Hate Hollywood? More evidence.

[Ghost]

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22100

Here's a review from AICN about a director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven that played in a crappy LA theater. Apparently it's much betterthan the theatetrical release, aversion that Fox ordered pared down from Ridley Scott's first cut.Some things that the studio ordered cut out so it cou,ld get an extra showing everyday ... oh ... the fact that Balisan (O.Bloom) had a military background that would have explained why he was such a good warrior and why the hardened soldiers around his father would follow him into battle. I.e. one of the biggest problems with the fiilm. It also had scenes with Eva Green that actually showed some character development.

So why does hollywood double its box office problem by tuirning a long film bad, too?

[Foosinho]

So why does hollywood double its box office problem by tuirning a long film bad, too?
I dunno. It's really amazing what a difference adding (or removing) just a few scenes can make on the end result.

For example, I liked X-Men. Not high art, but interesting and amusing. I had rented it. Then, I noticed that it was going to be on FX, so I TiVo'd it to watch with my wife (who enjoyed Spiderman, so I thought it worth a shot). By Poku, the FX edit of the film was one of the worst movies I ever saw. Terrible. Cut out virtually all of the conflict scenes between Wolverine and Cyclops, resulting in the movie making virtually no sense. I actually apologized to my wife after it was over.

I just watched the deleted scenes from Star Wars Episode III, and the whole Padme/seeds of the rebellion subplot should have been left in.

Of course, there are plenty of "deleted scenes" that were rightly deleted. How the film is edited makes a tremendous difference on quality.

[_chachi]

I just watched the deleted scenes from Star Wars Episode III, and the whole Padme/seeds of the rebellion subplot should have been left in.

i agree. the "do you think we're on the wrong side?" scene with anakin would have made more sense.

[Foosinho]

i agree. the "do you think we're on the wrong side?" scene with anakin would have made more sense.
That was so frustrating - Lucas's commentary shows that he gets it, yet he chose to dumb-down the movie. Ack.

[oman]

I wish you guys controlled the editing of all these movies so that everything would be keen.

[oman]

I have to say, tales of misediting in the current age don't matter one bit. It's the old celuloid stories that really are sad. The one's about people leaving the premirer of "The Magnificient Ambersons" (original version) and 80 percent of the people hating it and 10% of the people saying it was by far the greatest movie they had ever seen. And then the studio destroying, not editing, much of the film.

I don't think its completely pointless to argue about poor editing choices but when they deal with movies like Star Wars or X-men it seems pretty silly.

[Claymore]

I've seen just as much "Director's Cut" crap, to be honest.

[Foosinho]

I don't think its completely pointless to argue about poor editing choices but when they deal with movies like Star Wars or X-men it seems pretty silly.
Oh, absolutely. Just two movies I saw (again) recently.

Of course, I'm having a hard time picking out a great movie (or could-have-been great) that was ruined by editing. I can point at Jersey Girl (which I just watched for the first time last week) as a cute movie that really worked because Smith made it about Ollie and his daughter Gertie, rather than Ollie and Maya. A few little edits, and that film could have turned out much different (and much worse).

One could point at Brazil as a vivid example of studio battling with the director to the detriment of the movie. IIRC, the same could be said for Blade Runner.

[bojendyk]

I don't think its completely pointless to argue about poor editing choices but when they deal with movies like Star Wars or X-men it seems pretty silly.

Definitely. It's not like George Lucas or Bryan Singer engaged in epic battles with the studios over these editing decisions. Neither has cried to the press about how their artistic vision was compromised. These so-called "director's cuts" were created as a means of selling DVDs.

[Foosinho]

I've seen just as much "Director's Cut" crap, to be honest.
Absolutely. Lots of scenes deserve to be cut, and are. Sometimes, adding those back in (or re-editing) for a "director's cut" flops miserably. The cut scenes from Gladiator were, IMO, wisely cut. It's been a few years since I've watched them, but I can't recall a single scene that belonged in the movie that ended up cut.

I love the fact that they keep this stuff and make it available on the DVDs nowadays. Opens up such a window into the process. Actually, there is a great feature-length documentary on Episode III that shows everything that goes into a scene in the movie. Fascinating.

[Via_Chicago]

Definitely. It's not like George Lucas or Bryan Singer engaged in epic battles with the studios over these editing decisions. Neither has cried to the press about how their artistic vision was compromised. These so-called "director's cuts" were created as a means of selling DVDs.

George Lucas has only released a director's cut of THX 1138. Deleted Scenes from his Star Wars prequel pictures are available for viewing on the DVD editions; however, Lucas is quite clear why he did not include these in his pictures, and I tend to agree. Just FYI. Besides, Lucas wouldn't have to have an epic battle, he is the studio.

Oh, and about Kingdom of Heaven, I don't think an extra hour would do anything for that movie. Not only was its plot practically incomprehensible for the first hour, but the weak central performance coupled with appallingly bad history, made it the most awful experience I had with a movie this year. I don't think I could've handled another hour.

[Foosinho]

Oh, and about Kingdom of Heaven, I don't think an extra hour would do anything for that movie. Not only was its plot practically incomprehensible for the first hour, but the weak central performance coupled with appallingly bad history, made it the most awful experience I had with a movie this year. I don't think I could've handled another hour.
I've not seen KoH, so I can't speak directly to it, but the FX television edit of X-Men is the most dramatic example I've ever seen of the power of a bad edit to sink a film.

There is a lot more to a good movie than capable actors and pretty cinematography.

[oman]

Like writing for instance.

I hate movies which are poorly written, unless they are directed by sick ********s.

[Daniel from Montréal]

Not quite the same thing, but I saw Jersey Girl on the plane once. Try replacing all the swear words in it. It's ridiculous. They should have just showed some G-rated fluff (which is what they do anyways).

A climactic moment: Ben Affleck calls the daughter a little bitch. On the plane it became little brat. And of course, I'm not sure I actually heard George Carlin's real voice during the whole movie... :o

[_chachi]

Not quite the same thing, but I saw Jersey Girl on the plane once. Try replacing all the swear words in it. It's ridiculous. They should have just showed some G-rated fluff (which is what they do anyways).

A climactic moment: Ben Affleck calls the daughter a little bitch. On the plane it became little brat. And of course, I'm not sure I actually heard George Carlin's real voice during the whole movie... :o

carlin and smith were on ifc's dinner for five where they discussed how ridiculous the rules are for airline movie languages. you can say "i'm pissed off", but you can't say "i just pissed my pants." also, you can't say "oh god!", but you can say "oh satan!"