 
|
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 |
69.218.208.200
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
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?
Follow Ups:
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.
| 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 ]
