Studio heads are idiots.

[Darth23]

I just saw this quote referring to the upcoming Martin Scorsese film Gangs of New York:


The studio is still debating whether to release the picture for a limited run in New York and Los Angeles so it can qualify for this year's
December 31 Oscar deadline.

Meanwhile, per Weinstein's request, Scorsese is reportedly going to chop more than a half-hour from the film's final three-hour running time to make it more palatable to American audience's short-attention spans.

Short attention spans? Excuse me?

Wasn't Pearl Harbor 3 hours long? It's made almost 200 million bucks. Gladiator was also well over 2 hours and cleared 186 million.

Saving Private Ryan was 2:50, Schindler's List was 3:17, The Patriot was 2:44 and Braveheart was Two hours and Fifty-seven minutes long.

We have Oscar winners, on this list as well as movies that mave made a lot of money - i.e. they were VERY popular with the audience.

I know that 2:30 is still pretty long compared to most movies, but there's been a definite trend that many critically acclaimed AND financially successful movies have been that long or even longer. It seems to me that it's the studios not the audience that wants to make every movie 90 minutes or less.

[ReaperFett]

This has been going on for ages. IIRC, It was decided because critics in the US made a bigger deal of the length. Daft, but blame the critics, not the studios :)

[Mu Satach]

"He's the head of the studio...

what does he know?"

[Force Master Hunter]

Titanic, 3 hours 17 minutes.

What was it's USA gross again?

How many Oscars again?




What a bull**** excuse. MAKE the movie that engrossing that people will watch it!!!!!!!

[Lord Exar Kun]

Sort of funny to hear one syudio talking about cutting material out of a movie to make it more interesting to the "short attention spans" of Americans.

I remember last year (2000) seeing a special on E! about how studios were only looking at two hour long and longer films becasue the American public, when polled, felt as though they were being continuously crapped on for shelling out $6.50 to $8.00 for movies that were less that one and a half hours long, even shorter on some cases.

I am with all of you. If the movie is good, such as the movies all of you listed, let it be.
Besides, what was the last Scorcese movie released that was less than two and a half hours long or sucked for that matter.

Certain directors should just be left alone with the length of their movies.
Cameron
Scorcese
Gibson (yes, Mel Gibson)
DePalma
Tarentino
Stone

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think it has more to do that the film is terrible. I had heard reports that certain people in Miramax want to push the film into next year to see if he can get it right. Its also possible that they want the cuts because they feel that it makes the movie incredibly boring. Sure you can make a greak 3 hour film but you can also make an incredibly boring one. Pearl Harbor is a good example, my biggest complaint was that the film was too long, I thought they needed to cut out 15-20 minutes. Wyatt Earp is another example. Gangs of NY might have the same problem, of course it could be so bad that it wouldn't matter either way.

[Jedieb]

I think the "American attention span" is an argument studio accountants and hacks love to spit out to cover their butts. There are Disney executives out there right now who wish PH could have been only 2 hours. In their minds, 2 hours would have meant more showings and more showings would mean they'd be coming up on $250M and not $200M right now. Granted, the massive cuts could have ruined the film entirely, but an exec with his eyes on nothing but the bottom line probably wouldn't understand that.

[imported_QuiGonJ]

I'm willing to guess it's the theater owners they are really talking about.

[Darth23]

Well if the brought back intermissions then the audience could go out and get a popcorn an soda refill. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOTR is another film they are trying to get under 3 hours. I read that they want to get it to around 2 and half which to me is a great time. If they took everything from the book it would be 5 hours long and nobody but the few die hards would go see it.

[Lord Exar Kun]

Carr,
You are so right about LOTR.
That is one reason I am NOT going to see it until it is released on DVD/Video.

I, mush like everyone else, grew up on these books and stories, and I can not fathom them making a movie less than, as you mentioned, 5 hours, or possibly making a mini-series closer to 7 or 9 hours like North & South with Patrick Swayze from the late 80's. That series did that book absolute justice.

[darth_mcbain]

I'm not sure I agree with that Kun... While I personally love the LOTR books and wouldn't mind seeing a 4-5 hour movie for Fellowship, I don't think that would be a very smart move. True, for the big fans it would be their dream come true, but for the normal person who isn't too much into it, 4-5 hours is a long time. Would you consider going to a movie that is 5 hours long that you are only somewhat interested in? I know I wouldn't - that is a long time and big commitment. They need to make it appeal to all different groups, and by making it 4-5 hours long they would be appealing only to a niche audience.

I will say this though - while I will definitely see it in the theaters, I too am anxiously awaiting the DVD - I bet there will be a lot of interesting stuff in there that didn't make the final cut of the movie.

I don't know - only my $0.02...

[Lord Exar Kun]

McBain,
I agree completely.
I only thought that if the desire of making big money was not a factor, then a small screen adaptation and a three or four night long mini-series would be appealing.

