MovieChat Forums > The Gallows (2015) Discussion > Who saw the original version called Stag...

Who saw the original version called Stage Fright?


Before The Gallows was announced, the directors had already finished an original version called "Stage Fright" and according to the trailer :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgKbhPx_7hE

a few people saw it (unless this was just a fake "Proof of Concept" trailer). I was curious if anyone has seen it or at least knows about the differences between the two movies. From the trailer, most of the scares seem to be exactly the same except for the hook around the school events. Also some recent interviews did show them shooting stuff at the school grounds that are featured at the beginning. I can assume these are part of the reshoots. Any info? Any help? There's been some news/rumour going around that the directors plan on releasing more of their original footage on the blu ray. Whether that means an extended/ alternate cut or simply just deleted scenes is still up in the air at this point.

reply

Hmm that is interesting but look it says 2012
---------------------
"It's game over man, it's game over!!!"

reply

I'm not sure about the original version of the film, but I was aware of it due to finding that trailer months ago.

I would hope that they release some of the original footage on DVD. That sure would be something, considering Jason Blum's other recent horror flick "OUIJA" had an entire alternate cut that the marketing team went so far as to advertise in the trailers, even though the footage is not what is in the actual film. Then, come time for the DVD release, there are only like 10 minutes of lame special features with no mention at all about the alternate cut of the film.

I remember watching a featurette on this film a while back and Jason said that the re-shoots were to make the film "theater worthy", whatever that means. It'd be nice to see (if they put the footage on DVD) what was changed around. It appears they dropped an entire subplot involving a film within a film.

Guess we'll see sometime this fall when it's released on DVD.

reply

I've seen it; the original version was better. It's on the blu-ray as a special feature if you're interested, although it's not called Stage Fright. It's just called The Gallows original version.

Most of the scares are the same, but the plot, ending and camerawork are better. There are some scenes in the theatrical that aren't present in the original, some of them are changed and there are some completely new scenes. Also, Cassidy is played by a different actress (her character name is also changed to Kennedy). I thought the theatrical was scarier, though.

reply

1/2

I just watched the original version on Blu-Ray. While it has some problems, it is a VAST improvement over the piece of shit Blumhouse turned it into.

Differences:
* Charlie Grimille died in 1983, and the main events take place in 2008 in the original version. In the theatrical, Charlie died in 1993, and the main events take place in 2013.
* Ryan's girlfriend was originally Kennedy, portrayed by an Unidentified Actress who wasn't bad at all. In the theatrical cut, it's Cassidy, portrayed by Cassidy Gifford, who, to me, is TOO Hollywood.
* Pfeifer is NOT Charlie's daughter in this cut, and Pfeifer's mom is only HINTED at being his girlfriend.
* There is a shot of a hanging body Ryan sees in the theatrical cut that we're to assume was Charlie messing with Ryan. In the original version, it's the body of a janitor named Phil that Ryan talked to earlier in the movie (not Janitor David).

Pros:
* Ryan is surprisingly less of an ass. Most of the parts that make you hate the shit out of him are gone.
* The teenagers act more like believable teenagers than unbearable, millennial pricks in the other version.
* The film feels A LOT more tense than the theatrical release.
* The location feels more creepy and atmospheric than the theatrical cut, despite both cuts using the same location.
* The dialogue feels more natural and realistic and less scripted.
* Reese's dad is less of a stereotypical "Sports-Enthusiast" Dad in this version.
* The camerawork feels less cinematic and more dirty. You know, HOW A FOUND FOOTAGE MOVIE IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
* There is a scene in which Pfeifer and Reese have a conversation about how Pfeifer talked Reese into the play to calm themselves down after losing Cassidy. Both actors shine in this scene, and its a shame it had to be cut.
* The film has a little less of a supernatural feel than the theatrical cut does. While Supernatural elements are present, it almost feels like it could have just been a guy in a mask rather than a spirit.

reply

2/2

Cons:
* Reese is kind of a douchebag in this cut than the theatrical. Admittedly, the reshoots of him and Pfeifer in the theatrical cut having more dialogue with her flesh him out a bit more and make him likable.
* There is an opening and ending sequence involving police watching the footage. However, these segments are riddled with mistakes. The main characters died in the early hours of October 29, 2008. Yet the footage of the police watching the teenagers is marked as September 8, 2008. Also, the police act like it's early morning, yet the time on the camera shows it to be around 15 minutes after midnight. Also, in the time it took the police to watch a video compiled of all of the footage that occurred in the high school, which is one plus hour of footage compiled from what appears to be almost a four hour event, little less than 4 MINUTES have passed in the police room from the beginning to the end of the movie.

Overall, though, this original version, while having some of the same faults as the theatrical cut, is a MAJOR improvement over what the theatrical cut was. The theatrical cut has some footage of the original version edited in, and it is JARRING when you notice the differences in camera qualities. It makes me wonder why they wouldn't stick to the cheaper camera. If you want to make a found footage movie, understand your film will be more believable if your camera quality is low and it feels less Hollywood-ized.

What's even more annoying is a special feature on the blu-ray in which Jason Blum talks to the writing/directing duo behind the film, and it's obvious they're playing kiss ass with him to not only inspire other independent filmmakers to possibly work with Blumhouse, but to make it seem like these two are successful now, despite them not having worked on a new project in the past few years. If anything, Blumhouse's changes to the film probably killed the duo's chances at making it big.

reply