From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Releasing alternate versions of films (was: 1492. . .)
Keywords: author=Gorcey
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 22:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.095346.354@ifi.unizh.ch> hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel Hafner) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.214831.23338@cs.ucla.edu> reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>>Television, long
>>the bane of both commercial and artistic film interests, is turning into
>>the savior of both.  Films that don't make enough money in the theaters
>>turn a profit thanks to videocassette sales, and material that studios
>>cut for theatrical release (for reasons rarely having much to do with
>>art) is restored for video release.  In a way, it's sad, because the
>>full versions rarely make it to theaters, and even the finest video
>>presentation does not compare to seeing a good print well projected in
>>a quality theater with an appreciative audience.  
>
>I wonder why we can't have two versions in theaters right from the beginning?
>
>- Too expensive? ( Fixed and additional direct costs too high, less shows per
>  day --> revenue/ROI per print too low )

	There are at least some additional administrative costs, but
	I can't imagine they'd be much more than the costs of releasing
	a film in both 35mm and 70mm prints.  The argument that a longer
	film means less shows per day, hence lower profits, really only
	applies if it isn't a very good film, or, at least, a very popular
	film.  Relatively few theaters play to complete capacity crowds
	all that often, so only films with extraordinarily strong opening
	weeks would be hurt.

>    since these extra prints would have
>    above average attendance ( certainly in the case of "Basic Instinct" ) a
>    careful cost analysis should justify additional direct costs for these
>    prints. Are producers/distributors overlooking some real chances for
>    profit here? 

In the case of "Basic Instinct", part of the reason for the cuts was to
avoid an NC-17 rating.  There is a strong feeling that this rating is
box office poison.  Why it would be is explained by several reasons -
limiting the potential audience to those 17 or older (not a factor if an
R version is also available), hassles from pressure groups (which would
happen regardless of the availability of an alternate R version - but, 
considering the pressure they got from a number of groups on "Basic
Instinct", how much worse would it really be?), and policies by theaters,
newspapers, and TV stations not to show or advertise NC-17 films.
I'm unconvinced, myself.  Basically, I think if you put the proposition
to most people, "are there films that children should not see, regardless 
of whether their parents accompany them?", most people would agree that
there were, and might well agree that there is nothing wrong with the
concept of films for adults only.  Unfortunately, the rating system carries
historical baggage that prevents such films from being generally released.

>- Too confusing for spectators?
>
>  Will the audience be so puzzled by two versions that at the end they
>  simply won't go to see either, because they can't figure out what the
>  heck is going on?
>  I doubt that.

But they might get very pissed at inadvertantly going to the "wrong" 
version.  Still, I can't see that as a big deal.

>- US audiences' average taste and attention span is different from Europe's
>  etc.. --> (artsy..) longer versions will be rejected, only some hard core
>  freaks will show interest ( and they will be served by LDs ).

The evidence is that long films can make lots of money, provided, of course,
that the film is good.

>  I'm pretty confident that they would have 
>  made major profits with alternative cuts of "Basic Instinct", "The Abyss",
>  "Once Upon a time in America" ( right from the start, not x months later ),

In the case of "Once Upon a Time In America", the studio bosses were 
sincerely convinced that no one would go to see it in Leone's cut, which
admittedly had a complex, slightly demanding narrative structure of a type
rarely used in American films.  "Basic Instict" was cut to get a particular
rating.  I think the executives thought that "The Abyss" was a better film
with the cuts than without.  Many think that the shorter theatrical 
release version of "Superman" was better than the longer version shown
on network TV, even leaving aside differences in format.  Which shows that
decisions to cut material out of films are sometimes right.  Longer isn't
always better.  On the other hand, when the director wants the film a
certain way, that's fairly compelling evidence that it should be that way.

-- 
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu