Honestly the real tragedy in the case of Once Upon A Time In America is that the stress of all the lawsuits and fighting with the studio took a massive toll on Leone’s health and he died only 5 years after it came out from a heart attack. According to people he knew him, that sharp decline in his health started during his back and forth with the studio
Thanks to the now gone Z Channel cable system , subscribers got to see the original Once Upon A Time In America unedited . It got great reviews . This wasn't the only movie that the Z Channel salvaged and saved from producers . The Z Channel also was the only cable channel that showed the original Heaven's Gate and it also got great reviews .
Especially as he had so many more projects that he was working on. Considering he had cut it once, I'm sure if the studio had worked with him a bit closer, they could've arrived at a happy medium. But hacking off more than an hour of content is insane, especially when you considering the wide disparity in how the two cuts were reviewed.
@@Syntopikon yeah he was only 60 when he passed, so sometimes I wonder what else he would have accomplished. That being said, what a high note to go out on. It’s a brilliant movie
@@carsinruin6102 yeah, it is about really disgusting people! That’s the whole point. And it can be challenging to watch at many points Spoilers to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie and are reading the comments: The main characters are never portrayed as good people, quite the opposite. The whole story shows that, in reality, people with that much power often lead miserable lives behind closed doors. Noodles looses everything in his life, and we see Max at the end on the verge of losing everything asking to be shot near the end. Even if they live great lives for a few years, it all fizzles out eventually and for the rest of their lives all they’re filled with is regret over past actions for decades to come
In the end it all depends on each project and it’s creative, if I was a producer working with Zack Snyder I would keep an eye on him 24/7. Sometimes producers need to exist to keep people in check. Alot Amazing directiors let their ego take control sometimes
That's a fair point, and I think Zack Snyder and Damien Chazelle might be good representatives of directors that indulge themselves a bit. But it should, in most cases, be a light touch (I think some friction is good for any creative endeavor). I think the problems really start, as you noted in your other comment, when, the producer exerts too much control - as in the case of Dune and Once Upon a Time in America, where massive cuts are made without the directors permission or even trying to communicate with them.
@@Syntopikon Thing is, films these days have one shot to make back the investors' money. In the past if a film wasn't a massive hit at the theatre they could claw it back from video rentals and sales. And if you're talking about $100-$200m worth of investors' money I can see where a lot of nervousness comes from. Fundamentally the studio system is an ocean liner in a jet plane world, and it really needs to change. They really should trust the director, because surely it's all scripted and story boarded long before the cameras start rolling?
You forgot about The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), staring Clint Eastwood. Eastwood fired Philip Kaufman (the director) and took the directors duties for himself. This case is so infamous that the Director's Guild of America made a new rule, known as "the Eastwood Rule", which prohibits an actor or producer from firing the director and then personally taking on the director's role.
David Lynch is legit. Weird, but legit. He only sold out once, and that was Dune. And he's the first to admit it too. Since then he's just done his own thing, and he's done some amazing stuff. Not necessarily popular or accessible, but in my opinion honest. His ideas, his work. He doesn't take himself too seriously either, voicing himself in shows like Family Guy.
@@s3.14dervision Yeah, he's always struck me an as authentic eccentric, as opposed to an affected eccentric (like Tim Burton). He's been the same for decades, and I freaking love it.
He's definitely one of the most interesting filmmakers around. I know he said he sold out, but I'm not so sure myself. I think he did in that he didn't have final cut, but he was still able to imbue Dune with his own weirdness. I think the bigger issue was that the movie, at the time, was unadaptable if you wanted to do it in one movie. It's like trying to do LOTR in 1 or even 2 movies - near impossible, irrespective of the filmmakers skill.
My brother, a film editor, told me about what it's called when the producer walks into the cutting room and insists on a change that makes no sense in the movie, but gives him the ability to claim he was in on the creative vision. It's called pissing on the film.
