Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (Sam Peckinpah, 1973)

I believe there is a new Blu Ray coming which will include the theatrical cut.

I prefer the Turner cut. The opening is brilliant in that and I’m fine with most of the extensions. It adds back the ‘something’ which I felt was missing from the theatrical cut (which I saw first).

The 2005 version is a mess. The opening scene is much better in the Turner version and the rest of the 2005 version is largely the theatrical edit.

What about the version on the special edition DVD? Isn’t that the Turner preview version? If it is, I’m surprised they remaster it for the new Blu-ray.

The Special Edition DVD from 2005 has the 1st preview aka the Turner on one disc, and a newly made version on the other. This 2005 cut aka as the Seydor cut is a combination of the theatrical version with the missing scenes (bar one) added.

The new Blu will contain the theatrical version, the 2nd preview version and a 50th anniversary version, which might be a rethinking of this 2005 cut done by Paul Seydor and Roger Spottiswoode, one of the original editors.
It seems Criterion was not able to get the rights for the Turner for this new set.
I think I would prefer it to have the Turner with the 2 missing scenes added, the longest possible version with the available material.

1 Like

That’s a real shame. It’s my favourite version of the film. Maybe we can hope for a Warner Archive Blu-ray.

1 Like

I watched the theatrical version again on my old MGM VHS. It’ll be interesting to see how fans will respond to it when the Criterion Blu-ray finally gets released. Knowing the editing history, it’s easy for people to dismiss it, but how many people have actually watched it? I am not sure what all the complaints are about. There’s definitely a lot of good material missing from the theatrical cut, especially some of my favourite dialogue, but I prefer it to the 2005 version, and I might even say that it’s just as good as the Turner preview cut (which is still my preferred version to all of the others). It’s not that the theatrical cut is bad, it’s just different. The editors obviously tried to piece together a more fast-paced western that would bring the action to the forefront. The great thing about having the different cuts available is that it allows the viewer to have an option. Some people who struggle with the slow pace in the other versions might end up appreciating the film more thanks to the restoration of the original. I know I’ll be going to the theatrical version a lot once I get my hands on the Blu-ray.


Though not always the case, in this instance this is something I really enjoy about this movie. Peckinpah set a unique mood with this film and I am more than happy to become completely engrossed and go along for the ride.


The pacing is very good in the shorter theatrical cut, as well. Can’t wait to see the restoration! Looking forward to checking out the 2nd preview cut!

1 Like

Man With No Name:

I saw the theatrical cut first and felt it was potentially great but that something was missing. Then I saw the TCM print and thought it was much better, especially the addition of the pre-credits scene. I thought that new opening scene where the credits go up cross-cut between the flash forward and Garrett’s arrival in Fort Sumner was among Peckinpah’s best work. Then they had to ruin it with the 2005 restoration by changing the editing and moving the opening credits back to the place they were in the theatrical cut which was only done because the original pre-credits sequence had been removed, And they cut the epilogue out as well from the 2005 version. If they don’t have the TCM version in the Criterion Blu Ray I won’t buy it.

This is also a movie that could benefit from a fan-edit?

I don’t think it makes a huge difference that we see Garret’s death. As much as I like sequence, I think the shot of Garrett shooting his own reflection in the mirror is sufficient enough.

I agree. The 2005 cut gets a lot of things wrong but that’s because it feels like a compromised version, not because I think there’s anything wrong with the theatrical cut itself.

They don’t because the negative is too badly damaged apparently but it includes Peckinpah’s second preview cut, which is supposed to be similar.