BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Director's Cuts- are they worth it

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
matthew.
15:22 / 05.05.06
Lucas is just a collection of other people's good stuff, some dodgy racial representations and faith over experiential operations, plus lightsabers and a princess in a metal bikini with a gun. Handled always better by other people, in a style not readily recognizable as significantly his own

And there, DD sums it all up.

If I might add something... it's not just a collection of other people's good ideas, but a straight steal from cultural and mythological backgrounds. Anybody who has read Joseph Campbell knows that Lucas is bereft of original ideas and concepts.
 
 
some guy
16:02 / 05.05.06
Anybody who has read Joseph Campbell knows that Lucas is bereft of original ideas and concepts.

Or Shakespeare, for that matter. I fail to see why this is important.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
16:31 / 05.05.06
I think the problem with the 1997 special editions of SW was that the actors were all to old to film anything new (except for James Earle Jones) so any new scenes were just rough cut footage with crap CG added.

If Lucas had filmed 3 hour long movies originally, and then cut them down to size, then restored the lost footage it would have been more acceptable. The Han/Jabba scene is such utter shit, and not just from a fanboy point of view. Jabba's size is inconsistant with the latter film, Han never seems to be actually looking at Jabba, and the bit with steping on his tail looks worse then a pan and scan.

If Lucas had done a good job of crafting the movies in his image and not made them look like shit on a biscuit, then there would be less of a problem, but the SE trilogy just looks terrible.
 
 
matthew.
02:40 / 06.05.06
I fail to see why this is important.

Perhaps because upthread, we had discussed why Lucas is not a very good example of an auteur and that he has no distinct vision or idea that makes him special. Therefore, talking about Director's Cuts with Lucas is an oxymoron.
 
 
some guy
03:21 / 06.05.06
Perhaps because upthread, we had discussed why Lucas is not a very good example of an auteur and that he has no distinct vision or idea that makes him special. Therefore, talking about Director's Cuts with Lucas is an oxymoron.

This is wrong on several levels.

There is no intrinsic link between "originality" and auteur theory (nor do I necessarily accept that either of these rank higher than "execution" or "teamwork" in evaluating art). Shakespeare is the classic example of someone regarded as top of the class despite trading very little in originality. The Invisibles is as guilty of raiding previous texts as we like to think Star Wars is, and yet few would pin a target on it for that.

Lucas directed four of the films and thus "Director's Cut" is not an oxymoron in those instances.

And I believe there is an argument to be made that Lucas is indeed an auteur of sorts. He micromanaged all six films to an incredible degree, even down to absurd details like engine shapes on spaceships and specific facial expressions for the CGI Yoda. This holds true even for the two films he didn't write or direct, where he was constantly on set and rubberstamping virtually every decision. We might think he made crap decisions, but his fingerprints are on everything (as shown in several documentaries and books).

It's ridiculous to suggest that he "has no distinct vision or idea" - especially for anyone with even a vague grasp of film history and the cultural impact of 1977.
 
 
haus of fraser
21:34 / 06.05.06
It's ridiculous to suggest that he "has no distinct vision or idea" - especially for anyone with even a vague grasp of film history and the cultural impact of 1977.

I do not believe that lucas's intentions in 1977 were the cg mess of the redux versions of Star wars- I do believe that a bored rich man with writers block decided to play with some new technology and cash in on the loyal fanboy nostalgia market- tested with the trend for directors cuts and the growing DVD/ Video market- hence the redux versions.

We should also note the collaboration with Lucas's editor and ex-wife Marcia on the original trilogy- (also the editor on Taxi Driver) The later films and redux/ re-cut versions run too long- the Han/ Jabba scene was cut for a reason- Its boring and doesn't add anything to the movie.

Surely this is a great example of where Lucas's success is down to collaboration rather than a unique vision. Sadly he now seems to have too much control- and too big an ego to make a decent movie.
 
 
matthew.
23:32 / 06.05.06
[threadrot]

Shakespeare is the classic example of someone regarded as top of the class despite trading very little in originality

Despite his numerous coinage of new words? And The Tempest which has no discernable`historical or folkloric background? As well as his complex use of metadrama, such as the play within Hamlet?

[/threadrot]

I think it's somewhat incorrect to suggest that Lucas is a visionary or a pioneer of the ideas expressed in Star Wars. Sure, he is a mastermind of special effects and micromanagement, but that word alone deflates the argument that Lucas is an auteur because its collaborative implication.

While I see your point, who cares, I disagree. And furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you were not so patronizing. (If patronizing was not your intent, I apologize.)
 
 
Spaniel
07:30 / 07.05.06
Bear in mind that "mastermind" was your choice of word. Orson Wells also pioneered numerous visual effects, no-one disputes his auteur status (except those that dspute auteur status full stop).

I'm not at all into auteur theory but you're not making strong arguments, Matt.
 
 
Spaniel
07:33 / 07.05.06
I think this originality business is a little misleading. To be described as an auteur you don't need to be particualrly original (although "auteurs" often are), you need to have a strong personal vision.
 
 
some guy
19:41 / 07.05.06
I do not believe that lucas's intentions in 1977 were the cg mess of the redux versions of Star wars

This raises the question of whether intention matters (the "death of the author" camp of course would say no). It also opens up the issue of intention as bound to a particular point in time; where is our magic cut off date?

I do believe that a bored rich man with writers block decided to play with some new technology and cash in on the loyal fanboy nostalgia market- tested with the trend for directors cuts and the growing DVD/ Video market- hence the redux versions.

The problem here is that Lucas had more or less hinted at his frustrations with FX for years and had hinted from the summer after Star Wars first came out that what we were watching wasn't matching his original vision. Compare the original script for Star Wars with the final result of the six films and it's pretty obvious that he was working around the limitations of contemporary FX the whole time. Star Wars was apparently made first because it was the one with the fewest technological challenges.

the Han/ Jabba scene was cut for a reason- Its boring and doesn't add anything to the movie

It was cut because the original intention was to superimpose a stop-motion puppet over the Jabba actor but it proved impossible to implement. I agree it's also a boring waste of time.

Surely this is a great example of where Lucas's success is down to collaboration rather than a unique vision.

I'm not so sure. It's difficult to avoid dividing cinema along 1977 and that simply would never have happened if not for this guy who micromanaged every aspect of production. Now I'm not going to seriously argue that Lucas is an auteur - in part because I'm sort of a "Lucas realist" rather than a "Lucas defender" and partly because I think auteur theory is bollocks for the most part.

Despite his numerous coinage of new words? And The Tempest which has no discernable`historical or folkloric background? As well as his complex use of metadrama, such as the play within Hamlet?

Yes, despite all that. Shakespeare isn't much on originality. Luckily I reject originality as a criteria for anything we're discussing here (which may be one reason why I can still enjoy works like The Invisibles and Watchmen).

I think it's somewhat incorrect to suggest that Lucas is a visionary or a pioneer of the ideas expressed in Star Wars.

If you'd like to point to someone else as responsible for 1977 and everything that implies then go right ahead.

I'd appreciate it if you were not so patronizing.

I didn't intend to be patronizing; what you wrote seemed to indicate you didn't know Lucas' role in making the six films. You still seem a bit fuzzy on it. By all means let's slate the guy for being a shit director, but let's hang him for his crimes and not our suppositions.
 
 
matthew.
00:07 / 08.05.06
If you'd like to point to someone else as responsible for 1977 and everything that implies then go right ahead.

May I ask for clarification? It seems to me that you are implying that Lucas is very influential and that he is the... epitome(?) of film in 1977? That if I had to associate a name with a year, then 1977 goes with Lucas hand-in-hand?

If that's what you meant, and please correct me if I'm wrong, was 1977 not also the year of Close Encounters of the Third Kind?

Also, if we extend your logic (eg. extremely efficient micromanagement) could we also not say that the Broccoli family (and EON Productions) is deserving of the same accolades? Ian Fleming's James Bond is (in ways) subtly and obviously different than the film version of Bond. The iconic Bond (Connery and to a lesser extent the others [Moore, Dalton and Brosnan]) is a product of film and not prose. The iconic Bond we see is a product of Broccoli and Saltzman who micromanaged the film series to a ridiculous degree, from soundtracks to girls to gadgets. They really did have a hand in absolutely everything.
 
 
some guy
01:17 / 08.05.06
May I ask for clarification? It seems to me that you are implying that Lucas is very influential

I don't think that needs to be implied in any credible discussion of film or pop culture.

and that he is the... epitome(?) of film in 1977?

I'm not interested in getting into whether he is the epitome of anything. But it's silly to ignore the cultural and cinematic impact of Star Wars and 1977 becomes a shorthand demarcation for that. We're looking at very different landscapes before and after that summer.

Also, if we extend your logic (eg. extremely efficient micromanagement) could we also not say that the Broccoli family (and EON Productions) is deserving of the same accolades?

If you want to make the case that the Broccoli family is as involved in every aspect of production as Lucas, be my guest. You also seem to be laboring under the impression that Lucas didn't create his characters and universe.

At any rate, the question of Lucas as auteur isn't really the point of raising him in this thread, is it?
 
 
PatrickMM
03:38 / 08.05.06
If you're saying that the fact that Lucas was heavily inspired by other source material discounts him as an auteur, then wouldn't the same be true of Kubrick, who didn't write an original screenplay after 1955. I'd definitely consider Lucas the auteur of the Star Wars films, and for better or worse, there is a clarity of theme and vision across the six of them.

The bigger issue with director's cuts is revisionist history. The closest equivalent to the Star Wars: SEs is the Donnie Darko Director's Cut. Now, Richard Kelly can claim that was his original intention, but the film is significantly worse than its original version. A lot of times limits aid a director, so regardless of whether he cut the Jabba scene for puppet reasons or because he thought it was bad, the film clearly works better without it. So, Lucas from 1977 may not share the opinions of Lucas of 2006.
 
 
Spaniel
10:42 / 08.05.06
I used to have such hopes for Kelly, and then I saw that fucking director's cut.

What a berk.

But it's silly to ignore the cultural and cinematic impact of Star Wars and 1977 becomes a shorthand demarcation for that. We're looking at very different landscapes before and after that summer.

Matt, you are aware that this is well worn ground, aren't you? That it's standard procedure when talking about the history of cinema to refer to life before and after SW? That's not to say that there aren't dissenting voices, just that who cares is raising a very popular position.
 
 
some guy
15:29 / 08.05.06
So, Lucas from 1977 may not share the opinions of Lucas of 2006.

I think this is a very important point. In my opinion it's questions like this that make discussion of "definitive" versions or the primacy of any given version more or less irrelevant. I suggested upthread that the audience might have more weight than the creator when it comes to selecting the canon (as it were). There are more than two versions of Star Wars floating around. One of these is the version for Lucas and another is the version for most viewers. We can apply the same thing to any text with multiple iterations; Donnie Darko is another great example.

Why is it so important to create a hierarchy of art? I find the "make your own canon" approach much more fulfilling.
 
 
haus of fraser
07:42 / 09.05.06
I guess it becomes important when a studio dictates definitive version by making it the only one available to buy? As i remember Lucas himself claimed that the redux versions were the definitive versions and the original cuts were now obsolete- never to be seen again.

Fortunately Miramax seem to have noticed the demand for originals early on with Cinema Paridiso- so when you buy it now you get both versions- rather than the period mid 90's when all you could get was a daft faber & faber box set with the directors cut in it. The directors cut is a fucking mess - but i spoke about it upthread a while back- I guess my thoughts are 'if it ain't broke...'

