I remember an extended version - Somewhere in Time (1980) Discussion

[–] VinnieRattolle 15 years ago

I can't definitively say whether or not there's an alternate print, but as for the people arguing that it's an impossibility, I'll argue that it's most certainly not. In the '70s, '80s and '90s it was commonplace for the networks to prepare alternate versions of films to air on television, often incorporating huge scenes that were removed from theatrical and video prints. Usually, this was to compensate for either profanity/nudity that had to be removed, but sometimes it was to pad out a film's running time, and infrequently there was no logical explanation at all. Unfortunately, as TV censors have gotten more and more relaxed and commercials are eating up more and more screen time, many of the alternate TV prints seem to have been relegated to the vaults.

A few examples of TV versions:

"Diary of a Mad Housewife" substitutes alternate footage in many scenes, Alice Cooper's performance is a little longer, and the TV print features several scenes with the titular character visiting a psychiatrist who wasn't seen in the theatrical/video versions.

"Carrie" had an entirely different opening shot, with the camera wandering around the locker room, finding all of the girls at least partially clothed. And the red on-screen credits that were seen in theatrical/video prints were white in the TV version. Nowadays the only version that's broadcast is a hacked-up copy of the theatrical opening with blurring strategically covering the nudity.

"The Car" featured several additional dialogue scenes.

"Halloween" includes additional footage that gives a little backstory on Michael Myers, as well as an extra scene with the girls. Unlike everything else I'm citing, these scenes weren't deleted from the original print but instead shot specifically for TV.

"Little Darlings" featured a vast array of alternate and deleted scenes, though I can't describe them all off the top of my head.

"The Breakfast Club" included some alternate and unused footage while the kids were sneaking around the school.

"The Goonies" featured an additional scene in a convenience store, one of the kids taking "The Goonie Oath," and one with an octopus (the latter of which is mentioned but unseen in the theatrical print). One of the rare older films that actually has deleted scenes on the DVD, the Goonie Oath segment is nowhere to be seen.

The 1990 comedy "Madhouse" features some additional scenes with John Larroquette and Kirstie Alley trying to find another place to stick their unwanted houseguests.

In addition to a few other minor scenes, "The Brady Bunch Movie" features an entire subplot with nasty neighbor Mr. Dittmeyer (Michael McKean) setting loose termites in the Bradys' home, only to have it backfire, with the termites winding up in his bathroom. This explains why he's seen at Sears sporting a neckbrace and buying a toilet late in the theatrical/video print of the movie.

"A Very Brady Sequel" ditches a drug-induced hallucination scene and substitutes deleted footage of Carol Brady wandering around an underground cave.

"Mallrats" trades in its sex scene finale with another scene featuring Ben Affleck in drag.

TNT aired an extended cut of "Needful Things" in a four hour timeslot which included a lot more character development.

Even as late as 2001's "Bubble Boy," there was an extended version that's aired infrequently on Flix.

All of these are just off the top of my head, but alternate TV prints were released in countless other instances. And in most cases, none of the extra TV footage has made it to DVD, even on films that were released in "Special Editions." So if there's a handful of people claiming there was once an alternate TV print of "Somewhere in Time," there more than likely was. It's just a matter of tracking down someone who taped it off TV and doesn't realize what they have.

http://vinnierattolle.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] PlanoRB 15 years ago

Richard going back again didn't happen in the book, though. Would they have strayed that far from Matheson's original story? Not saying it's an impossibility. I also remember seeing extra footage in movies that aired on TV in the '80s. I would love to see an old recording of "SIT" from television. It mentions in the trivia section here that there were some differences in the music score as well; at least the closing theme.

reply

[–] grandslamjd17 15 years ago

To back up the OP yet again, my brother and I both remember watching this movie on TV and he goes back again.

100% all natural whey protein for damn cheap: http://www.buybulkwhey.com/?c=1059

reply

[–] ann_hf1 15 years ago

You are not crazy. I only became a fan of this movie a few years ago. I discovered this movie within the last ten years. The first time I saw this movie, I saw the version where Christopher Reeve's character traveled back in time twice. The first visit was a short one. He travelled back in time and saw that old guy as a young boy, playing with that red ball. I can't remember if he met Elise...he might have seen her briefly...not sure. Then he came back to the present. At first, he didn't realize he had successfully travelled back in time, or if it had just been a dream, until that old guy mentioned he used to get into trouble playing ball out in the foyer as a kid. It was then that Reeve's character realized he travel through time. That's when he looked up where Elise was staying and the dates she was at the hotel. So, he travelled back in time again and met her...yadda yadda yadda...I distinctly remember seeing this the first time I saw it because I thought it was dumb that Richard was seemingly able to travel through time twice so easily...but wasn't able to return that third time. It made no sense to me.

Then about a year later, the movie was playing on tv again. I liked the movie very much the first time I saw it, despite that plot flaw that I found. But the second time I saw the movie, he only traveled through time once. And everything...the boy playing with the red ball, etc. happened all in one very long visit. It made more sense that he had difficulty traveling through time and wasn't able to get back.

I'm pretty sure there were other differences as well, but this was the major difference that I noticed right away with my second viewing. I'm not sure which version I like better. Even though both versions were essentially the same, with the same scenes, some of it was put in better context with the first version I saw...and some of it fit better with the second version I saw.

I do wish that both versions of this movie would be released on one disc someday. I'd like to watch them and compare again. So...KD, you are not crazy. I have seen the other version. I am not a life-long fan devoted to this movie who would be biased towards an idea that there is only one version. I've read other comments from other people who suggest that people are getting this movie confused with another. Well, I've never seen that other movie. And I know that both versions I saw starred Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour. And took place at the Grand Hotel. I distinctly remember the two versions because I remember my reactions after each viewing. I've only seen the first version one...all subsequent airings have shown the second version.

reply

[–] MisterMojoRisin 15 years ago

So, ann_hfl, the alternate version you remember simply broke up the scenes a little differently than the original version? In other words, he didn't come return to 1912 AFTER he and Elise had fallen in love, but BEFORE? Others remember him coming back to Elise AFTER they had fallen in love. I really wish the director, producer, writer or INSITE would clear this all up for us. Surely they follow they boards occasionally.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] julielb67 14 years ago

I've been watching this movie since it's first appearance on television and have watched it over and over through the years. I was about 13 or 14 then and am now 43. I've never seen an extended or alternate version and I'm sure the site devoted to it, Insite would have it listed if it were the case. I do remember crying my eyes out but falling in love with it just the same. So tragic, yet so beautiful. I also stumbled upon the book Bid Time Return (I wished I still had it!) when I was a teenager afterwards and being quite taken with how it was written as to making it seem all so real.

reply

[–] SIT Fan 14 years ago

There was NEVER a version where Richard Collier goes back in time twice. I saw the original film in the theatre in 1980 (one of the few to do so, since it only ran 3 weeks in theatres), and am also one of the charter members of INSITE. I have been friends with director Jeannot Szwarc, producer Stephen Deutsch (now Simon), author Richard Matheson, and editor Jeff Gourson, and can assure you that what you see now is exactly how they filmed it, one trip back in time. Even before Jeff edited the film, it was never filmed with two time travel sequences, and the script does not show it either. You must just be confused with his looking at the guest register and verifying that he had already been in 1912 once before, even though we're never shown that first encounter.

reply

[–] tamajinn 14 years ago

Thank you for posting and clearing that up! Memory is not as reliable as we all wish it could be.

reply

[–] bringbackwriting-1 14 years ago

Yet at a later date it may have been edited to show two trips to 1912 depending upon the venue in which it was to be shown. That venue has been consistent from the people claiming to have seen the two trip version. That venue was TV. TV from many years ago. There is certainly the chance that another movie has been mistaken for SIT but given the vivid recollection of the latest 'witness' that seems remote.

reply

[–] SIT Fan 14 years ago

Sorry, I can assure you that Jeannot, Stephen, and Jeff NEVER shot or re-edited this film to show two trips. Richard was in 1912 originally (having signed the guestbook at that time), then makes the trip back from 1979 to 1912 after Elise gives him the watch. Perhaps that's the two "trips" they thought they saw.

reply

[–] bringbackwriting-1 14 years ago

I believe you. I'll take on faith that you have contacted those people as to this issue. However that doesn't mean that someone else didn't do it. The poster of nearly a year ago seems to be saying the first trip to 1912 was very short and seems to be the same footage seen later in the film. Therefore the original movie would be able to supply the film necessary for the two trip version she witnessed 11 years ago. Seems the party to settle such an issue would be those that maintain the physical possession of the film in question whether that be a distributor or perhaps a rogue editor at a station wanting to pad the play time of the film on their station? It would be instructive to find where the people claiming to have seen the two trip version had watched it. Was it on a network? Was it a local station? If on local stations in different parts of the country (USA or other) then likely a distributor was sending out the two trip version in physical form or perhaps over a satellite feed? If all reports are in the same vicinity then the rogue editor becomes more likely.

Please review what the poster ann_hf1 on Mon Jul 26 2010 21:19:48 wrote:

"I only became a fan of this movie a few years ago. I discovered this movie within the last ten years. The first time I saw this movie, I saw the version where Christopher Reeve's character traveled back in time twice. The first visit was a short one. He travelled back in time and saw that old guy as a young boy, playing with that red ball. I can't remember if he met Elise...he might have seen her briefly...not sure. Then he came back to the present. At first, he didn't realize he had successfully travelled back in time, or if it had just been a dream, until that old guy mentioned he used to get into trouble playing ball out in the foyer as a kid. It was then that Reeve's character realized he travel through time. That's when he looked up where Elise was staying and the dates she was at the hotel. So, he travelled back in time again and met her...yadda yadda yadda...I distinctly remember seeing this the first time I saw it because I thought it was dumb that Richard was seemingly able to travel through time twice so easily...but wasn't able to return that third time. It made no sense to me."

The recollection clearly refers to a scene out of place from the original. It's either a well conceived hoax or another version has been shown. It would be nice to see less investment in the negative and more in the positive. If such a version existed it wouldn't detract from the original. It would complement it. I would think most SIT fans would like to see it as well.

reply

[–] SIT Fan 14 years ago

Trust me, I didn't just "contact those people", we have been friends for the past 20 years, and regularly keep in touch, both online and at our annual SIT cast-and-crew reunion weekends at Grand Hotel. We know exactly what was shot, edited and released.

From what Ann posted, it appears as though she did see the entire movie (all the scenes she mentions are in the film), but perhaps she saw them out of sequence - the TV station (or movie theatre) could have showed a reel out of order, explaining the juxtaposition of events.

But I am absolutely certain that an alternate version (or at least one authorized by Universal and produced by Stephen, directed by Jeannot, and edited by Jeff) does not exist. If it does, it was not done by them.

All that aside, we also know that Richard wouldn't have been able to come and go at will, because once he knew he was from the present (seeing the penny), his mind would no longer allow him to go back again - it would already know he was from the present, thus preventing a return trip.

reply

[–] bringbackwriting-1 14 years ago

"We know exactly what was shot, edited and released."

Really? Shot, yes. Edited, yes. Released, not necessarily. Whatever studio owns the movie can do what they want with it. They would also own all footage filmed yet left out of the theatrical release. What would prevent them from editing the film in response to unforeseen viewer interest from TV stations over 25 years ago? Perhaps more than one version was offered to allow local stations to better fit it into their schedule? Perhaps one of the two trip version was still in existence as late as 2000? One poster in this thread mentioned Elise using a telephone. Was such a scene shot but not included in the theatrical release? (I haven't seen SIT in a long time.) If so, another version of the movie seems quite likely.

reply

[–] SIT Fan 14 years ago

Ok, giving you (and Ann) the benefit of the doubt, I will email Stephen and Jeff, and ask them directly. I'll repost when I've received their replies.

reply

[–] bringbackwriting-1 14 years ago

Thank you. That will be most helpful from their end. I searched it some myself and all I could find was this from a Turner Classic Movie site regarding the film rights purchased from Universal by:

" a Los Angeles-based cable company purchased the rights to air"

that lead to SIT gaining popularity through the TV airings. Most likely the early or mid '80s. The cable company would be another avenue to search as would Universal.

Of course if someone were to produce a copy taped from either an air or cable broadcast that would be most ideal as the credits would likely answer any question of origination as well as existence.

reply

[–] SIT Fan 14 years ago

Hi! SIT producer Stephen Deutsch (now Simon) just replied. Here's my email to him and Jeff Gourson (editor):

Hi! Perhaps one of you could answer a question that's been burning up the SIT movie boards on IMDB the past few days. Here's the thread:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081534/board/flat/51805446?p=5

Several people are reporting that they distinctly remember an alternate or extended version of SIT many years ago (after first release) which showed Richard making an additional trip back in time. I tried to tell them that the first trip is not shown, and we're only seeing the second, but they persist that they saw Richard making a third trip. And it's several people, not just one, that are making this claim. (They also claim Elise was shown using a telephone!?!?) Was it possible that a network re-edited the film and showed an alternate version?

Lynn

Here is Stephen's reply:
Hi Lynn, Please find out what those folks are drinking and send some to Jeff and me!

No "missing" trip...no Elise using telephone...no re-edited version....all the stuff that was edited out involved cutting within scenes, not whole scenes themselves...like the scenes with teresa wright and george voskovec which went on forever....and the gazebo scene with christopher plummer, etc.....

Hope that helps!
Stephen

reply

[–] bringbackwriting-1 14 years ago

Thank you for contacting them but all that clears up is the lack of a telephone scene with Elise and that those people were not involved in editing another version.

As for Universal or even the cable company re-editing the film that is still in play, as is your suggestion that perhaps the reels were played out of order on occasion.

I find it quite interesting and informative the no new scenes and only cutting within scenes your email effort elicited. Thank you for that!

reply

[–] SIT Fan 14 years ago

No problem! Universal did not do anything either - to do so, they would have had to obtain Stephen's approval and they did not. Not sure about cable companies or networks - however, they too would have had to receive approval and did not.

BTW, there can never be an extended version because we explored that idea with Jeff Gourson (editor) when preparing for the 20th anniversary re-release, and unfortunately, none of the edited film stock still exists. He did a thorough check both at Universal and through his own storage, and was never able to locate anything that was cut out. Universal probably threw it all out, as they did with a lot of old SIT stuff after the film bombed in 1980 (one of our members even found an entire set of stills/negatives in their dumpster)! That's really unfortunate, because I for one would love to see the longer scene versions of Christopher Plummer's speech in the gazebo, and Teresa Wright having tea with Christopher Reeve in her home (you can read the full scenes in the script). I also understand that the love scene Chris and Jane filmed was incredible - much more graphic than what ended up on film (we only have a clue thru the one movie still that exists, showing both in bed)!

reply

[–] bringbackwriting-1 14 years ago

You are amazing! It's people like you that make IMDb such an enjoyable and informative experience.

reply

[–] harlemsushi 13 years ago

Not to argue wth SIT Fan, but I also remember the extended version that others have mentioned and most recently when I saw the film again I thought it odd that the scenes were missing. I do not doubt anything that SIT Fan has said, however as it was stated before TV stations were infamous in the 80's for adding scenes to films that were not in their official release. The best case in point is the Outsiders. It aired on television with a TON of extra scenes and then for the next 20 years they were never seen again until a new version of the film was released that included those scenes.

While none of the actual film may exist, I'd check with the stations that broadcast it or whoever did their editing because they likely have the version we are talking about in some basement somewhere on BETA SP where the quality degrading.

reply

[–] bringbackwriting-1 13 years ago

I have trouble with the mechanics of stations doing as you say. I would think for such scenes to exist wouldn't a much longer original version of the film have existed that would have scenes edited out rather than "added"? Wouldn't there be many examples of such a non edited film still around?

I am a fairly recent fan of this movie (2002) and have never seen anything other than the version that was released on VHS in the '80s. It would be great to see extra scenes. I hope someone can find them if they exist.

reply

[–] harlemsushi 13 years ago

I have trouble with the mechanics of stations doing as you say. I would think for such scenes to exist wouldn't a much longer original version of the film have existed that would have scenes edited out rather than "added"?

Not really, back then when they were doing linear ediing studios would sell a mater copy of the film (including alternate footage) because the studios would recognize that the stations might need them for time or content purposes. TV stations would then re-edit the film for time or content (taking out objectionable scenes and adding unreleased scenes to maintain the time needed) and then air a hybrid version.

A few examples I can think of this are The Outsiders, Scarface, and Halloween which would fit into this category.

Wouldn't there be many examples of such a non edited film still around?

Yes, there are unfortunately they are either sitting in some vault or in a network's storage facility.

reply

[–] ann_hf1 12 years ago

Thanks everyone for clearing this up! My memory of the version I saw was no hoax. It has bothered me for such a long time because I've been searching for the alternate version all these years. I didn't realize this conversation went on so long past my post. From SiTFan's statement...and from what I know what I originally saw...I think we can conclude there is no alternate version but that whatever network station we all were watching, and not the studio itself, did some editing to the original movie and could have shown some scenes out of order to make it seem like he travelled back in time a second time. This makes perfect sense to me and I accept this explanation. As for people who claim they saw him travel back a third time...I think it's a matter of interpretation. I believe that the last scene depicts Christopher Reeves's character being reunited with Elise in death...much like the ending of Titanic. However, I can understand how some people might have thought he travelled back in time again. Maybe this explanation clears everything up. I can't explain the telephone scene though, I didn't see that scene when I originally watched it. I've been waiting to see if Somewhere in Time would get shown on a channel like WGN or something to see if they air the "edited" version of the movie to confirm all this, but I have yet to see it played on that channel. I've only seen it on TCM, but they air it commercial free, so they don't edit it.

reply

[–] harlemsushi 12 years ago

Unless someone recorded it off TV or has access to a studio's film vault it is unlikely that this will ever see the light of day. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

reply

[–] wstock70 12 years ago

Whaaaaaaaat?? That would have screwed up the whole beginning where she gives him the watch and says "come back to me."

reply

[–] nevaxa 11 years ago

I just purchased a DVD and it does not include any deleted scenes or alternate endings -- you think that a DVD release would have provided the perfect opportunity!

reply

[–] Aloneatlast 11 years ago

AND there's nothing on YouTube about an alternate ending, so there you go!

reply

[–] westal_sage 11 years ago

I would be really surprised to learn there really is/was an extended version. I am a huge fan of this film and have never encountered it. Honestly, I just don't believe it exists.

reply

[–] harlemsushi 10 years ago

You don't have to believe it exists, but those of us that saw it are not making up the same thing.

reply