![]() ![]() |
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: Blockbusters "suck" because of the general subject matter: no posted by tinear on November 23, 2007 at 15:36:59
>> 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.
Follow Ups:
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
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: