 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.71
In Reply to: RE: …and in particular… posted by David Aiken on November 18, 2007 at 13:19:52
In virtually all cases with commerical films there is in fact a director's cut. It is the director's legal DGA right to have the first cut of a film. That is the director's cut. It is the producer's legal right to to additional recuts. This is usually done affter the mindless proccess of test screenings and there are often substantial differences between the diretor's cut the initial commercial release. It is often the studio's desire to have the movie fall within a certain time limit that leads to the utter destruction of a director's vision. Classic examples would be Bladerunner, Aliens and Heaven's Gate. I'm not saying there are no bogus director's cuts being shilled as a gimic. but to say it's all bogus is to have a complete disconnect with the realities of the film industry.
Follow Ups:
from wikipedia which nicely mentions, as you do, "Alien."
"from wiki, notice it specifically mentions your example of "Alien."
The article, of course, doesn't mention the fact that many directors throw up a lot of mud on the wall, knowing cuts to shorten definitely will be made. They never expect or want all that muck ever to be seen.
Anyhow, I felt your misinformation had to be corrected, nothing personal:
Traditionally, the "director's cut" is not, by definition, the director's ideal or preferred cut. The editing process of a film is broken into three basic stages: First is the editor's cut ("rough cut"), which matches the script without any reductions. Second, the director's cut, which is reduced from the rough cut, according to the director's tastes. Third is the final cut, which actually gets released or broadcast. It is often the case that a director approves of the final cut, and even prefers it to the so-called earlier "director's cut." The director's cut may include unsatisfactory takes, a preliminary soundtrack, a lack of desired pick-up shots etc, which the director wouldn't like to be shown.
For example, the director's cut of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid was 122 minutes long. It was then trimmed to the final/released cut of 105 minutes. Although not complete or refined to his satisfaction, director Sam Peckinpah still preferred the director's cut, as it was more inclusive and thorough than the 105-minute cut. The restored cut, at 115 minutes, is thus not the traditional "director's cut," but is closest to the director's preferred version, as it was reconstructed based on Pekinpah's notes, and according to his style in general. In this case, the director's cut and the director's ideal preferred cut are distinctly separate versions.
Considering this definition, "Alien: The Director's Cut," for example, is simply a misuse of the phrase. As Ridley Scott explains in the DVD insert, the 2003 cut of Alien was created at the request of 20th Century Fox, who wanted to re-release Alien in a form that was somehow altered or enhanced. Scott agreed, and settled on making an alternate cut of the film. He describes it simply as a second version that he is also satisfied with, even though the original released cut is still his preferred version."
Aliens was the sequel to Alien. I worked on it. I read the actual script. The studio cut ommitted much material. Cameron's cut was the script. nothing mopre nothing less. that is what happens more often than not.
The point is Scott preferred the "producers' cut."
It matters not what's in the original script: is it sacrosanct?
The discussion is whether or not all these directors' cuts are somehow better, more authentic.
Think of hundreds of great films... now picture them extended almost indefinitely to three, four, five hours.
That's why God invented the producer.
You may also wish to consider what the work of an editor is at a publishing house.
> > The point is Scott preferred the "producers' cut."> >
No I didn't. I vastly preffered Cameron's cut.
> > It matters not what's in the original script: is it sacrosanct?> >
Is it sacrosanct? No. Does it matter? Hell yes. As someone who read the script of Aliens, worked on it and saw both the commercial release and Cameron's cut the superiority of Cameron's cut was painfully obvious. The reasons for the commerical cut being what it was also was painfully obvious. They wanted a shorte movie.
> > The discussion is whether or not all these directors' cuts are somehow better, more authentic.> >
Indeed. Cameron's cut was both. as is so often the case.
> > Think of hundreds of great films... now picture them extended almost indefinitely to three, four, five hours.> >
I am sorry if you have too short an attention span.
> > That's why God invented the producer.> .
If ever i needed proof positive that you have absolutely no connection with the inner workings of film making that was it.
> > You may also wish to consider what the work of an editor is at a publishing house.> >
Why? I am already quite intimately familiar with how things work in film.
as
You hang onto your mistake like a pitbull.
I think Scott took issue with your premise that the director's cut is generally bogus. There is nothing "sacrosanct" about the original script. But Scott's valid point is that the original director's version contains his or her original vision for the film, the artistic vision, if you will, whereas the studio makes the edits for financial reasons. We want a shorter film because we can show the film more times per day, and therefore make more money, etc. Or the studio brings in a test audience, and the studio cuts a film based upon what the test audience "likes", as opposed to what is "good."
You should be very aware of the latter, having seen and praised Hollywoodland, which contained a scene showing one of Reeve's serious film efforts being cut from the film (I believe it was On the Waterfront)because a test audience cracked jokes when he was on the screen. The editing was not performed to make the film a better film, but to make it more popular, and, in the end, to make more money for the studio. I think Scott acknowledged that there were a few examples where the studio edited a film to make it better, but they generally edit the film to conform to an audience's taste, or to make more money.
The director's cut allows the audience to see the film as the director intended. I am surprised, in light of your love of films off the beaten track which are generally very director oriented, that you would defend and condone the studio's practice of changing the director's vision, edits that are generally made to make the the studio more money. I would have thought you would argue that the director, an artist, should be able to present his or her art to the public without bean counters repainting the canvas which the director painted. Whether a version of the film is based upon a director's vision, versus one made for commerce, I would have thought you would support the former.
But I guess that is the hyprocrisy of being the Tinman - the argument is what is important, and is more important than taking and maintaining a consistent position throughout different posts. And while I thought your arrogance and conceit knows no bounds, I am amazed that you apparently know more of the process, and the reasons therefor, than someone involved in it. Or not.
And I am not sure that God invented producers. You mean, like in a lab. Seeing as how the producer is the least creative person in the process, generally either funding the film, or securing the funding for the film, I am not sure I would give their "vision" as much import as you obviously do. It seems that whether the producer or the director is more important depends upon which day it is, and which cat you need to skin.
It was from "From Here to Eternity" and he is still cited in the credits.
directors produce films KNOWING that the producer will weigh in with cuts, therefore they put in some filler.
I think we might acknowledge that the human body is not made to sit still for three hours in silence, without getting up and moving around. In the "old days," longer films like "Ben Hur" had intermission. That's gone now as films typically extend over 2 hours.
Director's cuts would kill the film; producers are more logical. No ego involved. It's like a good editor at a publishing house: every author thinks every preposition is holy. Editors know better.
I actually have these discussions with directors quite frequently. You?
"directors produce films KNOWING that the producer will weigh in with cuts, therefore they put in some filler"
Knowing they "will," and knowing they "can" are two different things. Knowing "what" will be cut is another can of worms. But we are not talking about that, really. Your original post was about the director's cut being "bogus", and whether the director knows that the studio will, might, can, etc. has nothing to do with the director's cut being bogus.
"Bogus" is a judgment word. Calling the director's cut "bogus" necessarily means that the studio's theatrically released version is "not bogus." Scott, as was I, simply pointed out that, in most cases, the director's cut is not bogus, rather it is the studio's theatrically released film.
A few director have final cut privelage. How is that when a studio which releases a film from a director who has final cut release theatrically is not bogus, but when the director's final cut is released on D.V.D. it is bogus? I doubt you can see the hypocrisy here. Either a director's cut is bogus or not. Whether released on D.V.D. or theatrically.
"I think we might acknowledge that the human body is not made to sit still for three hours in silence, without getting up and moving around. In the "old days," longer films like "Ben Hur" had intermission. That's gone now as films typically extend over 2 hours."
I am not saying that releasing a three hour film is good. Only that the studio is editing the film not for artistic reasons, but for commerce, which would seem to make the theatrical release bogus. By the way, The Right Stuff had an intermission. Intermissions were used in order to allow the projectionist to change the reel in the old cinemas. The director's cut allows you see the film the director intended - for artistic reasons. He or she may have asked the audience from the studio. But is not that what all great directors do?
"Director's cuts would kill the film; producers are more logical. No ego involved."
