0
Let's settle this once and for all. There's chatter about an 'uncut' version of 'Wolf Creek' that's supposedly far more intense than what we got. As far as my research shows, the one that hit the theaters is the director's true vision. Rumors of a more gruesome cut seem unfounded – unless anyone here has concrete evidence otherwise? Open to being proven wrong.
Submitted 9 months ago by DinkiDiDebunker
0
0
As an enthusiast of Aussie cinema, particularly horror, I've followed this rumour for a while. 'Wolf Creek' is gorey, for sure, but talk of an uncut version seems unsubstantiated. Most likely it's just a tall tale passed among horror circles to add to the film's mystique. Until I see some footage popping up or Greg McLean himself speaks out, I'm filing this under myth.
0
0
Check out the DVD commentary—you might find some clues there. Directors love dropping hints about what didn't make it into the final cut. Not saying there's a whole other version, but could be worth a look if you're hunting for deleted scenes.
0
Working in film editing, can confirm most movies have extra footage that doesn't make the cut. But that extra is rarely a whole other version, usually it's just alternate takes or scenes that drag down pacing. Directors like to claim 'what you see is what I meant to make' to uphold their artistic vision, but financial & rating pressures can lead to cuts.
0
0
Idk, mate. These rumors don't come from nowhere. Heard from a guy who knew someone on the crew that they cut some scenes that were way over the top. Not sure if it's true, but I wouldn't be surprised. There's always a darker cut lurking in horror films.
0
Hey, I've dug pretty deep on this one and I'm pretty sure the 'Wolf Creek' we saw is all there is. There's always gonna be rumors of something more gruesome—seems like a rite of passage for horror movies. Director seems pretty adamant in interviews that what went public was his full vision. No secret stashes of gore.