It seems that Lucas and Fox are realising that they are sitting on another cash cow to be milked (as i predicted two years ago upthread).

'So weren't there supposed to be 9 films?' Says the bored studio exec to lucas in another fruitless 'ideas' session...
'yeah about luke and leias jedi kids.... for kids.... like agent cody banks in space... but shitter'
 
 
some guy
14:44 / 09.05.06
I guess it becomes important when a studio dictates definitive version by making it the only one available to buy?

But does it really dictate a definitive version? We can't simply recognize that there are multiple versions but only one is currently available commercially?

As i remember Lucas himself claimed that the redux versions were the definitive versions and the original cuts were now obsolete- never to be seen again.

Which may well have been his viewpoint at the time. But views change, and at any rate we're still left with the "death of the author" question and the millions of people who still held that Han shot first no matter what Lucas chose to put in his personal canon.
 
 
matthew.
21:02 / 18.05.06
Does anybody want a really good summation of these new DVDs being put out?

Then read about it here or here:

What you will, in fact, be getting on the second disc in each of these new 2-disc sets (unless something changes dramatically and soon) are transfers of the original films that were done for the 1993 "definitive collection" laserdisc box set release. (By way of confirmation, Lucasfilm's Jim Ward had this to say about the transfers in the recent USA Today story: "It is state of the art, as of 1993, and that's not as good as state of the art 2006.")

These are not going to be DVD quality films. At least not to the quality that we have become used to with Lord of the Rings and the prequel trilogy.
 
 
ngsq12
21:57 / 19.05.06
Two director cuts worthy of note are THX1138 (Lucas again) and Star Trek the Motion Picture (I have a soft spot for the first one).

In these cases scenes were modified using modern computer graphics. Both films were "messed with", succesfully I think, but the digital transfer of Star Trek I is interlaced, and so, of poor quality.

Both of the scores are excellent as well in my opinion. Lalo Shifrin did THX whilst Jerry Goldsmith did one of his best for Star Trek.

THX shows what Lucas can do when he is in a serious mood and I dont think Robert Wise (who did the motion picture) was ever much of an egomaniac. Like John Carpenter, Robert Wise trys to tell a story as his primary goal. Lucas on the other hand seems to be sending us a message.
 
 
matthew.
02:50 / 20.05.06
I love the first Star Trek film almost more than the second. Which is somewhat geek blasphemous.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:00 / 20.05.06
Compare the original script for Star Wars with the final result of the six films and it's pretty obvious that he was working around the limitations of contemporary FX the whole time.

I'm sure, had it been his original intention, Lucas had the technology back in the day to make Greedo shoot first.
 
 
matthew.
14:18 / 20.05.06
I hope you're being sarcastic, there, Stoatie.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:44 / 20.05.06
I was just trying to paint Beardy in a more Stalinist light than the one suggested by the idea that the Special Editions were what he'd wanted all along, but just hadn't been able to do.

But it does remind me that beside all the bickering about effects and stuff, the Special Editions are wrong wrong wrongity wrong because HAN SHOOTS FIRST, GODDAMMIT!!!
 
 
bjrn
11:41 / 23.05.06
So, I have to say that there are few films I've seen in both director's cut and "normal" versions, so I can't really comment on Donnie Darko (which I've seen, but don't know which version).

There is however one movie I know has a crappy original version, and that is Das Boot. The one that went into the movies (outside Germany) was dubbed and cut to pieces, it was still a long movie, but nothing compared to the full six hours it was really supposed to be. The BBC aired the full thing, 6 part series, almost 6 hours in total a year or two ago.

On director's cuts in general, on the one hand I think it's nice when the director has a chance to say "this is what I really wanted", on the other hand... most of the time it just seems like a way for the producers to earn more by selling the same thing twice.
 
 
grant
19:43 / 23.05.06
Dune.

The televised long-cut miniseries version of Dune.

What's up with that?
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply