
- Time
- Post link
And the crime will have been committed.
And the crime will have been committed.
Cameron said it to entertainment weekly a few days ago.
Sometimes you really need to be like a Manhunter-style profiler of wackos to figure out what goes on in Lucas' mind. He sees Cameron and Ridley Scott, etc. doing extended or alternate versions that co-exist with the originals, it hasn't hurt their finances or their reputations the slightest bit. What IS it that makes a guy actively seek bad PR?
Hello new signature. Good for Cameron. Speaking the truth.
He's a cold businessman (Lucas). He doesn't care about approval ratings.
Yeah, but it's not even good business. It's not like a plain vanilla 3 disc OT set is gonna sell worse than those 3 elaborate Young Indy box sets.
That quote needs to be on the front page of the site!
If Cameron turned out to be the knight in shining armor we've needed, wouldn't that be something?
Where were you in '77?
The full quote if anyone's interested....
Now here's a director talking sense!
You mentioned these six minutes of new scenes. Are you one of these guys like George Lucas who likes to go back and tinker with their old films?
I’m not into revision. I think every film should be exactly as it was executed in the moment. We’re not changing the rest of the film, we’re just dropping these scenes in. I actually don’t believe…like when George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me. I certainly wouldn’t go back and do that to any of my films. A film I made in 1984, it’s what it is. It’s a creature of its time. But with these new scenes we’re adding, I think people certainly had an appetite for more Avatar than we gave them. Nobody complained about it being too long. The scenes we’re putting back are righteous scenes, they’re not Jake sitting around talking about his childhood.
Um... gotta say in context that sounds highly hypocritical. "What George did was wrong. I'm going to do the same thing, but it's cool because... well, I'm doing it and nobody's complaining about it." Pff.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
The King of the World's done it again... haha. I just wish they'd give the option, like they do with the various Terminator 2 cuts.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
Gaffer Tape said:
Um... gotta say in context that sounds highly hypocritical. "What George did was wrong. I'm going to do the same thing, but it's cool because... well, I'm doing it and nobody's complaining about it." Pff.
Gaffer, I see what you're saying, but there is a difference. Lucas is adding scenes or special effects that are from the present day to a 30 year old movie. Cameron is just adding stuff from the cutting room floor.
If Lucas just added the Luke/Biggs scene by the X-Wing fighter in Star Wars, I don't fans like us would have really cared. It was a shoot in 1976, so the scene doesn't stick out like adding Hayden Douchebag Christenson to the Return of the Jedi ending, or a ridiculous CGI Jabba to a Star Wars talking to Han Solo.
Also, Cameron is adding stuff WITHIN THE YEAR IT WAS RELEASED. It still reflects his mindset at the time. Like how Lucas re-mixed the film a month after it was out. Plus, these scenes were from the original production, not revisions invented 30 years later, another crucial distinction.
I think if you tweak the film within its same release to add deleted material, it doesn't count as "revisionism". Many movies are minorly re-shaped like this, in response to audience reaction, box-office, or whatever. Not so much these days, but before the late 1980s this was not uncommon.
Extended cuts that coexist with the originals, and are an alternate version of the movie without running time constraints, are a pretty different thing. (that's why there isn't one for Titanic or T1 but there is for Abyss/T2/Aliens)
Cameron is not making the original version of Avatar illegal.
Lucas, however, thinks it is his "vision" to suppress the OOT.
generalfrevious said:
Cameron is not making the original version of Avatar illegal.
Lucas, however, thinks it is his "vision" to suppress the OOT.
Well said.
As far as revising history goes though, Avatar has no history. It's been less than six months since the film came out. That's why it's different than Star Wars. "Extended Cut", whatever, the film is still in theatres from its original run as we speak, and the initial release version is being released in high definition Blu Ray right now. It's hardly hypocritical. There's therefore no revisionism in the first place, and like I said, given that the film is still playing in some theatres and that its been less than six months since it made its debut, its not uncommon to add or delete a few bits at this stage in response to certain factors. It's like accusing Lucas of revisionism in 1977 because he added new lines and new sound effects for the mono edition. But beyond this, there isn't the revisionist "the original edition doesn't exit" slant, anyway.
The difference between Avatar and Star Wars is that: a) the additions are out of character and mind-set from the original production, and are not technically appropriate nor part of the original production, b) are added in decades after the film is made, rather than during its original release or theatrical run, and c) that the original version is purported to not exist.
generalfrevious said:
Cameron is not making the original version of Avatar illegal.
Lucas, however, thinks it is his "vision" to suppress the OOT.
Yes.
It makes no sense. I just can't wrap my head around it. Why can't the OOT and the SE co-exist? Hell, if he released just the OOT on Blu-Ray, separate from the 6-movie set but for the same price, the fans would be all over it.
I don't think it has anything to do with business or money. Releasing both versions of the films would only make him richer. I legitimately think George doesn't care about the fans. At all.
Fans: "We want the OOT in respectable quality."
George: "No, it's not my vision for the films."
Fans: "But we the fans love it! Why can't they co-exist?"
George: "No. SE only. Fuck you. I don't care if you want it."
It just baffles me. Like... doesn't he care that his original movie from 1977 won him Oscars? And that ESB is hailed by many as the greatest sequel of all time? And Jedi...well...we love Jedi.
BAH.
I honestly don't see any difference. A change is a change. PERIOD. Is the extended version of Avatar replacing the theatrical version? Yes. That's all there is to it. To me, it has nothing to do with mindset, with passage of time, with any of that. He's changing the film and has no ground to stand on to call Lucas out for it. They're equally wrong.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said:
I honestly don't see any difference. A change is a change. PERIOD. Is the extended version of Avatar replacing the theatrical version? Yes. That's all there is to it. To me, it has nothing to do with mindset, with passage of time, with any of that. He's changing the film and has no ground to stand on to call Lucas out for it. They're equally wrong.
I don't think he is saying he is NOT changing the film. That's never been in question--he obviously is. And it also doesn't mean it is "replacing" the original version, in that the original will never be made available again. Since it's on Blu Ray already, it's moot. It's not historical revisionism. It's not the same as what Lucas is doing, not even in the same ballpark.
You are basically saying that once a film has been screened, you are forbidden from changing a frame of film, which is absurd because this happens sometimes through a film's original theatrical run; it's a view ignorant of not-uncommon editorial practices caused by the trauma of Lucas' revisionism, but don't start viewing any sort of change to the film as some sort of dogmatic "YOU CAN'T TOUCH IT ONCE IT'S OUT!!" stance. What Cameron is doing is not the same as coming back thirty years later, inventing new shit that never had any place in the film and isn't of the same nature or technology as the original material, suppressing the original version from existance, and then proclaiming that it was always meant to be. That's what Cameron is saying. That's the fear he's defending himself against. Because people like Lucas do stuff like that, there is this fear that any tweaking of a film once it is screened is "wrong" or "unethical" for some reason, when adding, deleting or changing minor pieces throughout a films original run was practically the norm back in the day. If it was a couple years later, the situation would be differen't, but the bloody thing hasn't even left the theatres yet! Cameron said films are a product of the time they were made, which is why Lucas is wrong to be dicking around with history. Putting six minutes back into a film a few months after it first screened while releasing the first-screened-version in the highest home video quality in existance isn't "revisionism" in the sense we normally use it.
Well, that's my opinion. I still think it's revisionism, and I resent you implying my "ignorance at not-uncommon editorial practices," zombie. I know that this kind of action is not unprevalent, but I still don't find it any less frustrating or unworthy of criticism. I just happen to think that people are so marred by how egregious Lucas was with his changes that anything less seems like a relief by comparison.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said: Is the extended version of Avatar replacing the theatrical version? Yes.
It is? Where? When?
That was the impression I got. If the movie is being recut exclusively for the home release, then it's supplanting the theatrical cut, right? Or did I misread that? I admit I didn't read the whole interview, so I could be wrong. But there's no need to get snarky about it.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
The theatrical version is coming out on home video this week. An extended version is gonna play in 3D theaters for a limited run later this year. It has like 6 minutes of stuff that wasn't finished in december (or was cut for time, not sure which).
Okay, I stand corrected. Like I said, I didn't read the whole article. I admit I'm not crazy about alternate version at all, but I can tolerate that, I suppose. If this extended version ISN'T supposed to supplant the original, then I rescind most of my argument and am willing to say that Cameron has the right attitude about this.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Wait, question: I thought the 6 minutes added to Avatar are on the DVD released these days? Then an extended version will hit the theater with, I heard, 12 or even 40 minutes more?
Am I wrong?
TMBTM said:
Wait, question: I thought the 6 minutes added to Avatar are on the DVD released these days? Then an extended version will hit the theater with, I heard, 12 or even 40 minutes more?
Am I wrong?
'Avatar's' theatrical re-release will have only 6 mins. extra it seems, which will be incorporated into the eventual extended blu-ray too. However, there will be quite a lot of unfinished (unfortunately) footage available on that more extensive blu-ray too. Approx. 30 to 35 mins. worth according to Cameron, which can be watched in a seperate, longer, alternative version.
Full details here - http://www.collider.com/2010/03/24/james-cameron-interview-avatar-blu-ray-also-talks-titanic-3d-and-avatar-2/
As far as the 'Star Wars' blu-rays are concerned, no matter what GL ends up adding to his latest 'Special Editions' of the O.T., I'm guessing they'll still look blue....