Back in the 80'S I found a film magazine with an interview with Director Burt Kennedy. The article covered his career going back to his beginning at Batjac and all the films he had written.
The interviewer ask him about The War Wagon and Burt was very pleased with that film. However when he got to The Train Robbers Burt had a very interesting answer. Kennedy's answer went something like this. "I had a better cut of that film but when the studio got its hands on it they cut 15 minutes out of it. As it is now, some scenes don't make sense. Oh well,
if they can do it to John Ford they can do it to me." I know there are many JW experts on this site. Does anyone know if Warners or Batjac has the lost footage? How cool would it be to restore the film for DVD. I know its not the Duke's best movie but if it can be made better I think that would
be awesome.

I find these kind of things very interesting...I think they could make a lot of money off of fans like us if they would re-release films including some of the clips that were cut before release. For instance, in the Quiet Man at the opening scene, when Wayne gets off the train, he holds an apple up, pointing so someone inside the train...the cut footage was a conversation that he had with a boy in the train while it was travelling to Castletown. And then there is the scene when Barry Fitzgerald introduces Wayne to Ward Bond who played the priest, and the priest shooed Wayne away to discuss important business ... we never know what that was except that a scene was cut where the two discuss their wagers.

If these clips could be reintroduced, I would buy another copy of the film and the old one would sell on e-bay.

GSP

Burt Kennedy wrote his own biography with "Hollywood Trail Boss". He's a better director than a writer but he captures some of the fun they had with those films very well I thought. Next to the Wayne films, he remembers vividly about working with Mitchum, Brynner, Sinatra, James Garner. But I can't remember he mentioned "lost footage" when he was remembering Train Robbers in his own book. But you have to clear about one thing: In EVERY film they will cut the fat in the editing room. EVERY film could be cut differently. Most have alternate takes from separete cameras, especially in the action shots. The Train Robbers, as it is now, is a fast paced, straight-arrow action-flic. Could very well be they cut some conversation out to make it move more fluid. And of course I would like to see those bits as well. But I wouldn't go so far as saying Train Robbers would need a "Director's Cut" because it was harmed by the studio. Or would you?

Hello :huh:

Just about every movie, or should I say every movie is cut short in hollywood :angry:

Us fans should be able to buy a copy of any such films after the studios make their buck, Full cut :rolleyes: as the director intended :unsure:

OOPs sorry I'm living in another world and thinking :unsure:

Monique ;)

I wish I still had the article it came out roughly in the mid eighties. In it Kennedy was quite clear he felt his version was better. I'm guessing the powers that be probably would not
consider the Train Robbers important enough to look hard for the footage. I also believe most editors back in 1973 did not save footage. But I remeber Kenndy in the article claiming 15
minutes were cut which struck me as a significant amount. Which answerd for me a nagging question, Why would the Duke
put out a 92 minute film that late in his career. With the cast
he had out there I can't believe Kennedy could not come up with more usable scenes. Another interesting thing about the film Kennedy wanted Jack Elam in the movie instead of Rod Taylor. He liked the scenes Elam and the Duke had together in Rio Lobo. I believe Taylor was already signed to do the movie. Oh Well, I was thinking Hey if your going to have to get the negative out to transfer it to DVD anyway why not see if someone left that 15 minutes in the can.
PS I read somewhere on the internet that Burt Kennedy
wrote Yellowstone Kelly to be a John Ford- John Wayne Western. Ford apparently loved the script but there was some mixup and Duke thought Ford was refering to a different script when he ask him about it.

It sure would be interesting to see 15 additonal minutes - but only as an extra on a DVD. Let me explain how I feel about cut scenes.

There is rumorin for a few years now that there was to be another shoot-out-scene in the final climax of Rooster Cogburn. Remember: JW shoots the four bad guys dead, detonating the nitro. They look at the river full of bodys - and we cut to next scene. Now I have a German lobby card showing JW clubber the main bad man Hawk back in the water. It appears Hawk, pretty much cut up after the explosion, was very much alive and came back to get some more - ouch!
If you look closely at the way the scene is cut now, it appears that Katie Hepburn is standing at the left side of JW first - and then, a bit more shaky than in the first shot AFTER the explosion - to the right. In between those shots there COULD have been this action moment. This COULD indicate the scene was shot but left in the editing room.

But it appears they made the right choice! Those were people knowing what they're doing (in nowadays-pictures, they have the heavy come back after you shot him 10 times, and he keeps begging for more until the literally blow his brains out). I like the way the ending is. Would you care to change it?

In the case of The train Robbers an extra 15 minutes would not hurt.

Brian
Tulalip Wa

Here's my take on this discussion. I see your point, Itdo. But I think the reason many of us would love to see lost or cut out footage is simply that there will never be another John Wayne movie released. Yet, as fans, we can NEVER get enough. So, if it is lost or cut out, we still want to see it. A chance to see John Wayne in something we havn't seen befor is rare! I say bring them on! That's my take on it. dukefan1

Don't get me wrong here - of course I want to see - and I'm hunting for - unseen footage. What I'm saying is: I don't want it to be included (unless, of course, in the case of a picture which was harmed by cutting away, like The Alamo) AFTER we had a final film. It is so with every piece of art. I don't like Stephen King go back to one of his novels (like he did with "The Last Stand") and add more material, just because he believed he hadn't quite finished the first time. Nowadays it's almost common to have the screen version - and then the "extended" version on DVD. What the HECK's that supposed to mean? What is the definite version? Da Vinci just painted the Mona Lisa once - and didn't do another bigger one to fit in a larger frame because the people thought the first one was splendid. Do you get my point? Extra material: yes. But not a new version. You see even in The Alamo JW had a couple scenes filmed which he DIDN'T want to include after all (like Crockett and his men riding into town, all dressed up). It's a different thing to restore the film to the original cut when he was FORCED to take something out, same thing with the glorious restorations of SPARTACUS and LAWRENCE. But in the case of TRAIN ROBBERS?... I don't know.

Winston,

That makes so much sense. I figured that the 15 minutes you are talking about is at the end, because I thought that was the wrose part of the movie. They left you hanging out there, and then they go into a final scene and then it's over. I always thought it was really bad, which ruined the movie, for me. I listed that movie as one the my worst because of that, and if it would be restored, then it might be a decent one. Hope someone does something. I just hated that movie the way I saw it.

Cheers Hondo B)

Winston

This is extremely interesting, regulars to this board will know that I am a bit of an advocate for unseen footage in Duke movies. It wouldnt do "The Train Robbers" any harm to get something extra put into it as long as its good". I would prefferd if the ending to "Rooster Cogburn" was meated up a bit with the scene Roland mentioned as it is currently far too flat and lets the movie down. people say there is no chance of recovering lost footage from Duke movies they said it about the "Alamo"(The footage was recovered) and they have said it about every other movie he has made but all I can say is never say never there must be footage lieing around somewhere especially when you consider footage of Duke directing a scene in Rio Lobo still exists why would actual footage that was cut not still exist. I also feel that there was an awful lot of cutting that went on it "Big Jake" around the middle to end of the film and a little at the start this could also expalin what happened young billy.

B)

First let me say what a joy it is to discuss Duke with all the great fans on this site. I read everyones posts and enjoy them all.
Itdo, I also like the way Rooster Cogburn ends. I think the
shots of the badguys floating facedown give an erie feeling to the end and is a very powerful way for the Duke to win the battle. I agree with you I hate the way the modern action
film refuses to kill the badguy only once. To me it lessens the danger any character faces if they're just going to spring back
into action after being shot 50 times.Having said that I"d love to get a gander at your german Lobby card it sounds awesome. I wonder though in 1975 if Duke and company might
have been ahead of the crowd. After all Hawk could have survived the nitro blast and attacked the raft. I can't remember when in cinema history it became cliche to bring back the badguy for another finale battle. It would be very interesting to see that footage to see if it was effective or just overkill.

Hondo Duke Lane, I also feel the cut footage from Train Robbers occured near the end of the film. The pacing of the film feels rushed at the end compared to the rest of the movie. The scene where Duke won't stop at the one town
because of a baby almost made no sense until you here a babys cry dubbed onto the soundtrak. To me that seems to
be a silly way to play that scene and I wonder if in the full cut perhaps Dukes gang met the baby.

