Harvey Weinstein Denies ‘Basterds’ Runtime Cut

Published 6 years ago by , Updated September 12th, 2013 at 1:52 pm,

You may remember a couple of weeks ago Screen Rant reported on news that the Weinstein Company wanted Quentin Tarantino to cut a whopping 40 minutes from his upcoming WWII flick, Inglourious Basterds. The news, which came from The Wrap, said that the 2 hour 40 minute length that Basterds was originally supposed to be was being considered, “too long, especially for American audiences.”

Well, in an interview with GQ, Harvey Weinstein has said that the news of cutting 40 minutes out of Inglourious Basterds is, “untrue. There’s no fu**ing way. Here, read my lips: That is nuts.”

Apparently, Tarantino is just “reorganizing some scenes,” and Harvey even claims that he hopes Tarantino doesn’t cut anything from the film, but rather adds stuff because, “there’s sh** on that cutting-room floor that’ll blow your brains out.” That’s just some of what he has revealed to GQ, check out the full quote relating to this Basterds runtime issue:

“Those stories are all untrue. There’s no fu**ing way. Here, read my lips: That is nuts. Please don’t even write that, it’s insanity. There’s not even a question of that. Whatever you’re reading, it’s like some insane blogger… There’s no truth to any of this. He’s not gonna cut. What he’s doing is just reorganizing some scenes. I mean, the guy had six weeks to cut his movie [for Cannes]; most guys take six months. Most guys take a year.

When I worked with Martin [Scorsese], we’d do eighteen months in post-production. Quentin Tarantino cuts a movie in six weeks? Come on, there’s sh** on that cutting-room floor that’ll blow your brains out. I was telling Quentin the opposite-”You should put that sh** back in the movie.” There’s scenes with Brad Pitt and the Basterds, and I’m praying he puts that sh** back in, ‘cause it’s un-fu**ing-believably great. Listen-this movie will be between two hours and twenty minutes and two hours and twenty-seven minutes. I don’t think it’s going to be shorter-it’s just a question of rearranging. I know he’s putting footage back into the movie. I know he’s got some cool sh** that he didn’t get time to address.”

Wow, Harvey certainly doesn’t hold back anything – if you notice, he even uses some swear words…

Although I don’t necessarily like the way he’s gone about reacting to the runtime cutting reports (“insane bloggers,” Harvey?) , I am very glad to hear that the rumor (according to Harvey) is untrue. As I said in my post when the runtime news first came out, I don’t see why anything should be cut – the line given in The Wrap’s post about it being, “too long, especially for American audiences,” was utter rubbish. Even if The Wrap report may not have sounded like 100% the truth, the fact that the Weinstein’s are currently in some financial deep waters gave it a lot of believability.

Even though I agree Inglourious Basterds would do a bit better with audiences if it were shorter, I still think no matter the length, Basterds will find it’s audience – whether in its theatrical run or later on DVD/Blu-ray. I think most people will be interested in what Tarantino has to offer, with only a portion worrying about the runtime.

I say if Basterds is good then it doesn’t really matter how long they go on for.

Are you glad that Tarantino is (allegedly) not cutting a huge chunk out of Inglourious Basterds’ runtime? Do you care that the intended cut is a bit lengthy?

Inglourious Basterds is set to hit theaters on August 21, 2009.

Sources: GQ, FirstShowing and The Wrap

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. the movie lookts good… really good. REALLY gREALLY good.

    and being a war-movie buff that i am….. i am hoping this is long and good.

  2. “Even if The Wrap report may not have sounded like 100% the truth, the fact that the Weinstein’s are currently in some financial deep waters gave it a lot of believability.”

    So guilty until ONLY refuted by the target, right? The point is there are a lot of sh*t lies in the bloggersphere (and “News” channels). Maybe Harvey Weinstein “earned” the infamous moniker “Harvey Sissorhands,” but let’s just take one movie at a time, shall we. Fortunately, there are a few SANE information gatherers (readers) out there, somewhere ;)

  3. Reorganisaing = change the chronology? ;)
    Anyway, Quentin’s been making his movies longer and longer every time. Like 100 minutes for Dogs, over 2 hours for Pulp, almost 3 hours for Jackie, and Kill Bill had to be cut in two separate films. Nevermind Death Proof, that was an hommage and therefor under 2 hours again. I don’t mind a long Tarantino movie, as long it’s Pulp or Jackie, not Kill Bill quality.
    I wasn’t that excited after seeing Brad Pitt play a tough WWII captain/general or whatever, but still looking forward to the Bastards. 2, 3, 3,5 hours, the more the better.

  4. How can you know a shorter movie will be better if you haven’t ecven seen it?

  5. @Larry Rocha,

    I didn’t say it would BETTER, I said it would do better at the box office is all.

  6. Yeah, it’s a fact that the majority of audiences out there prefer shorter movies to exceedingly long ones (and I just know that someone out there is going to start naming films like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy or Titanic as films with long runtimes that did well, but for every one you name I can name two more that did badly at the box office and a dozen more shorter films that did very well).

    That’s not really an indication of the quality of the film, just that it’s more appealing.

    Nice to see Weinstein sticking to his guns on this one and allowing for a longer cut of Bastards, Tarentino has proven to be their Golden Child so it’s not surprising that they’re trying to help him instead of hinder him.

  7. Golden Child? Weinstein lost millions on the Death Proof/Planet Terror film.

    I’ve read that this film has more dialog then action. Be warned.

  8. I was referring to Tarantino’s previous films, his other films like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs (and even Kill Bill) have done fairly well at the Box Office and have garnered mostly decent reviews. Death Proof/Planet Terror was a mistake and a glitch in his otherwise decent track record.

    And it’s Tarantino, I’d expect a lot of dialogue, that’s why I go see his films. If I wanted action, I’d watch something like The Hurt Locker.

  9. After Death Proof I don’t know if I can handle more Tarrentino dialog.

    And everytime I see the “Hurt Locker” trailer I have less interest in seeing it.

  10. I have said it MANY times before but I’ll say it once again – Death Proof was awesome. Oh shiza, is Vic around?


  11. This’ll probably stick me in the moderation queue, but its only a youtube clip.

    Clip from Pulp Fiction (warning, heavy language)

    Now tell me that isn’t damned decent dialogue.

  12. Lol, Joshi, I agree Pulp Fiction was prob his best work,,,,!!!!!

  13. “After Death Proof I don’t know if I can handle more Tarrentino dialog.”