32 replies to this topic

[Walking my rat]

On Wikipedia, I found this little piece of information:

Lewis Gilbert's regular editor, Thelma Connell was originally hired to edit the film. However, after an initial cut (which was over three hours long) received a terrible response from test audiences, Peter R. Hunt was asked to recut the film. Hunt's edit turned out to be a much greater success, and he was awarded the director's chair on the next film as a result.

http://en.wikipedia....ve_Twice_(film)

Now, we all know that Wikipedia is user-edited, so that might be untrue, but it's also worth bearing in mind that Thunderball was said to be four hours long at one point...I find this very intriguing, mainly because for both of those movies to be that length originally, there would have to be significant additional sequences and maybe even sub-plots. Surely I'm not the only one who would like to see all this excised footage? Perhaps on another 'Ultimate Edition' DVD...

[capungo]

While I can't fathom what would be added to You Only Live Twice, Thunderball's pace always seemed a bit odd. Four hours though... that's almost another whole movie

[Walking my rat]

While I can't fathom what would be added to You Only Live Twice, Thunderball's pace always seemed a bit odd. Four hours though... that's almost another whole movie

Exactly. That's why I'd love to know whether the cut material still exists. If it did, it would change our views on these movies completely!

I know that for Thunderball a sequence was cut where Largo shows Bond round his estate and then onboard the Disco Volante, but I can't think of anything else. As for Live Twice...I know of no deleted scenes from that.

Just thinking about it though, if Thunderball truly was that length at one point, it must have deviated more considerably from the novel than the version we got.

Edited by Walking my rat, 28 January 2007 - 09:02 PM.

[Agent Carter]

I would love to see this extra footage. Four hour long Bond film?, sounds like a good way to spend Saturday afternoon to me.

[TheSaint]

Unless the excised scenes are in the hands of collectors, if those scenes have not been added to the most recent dvd releases, they probably no longer exist.

[English Agent]

If these facts are true, its quite amazing, as these films were turned
out at intervals of 12-18 months in the 60's, so it must of been a very
hard schedule to of filmed so much in such a short time, as compared
to todays Bonds.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

If these facts are true, its quite amazing, as these films were turned
out at intervals of 12-18 months in the 60's, so it must of been a very
hard schedule to of filmed so much in such a short time, as compared
to todays Bonds.

I thought I read that the 1960s Bonds were usually took up to 6 months to film which caused Connery to get really annoyed. They were releasing one every year and it would eat up his time and energy that he wanted to be able to do non-Bond films.

[English Agent]

If these facts are true, its quite amazing, as these films were turned
out at intervals of 12-18 months in the 60's, so it must of been a very
hard schedule to of filmed so much in such a short time, as compared
to todays Bonds.

I thought I read that the 1960s Bonds were usually took up to 6 months to film which caused Connery to get really annoyed. They were releasing one every year and it would eat up his time and energy that he wanted to be able to do non-Bond films.

Yes, sorry i should of mentioned the actual filming time, which on the earlier Bond's was less
than the 6 months of todays films. I believe actual filming took around between 3-4 months.

[dunmall]

I remember some one in another thread on this board suggested that the extra running time could refer to a work print which would have contained different versions of certain scenes for the director and producers to choose from ie here is version A of Bond meeting Largo...now see Version B which one is better sort of thing so multiple versions of scenes would lengthen the film?

Not sure how accurate that is but it was put forward.

Another thing could be the action sequences could have gone on substantially longer perhaps?

Just some ideas

[Tiin007]

I remember some one in another thread on this board suggested that the extra running time could refer to a work print which would have contained different versions of certain scenes for the director and producers to choose from ie here is version A of Bond meeting Largo...now see Version B which one is better sort of thing so multiple versions of scenes would lengthen the film?

Not sure how accurate that is but it was put forward.

Another thing could be the action sequences could have gone on substantially longer perhaps?

Just some ideas

That's probably what happened. There's no way they could've filmed a four-hour-long movie in just 3-4 months. If they had, the movie would look way too disjointed with all the cuts (but it doesn't, so it must be different versions and longer fight scenes). I'd like to see Largo giving bond a tour of the Disco Volante, though.

[FullMetalJacket]

4 hours? Good god. Thunderball was already about 20 minutes too long to begin with.

[DavidSomerset]

4 hours? Good god. Thunderball was already about 20 minutes too long to begin with.

What are the 20 minutes that you would have cut?

[Colossus]

Well many mention the main bog-points are the endless underwater sequences Young himself detested.

However i'm really intrigued by a 3 hour cut of YOLT, i like that movie so much that at this point, pacing be damned for me (and any other YOLT lovers), i'd just salivate every extra second for a new scene, just more time to be immersed into that exotically beautiful Bond world in the rising sun.

Edited by Colossus, 29 January 2007 - 06:05 AM.

[Qwerty]

Interesting as You Only Live Twice is one of the shortest films in the series. Would love to hear more about this.

[Walking my rat]

I remember some one in another thread on this board suggested that the extra running time could refer to a work print which would have contained different versions of certain scenes for the director and producers to choose from ie here is version A of Bond meeting Largo...now see Version B which one is better sort of thing so multiple versions of scenes would lengthen the film?

That sounds likely- maybe four hours of material, rather than a complete movie running to four hours.

I don't think that would be the case for the three hour long You Only Live Twice, though, as the wikipedia article mentions it was tested in front of an audience.

[BMT-216A]

id love to see more yolt!!!! haha

[00Twelve]

Maybe there would have been some material in that YOLT cut that would have made it bear, maybe, 2% more relevance to the novel's plot!

I'd have loved to see the Disco tour scene, just for the wonderful detective work, on display as usual in the novel. "He couldn't have shown me the entire vessel."

[Blofeld's Cat]

Does this mean that The Spy Who Loved Me could have been 3 hours long too!?

[DamnCoffee]

I know that for Thunderball a sequence was cut where Largo shows Bond round his estate and then onboard the Disco Volante

And that footage is lost.

[Harmsway]

As far as I'm aware, there's no real evidence that any such YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE cut exists, and there's no record of any such missing material. So I sincerely doubt it's anything more than hearsay.

[Scottlee]

TB is near perfect as it is. I wouldn't change that much, if I had the power.

YOLT is a different matter altogether. I think added length would help this film considerably, as sometimes the plot travels too fast for its own good. Some significant padding time would be an intriguing addition to it.

[00Twelve]

Hopefully part of the lost YOLT footage was Blofeld saying things in between "Kill!" "Bond!" and "Now!!" so it's not really just bad line delivery...

[Fiona Volpe lover]

I read the same thing about YOLT a couple of years ago. I would love the see the lost scenes,YOLT ties with OHMSS as my favourite Bond film and I would love to see more of it even if the scenes are of poor quality. There doesn't appear to be anything mising from the film but I would adore a longer,slower version of it. However,I reckon that if the footage still existed it would have been on the UE DVDs. They did tend to destroy unused footage in those days.

I also rememeber hearing about a scene cut from OHMSS where one of Blofeld's men spies on Bond visiting the College Of Arms and Bond chases him. Somewhere,maybe in a book ,I've got a still from that scene.

[dee-bee-five]

I read the same thing about YOLT a couple of years ago. I would love the see the lost scenes,YOLT ties with OHMSS as my favourite Bond film and I would love to see more of it even if the scenes are of poor quality. There doesn't appear to be anything mising from the film but I would adore a longer,slower version of it. However,I reckon that if the footage still existed it would have been on the UE DVDs. They did tend to destroy unused footage in those days.

I also rememeber hearing about a scene cut from OHMSS where one of Blofeld's men spies on Bond visiting the College Of Arms and Bond chases him. Somewhere,maybe in a book ,I've got a still from that scene.

That scene from OHMSS is the lost sequence I would most love to see. Personally, I love to see Bond in London.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 01 February 2007 - 09:04 AM.

[sorking]

It's worth pointing out that any first cut of a movie is significantly longer than the intended duration. Because a first cut is deliberately 'slack'. Every scene has all the possible pauses, establishing shots and bits of pace-slowing business (characters crossing the length of a room, etc.).

Even without deleted scenes, if you imagine that every scene is actually 30 seconds longer in rough cut form - and the film has, say, 100 scenes - that's 50 minutes right there.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a working cut of a two-hour movie that DIDN'T last at least three hours in its first edit.

The Wiki entry may be half-right - a lengthy first cut that was tightened with the help of a brilliant film editor without actually losing much 'content'. But I'd be very doubtful that the work in progress was shown to any kind of test audience. You don't test with a cut that you KNOW is an hour too long.

Edited by sorking, 01 February 2007 - 10:02 AM.

[RazorBlade]

I have heard of lost footage turning up in storage or warehouses or foreign prints of a film. For the general public 3 or 4 hours might long but for TB and YOLT fans like us, it would be a teasure to see the extra footage. On my DRACULA DVD someone makes the observation that finding the Spanish language version of that film is "like finding additional rooms in your family home". Which is what the extra footage would be for us.

Edited by RazorBlade, 01 February 2007 - 10:46 AM.

[TheLazenby]

As much as I love the Bonds, a four hour Bond flick would be WAY too much. I'd be bored to death.

Only certain movies can hold their own for that long; it's not the most entertaining thing in the world, but the 4.5 hour director's cut of "This Is Spinal Tap" seems pretty interesting, judging by the two hours (I believe) of footage from it on the old Criterion DVD. I always wanted to see a three hour "Anchorman" as well - that movie had entire two-hour subplots chopped out. There's enough funny material to make a pretty damn good director's cut.

[crheath]

This definitely makes sense because YOLT is the one film where everything seems to cut fast. When Bond is allegedly killed in the pre-title sequence, everything, including the shooting, police arrival and discovery of the body is speeded up. The gun fights are also speeded up through fast cutting as well as the fight scenes, especially the first one where Bond kills Dikko Henderson's assassin. I actually thought this was Lewis Gilbert's style. I didn't realize Peter Hunt was behind most of it.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

It's worth pointing out that any first cut of a movie is significantly longer than the intended duration. Because a first cut is deliberately 'slack'. Every scene has all the possible pauses, establishing shots and bits of pace-slowing business (characters crossing the length of a room, etc.).

Even without deleted scenes, if you imagine that every scene is actually 30 seconds longer in rough cut form - and the film has, say, 100 scenes - that's 50 minutes right there.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a working cut of a two-hour movie that DIDN'T last at least three hours in its first edit.

The Wiki entry may be half-right - a lengthy first cut that was tightened with the help of a brilliant film editor without actually losing much 'content'. But I'd be very doubtful that the work in progress was shown to any kind of test audience. You don't test with a cut that you KNOW is an hour too long.

I believe the original cut for OHMSS was approximately 2 hrs 50 minutes according to Stephen Jay Rubin's The James Bond Films. It would be interesting to see the longer version of OHMSS but except for the bit about Bond pursuing the SPECTRE agent in London, it was probably a deliberately "slack" cut as you described it.

[Skudor]

I don't think I would want to see any of the older movies changed in any way. I just doesn't feel right. A bit inconsistent as I probably wouldn't mind changes to CR or DAD... but nevertheless changing the older movies that I've seen so many times is not something I would be particularly interested in.