Robbie, I agree with you regarding Big Jake. I was watching it the other day counting the number of dead bad guys when i noticed they were one dead bad guy short at the end. I wonder if maybe Young billy met his end at Sam's knifepoint
that would somehow expailn how Bruce Cabot's character suddenly appears in a good position to help Duke in the final battle. Also if the scene were cut due too it being judged too violent I could seee where Sam sneaking up on someone to kill them with a knife could get a bit messy.

hi winston,

i think you may have been referring to the three god fathers as there is no baby in train robbers in the train robbers they are after gold buried in an old train out in the desert.

cheers smokey

He is quite right referring to the short scene in Train Robbers where Lane wants to push on because there is a newborn in the city through which they're just passing.

Intrestin topic isn't it... Restore lost footage..? Absolutely! But... include it?

Here's a tough one for ya:
Exept for Harry Carey's single scene in Rio Bravo, Hawks filmed - and cut - one more shoot-out with the bad guys. With good reason, as he stated in the interview book "Hawks on Hawks": The heros just shot too many of the bad guys. So he let the scene go and kept it in his mind. And used the idea in "El Dorado" when he had James Caan "dive under those horses" in the very same situation. In all the JW books I have found the still of the scene in only one: in that great Japanese book (great because it's full of rare pictures with almost no Japanese): It shows a night scene, Colorado lying on the street, shooting at the bypassing riders, and John T. Chance standing in background, shooting his rifle at the same target, in the same composition as in El Dorado.

Here's the lines from the shooting script of RIO BRAVO:
It's sandwiched between the scene where Dude finds new courage ("never spilled a drop") and the famous song-sequence.

FADE IN
INT. JAIL NIGHT
Dude is sleeping. Stumpy is watching from the window, and we see Chance and Colorado walking up the street, on opposite sides. (here writers Furthman and Brackett write about Burdette's men, watching the street, plotting, and the general athmosphere, then:)
There is a sudden SOUND of a shot. Chance stops. Colorado joins him. They are in the middle of a block of buildings.

COLORADO
Sounded like it came from over there.

A couple more shots go off. Colorado starts to move. chance stops him.

CHANCE
Hold it. Listen an minute---
(turning toward sudden SOUND of hoofbeats o.s.)
Look out!

EXT. STREET NIGHT
Horsemen appear around corner of dead run, headed for them, their guns out. Colorado dives into the street in front of the horses. The men shoot at him but can't hit him because the horses jump over Colorado. Chance shoots from beside the building. Colorado shoots after the men pass him. Dude joins in from door of jail. Two or three men go off their horeses. One man is dragged off up the stret. Colorado joins Chance.

COLORADO
Sorry to have left you, but there was no sense in us being close together.

CHANCE
Glad you did. Nobody shot at me. They were after you.
(more shots)

COLORADO
What is that?

CHANCE
We'll see.
(as they move toward smithy)
How come that dive under the horses?

COLORADO
Horse won't step on a man. And a man can't shoot good if his horse is jumping.

Chance is looking into the blacksmith's shop. Another shot goes off.

COLORADO
What is it?

CHANCE
Keep back. Somebody threw a handful of cartridges into the fire. Figured to catch us. But they make a different sound, not being in the gun barrel.

They walk back down the street to Dude who is near some of the men that have been shot.

CHANCE
Where any of 'em able to talk?

DUDE
Only one of 'em - and he only had time for three words.

CHANCE
What did he say?

DUDE
I couldn't repeat it in front of the kid.

CHANCE
If we keep on like this that kid who plays the drum will be the richest man in town.

(with that last line Chance refers to the boy who's heading the walk to the funeral in the first DAY scene of the final movie, the boy is referred to much more in the script)

Here the story DISSOLVES into My Rifle, My Pony and Me.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?! Hawks was famous for changing dialogue, improvising, making up new scenes and throwing stuff out - but keeping good ideas. So here's the question. The great director had reason enough not to include the finished scene in the final film - what if the material is found? Robbie, if you say include it in the DVD-version, the ghost of Howard Hawks will come lookin' for ya.

Hello :rolleyes:

I am one for putting lost footage on DVD :huh: That way the John Wayne fan can choose <_< Either watch it or don't watch it :unsure: Leave it up to the fan :rolleyes:

Monique :rolleyes:

itdo,

I bet most of the time, when a movie is cut, it's because of the time of the movie. They wanted to keep it somewhere between 90 to 120 minutes. I think that was keeping the attention of the audence or maybe financial.

Whatcha think?

Cheers, Hondo B)

Sometimes it can be the pressure of the studio to keep the film in a time limit which allows to screen the film twice an evening. Sometimes it's the director's reason to cut maybe a conversation piece because it slows the film down where it should pick up the pace - and therefore I think the cut should be made. After all, it should be the director's choice!

Something might look good on the script's paper when when you come down to cutting you realise that a piece should let go.

About finding "lost" footage in general, we must not forget that the film is assembled as a rough cut BEFORE the music is added, and before the final treatment of color processing etc. Therefore we can assume that even if there is additional footage to Train Robbers - when it was thrown out in the rough cut - it won't look like finished Technicolor scenes. The difference to the restoring of The Alamo for instance is that those scenes where cut AFTER the film was released (the same is true for Lawrence of Arabia - it was cut for length problems with distributors). To restore even footage that was finished and already released, the restoring team had to assemble an new print from archives around the world which might have little bits here and there (the only surviving print of John Ford's "Straight Shooting" came from Eastern Europe) - the restoration itself costs millions.

And did you know that JW himself let the US-filmarchives have his own Stagecoach-copy when theirs was detorirated (oops, did I spell that right)?

I can't proof it but I swear, in my 35mm-print of The Alamo (the roadshow version which was cut down for general release and was common on TV and video until the discovery of the only surviving uncut print) hat physical cuts exactly in the places where JW had to make the cuts that hurt the movie so much. What I'm trying to say is: even the making of the 35mm-prints costs lots of money - nowadays it's still about 400$ to make a single print - so my guess is to save some money they called back all the original prints (that would explain why only a single one survived this barbarian act), cut out the scenes, spliced it together again and sent the cut-prints out. Just a guess, of course! How they would have done the dissolves (where the cut-version leaves out a cut-scene) I wouldn't know. But hell, those cuts in my print are at exactly the places where they cut away in 1960, and there would be no reason for those physical cuts in the print.

(interesting to see that Ridley Scott's own Director's Cut of Blade Runner is SHORTER than the original release yet has more meaning)

thanks itdo i forgot about that scene.

cheers smokey :D

By the way, Hondo Duke Lane, you're quite right about the length of the film and the pressure to keep it short:
Nowadays I script won't even be LOOKED at if it's more than 110 - 120 pages, meaning screen-time of under two hours. First because in Hollywood they believe a longer film would fail at the box-office, and then of course a longer film costs more dough (one wonders how scripts like Dances With Wolves or other epics ever get produced at all).
So, if you're reading old scripts they're really quite wonderful in their descriptions of situations, character motivations, even landscapes - comparing it to a new script, it's got to be written short, stark - just to keep it under 120 pages. Or else nobody is gonna pick it up.

Hello :rolleyes:

Itdo I understand completely what you are saying about the 120 pages :huh:

Can you see someone trying to write a good script on John Waynes life and keeping it to 120 pages :unsure:

Monique ;)

Hello Winston

I think "young Billy" in Big Jake gets killed at the Mccandles Ranch as you never see him after this shootout with the remainder of the bad guys in scenes following this. I also feel there is a scene missing from the final shootout where Duke should have given some reaction to his dog getting killed or at the very least his close friend Sam Sharpnose's death.

Itdo, first of all thanks very much for inputting that information regarding the cut scene in Rio Bravo it sounds interesting. I would defiently say include this scene in the movie but only if it passes a number of tests first of all it should be of a high quality ie direction/action/acting and it should correlate well with the rest of the film. I believe that the existing prints of Dukes movies should be called the originals and if any films have added scenes to them they should be called the re-edited ones and fans should have the choice of which ones to watch.

Regarding cut scenes in movies were any cut from Big Jake if so what were they about because I remember a long time ago reading on a web site, someone saying dont watch the oringinal version of Big Jake, watch the directors cut, anyone know anything about this?

B)

For anyone here who has just picked up the new John Wayne box set, and have seen 'The Train Robbers', I came across a glaring mistake that somehow got past the QA people at Warner Brothers.


If you did watch it, you'll notice that 3 or 4 of Ben Johnson's "hell" words get edited out. The volume drops right out as he is about to say "hell" during a few scenes in the film. The odd thing is that the word is used a lot during the film, but only a couple of Ben Johnson's ones are edited. It's odd, and slightly annoying. My only guess is that Warner pieced together the film from different sources, and one of the sources must have been a "rated G" or "TV" version back in 1973.

I believe thats how it is aired on TV, editing out the "bad" language. Thanks for the update.