Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Perhaps it doesn't occur to you and the other guy that

Posted by jamesgarvin on November 24, 2007 at 09:10:46:
Well, you could respond to what I wrote. At no point in my post did I write what directors had final cut in "mega-budget Hollywood productions." Believe it or not, most Hollywood films are not "mega-budget Hollywood productions." I was specifically thinking of Martin Scorsese, who, in an interview, commented that it took him many films to achieve that right. I have read that Spielberg has final cut. I would think he is powerful enough that if a studio did not give him final cut rights, then he could take his toys and go elsewhere. Or fund his own films. Also with final cut: Spike Lee, Kenneth Branagh, Jerry Bruckheimer. Others? Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, Francis Coppola, Ron Howard, Ridley Scott, Oliver Stone, Robert Zemeckis, Jonathan Demme, James Brooks, Michael Mann, Anthony Minghella.

But back to my earlier point that the Director's cut is the artistic cut, while, more often than not, the theatrical release is the financial cut. I would think that a film lover such as Tinear, or any film lover, would advocate in favor of the director's cut because it is the artistic cut, and Tinear, being against all things capitalist, and big greedy corporation, would be against the theatrical cut the studio releases because it is edited to make more money. Which leads back to my original point that Tinear often likes to post merely as a platform to argue because is latest tirade against director's cuts is completely inconsistent with his prior posts here, or on Outside.

From Sydney Pollack: There was always a kind of tug-of-war between management and talent," says director Sydney Pollack (1985's "Out of Africa"). "But it has gotten much worse as (the business) has gotten more corporatized."

The situation illustrates just how different a place the industry can be for directors who are not the Peter Jacksons of the world (though Jackson, who has final cut on his "Kong" remake, did not have it on the "Lord of the Rings" films). Then again, Jackson's work has made New Line billions of dollars richer, and that, ultimately, speaks the loudest in Hollywood. "This is all about economics," Pollack says. "And anybody who thinks it isn't is a fool."

Is Tinear a fool?