|
codyclarke posted:Noah Baumbach did one for that new movie Tower Heist. If I remember right, the reason for that re-write was that in the original script most of the characters were black. Now most of the characters are white. So yeah as Vorpalbunny says, the job of a script Doctor is to make the changes the studio demands, not necessarily to make the script better in any way.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:One of his biggest problems with the change was that the episode made it seem like anti-war protests were a bad thing. Also that they took out a character moment where Spock calls Kirk "Jim" and the way they changed it from Kirk letting the woman die to needing Spock to stop him from saving her. Other way around. In the original script, Kirk wants to save Edith because he loves her, so it takes the cold logical Spock to let what has to happen, happen. The producers thought that made Kirk look too weak.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
When documentaries are shown that include very old footage it looks sped up. I think the original explanation was that there were too few frames and it was not possible to show it with the original speed or the original projectors do not exist any more or something. But with today's technique this should not be an issue any more, right? Why is stuff from the 20's etc. still shown too fast?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:When documentaries are shown that include very old footage it looks sped up. I think the original explanation was that there were too few frames and it was not possible to show it with the original speed or the original projectors do not exist any more or something. But with today's technique this should not be an issue any more, right? Why is stuff from the 20's etc. still shown too fast? Depending on how old the footage is, it may have been filmed with a hand-crank camera, so it wouldn't be at a perfect rate that can be easily extrapolated to 24p.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:When documentaries are shown that include very old footage it looks sped up. I think the original explanation was that there were too few frames and it was not possible to show it with the original speed or the original projectors do not exist any more or something. But with today's technique this should not be an issue any more, right? Why is stuff from the 20's etc. still shown too fast? Well, doing it properly is hard because of variable speeds and all. Takes time. Even at the proper speed, they still move just a little faster, I think- one of the early complaints about sound movies was that they seemed to move slowly, not just in terms of story pacing but in the sense that they literally didn't move as fast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about - that Lisa Gerrard-style female vocalist that's not actually "singing" but just vocalizing over the big dramatic moment in Gladiator or whatever. I figured there was a name for it besides "cliched dramatic soundtrack vocalist" or something. Thanks. This was inescapable in the early 2000s and I always found it super annoying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
Quick question: I haven't watched any of the Alien movies in ages, and only seen Alien and Aliens. I just bought the Alien Anthology blu-ray set. There is a Theatrical and a Director's Cut or Special Edition for each. Which version should I watch of each of the four films? When I say 'should' I mean, is there a version of each that's blatantly better?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Quick question: I haven't watched any of the Alien movies in ages, and only seen Alien and Aliens. I just bought the Alien Anthology blu-ray set. There is a Theatrical and a Director's Cut or Special Edition for each. Which version should I watch of each of the four films? When I say 'should' I mean, is there a version of each that's blatantly better? Actually, I can't think of that many instances in film at large in which the theatrical cut isn't the superior one. Off the top of my head I can think of more `director's cuts' that seriously gently caress things up than I can of ones that really change the film for the better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
SubG posted:Actually, I can't think of that many instances in film at large in which the theatrical cut isn't the superior one. Off the top of my head I can think of more `director's cuts' that seriously gently caress things up than I can of ones that really change the film for the better. Yeah, I tend to be in that boat as well. Do yourself a favor and NEVER watch the extended cut of Walk Hard. It takes a pretty funny 90 minute comedy and turns it into a two hour movie with no pace whatsoever and tons of jokes that don't work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
SubG posted:Theatrical in every instance. I think there's a vocal faction that prefers the alternate version of the third as better. I'd say if you're actually interested, watch the theatrical cut and then just watch the additional scenes afterward. The director's cut of Aliens is worth seeing in a flesh-out-the-characters kind of way, but it just demolishes the pacing. I don't see, though, what you prefer about the original cut of Alien 3? Why do you like it more?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
SubG posted:Actually, I can't think of that many instances in film at large in which the theatrical cut isn't the superior one. Off the top of my head I can think of more `director's cuts' that seriously gently caress things up than I can of ones that really change the film for the better. Watchmen for character reasons, not length. But yeah, that's about all I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Quick question: I haven't watched any of the Alien movies in ages, and only seen Alien and Aliens. I just bought the Alien Anthology blu-ray set. There is a Theatrical and a Director's Cut or Special Edition for each. Which version should I watch of each of the four films? When I say 'should' I mean, is there a version of each that's blatantly better? While I prefer the theatrical versions I do like the use of watermarks to denote which scenes were added in the SE versions. I wish all DVDs/blu-rays did it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
SubG posted:Theatrical in every instance. I think there's a vocal faction that prefers the alternate version of the third as better. I'd say if you're actually interested, watch the theatrical cut and then just watch the additional scenes afterward. I was about to say that the LOTR extended cuts are better, but I think the only time I can think of where this undoubtedly the case is Return of the King.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The director's cut of Aliens is worth seeing in a flesh-out-the-characters kind of way, but it just demolishes the pacing. I don't see, though, what you prefer about the original cut of Alien 3? Why do you like it more? With the second film, I think the additional scenes are kinda interesting. I think the one with the sentry guns in particular helps support the narrative. But for the others---I don't think we need to know more about Newt than we learn in the theatrical cut, and I think the additional material with Ripley actually weakens the character, by making the motherhood parallels (between Ripley and the alien queen) explicit---which sorta implies that they're the only motivation Ripley might have had, which makes her a less compelling character. The real argument against them is what you point out though---the additional scenes really bog the film down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
For whatever reason I was thinking about Mrs. Doubtfire the other day and I remembered the VHS having a weird quirk where it changes aspect ratios. Like, it went from widescreen to pan & scan partway into the movie. Why would they have done this? Did this happen to a lot of movies in the VHS era?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
SubG posted:The real argument against them is what you point out though---the additional scenes really bog the film down. That's really the core problem with most director's cuts, isn't it. 9 times out of 10 (unless it's a censorship thing), stuff that's cut probably deserved to be cut. Apocalypse Now Redux took a stone-cold masterpiece and made it unwatchable, and the restored "definitive" Italian cut of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly basically added a few bathroom breaks. Like, that one scene with the chicken in GBU - what the gently caress was that? Leone in general tends to ramble a bit more than the medium can withstand, and that was the worst example of that trait. Not only do we not need to see how Tuco got that posse from a storytelling perspective, the inclusion of it is so shockingly uncinematic. I've never really heard it get much flak, but it's such a gratuitous and banal moment, it feels like a rejection of cinema's mastery over time, ya know? Like Leone suddenly forgot film technique all the way back to Edwin Porter's ellipses in The Great Train Robbery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
penismightier posted:That's really the core problem with most director's cuts, isn't it. 9 times out of 10 (unless it's a censorship thing), stuff that's cut probably deserved to be cut. Now I know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Apocalypse Now Redux took a stone-cold masterpiece and made it unwatchable, The only thing I'll say in defence of the Redux is the scene with Kurtz reading from Time magazine. I really, really enjoyed that and wish it was in the original version. Other than yeah, everything that was cut needed to be cut because it either doesn't make sense (why would Willard be a dick and steal Kilgore's board?) or slows the film to a complete stop (the french plantation.) I think the director's cuts of the various Alien films are worth watching for curiosity's sake, but I'd agree that the theatrical versions are better. If I remember right the DC of Alien is actually slightly shorter than the original, and it does have the interesting egg-making scene, but it totally goes against what we learn about the xenomorphs in Aliens which might bug you if you care about continuity. I actually quite like that scene just because the idea is really disturbing to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
GBU is a big one, but the "directors cut" that always pisses me off is Amadeus. One scene changes the audience's sympathy for one character for a good part of the movie for the worse, and it's a really unpleasant change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:GBU is a big one, but the "directors cut" that always pisses me off is Amadeus. One scene changes the audience's sympathy for one character for a good part of the movie for the worse, and it's a really unpleasant change. I've not seen the director's cut. What'd they change?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Apocalypse Now Redux took a stone-cold masterpiece and made it unwatchable, and the restored "definitive" Italian cut of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly basically added a few bathroom breaks. It drives me up the wall that the only way to see the 2:41 cut of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is on that old-rear end DVD. gently caress MGM for not even offering the option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
At the end of Green Lantern, why did Sinestro put on the yellow ring? There has to be a plausible reason besides his name being based off the worst sinister.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:GBU is a big one, but the "directors cut" that always pisses me off is Amadeus. One scene changes the audience's sympathy for one character for a good part of the movie for the worse, and it's a really unpleasant change. Yeah, I didn't realize that I was watching a "directors cut" when I saw that on DVD a couple of years ago. I was really put off when that scene came on and couldn't believe I didn't remember it from before. I then got really pissed after the movie was over when my friend told me you can't get the original cut on DVD. Plus, the movie doesn't need to be 20 minutes longer in the first place. NGL: It shows Salieri exchanging/blackmailing/forcing Mozart's wife to have sex with him in return for recommending Mozart to, um, something important. He first tells her to show up at his home, alone, that night. When she shows up, she strips and he has her thrown out of his house. If I remember correctly, in the original she asks for help, and he just flatly walks out of the room on her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
hog wizard posted:There has to be a plausible reason besides his name being based off the worst sinister.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
hog wizard posted:At the end of Green Lantern, why did Sinestro put on the yellow ring? There has to be a plausible reason besides his name being based off the worst sinister. Because it was a bad movie. The dopey "you already read the comic book" answer is something about jealousy and temptation or something but honestly it's portrayed with no more subtlety there either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Well, that's just terrible. And, yes, I am aware it's a comic book movie, but I really wanted there to be an actual reason. I guess I hoped for too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Yeah, you're supposed to believe that the yellow ring that feeds on fear is also supposed to be an incredible temptation but the movie doesn't even acknowledge its crib from Lord of the Rings to do a shorthand for this. It's just a given that you're familiar with these characters and automatically give a poo poo, instead of doing anything to make you care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Masa posted:For whatever reason I was thinking about Mrs. Doubtfire the other day and I remembered the VHS having a weird quirk where it changes aspect ratios. Like, it went from widescreen to pan & scan partway into the movie. Why would they have done this? Did this happen to a lot of movies in the VHS era? The credits last well into the first live-action scene, so I guess they opted to letterbox it from the beginning up until the credits. You'd think at that point, they'd just letterbox the entire movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
What about "The Shining?" I like the all of the cut scenes in the extended version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Yeah, I didn't realize that I was watching a "directors cut" when I saw that on DVD a couple of years ago. I was really put off when that scene came on and couldn't believe I didn't remember it from before. I then got really pissed after the movie was over when my friend told me you can't get the original cut on DVD. Plus, the movie doesn't need to be 20 minutes longer in the first place. In defense of the change in Amadeus, Salieri never intended to actually sleep with her (or for her to show up at all). He figured his offer would be so insulting that she would never ask for his help again. This is indicated by him then praying to god to show him a sign that he is in favor, and then becoming immediately mortified when his doorbell rings. It's a nuanced moment that can easily be misinterpreted as Salieri just being a vindictive sleazebag. The added scene with Mozart playing piano for the dogs, however, is just loving stupid and unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Apocalypse Now Redux took a stone-cold masterpiece and made it unwatchable[...]. Not counting Commando (1985). I think every single alternate version of the `let off some steam, Bennett' line ought to be edited in, in sequence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:In defense of the change in Amadeus, Salieri never intended to actually sleep with her (or for her to show up at all). He figured his offer would be so insulting that she would never ask for his help again. This is indicated by him then praying to god to show him a sign that he is in favor, and then becoming immediately mortified when his doorbell rings. It's a nuanced moment that can easily be misinterpreted as Salieri just being a vindictive sleazebag. Fair enough, I think I was so jarred that I sort of lost concentration. I remember him praying to god for a sign, I actually remember liking that scene, but I didn't remember at all that it was in connection with her showing up that night. I hardly even remember the dogs scene - I think I was already somewhat saddened by my friend telling me there was now way to see the original cut. I think by that point I just felt the entire director's cut pushed all of the characters farther into extremes. I liked wondering if Salieri was truly an evil bastard or simply was so conflicted with the divine coming from the (perhaps) vile. Maybe I should give it another chance, because I like semi-liking Salieri. Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Masa posted:For whatever reason I was thinking about Mrs. Doubtfire the other day and I remembered the VHS having a weird quirk where it changes aspect ratios. Like, it went from widescreen to pan & scan partway into the movie. Why would they have done this? Did this happen to a lot of movies in the VHS era? I think they would do it occasionally on movies where pan and scan screws up the composition even more than normal. I remember seeing Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet and they switch to widescreen for the priest's soliloquy and then back to pan and scan. I imagine it was pretty haphazardly done, I think Pulp Fiction does it too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:I then got really pissed after the movie was over when my friend told me you can't get the original cut on DVD. It must be OOP. I have the original cut on DVD. This may be it: http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Amadeus-DVD...id=p3286.c0.m14 Zogo fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It must be OOP. I have the original cut on DVD. Cool, I'm guessing you are right about it being OOP. This is what happens when I listen to friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
SubG posted:Yeah. And I do think it's cool to be able to see the additional footage that was shot and not included in the original theatrical cut. But that's a completely different thing from thinking they have any place in the film itself. I'm a little torn on Redux. I do find it to be inferior because of the French plantation scene. I would never show Redux to someone first. However, I really like the second playboy bunny scene (for reasons other than tits.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
edit: Moved to appropriate thread as I am retarded. Sorry.
Hollismason fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I think they would do it occasionally on movies where pan and scan screws up the composition even more than normal. I remember seeing Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet and they switch to widescreen for the priest's soliloquy and then back to pan and scan. I imagine it was pretty haphazardly done, I think Pulp Fiction does it too. There's a pan-and-scan VHS of Ghostbusters that pans around depending on who's talking, like if all four of them were walking somewhere and talking and Dan Akroyd was cropped out of the frame but started talking, the whole scene would pan over to include him and cut out Ernie Hudson. It's the closest a film has ever come to giving me motion sickness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There's a pan-and-scan VHS of Ghostbusters that pans around depending on who's talking, like if all four of them were walking somewhere and talking and Dan Akroyd was cropped out of the frame but started talking, the whole scene would pan over to include him and cut out Ernie Hudson. It's the closest a film has ever come to giving me motion sickness. The constant motion kills this scene in particular. What's a steady shot in the theatrical version in whipping back and forth. It definitely hurts the comedic timing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 19:21
|
|