shempmcgurk wrote: > Without the so-called "corporate monsters" you wouldn't have had the > product in the first place. > > Look, I'm with you; I want the director's cut, too...and we'll get it > in the secondary market when the DVD comes out. > > But don't badmouth the people who are putting up the money 'cause > without them you wouldn't have the product in the first place. > Indeed, if the director wanted ONLY his version to be shown, he could > have financed it himself, just like Mel Gibson did with "Passion" (a > film I've never seen and don't intend to). > > Think what you will about Mel, he never compromised on his artistic > integrity...but it cost him to do it. He was willing to put up 10s > of millions of his own money and, in his case, it paid off (he made > over $200 million on it). No studio wanted to touch a film that was > 100% in Aramaic. But Mel said "the hell with you" and mortgaged the > house to do it. > > More power to him! > > Apparently, your Babylon guy wasn't able or willing to do what Mel > did. Tough shit for him...and you. > > This reminds me of about 20 years ago when Martin Scorcese and Woody > Allen were yapping about artistic integrity because studios were > considering colorizing black and white films that were on video. > They yelled and screamed about it and even appeared before a > congressional committee about it. > > But whomever did the original Black and White version of films at > some point sold their rights to the studios. So the studios could > bloody well do what they wanted to them. > > And it was all a silly debate anyway. No technology existed then and > to this day it doesn't exist to colorize films; only a technology to > colorize VIDEOS of films existed, an entirely different medium from > the original films anyway. > > And, Bhairitu, who are you to say that Rupert Murdoch, being the > owner of the rights of a film, isn't any LESS creative and LESS > artistic if it is his choice -- from even a purely commerical > consideration -- to cut a film? Just because he sits in some > executive office somewhere makes him LESS of an artist than, say, > Bernardo Bertulucci? > > That's YOUR subjective call. Probably one I agree with you on but he > owns it, he can do what he wants to to the film. What really happens is that you have some executive level producers that makes a decision to put out a PG-13 version because they'll make more money in the theaters that or so they figure (BTW, this doesn't always work). Then they plan to have the film released "Unrated" or "Director's Cut" on DVD and BluRay. You should read the interview. The director wishes he had gone with another studio. He probably had other offers but 20th Century probably made the best offer. And when looking at other films they picked up (and didn't mess with) probably thought they wouldn't mess with his. But they did. It is a big budget production. There are scenes reminiscent of "Blade Runner" in it with over corporatized metropolitan areas basically using the sides of buildings a billboards. I wasn't expecting such a good film but since it was a French production and they weren't effected by the writer's strike and the script was actually pretty good from what you could tell after the whacking of the production.
Capitalists are left brained and do not make good artists. I don't want them messing with the arts. I watch a lot of films with the commentaries. A lot of directors have no idea whether a studio will mess with a film or not. One studio may leave one film alone and then turn around and mess with another one usually ruining it. You have a lot of kids getting into that business whose only credential is they graduated with honors from some big college or university. They don't know the first thing about the entertainment business. Why do you think we see so many remakes? Because in their ignorance they figure "it worked before so it has to work again." And often it doesn't. You know you're championing a capitalistic form of communism don't you?
