That said, I'd give real money to see the murder mystery outtakes from Annie Hall!!

(although I've heard most of that stuff was re-organized into his 'Manhattan Murder Mystery,' quite a fun film in its own right...)

that's interesting, thanks

i think a lot of people who don't read scripts would be surprised how often this sort of thing is done.

One thing I've talked about with a couple directors I respect is the need to write bits in a script that you know you will cut in the filmed version, mainly because the moment will be obvious visually, but not so obvious when read ... hammering the plot point home, because it's hard to "see" in a script.

Then when it's shot, it's obvious to the eye.

That means sometimes dialogue underlining a point can get done with just a "look" ... so the dialogue goes.

Basically making sure that people who read scripts fast get the idea ... sometimes something subtle gets missed, so they want to make sure the point is made, then cut it in the edit.

Just what I was told.

yes, and it's better to have a too-obvious line that can be cut out than not to have it if it's needed! save us all from ADR abuse.

Josh, "The Shawshank Redemption" is a good script to read in this regard. There are dozens of scenes, almost all of them focused on exposition, that are in the script and not in the movie. I would assume they were shot, but once the movie started to come together in the edit or after test screenings and the inevitable push to cut running time, they were found to be unnecessary.

In fact, there's one in the opening sequence in this original post: The jury and their guilty roll call. By cutting directly to the Judge with his announcing of the sentence, we know that the jury found Andy guilty.