|
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: Perhaps it doesn't occur to you and the other guy that posted by Peter H-son on November 21, 2007 at 22:05:58
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.
Follow Ups:
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: