The reason for the different running times?
Could it be that the movie had different owners for different things like this
1) Someone had theatrical Rights
2) Someone had Home Video Rights
3) Someone had Pay cable Rights
etc etc
No idea, but the version I saw in the theater was the shorter one, and a few months later the longer version was running on pay-TV. The theatrical distributor (Filmways?) may just have wanted to squeeze in one more showing per day.
shareJust saw it on MGM HD Channel the other day and it ran 96 min. The "official" length is only 89 min.
shareIt's not unheard of for there to be different running times for theatrical and TV versions of films. Some older shorter titles were padded to fit into 90 or 120 run times on TV.
In this case, WITHOUT WARNING came out in theaters during the tail end of the Drive In era. As Director Greydon Clark states in the Killerfilm interview (killerfilm.com/features/read/late-night-classics-without-warning-2-29680), WITHOUT WARNING's release was kind of secondary in the studio's mind. More importantly, back in the day before digital, Film Reels were shipped in big heavy metal cans. Each reel typically was 15 minutes in length. 6 times 15 is? 90 minutes. The length of the theatrical release cut of WITHOUT WARNING? 89 minutes - just under the 90 minute mark. Any longer, and it would have necessitated another Film Reel being printed AND shipped.
My guess is that Clark's cut was the 97 minute one and that's why it has been the standard on TV ever since. Especially, if it's true that the 89 minute version doesn't include the Bathroom scene where the whole "no chance, no help, no escape" phrase is introduced (hard to believe that was cut in theaters!)