How no studio executives didn’t see the absolute brilliance of Sergio Leone at the time is mind blowing, even award shows didn’t recognise his talent. The good the bad and the ugly along with once upon a time in the west are in my opinion his two greatest movies that at the time were just seen as spaghetti westerns and not masterpieces which in absolutely nuts
Marvel and DC spend hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a movie and entrust a director to bring his creative vision from script to screen. For producers and studios to leave the director out of critical intentions for the film is reckless, and makes for a disjointed, incoherent story. It's tantamount to having a racecar driver winning a race, only to have his lead sponsor CEO take over to drive the final lap.
That's a solid analogy. I think what Alan Taylor said re: Thor: The Dark World - that he was able to shoot as he wanted but was run roughshod in the editing room - is a particularly pernicious issue, and that's a place where Marvel & DC can improve going forward. If a director and writer are good enough to hand them millions to bring a script to life, they should trust in their skill to bring it to the silver screen. I can understand some issues here and there - and that's totally fine - but they need to have more faith in the filmmakers, and in audiences.
@@Syntopikon Absolutely. If the director is invalidated, why hire a director at all? I can't imagine all of the CEOs agreeing on everything either, so the story becomes a patch quilt to accommodate every big wig idea which will only ensure a film that fails. The only producers who should be included into the creative process is a person who the director knows and trusts, they have a proven track record as a producer, or were once a successful director who knows what the creative process is like.
To be fair, the studios *do* set up the criteria they want when a project starts, and if the delivered film goes outside of those criteria, what choice is there but to chop it down? “Cleopatra” is a go-to example when the studio wanted a three hour movie, and the director handed in a six hour movie. (Which was evidently very good, but which no one has seen since the initial screening) The studio compromised and made a four hour cut, which is pretty good, and which has the distinction of being both the biggest box office of the year, and also the biggest bomb of the year. Everyone went to see it, but at four hours they could only show it twice a day, and it cost so much they couldn’t possibly make money in it. The unfortunate thing is that these longer cuts often weren’t preserved because there was no concept of an aftermarket where longer cuts could be shown. I think the first movie to really make use of that was Dances With Wolves, which had a three hour cinematic release, and a four hour VHS release a year later.
Cleopatra is certainly an amusing case, as Fox was still able to make its money back by selling the television rights, but you make a good and valid point: most of this is contractual and the studio does indeed have final say unless the director has negotiated otherwise. But I think it's more of a measure of whether or not a studio should try to find a compromise position as opposed to unilaterally altering the film without conferring with the director.
Hey man, I love your videos and I’m glad the channel seems to be growing. You make great content and the visual editing is always dope. One thing tho, a lot of times your voice sounds very muffled and I’m wondering if you have a really heavy pop filter or something. I usually have to turn my tv up by 10 to make out what you’re saying throughout the vid. Seriously though, love your content, keep it up.
Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, there's a pretty thick & heavy pop filter on my mic, but my recording environment's not particularly conducive either. I'm going to be experimenting more with the audio over the next few videos and do some post-production on it (beyond noise reduction and de-clicking, I haven't done much).
@@Syntopikon hey I really like your channel by the way, it got recommended thanks to my obsession with Bullets and Blockbusters a bit of a similar thing. But I've learned so much from your 20 minute videos I hope this chan blows up even further
One of the early instances of studio interference is Orson Welles “Magnificent Ambersons”. Orson finished the movie, it was quite long, then went to Europe for another project. The studio “hired a guy with a lawnmower” to edit it down and butchered what might have been a masterpiece.
I think the saddest part of the MCU is the way they treat their directors by using a pre-viz studio to make the complete film. Yes, pre-viz has been a part of filmmaking for a long time, but the way Marvel utilizes it is disrespectful toward the directors. This is something that Lucrecia Martel had to deal with when she was approached to direct Black Widow, and the studio told her that she didn't need to worry about directing the action scenes. Of course, she was expecting to be in charge of that as well, naturally. That's my concern about Marvel: why do they need directors if their vision will be limited or not to be needed at all?
I think this is something that goes back to the time of the prequels. I recall reading in The Star Wars Archives Episodes 1-3 by Paul Duncan, that Liam Neeson said that pretty much all the work was done for him. He was shown exactly what he should do, where he should go, how he'd be directed, etc. It takes a lot of the spontaneity out of a performance, and that's one of the best things about a film. I can understand using it in certain cases, especially if it's a complex or large scale sequence, but the Nesson scene was just walking and talking. Hardly something that needs to be laid out in such detail beforehand.
Great video analysis. While "stolen from Directors" may be an overstatement, 99.9% of Directors don't own the films they make. The studio / production company / finaciers do. When Directors sign contracts with studio / financiers, they're bound by those agreements. If they go over budget, don't have final cut, or refuse to collaborate with the studio creatively, they can be fired from their own film, just like any employee. Final Cut is a proviledge employed by the selected few, even the most celebrated filmmakers don't make their best films with absolute authority.
@@stellviahohenheim All you "auteurs" can resort to making your low-budget iPhone projects and maintain all the control you want, but where are you going to find an audience to pay your bills? Make a successful movie, collect 100 million dollars and create your own studio like George Lucas - then you can make any sort of garbage you want and face the derision of the movie-going public.
The thing is, it's pretty apparent that the constant interference of non-creative idiots often slows down or ruins movies that could be so much better. They could be masterpieces. But some dipwad in a $5k suit has a personal preference despite their complete lack of actual demonstrated creative skill. They're ensuring nothing but that a lot of their own hard work and investment gets wasted on some cornball idea that immediately turns audiences off.
@James-qd8he Nope. Its been lost by the studio. The original directors cut was a 210 minute movie. The studio hacked it down 95 without involving Mann.
Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, that was probably the most significant, for lack of a better word, butchering of all these movies. Thankfully, it's slowly getting restored to Leone's intended state.
@@stellviahohenheim The investors / studio would have lost their money. Hardly a reason to celebrate. Studio executives get fired for less. People go bankrupt. Families are effected. Not exactly something to boast about.
Dredd is an absolutely amazing film that definitely deserves a sequel..that said we were going to get a TV series named Mega City One but that now looks dead in the water
Just so everyone remembers: the David Ayer situation wasn't restricted to the prior people in charge. James Gunn promised Ayer multiple times that he would let him release his cut of Suicide Squad at some point. Then, after Ayer talked about it in the press, Gunn told him "no." I guess Gunn just gets off on manipulating and humiliating people.
Fair enough. You're in the same camp as Christopher Nolan, who believes that the theatrical version is the definitive version (unless there's some real roughshod stuff going on).
While the happy ending was a misdirection by the studio, the unicorn ending didn’t flow with the earlier environment and theme. I’d Decker is a replicant, the message of the movie about humanity is diminished if not lost.
@@Syntopikon Which makes the story of the movie pointless. If Deckard is a replicant, Roy's arc doesn't make sense. Why does Roy save Deckard at the end if Deckard is a replicant? It's completely meaningless. The writers didn't agree with Deckard being a replicant. Harrison Ford didn't agree with it. And he's not a replicant in the book. Scott insisting that he's a replicant ruins the whole point of the movie, which a lot of people don't seem to understand. Scott included.
Movies being removed from a director's influence are not a new thing. Orson Welles and The Magnificent Ambersons is a case in point. In the 980s Ridley Scott's Legend was taken away dfrom him by the studio and an American version with a brand ne score by Tangerine Dream was released in the US. His original cut was eventually seen with Jerry Goldsmith's score was released in Europe and later on VHS. Meanwhile Terry Gilliam fought tooth and nail for his cut of Brazil and became a cause celebre for film maing integrity.