Just like you though, just my $0.02

[Jedi Master Carr]

I kind of agree with both of you there. Sure it would be great to do a miniseries thing like North and South or the Stand which kept most of the story in tact. But I think in today's market the networks are movie away from those type of projects which is a shame. Still there are some things that don't need to be filmed or cut down to a few words, I have faith that can do the book justice in 2 1/2 hours.

[Lord Exar Kun]

I don't disagree with you, Carr, but there are some books that when translated to the big screen or small screen deserve to be handled properly.

Perhaps you are right and LOTR can be done justice in two hours, but an example I would like to bring up is the movie adaptation of the book: "Along came a Spider."

For anyone who has not read this book, two words: READ IT.

Great read.

But, the movie is so far off base from the book, I felt like I watched a completely different movie that had that title slapped on it. Sure, names were the same, the plot was loosely taken from the book, but the books was so much better and the studio left so damn much out.

This book, and I know I am going to open a can or worms with this probably, and "Hannibal" were two of the worse "book to screen" adaptations I have ever seen.

I just feel, if a studio wants to make a movie of a book, then at least do the book justice. If you can not do that, do not waste the film.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think the film version of Hannible was better mostly because of the ending. Clarice just acted so much out of character in the end in the book, the movie made more sense there at least to me.

[ReaperFett]

Fight Club was a great adaptation

[Lord Exar Kun]

Carr,
While yes, I agree the movie ending with Starling was more along the lines of her character, my take on the end of the book was that Lechter kept her slightly drugged at all times.
The descriptions of her actions always seemed to lead me to believe she was not entirely in control of her own actions.

My biggest beef with the movie adaptaion of Hannibal was leaving out the references to his sister. In the book, the reader is lead to believe that Hannibal's fascination with Clarice Starling is much due to the fact that she reminds Lechter of his sister. The movie foolishly has the viewers thinking that Lechter is simply a sex-crazed man who wants Starling for nothing but a sex-toy. This alone let me down to dis-honor such a great performance by Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.

The other part that did not sit well with me was a larger explaination of Verger's personality, more or less centering on him being a pedorast. This had me cheering for his ultimate demise in the book, but the movie almost had you thinking that Verger was an alright sort of fellow and that he was a victim of Hannibal Lechter's. To me, the movie portrayed Verger as more of a victim than a criminal, which he clearly was in the movie, but used his money to buy ignorance and complacence in the people around him.
I was also let down by the ommission of Verger's sister. I think she would have been a nice supporting character.

[Jedi Master Carr]

They called Verger a pedofile in the film and i was glad when he got in the movie but of course I am not sure how others reacted to him and they have missed that reference. As far as Lecter and Clarice goes I never saw anything sexual in either film, I thought he respected her for some reason unknown to me, it hought it was that Lectar had a high moral code and he saw Clarice as a good person who he respected and that is why he nevered harmed her (of course I'm privy to stuff in the books so that might be why I have a different opinion than other people). As far as his sister goes the filmmakers must have decided that they didn't have time to go into they probably wanted to keep it under 3 hours and they did not want to just throw in for a quick reference which would be even worse. Still Hannible is far from the worse book adaptaion I have two films adapted from books that I hate.
The Lost World (that book was nothing like the movie it had only three characters and a couple of scenes the rest of it was just made up)
And the Shinning the first film adaptation (my problem there is that Kubrick makes it appear that Jack's character is just nuts and he never deals with the evil of the house like King did. To me that ruined the movie because it made the father look like a monster unlike in the book where it showed how the house used him. Also the House was not destroyed in the movie like the book, there are other things about it but I can't think what they are at the moment.

[Lord Exar Kun]

I will agree with you on The Shining.
I have never read The Lost World because as odd as it sounds, I have never been a big fan of Michael Chrichton's writing style.
I tried to read the book "Eaters of the Dead" that the movie 13th Warrior was based upon and just did not like it at all either. Which I normally enjoy readig books written as diaries or journal entries much as the masterfully written Dracula by Bram Stoker.

Something I do not know if you were aware of, is when Stephen King was making the Shining mini-series for television, he was interviewed and asked why he was making it and why he was so involved with this effort as opposed to other efforts.
King said that while he was not slighting the ability of Stanley Kubrick, he never liked that adaptation because it makes Jack Nicholsons character out to be a crazy man who wnet completely nuts as opposed to a sane man who goes insane because of the house.

I also remeber King stating that from that point forward he was going to be more involved in the movies because he was tired of people taking artistic liscense with his properties.
Maybe that is why he is the Master. I love his writing. Sad to think that the man is slowly losing his eye sight and in a few years he may be unable to continue writing. I so hope for him to finish the Dark Tower series someday, but it may never happen now. I saw at his website that the fifth book is not expected until 2003 at the earliest.
Perhaps though that is the best, just to let the series hang in limbo for the fans to decide the ultimate fate and outcome of Roland's quest.

