This video examines the original uncut version of Uncle Buck, before it was edited to its final cut that we all have seen and know. The original was twice as long, and some of the scenes would have been fantastic to have. Of note is Miles’ character development and his heart to heart talk with Buck about not fitting in with the kids at his school, and more of Marcy’s character (Laurie Metcalf). Here’s hoping for a director’s cut at some point in the future. It is crazy to me that this footage (and so many others) is just sitting in a box or vault somewhere.
Seriously? Both this and Planes, Trains and Automobiles have that much footage that hasn't been released?
Same director - John Hughes. He was known for shooting more footage - sometimes much more footage - than what ended up in the film's theatrical cut. To cite another example, for Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Hughes shot a subplot revealing that Ferris's best friend, before he met Cameron, was Charlie Sheen's character. Ferris explains that he wants to save Cameron from becoming like Sheen's high school burnout. Ferris blames himself, though the real culprit is probably Sheen's dysfunctional family (and, of course, Cameron's family is also dysfunctional). This would have given more weight to Ferris' motivation for getting Cameron to enjoy life, but Hughes (or the editor) decided to cut the scene. There were also several scenes involving Ferris' two younger siblings, who were both cut out of the film entirely. You can see - very briefly, if you look closely - a photo with the six-member family in the office of Ferris' dad.
Same thing with Breakfast Club. John Hughes was the Jim Steinman of filmmakers. If you see the trailer for UB, there's a ton of unused shots/takes in that. Dan
More than likely the extra film was junked. Hughes was a pack rat and kept VHS copies of dailes/cut stuff. JH walked away from hollywood and his family may keep that wish, the Criterion got them to open the vault for Breakfast club. I was hoping Criterion would do the same for other JH films but I'm not sure than BC edition sold that well. Criterion is also very cautious about the several "insensitive" depictions in JH films at the moment - which is why 16 Candles came out on Arrow instead of the intended Criterion.
On a similar note, you can see Ferris' younger siblings (the ones cut from the film) in this early trailer. The younger sister is the girl who says "syphilitic meningitis?" The younger brother is the boy sitting in a car with Ferris' mom. The "James Bond" bit is another cut scene.
I can't find it on You Tube, but original trailers for Look Who's Talking mention Richard Pryor. The only reason I know this is that Tri-Star sent the PPV outlet I was working at the unedited trailer, which we made into a promo before someone alerted us to the error. We ended up recutting it. Dan
It looks familiar. That was probably it. But I remember it being the first one. Hey, it was 30+ years ago. Dan
I would've loved more of a backstory with Buck and his brother, and their fallout. We have innuendos that his lifestyle is the reason for the fallout, and it more of his sister-in-law that doesn't like Buck (not his brother), but more of that relationship would've tied things nicely as well. You feel Buck's pain when he is looking through the wedding photo album and he sees his picture folded over. We have hints at what is going on, but more of storyline would've been awesome. Not sure if that could also be in the original footage.
I understand the desire for more information to fill in the blanks, but I find it better when I am left to fill in the blanks. The viewers who do not have issues like estrangement and abandonment in their lives are left to flounder and guess, as best they can, about what Buck is feeling and how it possible came to be. The rest of the viewers, who do know this part of life, are allowed to use their own pain, regrets, and other emotions to fill in the blanks and bond with Buck, rather than having the situation spelled out directly and thus, possibly removing the emotional bond because they either can't relate to the causes, or they don't agree with the causes.
I suspect Hughes and his editors cut many of these scenes for exactly that reason (as well as for time). The original ending of Planes, Trains and Automobiles used a long monologue from John Candy to explain his situation. The ending in the theatrical cut (edited together from different scenes) lets the viewer figure out what's happening as Steve Martin does. Showing, not telling.
I saw Uncle Buck for the first time a few weeks ago. Was pretty disappointed, and didn't see why some consider it a classic. I really like John Hughes, but this one did almost nothing for me.
Coincidentally, I watched it for the first time in 30 years a couple months back. It's entertaining due to Candy - and Macaulay Culkin is a good comedic foil in their handful of scenes - but it's spotty: Uncle Buck [Blu-Ray] (1989)
Just to be clear: there's no real "lost version" of this film or the other super-long Hughes films discussed in the thread - by which I mean, Hughes never considered any of these extended versions for release. Pretty much every movie goes through "rough cut", where the editor assembles literally every scene they shot. They start with everything and then cut from there. It's common practice and doesn't make a 200-minute "Uncle Buck" a version that represents Hughes' vision. Rough cuts are fun to see for fans but shouldn't be mistaken for "director's cuts" or the like, which I think happens a lot of the time...
Yes. As much as I enjoy this guy's videos, and it is a fascinating topic if you're interested in movies (especially how they are made), using titles with "the lost version" is misleading. Paul Hirsch, who edited Planes Trains and Automobiles and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, wrote a book about his work. In the chapter on Planes, he discusses how much of a mess the unedited footage was, and how hard he and Hughes had to work editing all of it into a coherent movie. It's a terrific book for anyone interested in film making.
Yes. I only titled it that because that is what the Youtube video titled it. Not the best title, I agree
Yeah, I'd say John Candy was decent in it. He's a likable guy, and can be so even if a bit mean, I think. But there just wasn't enough to the other character or story for me to see why others love it so.
How do commenters here know so much about John Hughe's film making habits? Were you all on the set with him during filming and editing? Or is this all speculation? In regard to the video's take on UB's attention toward Miles that ends up making Miles be accepted at school with more friends, I'ld have to ask what was Buck going to do to make Mile's younger sister's life better? She would be left out. Sounds like a lot going on in a movie by a guy who's got other things on his mind that would make Candy's character seem like he was trying too hard or come across pandering to the audience like he's a male Mary Poppins. I like the idea behind Mile's plot trajectory with Uncle Buck but it just seems like it would drag and be hard to keep up with.
As I stated in my post, rough cuts are common. They're not particular to Hughes - most filmmakers do them. They assemble everything and then pare it down from there. This happens with some movies more than others, as some filmmakers essentially only shoot what they plan to use. They may do multiple takes of the same scenes, but there are a decent # of movies for which no deleted scenes really exist because they planned so tightly. Lots of comedies come with extraneous/unused scenes, though. I think the rough cut of "Spinal Tap" was over 4 hours, what with all the improv material they had. Rob Reiner never considered a 4-hour "Spinal Tap", just like Hughes never considered a 200-minute "Uncle Buck". I don't need to possess Hughes-specific insights to know this...
Not one of John Hughes better films. Candy deserved better than this. I can only think the extra footage is not so great after seeing the finished film.