I know that times are changing and AI is going to do a lot for it, but if independent filmmakers now can start working on their features and their shorts and have nothing to do with studios and just get it to streaming or just get it to a platform where the audience is, can take the viewing control then this is the end for those motherfuckers I hate studios and hate what they’ve done to filmmakers and artist over the decades. Now it’s time to take back that control and give the revolution to the filmmakers and the craftsman and the artists to help with the investors make your own money. Save it put it in a bank and make your film today And have total control and give it to the audiences who are paying to see it. That is how we will win.🎥🎥💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼
Uh huh. Another film video that doesn't know films existed 50 years ago. The MOST FAMOUS example of a movie being stolen from a director was The Magnificent Ambersons from Orson Welles. (face palm) Not mentioning that is just embarrassing. LOL
Yhe whole idea of Test Audiences for SciFi does not work as it does with other genres. There is a different mindset you have yo be with Sci-fi. 2001 was hated because they could not understand it. That's a Kubrick film. You have to use and open your brain. 2001, the two Blade Runner fulms, Star Trek the Motion Picture, were considered too long and boring. Why? Americans want mindless action. Dennis' two Dune films were great, however alot of the story in the book was not in the two films.
All of your videos are incredibly difficult to hear unless you have headphones at max volume. The bass is too loud and your voice sounds like you are talking through layers of fabric while you hold something in your mouth.
I've seen quite a few version of Blade runner and more narration would have helped it greatly. The little narration that was included helped flesh out the world greatly but it just was not enough. Furthermore, narration in general helps reduce monotony...Something this movie has in spades. I saw this movie 6 times (over the span of 8 years) before I could remember that I had even seen it and remember even the basic plot line because I was bored throughout and my mind wandered. Pretty pictures does not make a good movie. Much more narration would've helped. However, the versions with narration had other problems.
@@ConcreteowlI actually really like his Dune. I think he got the idea right. I can see why some people would dislike it, but saying he didn't understand is something I disagree. I believe Lynch got the idea wrong in some things (by the way, he is my favourite director).
Blade Runner was made, the company that paid for it presented it to the public, the public loved it and it became a cult movie and then Scott proceeded to rubbish the version we all loved for the next two decades. So who stole what. NOBODY complained about the voiceover. NOBODY complained about the ending. NOBODY thought Deckard was a replicant. The whole thing has become an arguement when it didn't need to be. 🫤
Honestly the real tragedy in the case of Once Upon A Time In America is that the stress of all the lawsuits and fighting with the studio took a massive toll on Leone’s health and he died only 5 years after it came out from a heart attack. According to people he knew him, that sharp decline in his health started during his back and forth with the studio
Thanks to the now gone Z Channel cable system , subscribers got to see the original Once Upon A Time In America unedited . It got great reviews . This wasn't the only movie that the Z Channel salvaged and saved from producers . The Z Channel also was the only cable channel that showed the original Heaven's Gate and it also got great reviews .
Especially as he had so many more projects that he was working on. Considering he had cut it once, I'm sure if the studio had worked with him a bit closer, they could've arrived at a happy medium. But hacking off more than an hour of content is insane, especially when you considering the wide disparity in how the two cuts were reviewed.
@@Syntopikon yeah he was only 60 when he passed, so sometimes I wonder what else he would have accomplished. That being said, what a high note to go out on. It’s a brilliant movie
Leoni had earned the right to create his vision, that said, Once Upon a time in Amaerica is a mean spirited film about disgusting people.
@@carsinruin6102 yeah, it is about really disgusting people! That’s the whole point. And it can be challenging to watch at many points
Spoilers to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie and are reading the comments:
The main characters are never portrayed as good people, quite the opposite. The whole story shows that, in reality, people with that much power often lead miserable lives behind closed doors. Noodles looses everything in his life, and we see Max at the end on the verge of losing everything asking to be shot near the end. Even if they live great lives for a few years, it all fizzles out eventually and for the rest of their lives all they’re filled with is regret over past actions for decades to come
Studios still haven't learned to listen to the filmmakers and it's killing the industry
If anything, it seems to have gotten worse - especially where blockbusters are concerned.
In the end it all depends on each project and it’s creative, if I was a producer working with Zack Snyder I would keep an eye on him 24/7. Sometimes producers need to exist to keep people in check. Alot Amazing directiors let their ego take control sometimes
But I do believe ur right, studios have wayy to much control rn
That's a fair point, and I think Zack Snyder and Damien Chazelle might be good representatives of directors that indulge themselves a bit. But it should, in most cases, be a light touch (I think some friction is good for any creative endeavor). I think the problems really start, as you noted in your other comment, when, the producer exerts too much control - as in the case of Dune and Once Upon a Time in America, where massive cuts are made without the directors permission or even trying to communicate with them.
