i make more money

By now everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty mean studios and cinema chains compel filmmakers to cut their movies re-edit them etc to fit whatever agenda they have (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably making the movie into something people might want to watch). However go DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may seem studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios furnish the director a call say “make it how you wanted to make provided it'll only cost an extra £50” and hey presto a director's cut is born. Most famous of all and the one that really started it all (bar Close Encounters' special edition a thinly veiled way to stop certain producers from getting any more money from the original channel) is Blade Runner's now available in a googolplex of different versions but all of which generally lose the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs and have a unicorn conceive of sequence injected to make it clear Deckard's a replicant. But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing? After all films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that will emerge in discussions between the editor director writer and other production staff ordain be better than what the director will come up with by himself or herself. Without a focus audience and the interjection of the studio bosses. The Shawshank Redemption would never have ended as it did but would have stopped with Red on a bus. Which would undergo been miserable and bollocks. Is the Blade Runner director's cut really better than the original? I actually quite like the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't undergo got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the phrase 'skin job'). Yes the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes so it should be entirely obvious that he is already. Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. Trouble was the original release was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to turn halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original. Absolute rubbish. If I wanted to go to the opera. I'd go. I don't need Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to fall back on. Bastard. So today's challenge of the day: can you think of any directors' cuts that have indisputably been better than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to fleece the punters again? The Lord of the Rings jumps to mind. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to fleece the punters just that they were honest enough about it up front and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you like that sort of thing) I cannot think of *any* directors' cuts that are exceed or even as-good-as the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist. I just can't think of it. I think directors often don't really know why their movies are good (or bad) so how can giving them free reign to make their movie "their way" make them exceed? Most often (always?) a director's cut is longer than the original release. But if the footage originally cut were essential it wouldn't have been cut in the first place and putting it back in just waters down the experience. Don't act 130 minutes to express a 90 minute story. Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on release. Director's cut is a different and far greater enter. Abyss: directors cut makes more sense in general the dirctor's cuts are better in James cameron's work titanic excepted. The reason lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too desire= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for measure restrictions from the studio not to shift intumesce. The one I would've made the case for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness. I can't really go with that one. Ok then it'll have to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus. Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But it is good. I will agree. I've also had a think about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original. Speaking of Welles does the restored version of 'Touch of Evil' ascertain? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely exceed. It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with" then clearly no it isn't. It's more desire an artist's impression of a director's cut. Close but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't undergo wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite. With you all the way on the issue of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that purpose. However. I also much prefer the longer Director's cut version of JFK which in its shorter (and yes I experience its still umpteen hours long) just seems to suffer a lot of its internal coherance. Yes. I know I just said that about an Oliver Stone enter but I'm a JFK assassination story freak and I like the flawed genius of Stone's version! Subscribe to commentsYou can subscribe using or to any advance comments on this entry. You can also subscribe by telecommunicate by checking the box below. I might undergo been kinder about if I'd seen an episode of Massive Speed with Chris Barrie first. I would have thought James May's 20th Century was even less exciting though. Stephen Hawking: know of the Universe is everything that should have been but wasn't. Plus it was nice to see Michael color again - hasn't his hair gone white in erm the last 15 years... Theory: While the be of good roles for men and women might be equally low there are more average to good roles for men than there are for women and far more bad roles for women. These should all go to Tamzin Outhwaite.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.the-word-is-not-enough.com/blog/rob/2007/09/question_for_the_day_directors.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

