Flowers in the Attic : Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
Re: Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
Damn, nice find sir. I just saw the movie for the first time but i did heard lot of rumors about original cut etc... I hoped that some fans might have mentioned something about missing scenes here on IMDb boards but i didn't expect something good as this.
I did read couple of reports online from people who said they saw original cut (at that first test screening) and they did mentioned that there was some more nudity in it but they said it was in a different scene/part of the movie.
I'm looking for any other info about original cut at the time so if you know more or find more please let me know. I made the board about what i found out so far here;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093036/board/thread/249013089
I did read couple of reports online from people who said they saw original cut (at that first test screening) and they did mentioned that there was some more nudity in it but they said it was in a different scene/part of the movie.
I'm looking for any other info about original cut at the time so if you know more or find more please let me know. I made the board about what i found out so far here;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093036/board/thread/249013089
Re: Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
Hey Normal, i found this article and i thought that you might find it interesting. It's an response from producer Charles Fries on the article you posted about cuts made on Flowers in the Attic following negative test screenings. He also mentions that they planned to do the sequel to the movie;
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-05/entertainment/ca-6081_1_film-preview-charles-w-fries
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-05/entertainment/ca-6081_1_film-preview-charles-w-fries
Movie Testimony
December 05, 1987
Sheldon Teitelbaum's article on "Flowers in the Attic" indicates an unprofessional and uninformed knowledge of contemporary film production (Outtakes, Nov. 15).
Since the beginning of the film-making process, producers have previewed their films and today practically all films are subjected to in-depth preview evaluation so that general audience reaction to a film can be clearly established.
To give the impression that "Flowers" is a flawed film because we took out the overt incest and made other changes is unfair.
When a substantial majority of the audience, 75% of whom have read V.C. Andrews' book, object to incest on the screen, I think we have to deal with those scenes, and we did.
The first weekend gross of $5,020,317 on 1,051 screens proves we have a good film that folks want to see. And when we do the sequel, "Petals in the Wind," we will preview it and deal with the audience reaction to the choices made in that film, also.
We do not , however, consider a preview response to be a dictum. We use it only as one tool in the final process. We must develop and create a film. No one other than the writer, director, actors and producers, along with exceptional, professional, technical staff, can do that.
CHARLES W. FRIES
Fries Entertainment Inc.
Los Angeles
Re: Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
Thanks for posting this information. I would love to see the original cut. Hopefully it will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray in the near future.
Re: Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
Oh God just make the movie for fucks sake. Fuck test audiences.
Re: Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
Pandering to the teens for box office, yet who cares what Valley Girls think. Teen girls are some of the most unpleasant creatures on this planet.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?
Norman! What did you put in my tea?
Re: Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
Teen girls are some of the most unpleasant creatures on this planet.Amen!
My password is password
Revealing 1987 article about the film's original cut
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-15/entertainment/ca-20643_1_meat-cleaver
All the above confirm the following:
1. The original ending (though preceded by a different ending, but it's not made clear whether it was filmed or not) went like this: "Briefly, the surviving children interrupt the wedding ceremony and dramatically confront Corrine. All in attendance are horrified by what the children say about how their mother locked them up and poisoned them. The groom is shocked speechless. The grandmother is outraged. The grandfather is there, in his wheelchair, to hear it all. Corrine denies everything, but it doesn't matter; it's too late. The children's story is bolstered by the fact that they look half dead. They leave the wedding, but before leaving the house the grandmother tries to attack them [with a big knife]. They're saved by John Hall, the butler. The grandmother is subdued by him and the children leave". (Source: http://www.completevca.com/bio_exclusive_bloom.shtml)
2. There WERE some 'sexy scenes' which were eventually trimmed/removed. In the words of Kristy Swanson (January 2014): "[...] back in 1986, because there’s a lot of incest in the book, and in the script there was. We shot it and then when they tested it in the movie theaters, it didn’t test well and it made people very uncomfortable and so they pulled it out of the movie. It wasn’t in the movie. They pulled it out". (Source: http://www.craveonline.com/culture/631039-exclusive-interview-kristy-swanson-revisits-flowers-in-the-attic).
In addition, judging from the above comment by the "executive source at Fries", it seems that there was nudity as well, at least in the scene where Corrine undresses in front of the grandfather ("We dropped the skin").