Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtfbomb
They announced on their FB pages that Cleanin' Up the Town is looking to hit right in time for the first film's 35th anniversary. So, knock on wood, it looks it's coming out next year, the first doc at least.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d_osborn
The GB docs are going REALLY well! Like the Sarge said above, the 2-hr version should be out by the 35th anniversary. I heard a sample of the score recently and it's KILLER. GBII is progressing really well.
|
Great stuff. Any idea what year the Harold Ramis interview was conducted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtfbomb
The theatrical cut included a narration that wasn't very good, although it does offer a few extra insights. The first "director's cut" was okay. It was the better version until the Final Cut. From what I understand, Ridley Scott as involved with the assembly of that cut as he was with the Final Cut, which perfectly the pacing of the film.
|
I have to say I don't particularly care for the Final Cut and prefer the DC version. Scott fixed a couple of issues but also created a bunch of new ones like changing the colour grading and ruining the end credits theme music. DC all the way for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtfbomb
I've never watched the International Cut, so I am not sure how that particular version holds up.
|
Not much different. It's the theatrical cut with a bit more extended violence. About five minutes difference if you call it that. The workprint version is cool to watch and not many people notice that watching the deleted scenes in entirety is essentially watching a totally different cut of the movie as well. It's about an hour I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew NDB
So basically Barron finished shooting his movie and then wasn't allowed to be an editor? First of all, you generally don't have a director involved in the editing because they're not going to be objective. Second, how was he "fired"? Was Steve Barron at any point hired to be an editor? No. He was hired to direct the movie and he completed his job.
|
That's not how it works. The director's job during the editing process is to sit down with the editor and basically go through the film piece by piece to put the film together. The director should have full creative control over the end product unless the producers somehow get in the way. In television it's slightly different: the director of each episode provides pointers to the editor and producers who then go and edit. The producers can choose to ignore any of these pointers and basically tell the editor what to do as they have full control over the end edit. Then the director looks over the final episode and pretty much most of the time goes "yeah it's 80% what I wanted". Unless you have producers in more power, have taken control over the movie due to distrust (Gilliam with Brazil) or you happen to be called 'Sean Connery' those are the only ways the director will not have a say over final edit.