Huh? No ego? You mean like those producers that demand that in exchange for their cash they get their name on the screen? Or on the stage common awards time? You misunderstand the role of producers. I'll be happy to defer to Scott, but producers bring in the money, and provide the accoutrements necessary for the film. But they are not the creative force in the film. Everybody's green is the same color. Change a producer with the same funding, the film still goes off.
On the other hand, would Vertigo have been the same without Hitch?
"A few director have final cut privelage."
Nobody making mega budget Hollywood productions in Hollywood has "final cut privelages."
Myths like that are the creations of sycophant writers who want to see "their" directors as special. The sycophant writer is easily identified. He (it's always a he) refers to "his" director as auteur, so you know he is special.
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?
George Lucas owns the Star Wars franchise so he can do pretty much what he wants. But this "final cut" thing is a lot more complicated. I guess most directors will not take fights that will get them branded as troublemakers and might hinder their careers. Worst case scenario: what do you do with a final cut if the studio refuses to back and market the movie? How do you expect to make money without Hollywood's sophisticated distribution network and lucrative McDonald's tie-ins? Hollywood's success is largely based on keeping the local distributors happy. Hollywood guarantees a steady stream of movies, most being "fillers" (or break-even movies, if not down right write-offs) and serving them complete packages, including advertising (like TV spots), media kits and so on. In the end, they all want to make money.
"Director’s cut" has lost all meaning today. Mega budget productions like The Lord of the Rings are made with the DVD market in mind. I don't remember the exact figure, but in 1997 (the year I referred to in my previous post), the theatrical run constituted about 1/3 of the revenue. 1/3 was from home video and 1/3 from TV runs. Merchandizing was not factored in.
Not to mention that the whole way of making movies has changed. The first new Star Wars movie took 365 days to finish. 65 days of that was traditional filmmaking, albeit against blue screens. The other 300 days were what in the old days was known as postproduction.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is the sycophant film critics and writers. Raul Walsh laughed at the idea that he was an auteur de cinéma. Steven Spielberg was on the plane home while the second unit was filming the final scene of Jaws. He was exhausted and simply couldn't take it any more. It was the studio, not Francis Ford Coppola, that wanted a 3hr Godfather. The studio was not satisfied with his original circa 2hr version and sent him out to shoot more.
The sycophant critics usually paint out the director as saint and the studios as cold-hearted monsters. The latter is probably true. But just maybe the studio execs look like idiots because they are in tune with the audience. If the audience wants simpleton movies, they are going supply them. No matter what you think of McDonald's, they know how to sell burgers.
A director in Hollywood has to be able to play the system. American directors do that a lot better than the imports. And it helps if you make quick, cheap productions, like Clint Eastwood does, and never go over budget, like Clint Eastwood never does. I doubt any of his productions has cost more than $30m.
There are roughly 400 movies made in Hollywood each year. The ten top grossing movies make up 50% of Hollywood's earnings. Hollywood could not care any less for the 300 lesser movies.
> > "Director’s cut" has lost all meaning today. Mega budget productions like The Lord of the Rings are made with the DVD market in mind. I don't remember the exact figure, but in 1997 (the year I referred to in my previous post), the theatrical run constituted about 1/3 of the revenue. 1/3 was from home video and 1/3 from TV runs. Merchandizing was not factored in.> >
I don't think this is the case at all with Lord of the rings. Jachson may well have been aware that he may have to make cuts when he was shooting but anyone who takes a look at what went into making this trilogy would have to be terribly cynical to think that Jackson or any of the artisans were focused on the marketing aspects of this film. This was a work of passion.
> >
Not to mention that the whole way of making movies has changed. The first new Star Wars movie took 365 days to finish. 65 days of that was traditional filmmaking, albeit against blue screens. The other 300 days were what in the old days was known as postproduction.> >
This is nothing new. The Exorcist took longer. heck the original Star Wars was quite the post production ordeal. Much more so than any of the later Star Wars movies.
"terribly cynical to think that Jackson or any of the artisans were focused on the marketing aspects of this film"
My bad. Jackson just asked somebody to hand him $100m to shoot an art movie.
"Don't be naive. Filmmaking is absolutely not an art. Everybody is only doing a business."--Chow Yun-fat
> > "terribly cynical to think that Jackson or any of the artisans were focused on the marketing aspects of this film"> >
> My bad. Jackson just asked somebody to hand him $100m to shoot an art movie.>
yep your bad. actually it was more along the lines of 180 million for three movies. rather low budget by todays standards. Given the ambitiousness of the project it was a ridiculously low number. I have had many discussions with Richard Taylor the head of the makeup effects about the making of Lord of the Rings. It was indeed very much more like a low budget art house project given the scope of the material. so yes, your bad, you are way off base on this one.
> > "Don't be naive. Filmmaking is absolutely not an art. Everybody is only doing a business."--Chow Yun-fat> >
Utter bullshit. even though Chow Yun Fat is by all reports a nice guy he must have been in quite a mood when he said that. There are times when we all feel this way. If it were just a business no one would be in it. There are easier ways to make a buck.
Yeah, Jackson has shown so high artistic ambitions before.
And while you strut around there in la-la-land, do you have anything more you want to teach Yun-fat about filmmaking?
what is it about AA that attracts so many?
Another boring auteur theory apologist. How mundane.
And I do find it mildly amusing that you think everybody who doesn't subscribe to your cosy fairy tale world is an idiot. It's you who poison this forum with your inability to conduct yourself in a civil manner and lash out at everybody who doesn't agree with you.
but when they act like dicks I treat them accordingly.
"people disagreeing with me"
That's why you called Chow Yun-fat a bullshitter?
"when they act like dicks I treat them accordingly."
You are the one who has shown nothing but shitty attitude. You really need to hang around with people so you can learn some social skills. Or do you only act like a jerk when you can hide behind a computer screen and don't have to face people? Then you are a coward.
> That's why you called Chow Yun-fat a bullshitter?>
Why don't you try dealing with what I actually said dickhead? A couple of good friends have worked with Chow Yun Fat and by all acounts he takes his art very seriously and if you knew jack about his choices as an actor you would know that he clealy isn't in it just as a business man. Quotes without context are bullshit. A smarter person would have understood my post.
> > "when they act like dicks I treat them accordingly."> >
> You are the one who has shown nothing but shitty attitude.>
More bullshit form a dickhead. I was quite courteous to you until *you8 copped attitude. I know when I am being rude. It's not by accident. Apparently you lack that level of self-awareness.
> You really need to hang around with people so you can learn some social skills.>
Dude, I "hang around" with people as a part of my job.
> Or do you only act like a jerk when you can hide behind a computer screen and don't have to face people? Then you are a coward.>
No, I understand the art of being rude and rest assured if we come face to face I will act no differently. Act like a dick to me and I will treat you appropriately just as I have done here. In person dorks like you are generally too geeked out to dare to cop an attitude. I have seen enough fans and neophytes in my day. I see no reason to think you are any different.
I too know of Chow Yun-fat. I'm sure he thinks Wong Kar-wai is an artist. But what does that have to do with mega budget Hollywood productions?I have done nothing but act in a courteous manner. I did not blow off just because I disagreed with James Garvin. But you jump in here swinging and resorting to name calling. The latter will kill any discussion.
By calling me a fan you couldn't be more dishonest. This is from my earlier post here:
"Myths like that are the creations of sycophant writers who want to see 'their' directors as special. The sycophant writer is easily identified. He (it's always a he) refers to 'his' director as auteur, so you know he is special."
Not that any of that should get in the way of your agenda. You are so blinded by whatever it is that makes you tick that you cannot see that we seem to agree on most things, like Clint Eastwood. He does low budget productions and never goes over budget, so he's trusted to do pretty much what he wants. His movies are basically obligatory "fillers," or break-even movies, to keep the theater owners happy. The fillers are there so the theater owners have movies to show between the blockbusters. You knew that.
> > 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.> >
Robert Zemeckis had a legendary fued with Paramount over the final cut of Forrest Gump. Zemeckis made the famous phone call inwhich he told execs at Paramount that he was outside the gates of the studio where he planned to stay for the rest of his life. he didn't get the final cut. Ron Howard suffers through the proccess of having to recut after test screenings. Oliver stone has been saddled with this in a big way. Directors don't have cretive freedom like they used to. I don't know about Eastwood but he is doing reletively low budget stuff. Riddley Scott's films are most definitely test screened and cut accordingly. It;s far more common now than most realize.
he even had theater approval rights at one point. actually many directors did have what amounted to final cut back in the seventies when film was very much a director's medium. But as for today, indeed big budget movies are pretty much all test screened and final cut privilidges go to suits who are basing final cutson the score cards handed in by a few hundred snot nosed teenagers that think MTV is art. So if you wonder why so many of those blockbusters suck dick this is one of the many reasons.
matter the director or the length.
They have snot-nosed test audiences? Only if that's the target audience, Scott.
Not all directors are able to make audience pleasing films as well as "artistic" ones. Producers aren't in the business of supporting directors' egos: it's an industry. Like all parents, directors think everything about their child is precious.
"Apocalypse, Now" is a prefect example of a bloated director making a ridiculously long film: the producer could have cut another half an hour with no loss; adding another hour made it fatter than Brando.
But, anyhow, you're only involved with pulp anyway, right? 300 and Sin City, weren't they?
Zuck.
> > matter the director or the length.> >
Laurence of Arabia sucked? The Godfather sucked?
> They have snot-nosed test audiences? Only if that's the target audience, Scott.>
Sadly it is. They are the ones going to the movies these days.
> Not all directors are able to make audience pleasing films as well as "artistic" ones.>
The great ones often succeed.
> > Producers aren't in the business of supporting directors' egos: it's an industry. Like all parents, directors think everything about their child is precious.> >
Yes but that does not make the business model an ideal. You seem to think the producers have no ego in this whole thing. That IMO is the problem. Their egos are getting in the way.
> > "Apocalypse, Now" is a prefect example of a bloated director making a ridiculously long film: the producer could have cut another half an hour with no loss; adding another hour made it fatter than Brando.> >
Apocalypse now is not an example of anything. It as unique as it gets. It was a happy accident. there have been a few.
> > But, anyhow, you're only involved with pulp anyway, right?> >
No. My last three films were Skin, Redblet and Paraiso Travel. Hardly Hollywood blockbuster material.
> > 300 and Sin City, weren't they?> >
300 yes. I had nothing to do with Sin City. 300 is a prime example of bucking the studio system. We were low budget enough that WB largely stayed out of our way. we were lucky enough to stack the test screenings so no cuts were actually made. you might note that there is no director's cut being sold in the case of 300. that is because what was released was the actual directors cut. No changes were made thanks to the amazing scores in the test screanings. the amazing scores were due in no small part to the infaltration of Frank Miller fans who had a particular appreciation for the film's fidelity to the graphic novel. hope that helps clear things up for you.
intermissions.
But... that was in the day of adult movies, anyhow.
As you point out, today's films seemed to be geared, more and more, towards kids.
My original point was that Ridley Scott preferred the general release to his cut. Tell me you understand that simple fact?
I was under the impression that he prefers the one that just came out. Have you learned anything from this thread?
nt
Yes, it's a different world today. In 1997, which is the Stone Age by cinema standard, the average budget in Hollywood was just over $100-million, of which about 40% is for marketing. Nobody is going to give a director $100-200-million and tell him, "Surprise me."
There's no shortage of directors who want to work in Hollywood. And movies aren't sold on the strength of the director these days.
Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman had their way with Kubrick on Eyes Wide Shot according to R. Lee Ermey. They saw that Kubrick didn't have the strength to stand up to them and they had a field day with him. Kubrick didn't stand a chance. Not only was he an old man, Cruise and Kidman had the studio brass on their side. It's actually hard to understand why Kubrick didn't quit when they had wrestled the movie out of his hands and he was fully aware that the movie was heading down the toilet. Perhaps Kubrick didn't want to go out a quitter. Whatever the case, the ordeal took its toll and literally sent him to the grave. Cruise and Kidman must have been aware of what they were doing to Kubrick. I guess stroking their egos meant more to them.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