[darth_mcbain]

Perhaps this is a little off topic for this thread, but re/ the Dark Tower series, he has published the prologue to Book V which you can download off his official site. The book itself won't be around for a while yet, but it is something to tide you over until then. I too am anxiously awaiting the next installment in that series...

[Jedieb]

Did anyone actually see the Shinning TV mini-series? I saw bits and pieces and it wasn't anything to brag about. It certainly couldn't hold it's own against the film. I always got the impression that the house did drive Nicholson crazy. There were plenty of clues that the house was a driving force behind his madness. It let him out of the freezer, it placed Nicholson in the picture at the end of the film, etc. The film may have been more subtle than the book, but it still gave me the impression that the house was driving Nicholson to kill.

[darth_mcbain]

I saw parts of it, and agree with you. I think that the mini-series was a bit more true to the book where the movie took some liberties. But I definitely think that in the movie the house itself is one of the characters. It doesn't come right out and hit you over the head, but it is kind of there in the background. Its pretty much like that with a lot of Kubrick's stuff - you really have to read (or view) between the lines to understand what he's trying to get at.

By the way EB, did you purposefully spell "The Shinning" that way or not? :lol The Shinning is one of my favorite Simpsons Halloween mini-episodes...

[Lord Exar Kun]

Well, I am going to prepare to be "drawn and quartered" for this, but I liked the mini-series better than the movie.

I admit I watched every moment of it and thought it did a brilliant job portraying the madness that dwelled within the house.

One note of worth: I think his name is Steven Weber, he did a great job, but Nicholson would have been perfect for this role in this version also.

The other reason I did not like Kubrick's version (as I prepare to run for my life) is that I simply do not like any of Stanley Kubrick's movies.

I have seen every movie of his with the collaboration whatever "A.I." that Spielberg finished and I have yet to like one of his films.
His use of colors completely turns me off of anything his does and his use of music in borderline criminal.
I understand it is his style, but the near drowning-out of dialoque and sound effects with music is excellent when done correctly but I often have felt that Kubrick does not comprehend that he was going too far with his musical overtones to the point of annoyance.

This is my opinion of course and I know that in the eyes of many he was an artiste and a brilliant film-maker, but I never saw it.

[Jedieb]

If anyone would catch a Shinning reference it would be you McBane! Remember how Groundskeeper Willie got axed in just about every segment? :lol

Exar, if you don't Kubrick then you just don't like him. You certainly don't have to apologize for it. You're not going to get drawn and quartered by me. I like some of the very things you dislike about him. His visual style, his music, the performances he gets out of his actors, etc. One of my favorite Kubrick films is Full Metal Jacket. Actually I should say half of that film works for me. Once Modine gets out of basic training you get a completely different movie IMO. To me FMJ is actually two films in one and I'm fairly ambivalant towards the second half. But you know, one person's Ed Wood is another's Hithcock.

Steven Webber is a pretty solid actor, but to me he was indicative of one of the series' major weaknesses. A solid TV actor, but a "still not ready for Hollywood" actor. It just seemed like a project that no studio would want to tackle, but a Network would. It's kind of unfair, because there are many writers and shows on network TV that put their Hollywood counterparts to shame. But still, if you have a choice between being the biggest star in movies or the biggest star on TV you're going to go for the big screen. I doubt Tom Hanks would stop making films so he could go back and star in a revamped version of Boosom Buddies.

[darth_mcbain]

LOL :lol eb... The image of Tom Hanks now starring in Bosom Buddies is pretty funny...

Exar, know what you mean re/ Kubrick. I like some of his stuff, but some of it doesn't do all that much for me. Sometimes I just want a movie that I don't have to think about all that much, and you don't really get that from Kubrick. I'd say from his films (that I've seen, at least), I like the Shining, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange. I'll fully admit, though, that all of them are pretty "out there" and I still don't claim to understand them 100%...

I didn't really like A.I., and I'm so-so on Full Metal Jacket. Haven't seen Dr. Strangelove, and I hear that is actually pretty darn good - I'll have to try that one...

[Jedi Master Carr]

I liked the miniseries better too mostly because I love the book and just despised how Kubrick butchered it. My only problem with it was that it was a tad long three days is a long time but then again it included everthing in it. Also I thought Kubrick's version was twice as gory then the novel or the miniseries. King is generally not a gory writer (some people might disagree with me here I don't know) But besides IT I can think of another really gory novel that he wrote and the Shinning is no different. The book plays with your mind and you don't see much of what is going on until later in the book. Most of the terror comes in the little things to me, especially the description of the House. I remember reading it when I used to work at this museum and I was working the desk one weekend and there was nobody in the building but me and as I read that book I started hearing creaks in the floor, at that point my mind began to play tricks on me but even though I was slightly frieghtened the experience made the book even better because it made it twice as scary.