TheBoost said:ChainsawAsh said:It's pretty good - kinda has a pretentious-film-school-movie vibe to it, but that might be because I'm currently in film school and see a lot of pretentious B.S., so I immediately throw non-linear, stylized shorts into that category.
But isn't it a linear chase film? Just really, really, stylized. (one line of real dialog if I recall, but it has been years)
I don't really remember, I haven't seen it in years, either.
skyjedi2005 said:I would like a book that traced all Lucas films from his college days to now based on their thematic ideas and interconnecting threads, and also where Lucas fits in in the french new wave of cinema verite and auteur theory of filmaking.
I have been writing that for about a year now. ;)
IMDB has a bit of THX 1138 trivia I had never heard: That the original theatrical version had a clip of Things to Come before the credits and not the Buck Rogers serial? It was supposedly changed to the Buck clip in 1979 for the small post Star Wars re-release. (when 5 minutes were restored and they did that sort of Star Wars-y poster for it) Anybody know if this is accurate?
Probably not. It is IMDb.
However, it does sound like something Lucas would do. The true "original theatrical" version of American Graffitti has never been released on home video to my knowledge - scenes were added during its post-Star Wars re-release IIRC, and the movie's stayed that way ever since (not to mention the 1998 opening-shot "enhancement").
Very true. And, to be honest, I would prefer that cut--when I was re-watching American Graffiti for the first time in years a couple years ago, I remember thinking that one or two scenes really seemed out of place and draggy and pointless and probably could have been trimmed out; even though as scenes they were still pretty good, they just didn't flow with the pace of the film. Afterwords, I found out they were originally cut out of the film and then restored by Lucas. Normally, studio-imposed cuts aren't good but I have to agree with these ones.
Being in school for editing, I've learned to accept that just because a producer or studio orders something to be recut doesn't necessarily mean that said cuts are a bad idea. Often, the direcor is just so close to the material that he can't understand why this fantastic scene doesn't belong in his film, especially if it was particularly difficult to shoot. For example, George Lucas' films tend to fall under this category (American Graffitti, THX 1138, Star Wars ... ), while Ridley Scott's tend to fall under the "director knows best" category (Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, Legend ... ).
I don't know if i agree with that Kingdom of Heaven is one of the worst movies ever made.
Though i do like Legend and Blade Runner. Though both of those films were considered somewhat of a disaster when originally released.
Gladiator and Alien are also good films imho.
To me and it is my own opinion KOH is as bad as alexander and troy.
Scott is another director who does not know to leave well enough alone. I mean did we really need 5 versions of blade runner?
The only positive i can see is he allowed good quality copies of the theatrical cuts in anamorphic and blu ray.
Though directors recutting their films constantly i find almost as annoying as fanedits, and most often they are not necessary one little bit.
I say it is bullshit and garbage looking for that one pefect "original vision". The film as released was the film not some overzealous director returning to their works on home video and changing them just because they can.
Scott most assuredly does not know best especially when it comes to the works of Phyliip K Dick. Deckard is not supposed to be a replicant. The character in the novel it is based on is not. The novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
He also put out a special edition of Alien much like Spielbergs releasing an inferior re-release of E.T., this version sucked editoriially and in the changes made to the audio effects and soundtrack.
And the Directors longer cut of legend on dvd with the original intended ending is absolutely awful, i actually prefer some of the studio imposed changes.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said:I don't know if i agree with that Kingdom of Heaven is one of the worst movies ever made.
Though i do like Legend and Blade Runner. Though both of those films were considered somewhat of a disaster when originally released.
Gladiator and Alien are also good films imho.
To me and it is my own opinion KOH is as bad as alexander and troy.
KOH theatrical cut--i agree. Horrible movie. Some good stuff here and there, but overall bad, misguided, disjointed.
Directors Cut Kingdom of Heaven--greatest epic since Lawrence of Arabia. No exaggeration--this thing is a masterpiece that I guarantee would have won, or at least been nominated for, Best Picture at the Oscars. Its a thrilling, beautiful, breathtaking, surprising masterpiece that ranks as one of Scott's finest achievements, and as one of the greatest historical films ever made. Skyjedi, i don't know if you've seen the 3.5 hour director's cut--i HOPE you haven't, to be saying it sucks--but it was made to be a roadshow style oldschool epic, with an overture and intermission and everything. This is how the film was concieved and shot. The theatrical cut is an arbitrary abortion. Please see the Director's Cut and enjoy its splendor.
The only thing I know about Kingdom of Heaven is that two-time World's Strongest Man, Jouko Ahola, is in it. :p (he was good in the Tim Roth movie Invincible) Maybe I should watch the Director's Cut as well!