@@Syntopikon Thing is, films these days have one shot to make back the investors' money. In the past if a film wasn't a massive hit at the theatre they could claw it back from video rentals and sales. And if you're talking about $100-$200m worth of investors' money I can see where a lot of nervousness comes from. Fundamentally the studio system is an ocean liner in a jet plane world, and it really needs to change. They really should trust the director, because surely it's all scripted and story boarded long before the cameras start rolling?
You forgot about The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), staring Clint Eastwood. Eastwood fired Philip Kaufman (the director) and took the directors duties for himself. This case is so infamous that the Director's Guild of America made a new rule, known as "the Eastwood Rule", which prohibits an actor or producer from firing the director and then personally taking on the director's role.
David Lynch is legit. Weird, but legit. He only sold out once, and that was Dune. And he's the first to admit it too. Since then he's just done his own thing, and he's done some amazing stuff. Not necessarily popular or accessible, but in my opinion honest. His ideas, his work. He doesn't take himself too seriously either, voicing himself in shows like Family Guy.
Weird is an understatement and this is coming from a fan! 😂 Freaking love David Lynch ❤
@@s3.14dervision Yeah, he's always struck me an as authentic eccentric, as opposed to an affected eccentric (like Tim Burton). He's been the same for decades, and I freaking love it.
He's definitely one of the most interesting filmmakers around. I know he said he sold out, but I'm not so sure myself. I think he did in that he didn't have final cut, but he was still able to imbue Dune with his own weirdness. I think the bigger issue was that the movie, at the time, was unadaptable if you wanted to do it in one movie. It's like trying to do LOTR in 1 or even 2 movies - near impossible, irrespective of the filmmakers skill.
Not to mention some intense perseverance. I recall reading that it took 5 years to film Eraserhead because of difficulty finding the money in one go.
Yeah but his Dune is Awesome atmosphere. It influenced a lot.
My brother, a film editor, told me about what it's called when the producer walks into the cutting room and insists on a change that makes no sense in the movie, but gives him the ability to claim he was in on the creative vision. It's called pissing on the film.
How no studio executives didn’t see the absolute brilliance of Sergio Leone at the time is mind blowing, even award shows didn’t recognise his talent. The good the bad and the ugly along with once upon a time in the west are in my opinion his two greatest movies that at the time were just seen as spaghetti westerns and not masterpieces which in absolutely nuts
Marvel and DC spend hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a movie and entrust a director to bring his creative vision from script to screen. For producers and studios to leave the director out of critical intentions for the film is reckless, and makes for a disjointed, incoherent story. It's tantamount to having a racecar driver winning a race, only to have his lead sponsor CEO take over to drive the final lap.
That's a solid analogy. I think what Alan Taylor said re: Thor: The Dark World - that he was able to shoot as he wanted but was run roughshod in the editing room - is a particularly pernicious issue, and that's a place where Marvel & DC can improve going forward. If a director and writer are good enough to hand them millions to bring a script to life, they should trust in their skill to bring it to the silver screen. I can understand some issues here and there - and that's totally fine - but they need to have more faith in the filmmakers, and in audiences.
@@Syntopikon Absolutely. If the director is invalidated, why hire a director at all? I can't imagine all of the CEOs agreeing on everything either, so the story becomes a patch quilt to accommodate every big wig idea which will only ensure a film that fails. The only producers who should be included into the creative process is a person who the director knows and trusts, they have a proven track record as a producer, or were once a successful director who knows what the creative process is like.
Love your videos so far! Fantastic content, stories and visuals!
Glad you enjoy them. Thanks for the kind words!
To be fair, the studios *do* set up the criteria they want when a project starts, and if the delivered film goes outside of those criteria, what choice is there but to chop it down? “Cleopatra” is a go-to example when the studio wanted a three hour movie, and the director handed in a six hour movie. (Which was evidently very good, but which no one has seen since the initial screening) The studio compromised and made a four hour cut, which is pretty good, and which has the distinction of being both the biggest box office of the year, and also the biggest bomb of the year. Everyone went to see it, but at four hours they could only show it twice a day, and it cost so much they couldn’t possibly make money in it.
The unfortunate thing is that these longer cuts often weren’t preserved because there was no concept of an aftermarket where longer cuts could be shown. I think the first movie to really make use of that was Dances With Wolves, which had a three hour cinematic release, and a four hour VHS release a year later.
Cleopatra is certainly an amusing case, as Fox was still able to make its money back by selling the television rights, but you make a good and valid point: most of this is contractual and the studio does indeed have final say unless the director has negotiated otherwise. But I think it's more of a measure of whether or not a studio should try to find a compromise position as opposed to unilaterally altering the film without conferring with the director.
If the rich investor know so much about movies then why don't they make it themselves?
This is the first time I had explained clearly how the versions of Blade Runner work, and what is Ridley Scott's definitive version, thank you!
Hey man, I love your videos and I’m glad the channel seems to be growing. You make great content and the visual editing is always dope. One thing tho, a lot of times your voice sounds very muffled and I’m wondering if you have a really heavy pop filter or something. I usually have to turn my tv up by 10 to make out what you’re saying throughout the vid. Seriously though, love your content, keep it up.
Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, there's a pretty thick & heavy pop filter on my mic, but my recording environment's not particularly conducive either. I'm going to be experimenting more with the audio over the next few videos and do some post-production on it (beyond noise reduction and de-clicking, I haven't done much).
Tony Kaye sounds like... the opposite of Christopher Nolan in how he conducts himself
Lol yeah, Kaye has an explosive temper. Or rather, had. I think he's mellowed out now.
@@Syntopikon hey I really like your channel by the way, it got recommended thanks to my obsession with Bullets and Blockbusters a bit of a similar thing. But I've learned so much from your 20 minute videos I hope this chan blows up even further
Excellent video on this ongoing subject
Thank you!
One of the early instances of studio interference is Orson Welles “Magnificent Ambersons”.
Orson finished the movie, it was quite long, then went to Europe for another project.
The studio “hired a guy with a lawnmower” to edit it down and butchered what might have been a masterpiece.
I think the saddest part of the MCU is the way they treat their directors by using a pre-viz studio to make the complete film. Yes, pre-viz has been a part of filmmaking for a long time, but the way Marvel utilizes it is disrespectful toward the directors. This is something that Lucrecia Martel had to deal with when she was approached to direct Black Widow, and the studio told her that she didn't need to worry about directing the action scenes. Of course, she was expecting to be in charge of that as well, naturally. That's my concern about Marvel: why do they need directors if their vision will be limited or not to be needed at all?
I think this is something that goes back to the time of the prequels. I recall reading in The Star Wars Archives Episodes 1-3 by Paul Duncan, that Liam Neeson said that pretty much all the work was done for him. He was shown exactly what he should do, where he should go, how he'd be directed, etc. It takes a lot of the spontaneity out of a performance, and that's one of the best things about a film.
I can understand using it in certain cases, especially if it's a complex or large scale sequence, but the Nesson scene was just walking and talking. Hardly something that needs to be laid out in such detail beforehand.
Tony Kaye sounds like a straight up nightmare 😅
Yeah he seems a bit too proud of himself but I can’t see why the producers wouldn’t let his cut show in theaters
Would’ve loved it if you talked about Payback and it’s two cuts.
Great video!
Great video analysis. While "stolen from Directors" may be an overstatement, 99.9% of Directors don't own the films they make. The studio / production company / finaciers do. When Directors sign contracts with studio / financiers, they're bound by those agreements. If they go over budget, don't have final cut, or refuse to collaborate with the studio creatively, they can be fired from their own film, just like any employee. Final Cut is a proviledge employed by the selected few, even the most celebrated filmmakers don't make their best films with absolute authority.
The entertainment business must be hell, you have to kiss the asses of the rich. Otherwise they'll shame you and black ball you
@@stellviahohenheim Couldn't agree more
@@stellviahohenheim All you "auteurs" can resort to making your low-budget iPhone projects and maintain all the control you want, but where are you going to find an audience to pay your bills? Make a successful movie, collect 100 million dollars and create your own studio like George Lucas - then you can make any sort of garbage you want and face the derision of the movie-going public.
@@aliensoup2420wtf is this comment? bootlicking studio execs is fxcking weird 😅
The thing is, it's pretty apparent that the constant interference of non-creative idiots often slows down or ruins movies that could be so much better. They could be masterpieces. But some dipwad in a $5k suit has a personal preference despite their complete lack of actual demonstrated creative skill. They're ensuring nothing but that a lot of their own hard work and investment gets wasted on some cornball idea that immediately turns audiences off.
Micheal Mann's "The Keep".
@James-qd8he Nope. Its been lost by the studio. The original directors cut was a 210 minute movie. The studio hacked it down 95 without involving Mann.
Guess you could say Dick Richards and Burt Reynolds got a little...heated? :-D
Lol very heated, in fact 😤
Once Upon a Time in America is a tragedy, imagine thinking you know what you’re doing with film better than Leone!
Great video, thanks.
Brazil and The Magnificent Ambersons also spring to mind.
Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, that was probably the most significant, for lack of a better word, butchering of all these movies. Thankfully, it's slowly getting restored to Leone's intended state.
No it's celebration for the rich investor that they managed to kill a great director. They must've talked about it in parties for years
@@stellviahohenheim The investors / studio would have lost their money. Hardly a reason to celebrate. Studio executives get fired for less. People go bankrupt. Families are effected. Not exactly something to boast about.
I thought Lynch only took his name off that TV edit of Dune.
Dredd is an absolutely amazing film that definitely deserves a sequel..that said we were going to get a TV series named Mega City One but that now looks dead in the water
Quote : great vid : end quote..
American audiences said Bladerunner (1982) was slow?
I find that claim to be ridiculous.
Bladerunner was not slow at all. It was stationary.
Just so everyone remembers: the David Ayer situation wasn't restricted to the prior people in charge. James Gunn promised Ayer multiple times that he would let him release his cut of Suicide Squad at some point. Then, after Ayer talked about it in the press, Gunn told him "no." I guess Gunn just gets off on manipulating and humiliating people.
Blade Runner is one of the few times I actually prefer the narrated Theatrical Cut as opposed to the directors cut.
Fair enough. You're in the same camp as Christopher Nolan, who believes that the theatrical version is the definitive version (unless there's some real roughshod stuff going on).
Best Dune version is the Spicediver fan edit IMO. You can get it everywhere.
Now THIS has got me hyped for the upcoming Rebel Moon directors cuts! (just joking)
Blade runner’s producer’s happy ending is so bad. the paper unicorn ending is great. Makes u think
All it took was 25 years for Scott to get it exactly the way he wanted.
@@Syntopikonyeah,that’s wild. The happy ending felt like a totally different film. Didn’t fit at all.
While the happy ending was a misdirection by the studio, the unicorn ending didn’t flow with the earlier environment and theme.
I’d Decker is a replicant, the message of the movie about humanity is diminished if not lost.
@@Syntopikon Which makes the story of the movie pointless. If Deckard is a replicant, Roy's arc doesn't make sense. Why does Roy save Deckard at the end if Deckard is a replicant? It's completely meaningless.
The writers didn't agree with Deckard being a replicant. Harrison Ford didn't agree with it. And he's not a replicant in the book. Scott insisting that he's a replicant ruins the whole point of the movie, which a lot of people don't seem to understand. Scott included.
anything ridley scott ever mad was a remake and so was star wars and raiders of the lost ark.
Movies being removed from a director's influence are not a new thing. Orson Welles and The Magnificent Ambersons is a case in point. In the 980s Ridley Scott's Legend was taken away dfrom him by the studio and an American version with a brand ne score by Tangerine Dream was released in the US. His original cut was eventually seen with Jerry Goldsmith's score was released in Europe and later on VHS. Meanwhile Terry Gilliam fought tooth and nail for his cut of Brazil and became a cause celebre for film maing integrity.
