Article written by Samuel Burnett.
When a film is being made it is often true that, upon the completion of shooting, there will be a surplus of scenes. Sometimes, the scene didn’t play well with audiences, while other times it might ruin the flow of the story. For whatever reason, there will usually be several scenes deleted from the final product.
However, sometimes, the choice to cut a scene from the film will leave you scratching your head and wondering “why on Earth would you delete that?”
Maybe the removed scene fleshed out an otherwise two-dimensional character, maybe it filled in a plot hole, or maybe, just maybe, it was a really entertaining scene and had absolutely no business being on the cutting room floor.
Today, we’ll be looking at some of the more egregious deleted scenes, and seeing what they might have added to their film.
Every single deleted scene in Eragon
Now, let’s just get it out there, Eragon is a downright bizarre film. Despite the fact that the actors, composer and set designers were all doing their best, the script was simply awful. Full of clichés and cheesy dialogue, it was so horrendous that even Jeremy Irons couldn’t save it.
If you don’t believe me when I say the script was awful, check out the video below. This was an actual line of dialogue from the film.
The thing is, the book this was based on, while not flawless itself, had a much fuller plot with obvious hooks for the sequel. Even though the film never had a sequel, there were plans for one, which makes it odd that pretty much everything that hinted towards future stories was cut.
The creepy psychic twins that were working for the bad guy? Cut.
The girlfriend of Eragon’s cousin who has a major subplot devoted to her in the sequel? Cut.
The infant girl that Eragon accidently cursed when he tried to bless her? Cut.
The scenes establishing Murtagh’s character? Cut.
Now, if these scenes had never been written into the script, that would be one thing, but these scenes were actually filmed!
If you watch the scenes on the DVD, you can see that these would have fit in perfectly. And, before you suggest they might have been cut so as to not make the film overlong, the full movie is just over an hour and a half.
Honestly, I have no idea what they were thinking here?
They cut the death of the bad guy in The Lord of the Rings!
The Lord of the Rings is a near perfect trilogy. Near perfect being the operative words.
Saruman was one of the main villains of the first two films, responsible for sending orcs to attack the fellowship, resulting in the death of Boromir and the Battle of Helm’s Deep.
In addition, Christopher Lee provided a sense of menace and grandeur to the character, his performance being one of the best in an already stellar cast.
How important was the character? Well, he was on freaking poster, for starters!
So, yeah, pretty important.
So, you might find it odd that in the theatrical cut, the character simply vanishes from the story in the third film, never to be seen again.
I’m not joking, the heroes make their way to his castle and then abruptly decide that, “Nah, he’s fine, we don’t need to actually catch the bad guy. We’re sure he’s learnt his lesson.”
Like Eragon, it’s not like they didn’t have a complete scene already filmed that featured the character’s death. There was, and it was included in the director’s cut. The question is, why the hell wasn’t it in the theatrical cut?
If they were worried about the already long film dragging on, maybe they could have cut one of the dozen or so endings from the film.
The alternate ending to I Am Legend actually fits the tone of the film
Will Smith’s I Am Legend was a decent film that was let down by its ending. Cornered by zombies (although the film never uses the Z-word), Smith’s character, Neville, sacrifices himself to save two other people. It’s a stupid ending that ignores the multiple plot threads dangled by the film that indicated that the zombies were showing signs of intelligence.
In the alternative ending, titled the “Controversial Ending,” Neville realises that the reason that the zombies are attacking him is that he had abducted one of them to experiment his cure on.
It’s not a random assault, it’s a rescue mission!
Realising that he has become the bogeyman to the zombies, a “legend” if you will, he releases the captured zombie and, after a moment, they immediately leave him.
This ending understood the film far better than the original, and actually made the title make sense.
Who would have thought that the controversial ending would be the one where everyone calmly sorts out their differences and leaves without killing anyone?
The seeds of rebellion in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
It’s no secret that Natalie Portman’s character, Padmé Amidala, got the short end of the stick in her final Star Wars movie. Essentially, all she did was; get pregnant, give birth, and die.
Not exactly a solid character arc.
However, originally, her role was significantly more substantial as she aided other characters in sowing the seeds of what would later be the rebellion from the original trilogy, further binding the prequels to the films that came before.
These were good scenes, showing Padmé’s depression over the collapse of her government, her faith in her mentor, and even her marriage as she and Anakin Skywalker are on opposite sides.
Furthermore, they showcased Portman’s talent as an actress, something the other films neglected somewhat.
Sadly, each one of the scenes featuring this subplot were cut for a combination of the film already being over two hours and George Lucas’ desire to not distract the viewers from the rise of Darth Vader.
Despite this reasoning, the scenes should have been left in. If they had been, the film would have finished with a running time similar to that of Avengers: Infinity War, and nobody complained about the running time of that film.
To any movie executives reading this, conclusions to trilogies are allowed to be a little longer than normal films.
Audiences do not mind.
Comments