Question:
I've been peeking on the BBFC website, and the information on there implies that the new release of OUATIA is the same as the older, trimmed version. Can anyone confirm if this is correct, or have the BBFC just not updated their records yet?
Answer:

Have no fears - the BBFC have never cut anything from either version, so the new DVD is the full original cut of the film.
I would say the records haven't been updated yet - the "trimmed" version they refer to is, in all likelihood, the butchered studio cut (which was, for a time, the only version available on VHS).
Answer:

It was last classified on 21 November 2002 with a running time of 219 minutes 48 seconds - noticeably longer than any previous UK video version (whose running times ranged from 217m53s to 218m 42s), which in itself suggests it's the full version.
I haven't been able to establish a precise footage length for the complete film, but the initial UK release version - i.e. minus 16 seconds of BBFC snippage - is 20,549 feet. This translates as 228 minutes 19 seconds, so a PAL transfer of this material should be 219 minutes 11 seconds. Assuming the 16 seconds figure is accurate, this makes the running time of the full version 228 mins 35 secs (usually rounded up to 229 mins), or 219 mins 26 secs in a PAL transfer. In other words, I wouldn't worry about it!
Alternatively, can you see Elizabeth McGovern's panties being removed in the rape scene?
Answer:

Originally posted by Mr_Hamelfarm
I would say the records haven't been updated yet - the "trimmed" version they refer to is, in all likelihood, the butchered studio cut (which was, for a time, the only version available on VHS).
Sorry, this is totally inaccurate. The butchered studio cut (running nearly 90 minutes shorter than Leone's full version!) has never been released in the UK (though I'd quite like to see it, out of the same morbid curiosity that made the "Love Conquers All" cut of <I>Brazil</I> so weirdly fascinating), and the BBFC cut both the initial theatrical and video releases to tone down the rape scene.
I am pretty sure the cuts have been restored, though.
Answer:

The longer version you talk of is actually labled as "Bonus Material" or something.... It's all very odd. I might just go for the R1 to be on the safe side.
Answer:

Having watched the R1 a couple of times and comparing it to the old VHS versions the only things the BBFC cut from the VHS version were......the opening nipple tweaking with the gun barrel and maybe a tiny bit of the taxi cab rape.Plus the end flashback was missing although this was not the BBFC's fault.
So one assumes those bits are back in the R2 DVD release. :confused:
Answer:

There were two VHS releases, though, I think. There was the old ThornEMI release and a later Warners budget release. Where they both the same?
Sorry to confuse things further.
Answer:

Originally posted by Dagada
The longer version you talk of is actually labled as "Bonus Material" or something.... It's all very odd. I might just go for the R1 to be on the safe side.
Rest assured the R2 is totally uncut - I've just checked with a colleague who owns the disc. There were only ever two BBFC snips (pretty much as Garry Cowell describes above), and both have been restored.
And just to at least try to make things clear(er), just two versions of the film have ever been commercially released - Sergio Leone's own 229-minute cut (the one that played at Cannes in 1984 and which was subsequently released in Europe), and the totally butchered 144/147-minute (my sources are split as to the running time) US theatrical cut. The latter has never been released on DVD, and is never likely to be, though apparently it still pops up on US cable stations.
There are rumours of a longer cut (a 1987 book even claimed that this had been commercially released in Europe), but editor Nino Baragli has confirmed that although Leone planned to extend the film (possibly as a 275-minute TV miniseries), this was never actually done. The footage still exists, but the soundtrack needs to be created from scratch.
In other words, regardless of whether you buy the R1 or R2, you can rest assured that you're getting exactly the film that Leone signed off in 1984.
Answer:

I was referring to the old Full Frame Warner version not the Remastered Special Collector's Edition With Original Cinema Trailer that was issued later...what was the Thorn/EMI one?!
Answer:

Back in the pre-VRA days, there was a full frame Thorn-EMI home video release. Can't remember any details about it, though, but I have a copy somewhere so can check.
Answer:

Thanks Mr Brooke. Once again, you are the fount of all knowledge and it is always good to drink at thy waters.
Answer:

All the deleted footage is apparently owned by Sergio Leones son and he was supposed to be negotiating a deal with Warners to reinstate the footage after it was looped into English by the actors concerned.
There is more on this subject at the IMDB click on alternate versions.
Answer:

Originally posted by jackall
All the deleted footage is apparently owned by Sergio Leones son and he was supposed to be negotiating a deal with Warners to reinstate the footage after it was looped into English by the actors concerned.
That's what I've heard, too - essentially, the longer cut is the one that Sergio Leone and Nino Baragli first showed to distributors, who (unsurprisingly) decided that a four-and-a-half hour film was commercially undistributable. They were contracted to deliver 165 minutes, so 270 was just slightly in excess of what was expected!
So Leone and Baragli cut it down to 229 minutes prior to the sound being mixed - but Leone frequently said that he wanted to restore and release the 270-minute version with a full soundtrack. This has become such a pervasive Holy Grail-style rumour that quite a few people believe this version has already gone into circulation in some form or other (it's allegedly been shown on German and Italian TV and even released on Italian videotape), but the trail goes cold any time anyone attempts serious investigation: unsurprisingly, as it's most unlikely to be true given what we know about the film's editing history (described in considerable detail in Christopher Frayling's biography of Leone).
One curious anomaly, though, is that the version screened on Channel Four in the 1990s includes a brief flashback sequence that isn't present in any other version of the film, though I have no idea where this came from.
Answer:

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
One curious anomaly, though, is that the version screened on Channel Four in the 1990s includes a brief flashback sequence that isn't present in any other version of the film, though I have no idea where this came from. That flashback is now included on the new DVD.
Answer:

Originally posted by Garry Cowell
That flashback is now included on the new DVD.
...which probably explains the slightly longer running time (and neatly ties everything up!)
Answer:

There is a very good reason why Once Upon A Time in America was cut and his name is Arnon Milcham, producer of also Legend & Brazil. He himself said in the docu that he should have fought harder for the original cut, so how does he explain the fact that his next two films are also the scrutiny of heavy cuts and alternate versions.
It is so good to have dvd since all three have been released in R1 with the original versions.
:thumbs:
Answer:

Originally posted by oscar
There is a very good reason why Once Upon A Time in America was cut and his name is Arnon Milcham, producer of also Legend & Brazil. He himself said in the docu that he should have fought harder for the original cut, so how does he explain the fact that his next two films are also the scrutiny of heavy cuts and alternate versions.
The simple fact is that without Arnon Milchan [<i>sic</I>]we almost certainly wouldn't have <I>The King of Comedy, Once Upon a Time in America</I> and <I>Brazil</I> at all - in <U>any</U> version, as other backers weren't exactly lining up in droves!
The fact is that both Leone and Terry Gilliam were contractually obliged by their US distributors (the Ladd Company and Universal respectively) to deliver films running no longer than a certain specified length - and both delivered versions running significantly longer.
If you're a producer, a situation like this is a nightmare - as you've got a foot in both camps: you need to protect the film's artistic integrity but at the same time you need to position it for maximum commercial advantage (especially important given that Milchan's films in this period were both big-budget and artistically ambitious).
Playing devil's advocate for a minute, the distributors had an entirely legitimate point - a 229-minute running time (never mind a 270-minute one: Leone's first suggestion) automatically makes it one of the longest mainstream commercial features ever made, and consequently very very hard to distribute effectively: cinemas would be hard pushed to fit in more than two screenings per day.
Added to which, the early 1980s was not a time to market a lengthy, expensive and artistically ambitious period drama - as the <I>Heaven's Gate</I> saga all too graphically proved (another film that was delivered at a length far in excess of its contracted running time). So it's easy to understand the Ladd Co's executives' caution - and equally easy to see why Milchan was placed in a very awkward position (doubtless exacerbated by his track record with <I>The King of Comedy</I>, a big-budget critical and commercial disaster in the US the previous year).
Put bluntly, what would you have done in his position - bearing in mind that the films <U>were</U> released in their full versions in most world territories (albeit not in the US)?
Answer:

Just looking at my old Thorn EMI tape, so as, you know, to muddy the waters a bit just when we thought we'd cleared it all up. It's running time is 219 minutes, so would it have ten minutes missing from the new release? Or am I getting all confused with the PAL slowdown thing? The new R2 is 220 minutes, no?
It's dated as being from 1984, and remember this was just on the cusp of the VRA, so there's a small, B&W 18 certificate on the back. Back in these days, video companies would often cut their own films in case the newly legislated BBFC took a dim view of them, and these cuts were often far worse than anything the BBFC would have imposed (first releases of Videodrome CIC and Halloween 3 EMI were cases in point) so any cuts could have been for sex/violence sake.
I've answered my own question, I think.
Answer:

Originally posted by KRW
Just looking at my old Thorn EMI tape, so as, you know, to muddy the waters a bit just when we thought we'd cleared it all up. It's running time is 219 minutes, so would it have ten minutes missing from the new release? Or am I getting all confused with the PAL slowdown thing?
Actually, you've answered your own question - a film of that length would indeed lose roughly ten minutes when transferred to PAL (25 frames per second as opposed to 24 = losing one minute in every 25, four minutes in every hundred, and just over nine minutes every 229!).
For more detailed timings, see my first post above.
Answer:

Quick question re: this film, and DVD's in general.
I notice the only currently available DVD of 'Goodfellas' is a flipper. That film runs for approx. 2 hrs 20 minutes.
Therefore, is 'Once upon a time..' also a flipper, as this film runs for approx 3 hrs 40 mins???
Was this just shoddy disc printing by Warners on 'Goodfellas', or do discs in general now have more storage capacity on them?
Just wondered. :)
MJ :thumbs:
Answer:

Originally posted by johnson293
Quick question re: this film, and DVD's in general.
I notice the only currently available DVD of 'Goodfellas' is a flipper. That film runs for approx. 2 hrs 20 minutes.
Therefore, is 'Once upon a time..' also a flipper, as this film runs for approx 3 hrs 40 mins???Most flippers are DVD-10 (Double Sided, Single Layer) but these are rarely used these days as the DVD-9 (Single Sided, Dual Layer) are more popular.
<i>Once Upon A Time In America</i> is split across two DVD-9's and is mastered at a very high bit-rate.
Answer:

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
Sorry, this is totally inaccurate. The butchered studio cut (running nearly 90 minutes shorter than Leone's full version!) has never been released in the UK (though I'd quite like to see it, out of the same morbid curiosity that made the "Love Conquers All" cut of <I>Brazil</I> so weirdly fascinating), and the BBFC cut both the initial theatrical and video releases to tone down the rape scene.
I am pretty sure the cuts have been restored, though.
I wasn't aware the BBFC had actually snipped anything, but i'm wrong on that one it seems.
As for the studio cut - it was indeed available here in the UK on VHS some years ago - I remember cos me and a mate were in HMV and torn between the full-screen Leone cut and the widescreen studio cut - I went for the Leone, my mate went for the widescreen (the fool) cos he'd just bought a widescreen TV.
Answer:

Originally posted by Mr_Hamelfarm
As for the studio cut - it was indeed available here in the UK on VHS some years ago - I remember cos me and a mate were in HMV and torn between the full-screen Leone cut and the widescreen studio cut - I went for the Leone, my mate went for the widescreen (the fool) cos he'd just bought a widescreen TV.
To the best of my knowledge (backed up by the BBFC database), the butchered US cut has never been released in the UK. The running time of the 1994 widescreen VHS release was 218 minutes - in other words, the full version with BBFC snippage run at PAL speed.
If your friend's tape is indeed the butchered version, it should run under 140 minutes (allowing for PAL speedup) - is this correct?
Answer:

I believe this is the one (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000057RMW/qid=1056972555/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-7064232-1831631)
I have seen one other UK VHS release of the full version as well that had "Sergio Leone's Gangster Epic" emblazoned across the front cover.
I've never found the BBFC web-site to be that accurate when it comes to various format releases in the past.
Answer:

Sorry, but this link supports my contention, which is that this is the full version of the film (minus a few seconds' BBFC snippage). Or did you miss the bit which gave the running time as 218 minutes? :D
Just to be absolutely sure, are you aware that by "the butchered version" I'm specifically talking about the US theatrical release that ran less than two-and-a-half hours (i.e. nearly 90 minutes shorter than Leone's preferred version)? The worst indignity suffered by any UK release (in any format) was a couple of brief BBFC snips, which is hardly in the same league!
Answer:

Where does it say 218 minutes - can't see it anywhere (not that i've delved too deeply into it).
I'm fully aware of the difference between the US and UK cuts. My mate's vid is definitely the 140-odd minute cut in widescreen. I remember the day vividly - we went into HMV and saw a stand with two different OUATIA vids. One pan and scan and one widescreen. I went to pick up the widescreen one and then discovered (much to my disappointment) it was the studio cut, so I went with the pan and scan (which was Leone's original cut) instead. My mate went and got the widescreen studio cut for his new TV.
As I said, i've never given much credence to the BBFC database for pre-internet age releases. Being something of a Bladerunner completist, I once looked up my various versions - (geek fanboy hat on) I have every UK VHS and LD release of Bladerunner except for the "European" cuts which featured a few scenes of "extra violence" (later removed by Ridley Scott and not the BBFC!!!) and half of the (all official) VHS releases i've got aren't listed on there. Same goes for the various Evil Dead trilogy VHS releases in the mid 90s - if memory serves only one release for each is listed on the web-site (the budget releases with matching covers), but Evil Dead 2 and Army Of Darkness both were released with different covers just previous to that (I know that cos I used to have both of them).
Ever since then, I haven't believed a word on that web-site.
Answer:

Originally posted by Mr_Hamelfarm
Where does it say 218 minutes - can't see it anywhere (not that i've delved too deeply into it).He's the same video linked at Blackstar (http://www.blackstar.co.uk/video/item/7000000038365) (check the Cat. No) which list it as 218min.
Answer:

Mr Hamelfarm, once a film has been submitted to the BBFC, there is no need to resubmit it each time a film is released with a different cover.
It only needs to be resubmitted if there is a new version. So a film can be submitted once, and then rereleased hundreds of times if need be, and only be mentioned on the BBFC site the once. This would explain your evil dead and blade runner anomalies.
As for the 140 minute cut, I've been keeping an eye on the various releases ever since owning the very first edition, the Thorn EMI version, and have never, ever seen the Studio version for sale anywhere. I remember them both being available at the same time P&S and W/S, but both were the same versions.
Answer:

Originally posted by Mr_Hamelfarm
Where does it say 218 minutes - can't see it anywhere (not that i've delved too deeply into it).
I'm fully aware of the difference between the US and UK cuts. My mate's vid is definitely the 140-odd minute cut in widescreen. I remember the day vividly - we went into HMV and saw a stand with two different OUATIA vids. One pan and scan and one widescreen. I went to pick up the widescreen one and then discovered (much to my disappointment) it was the studio cut, so I went with the pan and scan (which was Leone's original cut) instead. My mate went and got the widescreen studio cut for his new TV.
The Amazon link also clearly states that it's 218 minutes (look at the 'Technical Details' section).
It's the first I've heard of any kind of UK release for the cut version - but if you are indeed accurate about this I suspect this is more cock-up than conspiracy - the most plausible explanation is that the distributor intended to release the full version but a master tape for the butchered version accidentally got distributed instead. This would explain why the running time is listed as 218 minutes and why they don't seem to have applied for a separate BBFC video certificate, as they would have been under the impression that they had one already.
Similar situations have happened in the past - I remember a case involving <I>The Dead Zone</I> when the distributor obtained BBFC approval for the full version and then accidentally released the TV edit!
As I said, i've never given much credence to the BBFC database for pre-internet age releases. Being something of a Bladerunner completist, I once looked up my various versions - (geek fanboy hat on) I have every UK VHS and LD release of Bladerunner except for the "European" cuts which featured a few scenes of "extra violence" (later removed by Ridley Scott and not the BBFC!!!) and half of the (all official) VHS releases i've got aren't listed on there. Same goes for the various Evil Dead trilogy VHS releases in the mid 90s - if memory serves only one release for each is listed on the web-site (the budget releases with matching covers), but Evil Dead 2 and Army Of Darkness both were released with different covers just previous to that (I know that cos I used to have both of them).
A separate BBFC certificate is only required if the actual film content hasn't been approved in that form before - packaging is an entirely separate matter. Since the BBFC charges for classification, distributors only bother to get certificates if they're strictly necessary - which wouldn't be the case for straightforward reissues of existing (and already classified) masters.
Ever since then, I haven't believed a word on that web-site.
Clearly not, given that you were happy to say that Leone's film had never been cut by the BBFC, despite them stating not only that it had but also by how much! :D
Answer:

If the BBFC required every film to be resubmitted before a re-release of a certified title, then Anchor Bay would have gone bust by now.
Answer:

Thanks for clearing that up everyone. I was unable to look in-depth on the Amazon web-site due to slow access, so in the words of Chief Wiggum "Well shut my mouth!"
I have always wondered about the machinations of the BBFC and how they feel about re-releases. But then maybe I should spend more time looking at their regs and less time harrumphing over the fact that they can't satisfy my fan-boy tendencies.
It is certainly strange about this widescreen release. The reason I didn't buy the widescreen one was because it had the running time clearly listed on the back as 140 or so minutes (it was also priced at a whopping £16.99, against the pan & scan £5). I've never really thought too much about it until this exchange began.
Could it have been one of those "HMV Exclusives" that was only sold by them?
Originally posted by KRW
If the BBFC required every film to be resubmitted before a re-release of a certified title, then Anchor Bay would have gone bust by now.
:lol: Yeah, that's true!
Answer:

If I remember rightly, the 16mm release for non-theatrical showings was the shorter studio cut. We'd shown the Leone version in 35mm at Southampton University, and we did consider showing the studio version out of curiosity! We didn't, though.
It was interesting what could turn up on 16mm - we showed what might well have been the UK Premiere of <i>The Keep</i> in 16mm Scope, a couple of months before the ICA showed it!