Wtf the main actor editing the film
Yup. Edward Norton's got a reputation for being difficult to work with.
"Touch of Evil"
endquote endquote endquote endquote endquote endquote endquote endquote
I know that times are changing and AI is going to do a lot for it, but if independent filmmakers now can start working on their features and their shorts and have nothing to do with studios and just get it to streaming or just get it to a platform where the audience is, can take the viewing control then this is the end for those motherfuckers I hate studios and hate what they’ve done to filmmakers and artist over the decades. Now it’s time to take back that control and give the revolution to the filmmakers and the craftsman and the artists to help with the investors make your own money. Save it put it in a bank and make your film today And have total control and give it to the audiences who are paying to see it. That is how we will win.🎥🎥💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼
Tinto Brass and Caligula.
Well, marvel sucks now. So maybe bring back the marvel creative committee
Also, DC ruined the greatness they could of had with Snyder & Ayer.
a/k/a/ An Alan Smithee Project
Truly the best and worst director of all time.
Uh huh. Another film video that doesn't know films existed 50 years ago.
The MOST FAMOUS example of a movie being stolen from a director was The Magnificent Ambersons from Orson Welles. (face palm)
Not mentioning that is just embarrassing. LOL
Yhe whole idea of Test Audiences for SciFi does not work as it does with other genres. There is a different mindset you have yo be with Sci-fi.
2001 was hated because they could not understand it. That's a Kubrick film. You have to use and open your brain.
2001, the two Blade Runner fulms, Star Trek the Motion Picture, were considered too long and boring. Why? Americans want mindless action.
Dennis' two Dune films were great, however alot of the story in the book was not in the two films.
This is silly. None of the films were 'stolen'.
what's violent about punching a wall ????
All of your videos are incredibly difficult to hear unless you have headphones at max volume. The bass is too loud and your voice sounds like you are talking through layers of fabric while you hold something in your mouth.
just don’t watch then?
Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil is just bad.
Big disagree
😮but no surprise. Money men are cowardly men.
Justice League and suicide squad are DC. They are NOT the same. Marvel has not destroyed films the way DC has.
bro wut? 😂 Marvel movies are like the blandest most vanilla movies ever. They’re for children
SEX Machina 🤯
I need to enunciate better 😬
I've seen quite a few version of Blade runner and more narration would have helped it greatly. The little narration that was included helped flesh out the world greatly but it just was not enough. Furthermore, narration in general helps reduce monotony...Something this movie has in spades. I saw this movie 6 times (over the span of 8 years) before I could remember that I had even seen it and remember even the basic plot line because I was bored throughout and my mind wandered. Pretty pictures does not make a good movie. Much more narration would've helped. However, the versions with narration had other problems.
🤡
Don't eat your words so we can hear clearly what you're saying.
Denis Veneuve didn't get Dune right. He made his film. He didn't make Dune.
Lynch did propose splitting the adaptation into 2 parts. He also considered releasing it in monochrome. Denis borrowed a lot from these ideas.
And you didn't get his second name right. (Veneuve)
Just kidding 😂
@@ConcreteowlI actually really like his Dune. I think he got the idea right. I can see why some people would dislike it, but saying he didn't understand is something I disagree. I believe Lynch got the idea wrong in some things (by the way, he is my favourite director).
Agreed
“But that’s just, like… your opinion, man”
A movie can´t be stolen from a director because it belong to producers.
I'm sorry, Denis Villeneuve did NOT get Dune "right"...
No need for the “sorry”. You’re 100% right.
Please redu the video with better sound.
Blade Runner IS boring though. Beautiful. But as a story it's a drag.
you sound like you're drowning
Haha!
With all the water I drink, I might as well be 🫠
Blade Runner was made, the company that paid for it presented it to the public, the public loved it and it became a cult movie and then Scott proceeded to rubbish the version we all loved for the next two decades. So who stole what. NOBODY complained about the voiceover. NOBODY complained about the ending. NOBODY thought Deckard was a replicant. The whole thing has become an arguement when it didn't need to be. 🫤