TV Guidance

Jaime Weinman writes about all kinds of television and other kinds of popular culture. He does not write Gossip Girl episode reviews. Follow Jaime on Twitter: @weinmanj

Categories: TV Guidance

Long Episodes, Short Episodes, And All The Episodes In-Between

by Jaime Weinman on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:07pm - 4 Comments

While Glee doesn’t seem a great bet for a long run (the ratings weren’t great for a post-Idol show and a lot of people tuned out in the middle), there’s a growing sense that it might have done better if the network had aired a longer version of the episode. The version of the pilot that was sent to critics, and which turned up on various online sharing sites, was several minutes longer than the version that ran after American Idol. The aired version was about 43 minutes, the length of a regular Fox episode; the original version was closer to the length of one of Fox’s “remote-free TV” episodes. And while Fringe and Dollhouse have not made particularly great use of the longer format (which they will no longer get to use next season), the Glee pilot in its uncut form apparently was much more coherent and unified than what millions of people saw. In particular, it had an opening that explained why the lead character was so obsessed with teaching Glee club, it had scenes that filled in other plot holes, gaps and backstories, and it had a little throwaway scene that gave the star, Matthew Morrison, a chance to do some singing himself.

When producers have to cut several minutes from an episode, they cut the scenes that can be sacrificed most easily, which are often throwaway scenes and backstory moments, but when a show loses everything that isn’t directly related to the forward motion of the plot, it winds up feeling choppy and mechanical. In the case of Glee, this created a situation where people who had seen the advance screeners (the uncut version) were raving about it and people who saw it on Fox (the way most people saw it) were wondering what the fuss was about. By not giving a few extra minutes to this show, Fox may have really hurt its chances for a success. They will try to make up for this by showing the “director’s cut” — i.e. the long version — before the series’ official premiere in September, but they’d have been way better off showing the longer version right up front.

Although I’m an advocate of longer episodes, I don’t think longer cuts of an episode are always better. The short version of the Arrested Development pilot works better — is tighter, faster and funnier — than the 28-minute version that starts off the DVD set, and most shows that put the deleted scenes back in for the DVD make the episodes worse, not better. There’s a certain art in getting shows down to a certain time; as Greg Daniels has commented, sometimes the necessity to get the shows to length will inspire creative solutions. But with Glee, it really does seem like the producers expected to have a longer episode, cut it with that in mind, and then had to cut more than they had planned. Maybe that’s not the way it happened, but it would explain why the long version made a better impression than the one we saw last week.

Tags: Director's Cut

More by Jaime Weinman

http://southdakotadark.blogspot.com Todd VDW

It’s even weirder than all that. The director’s cut (which is floating around the Internet illegally) is easily the best version of the show and makes a lot of sense out of the show’s emotional beats but also, I guess, feels like it drags just a bit. The version I saw on a screener (something I’m calling the in-between cut) was probably the best version to air. It didn’t over-explain everything (a fault of the director’s cut), and it had a few moments of choppy pacing, but it largely got the emotions right enough that it made the end feel like a real payoff. What aired was good, but I can see where a lot of people found it offputting.

What’s even odder is that they apparently sent some critics the version that aired and the rest of us the in-between cut. Even though I wasn’t working with a long lead time, I ended up with the in-between for some reason, and wrote accordingly, figuring that they had chopped out a few commercials to add on the extra three-or-so minutes that they needed to air it. This also explains why some of us were so baffled when the late-breaking reviews came in and were not as enthused.
http://www.tv-eh.com Diane

I enjoyed it a lot, though not as much as the hype (which was apparently caused by longer version) – yet it did what a good pilot does for me, since I’m hooked and prepared to mourn its inevitable demise. Did you see Alex Epstein’s take? As commenters noted, it seems a lot of what he identified as issues would have been resolved with the longer version, which he didn’t know existed.
Mike

While it’s not TV, I’ve noticed that the “director’s cuts” of movies rarely add anything spectacular and, particularly with comedies, sometimes (often?) mess up the timing of particular scenes. That’s why it saddens me a little that it’s difficult to find the R-rated Apatow family of comedies on DVD in their original R-rated form. They’re always “uncut, and super raunchy!” versions. I have no problem with including the scenes as deleted scenes, or the DVD carrying two versions of the movie (one the uncut version, one the theatrical one). But to not allow people to purchase the movie in the form they fell in love with it in the first place just doesn’t seem right.
jondelfin

The broadcast version of “Glee” didn’t live up to the hype I’d absorbed ahead of time. Thanks for suggesting why. Similarly (but cheesier), I didn’t bother to watch “Hotel Babylon” on BBC America after I had the opportunity to watch the uncut screener DVD and compare it to the U.S.-aired version. It’s hard to use words like “nuance” with a straight face in talking about HB, but anyway, what there was of it was left on the cutting room floor to leave room for commercials.