The Movie Trailers Thread

[kuro_neko]

ugh, this whole idea of cutting movies to make them more mainstream is really counter intuitive when you think about it. I mean, come on, why should we pay 11 bucks for a 90 minute piece of crap? Everyone is so quick to forget that all the movies which make money, like LOTR, Harry Potter, even Twilight, were all LONG. Twilight itself was over two hours which is quite a run time when you actually evaluate what your watching.

QT can suck it anyways, where is his supposed Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair? I've been waiting for re-edited combined Unrated Extended Director's Cut for years. he can suck it.

there is almost nothing I'm actually actively looking forward to. once upon a time I was really anticipating Del Torro's At the Mountains of Madness, which is supposedly one of the best written scripts in the past decade, but since Del Torro is book for the next ten years I'm not actively anticipating that any time soon....

they should make a Supernatural movie....

[Inaudible-Whisper]

You know how overindulgent Tarantino can be with his dialogue though. All of those movies you mentioned are either based on lengthy novels and thus A. need a long running time and B. won't be criticised because the fans want to see those things and they aren't long because of an abundance of dialogue. Inglourious Basterds is 2 hours 40 minutes. Now I'd be perfectly happy to sit through that. I enjoyed the long cut of Death Proof. But I can totally see why the studio would want to cut it down, particularly after the Cannes reactions. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. I'd much prefer a tight 2 hour movie than a 2 hour 40 movie that drags at times. Just because he has filmed 3 hours of footage doesn't mean he has to use it all; I think Tarantino struggles to edit stuff out.

[ShinjiPG]

Few directors don't, tho. When you work with a team of people to shoot certain scenes and struggle to do it, the editing process can be very painful because you have to decide which contributions will be cut. In this case, we're talking about cutting the whole contribution made by Maggie Cheung, her work. And also the crew responsible for her scenes, like make-up, costume design, cinematographer, etc.
Sure, decisions have to be made, but if you don't really care about the people's contributions that makes you a bit cold, I think. At least struggling with the decision shows you care.

This is one of the reasons why I think pre-production is so damn important. It is possible to estimate how much footage you'll have in the end and how long your film will be. If you only shoot what's needed, you won't have to struggle with artistic decisions and frustrations in the end.
And Tarantino should clearly know this =P

Anyway, those scenes will probably make it to the DVD, as extras or as director's cut. So whatevz.

[mizer_unmei]

But I guess Tarentino works the same way Wong Kar Wai does, with a sort of vague idea at the beginning. For "In the Mood For Love" Wong Kar Wai didn't even have a script, and the original idea for the movie was quite different from the actual movie. Maybe extensive pre-production would lose the feel of their work. Because both of their movies seem rushed and jumbled -- in a good way of course.

And I'm sure it'll be on the DVD, but I want to see Maggie Cheung on the big screen.

Originally Posted by kuro_neko

Shutter Island is supposed to take place in 1956 according to the book...

Ahh ok. I based it upon Michelle Williams' dress (all other clothes are male and unidentifiable to me.) which is early-40s hair and clothes at the latest. But when she's obviously a ghost or a flashback, that's kinda unreliable.

[ShinjiPG]

Originally Posted by mizer_unmei

Maybe extensive pre-production would lose the feel of their work. Because both of their movies seem rushed and jumbled -- in a good way of course.

Extensive pre-production is never too much. First of all, if a movie involves money coming from the studio, which is usually the case for most of the ones you see on theatres, the executive producers will never give you unlimited credit for "artistic reverie" of the director. Actually, they're not even gonna aprove the project if the plot is "I'm thinking of shooting this, with a woman, and... I don't know, it'll come up. Give money please."

Unless you're some succesful and respected avant-garde director, like Tarantino or others, who self-produce most of his movies and has support from independent production companies who probably assign all their cash to his movies. He basically just has to ask.
Or unless you are David Lynch, who has support from like, every european (mostly french) film production companies that are just dying to see more of his artistic movies, even if they don't know the plot at all (see Inland Empire).
What that is going to produce, however, is careless management of resources and time, and the director is gonna end up shooting everything he sees. The result, three hour long movies (see Inland Empire).

Now, are they artistic? Maybe, yes, because they allow for total freedom of the artist (director). But are they coherant enough to be understood by any person or just by Lynch fanatics? That's hard to say. They are extremely long, tho.
If you're going to produce 3 hour long films, that involve the work of a lot of people (actors, crew, location, etc), you better make it worth it and not just some personal fantasy that only you will understand. I think art should be for humanity. If it's just for you, do it yourself. But this is probably tooooo controversial.

That said, I suppose Tarantino did want his film to be 3 hours and just had to cut it to please the audience. But shouldn't he be concerned with the the audience in the first place, instead? And most of all, with the people he worked with.

If art is just expressing yourself with no contrains and with no thought, just flowing with the moment, doesn't that diminish it's importance and validity? Think about how many concepts and sketches the great painters in the past needed before they reached the final result. That was pre-production.

[mizer_unmei]

I'm not saying it's right for the directors to take all the time in the world on a random idea, but it certainly seems that's how some directors work. It's a complete waste of time and money for all involved but if that's the work environment that he works best in, you can't really change what's worked before. Especially when the director does have the backing from studios that won't force him to change.

But I never really get the appeal of the artistic film industry. I liked Mulholland Dr. at first, but now it's basically unwatchable. I loved the 4 episodes of Twin Peaks (mainly due to Kyle McLaughlan) but I couldn't continue due to it's weirdness was just taxing on my psyche. I don't get how that was such a cultural phenomenon when it first aired, nor do I understand how people become such big fans of his movies. I do quite want to see Blue Velvet and the main plot summary I've read seems pretty awesome, but the whole Dennis Hopper/Isabella Rosselini parts are really stopping me from seeing it.

Whenever I see Lynch or Tarentino's films, I never get a completely cohesive storyline from it, which is what I want. (Though Tarentino is decades more accessible than Lynch.) I'm all for experimental and boundary pushing directors, but the main focus on the film should be the the storytelling and the audience (like Hitchcock or, hell, Pixar), not one who just had a cluster of random events and scenes which tie together somehow. I blame French New Wave and Stanley Kubrick for all of the directors who decide to do the latter. (Though for some reason I do quite like 2001 and A Clockwork Orange, which are just as WTF as a tamer Lynch film.)
Hell Peter Jackson is pretty damn good at all of that -- Dead Alive (Braindead) was weird and downright gross at times, but the story was fantastic and the main character was really one you rooted for.

What really annoys me is that though is that Tarentino and Lynch can make all the movies in the world no problem, but it's hard for Terry Gilliam to even get a project off the ground. But at least he might finally be making his Don Quixote movie. (Possibly with Michael Palin too! )

[ShinjiPG]

Originally Posted by mizer_unmei

What really annoys me is that though is that Tarentino and Lynch can make all the movies in the world no problem, but it's hard for Terry Gilliam to even get a project off the ground. But at least he might finally be making his Don Quixote movie. (Possibly with Michael Palin too! )

Precisely, that's where I was trying to go with my arguments. And Terry Gilliam is just one example, since there are other directors who don't even have the chance to be known by people like me or you.
When you get in a position where it's fairly easy to embark on a new project/movie, you shouldn't forget of the time when you were not on that position and also that many other people are struggling like you were. So the least those top directors could do is make something for everybody and express messages that can utilize the position their in. What's the point of reaching a high-level of consideration from many people in the world, if all you have to say is "I'm afraid of the dark" or "I like action movies", and even then only you will understand it?

PS - I respect all of your opinions about Lynch and Tarantino, and I'm thankful that mine are respected too, but! Kubrik, really? He's like, the god of motion pictures
He's one of the directors that got so high in the list that he could get money for any project he wanted, and yet always made movies for all humanity. I do not share most of his views, but boy did he know how to present them.

[mizer_unmei]

Originally Posted by ShinjiPG

PS - I respect all of your opinions about Lynch and Tarantino, and I'm thankful that mine are respected too, but! Kubrik, really? He's like, the god of motion pictures
He's one of the directors that got so high in the list that he could get money for any project he wanted, and yet always made movies for all humanity. I do not share most of his views, but boy did he know how to present them.

I really do love Kubrick, but those two films were just insane and not for a regular viewer at all. But I do like them. It's the Barry Lyndon (But this one like, Schubert piece he used in the film has been intermittently stuck in my head since I watched it 10 years ago. @_@) and the Full Metal Jacket and the Eyes Wide Shut I can't stand. (I did like the Vincent DoNofrio part of Full Metal Jacket, but once he was gone it went downhill from there.) Dr. Strangelove is one of the greatest films ever, and Lolita is fantastic, albeit a tad bit irksome. (and a fantastic showcase of just how awesome James Mason really is. ) And The Shining is one of the only horror movies I can seriously say I love.

[Tokyo Jihad]

I left film school for this shit? =(

[ShinjiPG]

What shit Jihad? Tell us of your problems! No need to feel sad alone.