Home Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

RE: What a great example of a guy in denial. Read the quote, again.

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.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]