« xXx 3 and Diesel dropped by Cohen again? | Filmstalker | Ridley Scott for Alien prequel? »


Inglourious Basterds in editing hell?

IngloriousBasterds.jpgIt was just after the showing in Cannes that we heard the mixed reviews for Inglourious Basterds were resulting in a return to the editing room, but there was something different here, it was the studio requesting that the film be edited with more footage and the time increased.

So it's strange to find that today the film is still under the claimed contractual mark and that the production company are requesting the film be edited down. Rumour and controversy for the film, or is the film really caught in some behind the scenes company politics?

On the twenty-third of May I was writing about the reception of Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, and some major publications were being rather critical of it.

So it seemed that there were to be some changes.

"TWC's 50/50 partner on the picture, Universal, UPDATE: is talking to the filmmaker about returning to the editing room post-Cannes to make some trims edits that might include adding a scene, says Tarantino, who reminds that the film, at two hours 27 minutes, is well under his contractual final cut length of two hours 48 minutes."

So the studio, Universal, were the ones wanting footage added. Okay in the scheme of things they could have been asking for twenty minutes worth of cuts and adding in a scene of six minutes, but the word was that they were wanting footage put back in.

The key thing here is that the contractual length of the film was two hours forty eight minutes, that's how much he was asked to deliver.

Now we're hearing from across the board that The Weinstein Company want Tarantino to cut some forty minutes out of the film, isn't this going a little against the Universal requirement after Cannes?

It's interesting that the story from The Wrap through JoBlo tells us that the film is currently sitting at two hours forty minutes, hence the call for something in the region of forty minutes of cuts, and yet that's still eight minutes within the contractual obligations.

What is going on? More to the point where's Universal in this? If they really had asked for more footage put back in, why are the Weinstein's asking for footage to be taken out? What's the real story here?

I'm all for seeing the film as the director intended, good or bad, but I can understand studio involvement to try and make it commercially viable too, and while I don't normally mind that too much, as long as we see a Director's Cut eventually, this is turning into a little bit of a mess.



Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34