Films/DVD Asylum

Ummm, ...not so, bro.

70.249.139.73

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: A word on "Director's cut," in general: posted by tinear on November 18, 2007 at 06:32:42

>>> "it's bogus." <<<

Not necessarily.

You may have a point (a very small point; net, not gross)in respect to films that are digitally remastered several times and include deleted scenes as padding or separately from the film such as branched outtakes. Adding value to resell a product again and again is nothing new (it's similar to the frequent remastering of CDs with bonus tracks), but those improvements aren't the same as Director's cuts.

Theatrical release versions of films are beholden to Studios, overseen by Producers concerned with the bottom line, and subject to the input of parties not directly associated with the actual creative aspects of the picture. The reasons for this imposition on creativity are many: theater chain demands for shorter films to squeeze in additional showings, cost overruns, creative differences between Producers ('the money people') and Directors, age rating considerations, etc.

After the fact, many features have been stripped of a Director's creative control for short sighted financial considerations; this goes all the way back to the silent era, but in one fashion or another it's still prevalent today. Subjectively speaking, more films have been damaged by such efforts than improved regardless of how successful they may have been in their initial runs.

In the past, road show engagements of major releases were typically cut down in length to increase the number of showings in rural theaters, often with little thought as to how missing footage might impact the story. Before the Hayes code, regional censorship plagued films in such a way that a redacted film might not look anything like the Director's original vision. While censorship is less of a factor today, Studio producers have still been known to order finished films re-cut, usually shortening for time considerations, sometimes without even the benefit of preview screenings.

>>> "You could also call it the super-size disease, now having spread to cultural items." <<<

There is no obvious corollary to fast food except that your contention is composed of empty calories. In spite of the creative allegory, you're still spinning your reels. ;0)

>>> "Just 'cause it's bigger doesn't make it better." <<<

True, but by the same token good health doesn't lend itself to anorexia either (food for thought)! ;^D

AuPh

Follow Ups: