|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Jul 17, 2020 5:51:54 GMT
Even if the end result isn't their original vision?
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 17, 2020 5:53:52 GMT
They shouldn't if the movie was too compromised, too much interference, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 17, 2020 5:55:35 GMT
I see no reason for the director to stand by it if they don't like the end result.
|
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Jul 17, 2020 5:57:58 GMT
They shouldn't if the movie was too compromised, too much interference, etc. But surely they must have had a large hand in the film, even in extreme instances of studio interference. |
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Jul 17, 2020 6:00:31 GMT
I see no reason for the director to stand by it if they don't like the end result. Okay. Maybe not defend a blatantly bad product, but what about owning their role in making it? Admitting they had a part in it, or maybe pointing out the things they did that they think were worthwhile or successful. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 17, 2020 6:05:27 GMT
I see no reason for the director to stand by it if they don't like the end result. Okay. Maybe not defend a blatantly bad product, but what about owning their role in making it? Admitting they had a part in it, or maybe pointing out the things they did that they think were worthwhile or successful. That isn't the same question, but yes. Unless it really isn't their fault. Some directors put in the effort and then the studio comes and makes changes that the director disagrees with but doesn't have the power to do much about it. |
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Jul 17, 2020 6:15:28 GMT
Okay. Maybe not defend a blatantly bad product, but what about owning their role in making it? Admitting they had a part in it, or maybe pointing out the things they did that they think were worthwhile or successful. That isn't the same question, but yes. Unless it really isn't their fault. Some directors put in the effort and then the studio comes and makes changes that the director disagrees with but has no control over. I can understand why some directors might want to disown a movie that is different than the movie they intended to make, but a studio can't change an entire movie. When I think of directors disowning movies I think of Ti West and Cabin Fever 2 and Josh Trank and Fant4stic. I'm sure both guys have legitimate complaints, but they're certainly not blameless. These guys should just say, this is what I wanted to do. This is what happened instead. This is what I think worked, and this is where I screwed up. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 17, 2020 6:17:01 GMT
They can disown it in their head, but the world won't because the movie is part of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 17, 2020 6:18:02 GMT
Alien 3 is a film that fits this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 17, 2020 6:27:04 GMT
That isn't the same question, but yes. Unless it really isn't their fault. Some directors put in the effort and then the studio comes and makes changes that the director disagrees with but has no control over. I can understand why some directors might want to disown a movie that is different than the movie they intended to make, but a studio can't change an entire movie. When I think of directors disowning movies I think of Ti West and Cabin Fever 2 and Josh Trank and Fant4stic. I'm sure both guys have legitimate complaints, but they're certainly not blameless. These guys should just say, this is what I wanted to do. This is what happened instead. This is what I think worked, and this is where I screwed up. Studios don't need to change the entire movie. Think of the original U.S. theatrical cut of Once Upon a Time in America. The Hollywood studio decided that they were going to cut half of the movie because they didn't think people would pay to see a 4 hour movie at the cinema. Low and behold the 4-hour director's cut is considered a masterpiece, but at the same time the studio was right that it wouldn't make much money at the cinema. It has made bank big time on DVD though. |
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Jul 17, 2020 6:30:07 GMT
I can understand why some directors might want to disown a movie that is different than the movie they intended to make, but a studio can't change an entire movie. When I think of directors disowning movies I think of Ti West and Cabin Fever 2 and Josh Trank and Fant4stic. I'm sure both guys have legitimate complaints, but they're certainly not blameless. These guys should just say, this is what I wanted to do. This is what happened instead. This is what I think worked, and this is where I screwed up. Studios don't need to change the entire movie. Think of the original U.S. theatrical cut of Once Upon a Time in America. The Hollywood studio decided that they were going to cut half of the movie because they didn't think people would pay to see a 4 hour movie at the cinema. Low and behold the 4-hour intended version is considered a masterpiece, but at the same time the studio was right that it wouldn't make much money at the cinema. It has made bank big time on DVD though. You make a good point. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 17, 2020 6:31:10 GMT
Studios don't need to change the entire movie. Think of the original U.S. theatrical cut of Once Upon a Time in America. The Hollywood studio decided that they were going to cut half of the movie because they didn't think people would pay to see a 4 hour movie at the cinema. Low and behold the 4-hour intended version is considered a masterpiece, but at the same time the studio was right that it wouldn't make much money at the cinema. It has made bank big time on DVD though. You make a good point. I know I do. Just a little fun arrogance there. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Jul 17, 2020 16:16:26 GMT
They can disown it in their head, but the world won't because the movie is part of history. They also disown a film by way of a pseudonym. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 18, 2020 0:10:22 GMT
They can disown it in their head, but the world won't because the movie is part of history. They also disown a film by way of a pseudonym. Posted by Alan Smithee. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 18, 2020 3:28:57 GMT
Studios don't need to change the entire movie. Think of the original U.S. theatrical cut of Once Upon a Time in America. The Hollywood studio decided that they were going to cut half of the movie because they didn't think people would pay to see a 4 hour movie at the cinema. Low and behold the 4-hour director's cut is considered a masterpiece, but at the same time the studio was right that it wouldn't make much money at the cinema. It has made bank big time on DVD though. I was lucky enough to see the film theatrically at the time released in its 4hour edition. This wasn't the US. I doubt in either version it would have been popular box office wise so they may have well released the full cut. it was shortsighted arrogance of the distributors with dollar signs in their eyes. The film is very atmospheric, but largely, I find it ugly and unappealing at the same time. It doesn't seem to have the pizzazz or dramatic intrigue of something like The Godfather. A bit too brooding. I feel the same. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 18, 2020 4:45:18 GMT
The best way for me to describe the feeling of watching OUATIA is that it is too heavy. It strains for a feeling and effect of nostalgia for the era, yet is also comes across as detached. One wouldn't want to be a member of the Corleone cabal in Godfather, but they sure are fascinating to watch. It is a movie I can watch and appreciate for the technical aspects and some of the performances, but I don't feel much emotion when I watch it. The detached feeling might be what Leone was going for, but it becomes tedious to watch. 6.5/10 |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 18, 2020 10:17:45 GMT
Ideally, directors should know if their vision is the same as the producers/the studio before filming since they have a couple of meetings, but unfortunately, they don't always go into enough details. If the director notices this problem during filming, it becomes more complicated: "Is it something that really changes the plot/theme/message or is it something minor I could make a compromise about? Do I have contractual obligations or can I just quit? Would that mean I don't have the work integrity to finish what I've started? How far into principal photography are we? Am I being selfish considering how many other people are involved in the project? Sure, they can hire someone else, but this change would delay everything. Will I tolerate the idea of seeing another director putting their hands on my "baby"? What if the DGA decides that they deserve to be credited instead of me? Whether I quit or I finish the movie but then I disown it in interviews, will I ruin my reputation to the point where no one will hire me again?"
Now, if the producers/the studio go behind the director's back to film new shots and/or edit the movie significantly (e.g. CALIGULA), it's totally understandable.
Also, I think there have been cases where cast/crew members agree with the director, feeling the same kind of betrayal.
|
|
