No, it’s absolutely not how that works. Nobody says, “WWTF in Bumfuck New Zealand needs an edit that’s three minutes longer! Throw one together and get it out to them ASAP!”
What does sometimes happen is a television edit of a film will include extra material, which the individual TV stations will edit down to fit their individual schedules. If they included this discarded scene as part of that padding, it would have gone out to every TV station with that way.
enalzi’s post shows exactly how these stories about missing scenes actually happen in the internet age: there were rumors for years about an octopus scene in some TV versions of The Goonies. Before the internet, there wasn’t any real way to prove these stories right or wrong, unless you happened to personally have taped it off TV when it aired. Once the internet comes around, it turns out that the scene did exist. The studio always knew it existed, and was able to eaily produce it on demand. People with access to pre-internet media that included this scene (such as by taping it off TV with a VCR) upload the tape to YouTube. The studio puts out a special edition with the deleted scene.
None of this has happened with the alternate ending to Big. Nobody taped the movie with the alternate ending off TV. No TV station still has the old tape with the different ending sitting in a storage locker. The studio re-releases never include the scene, including the Special Edition re-release that has 20 minutes of cut scenes.
Nobody involved in the production of this film remembers making this scene. The studio has no evidence that the scene ever existed. Nobody in the entire world can put their hands on a copy of this extremely popular and successful movie that has this alternate ending, despite it being a topic of popular conversation for over a decade.
Annnnnd that’s not how casting works either. There are rules. A background extra just doesn’t become a named part on a whim. Even without dialogue.
And of course you are just making up unlikely to impossible scenarios to shoe horn into a supposed theory. Those extraordinary claims would require extraordinary proof. Not wild conjecture. And of course that doesn’t answer the question why. Why would they put out a version with a different ending? It didn’t test poorly. It was a big hit.
She might not have been able to stop it from happening but she would absolutely be told about it. Directors have a guild which makes sure rules are followed.
there are rules that say under no circumstances can an extra in a scene have their role in that scene altered? Who says- SAG? please elaborate on this strict set of “rules”:dubious:
In both of these posts, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the argument being put to you.
Czarcasm brought up story boards as an example of the large amount of attendant documentation that exists with any choice made in a film. It might not actually be a story board, since not all films use those. But there’d be a shot list. A shooting schedule. There’d be legal contracts for the actors, particularly including any child actors involved in the scene. There’d be invoices from film printing companies for the version with the new ending. There’d be reams and reams of documentation for something like this, especially if it ever got put in front of the public. And not one scrap of any of that evidence exists!
Secondly, yeah, if the studio had wanted to, they could have forced a different ending on to the film. But if they had - even if they never used it - it’s inconceivable that Penny Marshall would never have heard of it. At the very least, if they thought a new ending was necessary, they’d have talked to her about changing it first, because that’s literally what they’re paying her for.
It’s also worth noting that the only thing even remotely approaching a cite that you’ve brought to this thread, the Canada Book of Lists, specifically calls the “alternate” ending out as the original, which was re-filmed because it tested poorly. So, according to literally the only documentation you’ve brought to this discussion, having the girlfriend show up in the classroom was Marshall’s original ending. Which means you’re asking us to swallow the idea that not only was a different ending swapped out for the original without the director’s knowledge, she also somehow never noticed that the ending was different from the one she intended for over twenty years.
If the change was made to the theatrical release, depending on her contract, yes.
A change to the Oceanic TV version? NFW.
You have zero insight into how these things work, but are posting in a confident manner as though you do- why? Why argue a point you know nothing about?
Jesus. Again, not what he said. Yeah, extras sometimes get promoted during the course of a shoot. When this happens, they get credited for the more extensive role. You really think the Actor’s Guild doesn’t have very precise distinctions between what actors get paid for being background characters, versus being the focus of a shot, versus having actual lines of dialogue?
Here is the final revised script of Big. Co-written by Anne Spielberg who was also a producer. You would think a different ending would be part of her script.
It was a simpler time then. We were all so full of hope.
Im done here because I have a low tolerance for nonsense- for the 100th time, even as described, it was a non speaking role! And never made it in the film, and not Shirley Temple, but a no-name extra probably who attended the school! Not an actress with a resume to pad! What exactly, ‘Actor’s Guild’ wise:dubious:, does it change to have an extra appear sitting at a desk vs. standing at a door, waving? Especially if none of it actually made it to the final version?
And we’ve all, I hope, read the script, which would not include this scene, if it were a reshoot.
Have you thought of the possibility that a completely different scriptwriter/producer was brought it to write the alternate ending and then produce it with a different director and actors, and then only released that alternate ending to the New Zealand VHS rental market?
You are posting an extremely convoluted set of circumstances that must be met to fit your agenda. You have shown that you don’t know what the responsibilities of a 2nd unit director are. You are showing that you have no idea that SAG has a very strict set of rules governing the pay and credit of actors and how they are cast. But everyone else has zero insight.
Yes you show zero insight if that’s what you think. SAG does have rules about all of that. That you don’t know that shows you are just guessing here. SAG takes that stuff very seriously. It’s about credit yes. It’s also about pay. And it’s about getting the credits needed to be able to join the union and get all the benefits of membership. Hollywood is a union town. Things are not done on a whim without following union rules. Not without consequences.
You may be fooling the people who don’t know youre talking out of your rear, but not those who do know it- what would be the exact problem “SAG” would have with an extra, originally hired to sit in a desk and smile, then be asked to move in front of the window on a door and smile? Please, im dying to hear this. How would this affect the “casting” (she’s already cast?) and credit (her on screen credit, if any, would change from ‘girls in classroom’ to ‘girl at door’, or perhaps ‘young E. Perkins’)- but irrelevant, because it did not make the final theatrical cut anyway! Only whats in the movie usually gets a credit, not whoever is cut? She may get a bit more pay if at the door? And!?! Its not unheard of an extra can impress a director and get a bigger role as a result, your point?
In your made up scenario the rogue 2nd unit director decides to film a brand new ending and also bumps up a juvenile extra to a named part that would give her a SAG credit (an important thing if you don’t know. It means things like health care and credit toward a pension. Even when it’s a kid). Yes extras can be promoted to a bigger part. But it’s not something a 2nd unit director would be doing. He certainly wouldn’t be filming endings on his own.
Yeah, you really don’t know much about the film industry.
SAG doesn’t have a problem with an actor getting promoted to a larger role during the course of filming. What they do have a problem with, is that actor not getting pay commensurate to the expanded role. And they do very much consider, “Background,” and “Foreground with significant action” to be different jobs. Even if the role doesn’t get into the film (and, as such, doesn’t appear in the credits) there’s still a paper trail generated to track extra costs. There’s also a lot of legal requirements around working with child actors, and those, also, change if the role goes from, “Sit in the background,” to, “Be the focus of the shot.” Even if the change doesn’t make it into the final cut of the film, it still generates a lot of paperwork to track the increased pay and legal liability. Paperwork that, again, does not appear to exist. And its because of all of that that a second unit director would absolutely not just randomly decide to shoot new content, with a new actress, on a whim. The whole point of having a second unit is that you’ve got an extensive shot list you need to complete the film, and not enough time for your primary camera crew to do it. The idea of the second unit just going rogue a filming a bunch of stuff that’s not supposed to be in the film is absurd. Almost as absurd as your apparent notion that the other kids in that class were just kids who happened to go to that school.