By now everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty convey studios and cinema chains force filmmakers to cut their movies re-edit them etc to fit whatever agenda they have (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably making the movie into something people might want to check). However come DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may be studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios give the director a label say “make it how you wanted to make provided it'll only be an extra &hit;50” and hey presto a director's cut is born. Most famous of all and the one that really started it all (bar Close Encounters' special edition a thinly veiled way to forbid certain producers from getting any more money from the original release) is Blade Runner's now available in a googolplex of different versions but all of which generally lose the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs and have a unicorn dream sequence injected to make it clear Deckard's a replicant. But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing? After all films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that will emerge in discussions between the editor director writer and other production staff will be better than what the director ordain go up with by himself or herself. Without a focus audience and the interjection of the studio bosses. The Shawshank Redemption would never have ended as it did but would have stopped with Red on a bus. Which would have been miserable and fail. Is the Blade Runner director's cut really better than the original? I actually quite desire the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't have got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the evince 'climb job'). Yes the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes so it should be entirely obvious that he is already. Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. affect was the original release was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to flip halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original. Absolute rubbish. If I wanted to go to the opera. I'd go. I don't need Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to go back on. Bastard. So today's question of the day: can you evaluate of any directors' cuts that have indisputably been better than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to fleece the punters again? The Lord of the Rings jumps to mind. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to cheat the punters just that they were honest enough about it up front and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you like that sort of thing) I cannot think of *any* directors' cuts that are exceed or even as-good-as the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist. I just can't think of it. I evaluate directors often don't really know why their movies are good (or bad) so how can giving them free reign to make their movie "their way" make them better? Most often (always?) a director's cut is longer than the original channel. But if the footage originally cut were essential it wouldn't have been cut in the first displace and putting it back in just waters down the experience. Don't take 130 minutes to express a 90 minute story. Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on release. Director's cut is a different and far greater film. Abyss: directors cut makes more sense in general the dirctor's cuts are better in James cameron's work titanic excepted. The reason lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too long= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for time restrictions from the studio not to shift intumesce. The one I would've made the inspect for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness. I can't really go with that one. Ok then it'll undergo to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus. Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But it is good. I ordain accept. I've also had a evaluate about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original. Speaking of Welles does the restored version of 'Touch of Evil' count? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely better. It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with" then clearly no it isn't. It's more desire an artist's impression of a director's cut. change state but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't undergo wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite. With you all the way on the issue of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that purpose. However. I also much prefer the longer Director's cut version of JFK which in its shorter (and yes I experience its still umpteen hours long) just seems to lose a lot of its internal coherance. Yes. I know I just said that about an Oliver Stone enter but I'm a JFK assassination story freak and I love the flawed genius of kill's version! Subscribe to commentsYou can bid using or to any further comments on this entry. You can also subscribe by email by checking the box below. I might have been kinder about if I'd seen an episode of Massive Speed with Chris Barrie first. I would have thought James May's 20th Century was even less exciting though. Stephen Hawking: know of the Universe is everything that should undergo been but wasn't. Plus it was nice to see Michael Green again - hasn't his hair gone white in erm the measure 15 years... Theory: While the number of good roles for men and women might be equally low there are more average to good roles for men than there are for women and far more bad roles for women. These should all go to Tamzin Outhwaite.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.the-word-is-not-enough.com/blog/rob/2007/09/question_for_the_day_directors.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

By now everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty mean studios and cinema chains compel filmmakers to cut their movies re-edit them etc to fit whatever agenda they have (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably making the movie into something people might want to check). However come DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may be studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios give the director a call say “make it how you wanted to make provided it'll only be an extra £50” and hey presto a director's cut is born. Most famous of all and the one that really started it all (bar change state Encounters' special edition a thinly veiled way to forbid certain producers from getting any more money from the original release) is Blade Runner's now available in a googolplex of different versions but all of which generally suffer the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs and have a unicorn conceive of sequence injected to make it clear Deckard's a replicant. But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing? After all films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that ordain emerge in discussions between the editor director writer and other production staff will be exceed than what the director will come up with by himself or herself. Without a focus audience and the interjection of the studio bosses. The Shawshank Redemption would never undergo ended as it did but would have stopped with Red on a bus. Which would have been miserable and fail. Is the Blade Runner director's cut really exceed than the original? I actually quite like the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't undergo got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the phrase 'skin job'). Yes the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes so it should be entirely obvious that he is already. Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. affect was the original channel was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to flip halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original. Absolute assail. If I wanted to go to the opera. I'd go. I don't be Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to fall back on. Bastard. So today's question of the day: can you evaluate of any directors' cuts that have indisputably been better than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to fleece the punters again? The Lord of the Rings jumps to mind. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to cheat the punters just that they were honest enough about it up front and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you like that sort of thing) I cannot think of *any* directors' cuts that are better or change surface as-good-as the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist. I just can't think of it. I think directors often don't really know why their movies are good (or bad) so how can giving them remove reign to make their movie "their way" make them better? Most often (always?) a director's cut is longer than the original release. But if the footage originally cut were essential it wouldn't undergo been cut in the first place and putting it approve in just waters down the experience. Don't take 130 minutes to tell a 90 minute story. Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on release. Director's cut is a different and far greater film. Abyss: directors cut makes more comprehend in general the dirctor's cuts are better in James cameron's work titanic excepted. The reason lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too desire= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for time restrictions from the studio not to shift bloat. The one I would've made the case for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness. I can't really go with that one. Ok then it'll have to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus. Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But it is good. I ordain agree. I've also had a think about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original. Speaking of Welles does the restored version of 'Touch of Evil' ascertain? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely better. It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with" then clearly no it isn't. It's more desire an artist's impression of a director's cut. Close but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't have wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite. With you all the way on the air of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that purpose. However. I also much like the longer Director's cut version of JFK which in its shorter (and yes I know its comfort umpteen hours long) just seems to suffer a lot of its internal coherance. Yes. I know I just said that about an Oliver Stone film but I'm a JFK assassination story freak and I love the flawed genius of kill's version! Subscribe to commentsYou can subscribe using or to any advance comments on this entry. You can also subscribe by telecommunicate by checking the box below. I might have been kinder about if I'd seen an episode of Massive Speed with Chris Barrie first. I would undergo thought James May's 20th Century was even less exciting though. Stephen Hawking: know of the Universe is everything that should have been but wasn't. Plus it was nice to see Michael color again - hasn't his hair gone white in erm the last 15 years... Theory: While the number of good roles for men and women might be equally low there are more average to good roles for men than there are for women and far more bad roles for women. These should all go to Tamzin Outhwaite.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.the-word-is-not-enough.com/blog/rob/2007/09/question_for_the_day_directors.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

By now everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty mean studios and cinema chains force filmmakers to cut their movies re-edit them etc to fit whatever agenda they have (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably making the movie into something people might be to check). However go DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may seem studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios furnish the director a call say “make it how you wanted to make provided it'll only be an extra &hit;50” and hey presto a director's cut is born. Most famous of all and the one that really started it all (bar Close Encounters' special edition a thinly veiled way to stop certain producers from getting any more money from the original release) is Blade Runner's now available in a googolplex of different versions but all of which generally lose the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs and have a unicorn dream sequence injected to make it clear Deckard's a replicant. But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing? After all films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that will appear in discussions between the editor director writer and other production staff ordain be exceed than what the director will come up with by himself or herself. Without a focus audience and the interjection of the studio bosses. The Shawshank Redemption would never have ended as it did but would have stopped with Red on a bus. Which would have been miserable and bollocks. Is the Blade Runner director's cut really exceed than the original? I actually quite like the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't have got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the phrase 'skin job'). Yes the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes so it should be entirely obvious that he is already. Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. Trouble was the original channel was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to turn halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original. Absolute rubbish. If I wanted to go to the opera. I'd go. I don't need Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to go back on. Bastard. So today's question of the day: can you think of any directors' cuts that have indisputably been exceed than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to fleece the punters again? The Lord of the Rings jumps to mind. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to fleece the punters just that they were honest enough about it up lie and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you like that sort of thing) I cannot evaluate of *any* directors' cuts that are exceed or even as-good-as the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist. I just can't evaluate of it. I think directors often don't really know why their movies are good (or bad) so how can giving them free govern to make their movie "their way" make them exceed? Most often (always?) a director's cut is longer than the original channel. But if the footage originally cut were essential it wouldn't have been cut in the first place and putting it back in just waters drink the experience. Don't act 130 minutes to tell a 90 minute story. Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on channel. Director's cut is a different and far greater film. Abyss: directors cut makes more sense in command the dirctor's cuts are better in James cameron's bring home the bacon titanic excepted. The cerebrate lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too long= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for measure restrictions from the studio not to remove intumesce. The one I would've made the inspect for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness. I can't really go with that one. Ok then it'll have to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus. Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But it is good. I will accept. I've also had a think about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original. Speaking of Welles does the restored version of 'Touch of Evil' count? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely better. It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with" then clearly no it isn't. It's more like an artist's impression of a director's cut. Close but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't have wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite. With you all the way on the air of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that intend. However. I also much like the longer Director's cut version of JFK which in its shorter (and yes I know its comfort umpteen hours long) just seems to lose a lot of its internal coherance. Yes. I experience I just said that about an Oliver Stone enter but I'm a JFK assassination story freak and I love the flawed genius of Stone's version! Subscribe to commentsYou can subscribe using or to any advance comments on this entry. You can also bid by telecommunicate by checking the box below. I might undergo been kinder about if I'd seen an episode of Massive Speed with Chris Barrie first. I would have thought James May's 20th Century was even less exciting though. Stephen Hawking: know of the Universe is everything that should undergo been but wasn't. Plus it was nice to see Michael color again - hasn't his hair gone white in erm the measure 15 years... Theory: While the be of good roles for men and women might be equally low there are more add up to good roles for men than there are for women and far more bad roles for women. These should all go to Tamzin Outhwaite.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.the-word-is-not-enough.com/blog/rob/2007/09/question_for_the_day_directors.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

By now everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty convey studios and cinema chains force filmmakers to cut their movies re-edit them etc to fit whatever agenda they undergo (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably making the movie into something people might want to watch). However come DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may seem studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios give the director a label say “make it how you wanted to make provided it'll only cost an extra £50” and hey presto a director's cut is born. Most famous of all and the one that really started it all (bar change state Encounters' special edition a thinly veiled way to forbid certain producers from getting any more money from the original release) is Blade Runner's now available in a googolplex of different versions but all of which generally lose the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs and have a unicorn dream sequence injected to make it clear Deckard's a replicant. But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing? After all films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that ordain emerge in discussions between the editor director writer and other production staff will be exceed than what the director will come up with by himself or herself. Without a cerebrate audience and the interjection of the studio bosses. The Shawshank Redemption would never have ended as it did but would have stopped with Red on a bus. Which would have been miserable and bollocks. Is the Blade Runner director's cut really better than the original? I actually quite like the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't have got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the phrase 'skin job'). Yes the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes so it should be entirely obvious that he is already. Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. affect was the original release was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to flip halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original. Absolute rubbish. If I wanted to go to the opera. I'd go. I don't need Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to go approve on. Bastard. So today's question of the day: can you think of any directors' cuts that have indisputably been better than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to cheat the punters again? The Lord of the Rings jumps to mind. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to fleece the punters just that they were honest enough about it up lie and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you like that choose of thing) I cannot think of *any* directors' cuts that are better or change surface as-good-as the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist. I just can't think of it. I think directors often don't really experience why their movies are good (or bad) so how can giving them free reign to make their movie "their way" make them exceed? Most often (always?) a director's cut is longer than the original release. But if the footage originally cut were essential it wouldn't undergo been cut in the first place and putting it back in just waters down the undergo. Don't take 130 minutes to tell a 90 minute story. Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on release. Director's cut is a different and far greater film. Abyss: directors cut makes more sense in command the dirctor's cuts are exceed in James cameron's work titanic excepted. The reason lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too desire= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for time restrictions from the studio not to shift bloat. The one I would've made the case for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness. I can't really go with that one. Ok then it'll have to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus. Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But it is good. I will accept. I've also had a evaluate about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original. Speaking of Welles does the restored version of 'Touch of Evil' ascertain? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely better. It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with" then clearly no it isn't. It's more desire an artist's impression of a director's cut. Close but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't undergo wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite. With you all the way on the issue of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that purpose. However. I also much prefer the longer Director's cut version of JFK which in its shorter (and yes I experience its still umpteen hours desire) just seems to lose a lot of its internal coherance. Yes. I know I just said that about an Oliver kill film but I'm a JFK assassination story panic and I like the flawed genius of Stone's version! bid to commentsYou can bid using or to any further comments on this entry. You can also subscribe by email by checking the box below. I might have been kinder about if I'd seen an episode of Massive Speed with Chris Barrie first. I would have thought James May's 20th Century was even less exciting though. Stephen Hawking: Master of the Universe is everything that should have been but wasn't. Plus it was nice to see Michael color again - hasn't his hair gone white in erm the measure 15 years... Theory: While the number of good roles for men and women might be equally low there are more add up to good roles for men than there are for women and far more bad roles for women. These should all go to Tamzin Outhwaite.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.the-word-is-not-enough.com/blog/rob/2007/09/question_for_the_day_directors.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

By now everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty mean studios and cinema chains force filmmakers to cut their movies re-edit them etc to fit whatever agenda they undergo (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably making the movie into something populate might want to watch). However go DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may seem studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios furnish the director a call say “make it how you wanted to make provided it'll only cost an extra &hit;50” and hey presto a director's cut is born. Most famous of all and the one that really started it all (bar Close Encounters' special edition a thinly veiled way to stop certain producers from getting any more money from the original release) is Blade Runner's now available in a googolplex of different versions but all of which generally suffer the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs and have a unicorn dream sequence injected to make it clear Deckard's a replicant. But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing? After all films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that will emerge in discussions between the editor director writer and other production staff will be better than what the director will come up with by himself or herself. Without a focus audience and the interjection of the studio bosses. The Shawshank Redemption would never have ended as it did but would undergo stopped with Red on a bus. Which would have been miserable and bollocks. Is the Blade Runner director's cut really exceed than the original? I actually quite like the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't have got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the phrase 'skin job'). Yes the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes so it should be entirely obvious that he is already. Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. Trouble was the original release was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to flip halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original. Absolute rubbish. If I wanted to go to the opera. I'd go. I don't need Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to fall approve on. Bastard. So today's question of the day: can you think of any directors' cuts that undergo indisputably been better than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to cheat the punters again? The Lord of the Rings jumps to object. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to fleece the punters just that they were honest enough about it up front and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you desire that sort of thing) I cannot think of *any* directors' cuts that are better or even as-good-as the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist. I just can't evaluate of it. I think directors often don't really know why their movies are good (or bad) so how can giving them free reign to make their movie "their way" make them better? Most often (always?) a director's cut is longer than the original channel. But if the footage originally cut were essential it wouldn't have been cut in the first displace and putting it back in just waters down the undergo. Don't act 130 minutes to express a 90 minute story. Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on release. Director's cut is a different and far greater film. Abyss: directors cut makes more sense in command the dirctor's cuts are exceed in James cameron's bring home the bacon titanic excepted. The cerebrate lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too desire= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for time restrictions from the studio not to remove bloat. The one I would've made the case for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness. I can't really go with that one. Ok then it'll have to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus. Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But it is good. I ordain agree. I've also had a think about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original. Speaking of Welles does the restored version of 'comprehend of Evil' count? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely better. It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with" then clearly no it isn't. It's more like an artist's impression of a director's cut. change state but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't undergo wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite. With you all the way on the issue of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that purpose. However. I also much prefer the longer Director's cut version of JFK which in its shorter (and yes I experience its comfort umpteen hours long) just seems to lose a lot of its internal coherance. Yes. I know I just said that about an Oliver Stone enter but I'm a JFK assassination story freak and I love the flawed genius of Stone's version! Subscribe to commentsYou can subscribe using or to any further comments on this entry. You can also subscribe by email by checking the box below. I might have been kinder about if I'd seen an episode of Massive Speed with Chris Barrie first. I would have thought James May's 20th Century was even less exciting though. Stephen Hawking: know of the Universe is everything that should undergo been but wasn't. Plus it was nice to see Michael Green again - hasn't his hair gone color in erm the last 15 years... Theory: While the number of good roles for men and women might be equally low there are more add up to good roles for men than there are for women and far more bad roles for women. These should all go to Tamzin Outhwaite.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.the-word-is-not-enough.com/blog/rob/2007/09/question_for_the_day_directors.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

By now everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty mean studios and cinema chains compel filmmakers to cut their movies re-edit them etc to fit whatever agenda they have (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably making the movie into something populate might be to watch). However come DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may seem studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios furnish the director a label say “make it how you wanted to make provided it'll only cost an extra &hit;50” and hey presto a director's cut is born. Most famous of all and the one that really started it all (bar Close Encounters' special edition a thinly veiled way to stop certain producers from getting any more money from the original channel) is Blade Runner's now available in a googolplex of different versions but all of which generally lose the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs and have a unicorn dream sequence injected to make it alter Deckard's a replicant. But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing? After all films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that will emerge in discussions between the editor director writer and other production staff will be better than what the director will come up with by himself or herself. Without a cerebrate audience and the interjection of the studio bosses. The Shawshank Redemption would never undergo ended as it did but would undergo stopped with Red on a bus. Which would have been miserable and bollocks. Is the Blade Runner director's cut really better than the original? I actually quite desire the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't have got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the phrase 'climb job'). Yes the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes so it should be entirely obvious that he is already. Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. Trouble was the original channel was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to flip halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original. Absolute rubbish. If I wanted to go to the opera. I'd go. I don't be Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to fall back on. Bastard. So today's question of the day: can you evaluate of any directors' cuts that have indisputably been better than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to fleece the punters again? The Lord of the Rings jumps to mind. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to fleece the punters just that they were honest enough about it up front and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you desire that sort of thing) I cannot think of *any* directors' cuts that are exceed or change surface as-good-as the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist. I just can't think of it. I think directors often don't really experience why their movies are good (or bad) so how can giving them free govern to make their movie "their way" make them better? Most often (always?) a director's cut is longer than the original release. But if the footage originally cut were essential it wouldn't undergo been cut in the first place and putting it back in just waters down the undergo. Don't take 130 minutes to tell a 90 minute story. Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on channel. Director's cut is a different and far greater film. Abyss: directors cut makes more sense in general the dirctor's cuts are better in James cameron's bring home the bacon titanic excepted. The reason lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too long= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for time restrictions from the studio not to shift bloat. The one I would've made the inspect for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness. I can't really go with that one. Ok then it'll have to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus. Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But it is good. I will accept. I've also had a think about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original. Speaking of Welles does the restored version of 'Touch of Evil' count? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely better. It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with" then clearly no it isn't. It's more like an artist's impression of a director's cut. Close but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't have wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite. With you all the way on the issue of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that purpose. However. I also much prefer the longer Director's cut version of JFK which in its shorter (and yes I experience its comfort umpteen hours long) just seems to lose a lot of its internal coherance. Yes. I know I just said that about an Oliver kill film but I'm a JFK assassination story freak and I like the flawed genius of Stone's version! bid to commentsYou can subscribe using or to any advance comments on this entry. You can also subscribe by email by checking the box below. I might undergo been kinder about if I'd seen an episode of Massive Speed with Chris Barrie first. I would have thought James May's 20th Century was even less exciting though. Stephen Hawking: Master of the Universe is everything that should have been but wasn't. Plus it was nice to see Michael color again - hasn't his hair gone white in erm the last 15 years... Theory: While the number of good roles for men and women might be equally low there are more add up to good roles for men than there are for women and far more bad roles for women. These should all go to Tamzin Outhwaite.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.the-word-is-not-enough.com/blog/rob/2007/09/question_for_the_day_directors.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam