum

The older I get, the shorter I want movies to be. And the less I trust a director to know when to cut. No extended cuts for me, thank you.

The only "director's cuts" I want to see of films made in the last 30 years are:
BLUES BROTHERS (1980) - John Landis
HARD TARGET (1993) - John Woo

(Actually, I have VHS copies of longer cuts of both films, but neither is great quality. And I don't think the BLUES BROTHERS cut was that much longer than the original.)

calhoun07

Fine. Then just release the longer cut. I guess I will never understand why the extended cut of Fantastic Four didn't get released to theaters in the first place.

And I did consider it would cost. I'd be willing to part with some extra money to see the longer cut on the big screen.

hasslein

I'm always interested in the extended cuts, but I have to admit when I heard the running time of Apocalypse Now Redux, I stayed away from the theater.... I am still kicking myself for missing the screening of the longer cut of The Big Red One though.

PopcornTreeCt

Well, I was gonna say doesn't count towards the thread topic... but I've gotten sidetracked. It seems nearly every time I'm watching a movie on network television there are added scenes. Not with Back to the Future though.

My Other Self

Nope. Not at all. If people can't pay attention and talk and bring kids to an hour and a half film, what makes you think a 4 hour movie would be any different? It'd be worse. And besides, I can't sit in one seat in one position for that long as it is. The thing about extended cuts is I can watch it at my leisure, pause it, use the restroom, etc.

Brack

I would love to see these scenes:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MovbQmboyZQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MovbQmboyZQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Supermallet

There are many reasons studios don't release the extended cut to the theaters. For one thing, the studios often require a filmmaker to hit a specific runtime. This is done because a shorter runtime means more showings, which means more tickets sold per day, which means higher grosses. Another reason may be that the elements that constitute the extended cut aren't all in place by the theatrical release date. It's possible that the special effects work requires more time than the production has. Also, directors now know that it's very likely they'll be able to get a longer cut released on DVD, so they cut the theatrical as tight as possible. And studios prefer extended cuts on DVD, because it becomes a selling point. An average audience member would balk at the idea of a 3 hour film in the theater, but welcomes it at home where they can pause, go to the bathroom, finish it over a few days, etc.

RocShemp

Wow. I though Eric Stoltz only shot two or three scenes before being replaced by Michael J. Fox. I never realized he shot so much footage. I wish I could actually see those scenes.

tylergfoster

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You don't think Star Wars is going to be a huge 3D theatrical draw some day? I believe Toy Story is being rolled out in 3D near the end of 2009 as well.

As for the Stoltz footage, now you can('t) see it right here!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AOu5ksD7hSo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AOu5ksD7hSo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>