There was a story that surfaced that other day surrounding the new film “Across the Universe” directed by Julie Taymor (who also directed Frida). You see, apparently the studio didn’t like her cut of the film, so… without her permission (not that they required it) they went and re-cut it themselves. A lot of people around the web thought that was terrible for the studio to do (me included). But now more details are coming out about it that has me re-thinking my position a bit. IMDB gives us this:
After director Julie Taymor’s cut of Across the Universe, featuring music of the Beatles, was greeted with derision by preview audiences, it was recut by Revolution Studios chief Joe Roth and shown last week to a receptive audience in Phoenix, AZ that gave it a score of 86 percent, L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke reported Tuesday, citing unnamed sources. But when Taymor learned of the screening, insiders told Finke, she had an angry “meltdown.” One studio insider told Finke: “We were dealing with a woman who has absolutely no sense of commercial potential. At one point, [Sony Pictures Co-chairman] Amy Pascal took her to dinner and diplomatically told her ‘how good it could be’ if only she’d cut the movie. But Julie still refused. Indeed, that’s the refrain of everyone: there’s a great movie in there, somewhere. But, as [Taymor’s cut] stands now, it’s so complicated it’s just a bad movie.”
Ok, so if I’m understanding this correctly…
1 – Taymor (the Director) finishes the movie
2 – Studio Doesn’t like the movie as it is
3 – Test audiences don’t like it as it is
4 – Studio tells Taymor the movie has potential but needs to be cut
5 – Taymor says “no”
6 – Studio goes ahead and cuts the film without her
7 – Studio likes the new cut
8 – Audiences like the new cut
9 – Taymor has a meltdown
Look, I’m all for maintaining the artistic vision of the director. I really am. HOWEVER… the director isn’t the one who stands to lose millions of dollars if the movie they made sucks. The Studios pay for it… and as the people who pay for everything… they have (and rightly so) the final word. If they are wise, they’ll only use that power rarely.
To me, this is one of those situations where the studio was probably justified in stepping in. If they thought it was a bad film as it was currently edited, and audiences didn’t like it… and everyone else they showed it to thought it was bad…. then the studio needs to protect their investment and make changes.
Taymor SHOULD have done the changes herself… but she refused. So what was the studio supposed to do? Just let their money fly out the window so Taymor could get her way? No. In my opinion, they did the right thing in this situation. Taymor should have been more professional and cooperated with the people who paid her to do the job and paid for the movie. Just my two cents worth.
What do you think?
I would tend to say – for studio pics – yes. Knowing this can piss off a director and this can be his last time working with the producers. But then again, the producer is putting the money on the table and he is responsible for it. At the end, it is film-BUSINESS.
On the other hand, producers can be idiots – being totally blind for the creative process behind a movie. And they can also fuck up a movie-production.
A thing like that SHOULD BE negotiated in the contract before the production starts. If a producer really want to work with a director and a specific script, then maybe he should be confident in his hired gun.
Conclusion: Don’t make a rule, but make it so that the filmmakers and producers can negotiate this point in a contract.
People, as we can plainly see, can debate about this forever. Since, as everyone here has said at one point: “Side A (or ‘B’) are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.”
The Bottom Line is defining this statement:
What defines a Successful movie?
To some, and from personal experience:
It’s getting it made. It’s making the point. It’s finishing the project a better and more learned person. Did it break even?
To LOTS of others:
‘Did it crack 100 mil?’
There is absolutely ZERO definitive line or answer to that question. So the debate will rage on…
In a *way*, it really is Art vs Business – HOWEVER, ONE CAN’T SURVIVE WITHOUT THE OTHER. As much as that sucks.
well thats all i meant by my first post…..she has every right to have a meltdown…
I would have a fucking meltdown too if I worked my ass of on a film only to have some fucking studio suit come along and say “your films o.k. but we could make it better – I have these notes from a test screening of a collection of random people and what we are going to do is now shape your film around what all these people we pulled off the street think as we think their collective thoughts know how to make a better film than you”
test screenings are fucking offensive to film makers and I really hope she takes her name off it – then the film is definitely a bomb…..
Hey Kurt,
You said:
“Not to hijack your thread, but I think debating “does the studio have the right” is not much of a debate. There are legal contracts that say they have to. But the more interesting question is what produces the most memorable films. And memorable films down the road become profitable films”
I think you’re wildly wrong on several levels. But to each their own. Your opinion is no less valid than mine.
The question of this post however… was not a question of LEGAL right (you’re correct, that’s not a debate, it’s cut and dry obvious), but more a question of SHOULD they have the right. I stand that yes… it is correct that they have that right to make changes.
Some people in this thread seem to have this belief that “Directors” know best. That’s sometimes true… but also sometimes not. There also seems to be this notion that Studios don’t know anything about movies or how to make them… that studios are run by business majors who don’t know the difference between star wars and star trek.
Quite the opposite is true. Most of these studios are run by people who have spent their lives in the movies and the movie industry. Overseeing and actually making thousands of films. MANY MANY MANY execs in positions of power at the studios have worked within the creative field of film for many years.
Disney was 100% right when trying to step in and get M. Night Shamhammer to change things about “Lady in the Water”. Shamhammer ignored them… and we ended up with the worst film of the year. Clearly… the studio knew best in this case.
There are many other examples of the studio being WRONG. But it’s not like the studios don’t know or understand or aren’t skilled in the ART of filmmaking as well. They are. Period. They make mistakes… but the directors/writers/actors/whoever do too.
This isn’t ART VS. BUSINESS as some people seem to try to make it out to be. They’re all artists on one level or another… and they’re all business people on one level or another.
“Test audiences are usually made up of yahoos. They don’t test these movies in NY, LA, or Chicago — they do it in bumfuck Kansas, where the average IQ is about 25.”
Amazing, the arrogance, hate, and condescension that goes into such a post. “They don’t live in the big cities, so they are inbred morons who should shut up and listen to the people who know best!”
Despicable.
What I’m trying to say John is that when you start popping in analogies, often people focus on the minutia of the analogy and lose sight of the actual debate.
It’s not that I do not get your premise, I just think it is reducing things down to a kindergarden level (several posters above have echoed this, trying to help with the analogy).
“he “artist” is as much a commercial entity as the corporation… wanting to make profit for themselves for their artistic work.”
Well that sentence is debatable. I think there are a number of artists out there not in it for the money (i.e. existing as a commercial entity). But merely want the money to not have to worry about money so they can get on with the art. Does Spiderman or Transformers or Cold Mountain fall into this…probably not, they (and most of The Movie Blog content) fall into the business of show.
Some of us are coming from a completely different angle, and perhaps foolsishly applying this to studio type films. There is a world of artists working for the sake of practicing their art. (And no, I’m not romanticizing this…it is a hard fact). But I guess I’m trying to say that I love the people who are in the middle ground. Your Terrance Mallicks, your Darren Aronofskys, your Guillermo Del Toros and Alfonso Cuarons that want to make auteur pictures within the Studio system.
Not to hijack your thread, but I think debating “does the studio have the right” is not much of a debate. There are legal contracts that say they have to. But the more interesting question is what produces the most memorable films. And memorable films down the road become profitable films (just not in the quick-buck sense)…Shawshank Redemption was mentioned above….
No Kurt, your rejection of the analogy is idiotic.
It’s a simple premise. The owner (house, movie, car, painting, book, chair) owns the porperty in question. has the right do with, or re-do with as they see fit.
The artist, contractor, creator, builder is hired and paid to do a job… what the owner does with it afterwards is totally within their rights to do so. Sometimes it’s a mistake… but it’s their mistake to make.
The “artist” is as much a commercial entity as the corporation… wanting to make profit for themselves for their artistic work.
Yea, the above comment should be about in the middle of the thread…the analogy I refer to is the building/painting a house…sorry ’bout the confusion
“My comment got eaten earlier…trying to repost…
As i said before. The analogy is idiotic (sorry John).
You seem way too much focused on the Commerce side of things. It is the good art (or at least a nice blend of both) that people remember…Say, like much of the strong artist driven commercial product in the 1970s, when it was in vogue for the Studios to throw out the money and back the heck off.
When the studios became big corporations at the mercy of “Shareholder value” is about the time that the whole studio system went to shit and most of us turned to other countries in the world for our art. Sure there are still some great American films, but most of them are made outside of the studio system, very few succeed from within.”
In the immortal words of David O. Russell — “I’m trying to fucking be a collaborator here, you F’n C—“
ARTISTIC INTEGRITY
Where are all you guys who are waving the flag of “Artistic Integrity” when a director butchers and edits the creative work of the screenwriter?
You can’t have it both ways. You either say the artistic creations of the artist must maintain it’s integrity at all times…
OR…
You conceed that there are circumstances when from time to time changes have to be made on any level.
Take your pick.
Hey Alfie,
You said:
“she has every right to be angry about this”
I don’t disagree.
john what I am saying is she has every right to be angry….you know how hard it is to make a film???…most directors give up everything when making a film …..it consumes them and then you have some exec come along who has screened the film to a bunch of fucking moochers at a mall somewhere and found out that they found the ending of the film “like really depressing and stuff – it would be like so totally rad if the guy lived at the end and they walked off into the sunset” so then the exec says hey thanks for putting your heart and soul into this but you know what – we found that people between the ages of 17-24 with an income of 56,000 a year would much prefer to have character A wind up with character b and also scene x totally cut out of it”
she has every right to be angry about this
if she wants to take her name off it because she feels it no longer resembles her film then she has every right…
She is well within her rights to be angry about this….it is her film at the end of the day and if they take it from her and recut it making her feel that it is no longer her film then I hope she does take her name off it and then the film will really be fucked as “alan smithee” films are a kiss of death…..then the studio is totally fucked either way
test screenings are the worst thing to have ever happened to films….
you don’t make art by commitee…you win some you lose some…..film making is a risky business for studios….its this type of thinking this “whats more commercially viable” thinking that will ultimately give us “Wild Hogs 2: Euro Hogs”
sure the studio can make the changes – they do own the film and she obviously does not have final cut – I am not arguing that….
I personally think it is bullshit as I would trust a film maker over some numbers obsessed fucking faceless exec who is so scared to take any risks what so ever they they play it safe as much as possible….
again all I am saying is she have every right to be angry about it and if she takes her name off the film then the film will be fucked either way…..
Okay – I was too lazy to read the entire discussion, but I read half and it’s a good one.
My opinion – I disagree with you John. Yes, the studio put up the money and they have to gamble the gain/loss, but at the same time that is the movie business – much like the stockmarket. Perhaps studios need to be more supportive of the directors they hire?
With most of the movies coming out right now being utter crap I have to voice my lack of in faith in the studios.
Test audience??? Unfortunately, there is NO faith there as we see movies like Little Man, Big Mama and Wild Hogs making money.
I’m going to make a wild assumption that the majority of the test audience was not qualified to judge a possible brilliant film.
Sure, the audience could be right, but my cynical attitude says no.
Without both versions of the films how are we to really judge?
If I was Taymor (with a good film track record) I would be pissed too! I’m not saying she couldn’t have made a bad film, but I think I might have wanted to see her “bad film” more than the studio hacked “commericialized” version.
Just my 2 cents.
There’s so much wrong with this paragraph that I don’t even know where to begin:
“The fact is that movies should have three stages of devlopment, and each stage is ushered in and lead by a different person. Pre-production belongs to the writer, who puts down on paper an idea. Production belongs to the director, who changes things the writer put down on the paper because sometimes they just don’t work on the set. Sometimes things need to be changed, sometimes the director just knows better. POST production belongs to the editor, and often he or she knows better than the director what needs to be done. Directors are too close to the material, they don’t understand it outside of the experience of shooting it.”
Getting back to Taymor – this is a complex issue. Yes, the studio is most likely within their rights as the entity which financed and distributed the picture. UNLESS Taymor had final cut. Sounds like she may not have had that provision in her contract. Revolution hired her to direct the film and this was most likely based on her previous wrk and her “take” on the material. Also, they knew what they were getting – studio films are not made in a vacuum. Roth and his other execs would have seen dailies and given input. Common sense says this was brewing for a long time.
I agree to John’s point in theory but when I think what the American distributor did to Once Upon A Time In America I just can’t bring myself around to it. They butchered Leone’s superior 3+ hour and made it into a linear 2 hour move. Just because they thought it might be confusing for some audiences. Shame on them!
In this particular case, I can understand leaning towards the studios. Mind you, on the other hand, don’t forget that the meter can swing equally as far in the opposite direction.
Because someone has 40 million bucks, a suit and a desk, doesn’t mean they know the first thing about movies. They *can* be right, but they can be equally wrong. They look at numbers. And numbers, Shawshank Redemption, don’t necessarily mean anything.
Now, yes, granted, it IS the studio’s money. For example, let’s look at a case that is opposite of the one mentioned in the post, in which the movie actually WOULD be better if it followed the director:
It is the studio’s money, but they don’t know how to make films. Someone else does. They need to be hired. And studios should be as picky as they want in choosing one. The result of the film mind you, is what’s in question. What if audiences DON’T like it – okay yes, that is a fair example. However, that answer simply can’t always fall towards the studios, because studios can be utterly clueless in as many times as they may be right.
The main conflict however, isn’t “Who Should get final say?”
The main conflict stems from this:
Odds are, the director is doing it for the love of his craft. – Oh sure, he makes his money that way, but any director that says “I’m going to be a director to make money” is an idiot. The studios, as a corporation, only, unless they’re making Breast Cancer Awareness commercials, do it for money. The process is not important. “I don’t care how it gets made, have it on the desk at 3:30pm tomorrow.” type thing.
There will never be a solution to the ‘is it for business or art?’ equation. Sure it can be both, but there can be only one winner. And every Individual has a favourite.
John,
After posting my last comment, I realized that it was far too idealistic to be true.
Here’s my final thoughts on the subject. Movies are both an artistic and a business endeavor. That’s totally true. And studios do have the right to give their say and work with the artist in order to come up with the best product that their money can buy.
However, I still say that the studio crossed the line in this case. I think that there’s a limit to the amount of influence the money people can have on the creation of the art. If the studios want a good product, they should hire the most talented artists to create that product, and like you said, they can definitely work with the artist to make sure that it meets their standards.
However, it’s dangerous territory when the money people step in and start to modify the aristic product themselves. Imagine if I were to start painting over a Van Gough or a Picasso.
They hired Taymor to make them a movie, and she did that. But now the guys in the suits are entering the editing studio to modify her vision, because they think they know how to make a better piece of art than her. That’s not the way it works. If she was being unreasonable, they should have fired her and hired a different director to start over and bring the script to life according to his vision. But instead they let her finish the movie, just so that they could go in and use their own paintbrushes to change the painting that ultimately is still going to have her name signed at the corner.
It’s the studio’s movie, and they’re not breaking any laws here. But it just doesn’t seem right to me.
Okay, this is gonna be hard for some people to understand, but: directors are not actually the be all end all of a movie. They should NEVER be, because one person should not be so in charge of a film. Very very few people in the history of film have been able to actually handle that kind of auteur style, and the fact is most of them are known more for being OCD than actually making good movies.
The fact is that movies should have three stages of devlopment, and each stage is ushered in and lead by a different person. Pre-production belongs to the writer, who puts down on paper an idea. Production belongs to the director, who changes things the writer put down on the paper because sometimes they just don’t work on the set. Sometimes things need to be changed, sometimes the director just knows better. POST production belongs to the editor, and often he or she knows better than the director what needs to be done. Directors are too close to the material, they don’t understand it outside of the experience of shooting it.
Some aren’t that way, but I speak from experience, most of the time you don’t want to lose a scene because of one reason or another and it really really needs to go. The editor can make that decision, the director has a harder time of it.
In short: Yes, yes, a million times yes. A director should be able to work with the editor, should have a say. They should maybe even approve the final edit of the film, have discussions about what goes and stays.
But the final director’s cut is often times not the best way to go. This week’s Entertainment Weekly has an interesting sidebar about it actually.
John,
After posting my last comment, I realized that it was far too idealistic to be true.
Here’s my final thoughts on the subject. Movies are both an artistic and a business endeavor. That’s totally true. And studios do have the right to give their say and work with the artist in order to come up with the best product that their money can buy.
However, I still say that the studio crossed the line in this case. I think that there’s a limit to the amount of influence the money people can have on the creation of the art. If the studios want a good product, they should hire the most talented artists to create that product, and like you said, they can definitely work with the artist to make sure that it meets their standards.
However, it’s dangerous territory when the money people step in and start to modify the aristic product themselves. Imagine if I were to start painting over a Van Gough or a Picasso.
They hired Taymor to make them a movie, and she did that. But now the guys in the suits are entering the editing studio to modify her vision, because they think they know how to make a better piece of art than her. That’s not the way it works. If she was being unreasonable, they should have fired her and hired a different director to start over and bring the script to life according to his vision. But instead they let her finish the movie, just so that they could go in and use their own paintbrushes to change the painting that ultimately is still going to have her name signed at the corner.
It’s the studio’s movie, and they’re not breaking any laws here. But it just doesn’t seem right to me.
If the director pays for the film they can do what ever they want.
But she was hired by the studio and its the studio’s money there for they can do what ever they like.
“If you don’t like it… do what George Lucas did and pay for the stuff yourself. And we all saw how that turned out didn’t we?”
Ouch. Nice one.
“do what George Lucas did and pay for the stuff yourself. And we all saw how that turned out didn’t we?”
-Only in I-III. Play fair.
This is why we’ve lost classics like GREED and, well, everything Orson Welles ever did. I wish I could agree, and there are probably circumstances that I’d make exceptions, but for the most part, no.
Hey Tal
You said:
“Whereas if you just trust the artist, you may get a few bombs here and there”
Yikes! And what do you base that on? That’s just not true.
Movie are, and ALWAYS have been both an artistic AND a Business endevour. That means the two have to compromise with each other to make the best product possible.
90% of the time the director gets to make their movies with RELATIVELY little interference from the studio… and normally that’s the way it should be.
BUT… if the studio thinks the director has made a stinker and fear for their investment… they can and SHOULD step in and try to work WITH the director.
It should be noted here from the story that the studio tried to work WITH Taymor… but she wouldn’t budge or compromise. Fair enough… so it’s also fair enough that they went ahead and finished it without her.
If all artist are concerned about is art… let them do it for free.
As long as you want someone else to pay for your endevours, you have to work with them.
If you don’t like it… do what George Lucas did and pay for the stuff yourself. And we all saw how that turned out didn’t we?
It’s a shame it took so long for me to check back cause this turned into a really interesting debate.
John, I totally understand your point, but I still disagree.
You’re right, John, the studio does have the final say, and if they want to, they can edit in a dancing monkey and a laugh-track, and there’s nothing that Taymor can do about it. But that still doesn’t make it right.
The fact is that the movie biz is fundamentally different from the home remodelling biz. Remodelling your house is purely a business transaction. But commissioning a director to make your movie is an artistic endeavor. It’s the modern-day equivalent of hiring Michelangelo to paint a mural on your ceiling. The studio is paying an artist to create the artist’s vision, in hopes that the artist’s vision will be beautiful and ultimately profitable.
Of course, this is an idealistic view, and today’s movie industry hardly works this way anymore. When a screenwriter submits a script, for example, there’s no respect for that screenwriter’s vision, so they pass the script around like a prostitute until it’s so defiled that nobody wants to make the movie anymore.
The point I’m trying to make is that the commercialization of the movie industry doesn’t end up producing better films; it produces worse films. When the focus turns simply to profits, as it has in this case, you get a lot of studio execs guessing at what people want to see and ultimately you’ll end up with meaningless crap. Whereas if you just trust the artist, you may get a few bombs here and there, but you have a much better chance of getting something great because it actually resonated with at least one person…the artist.
John you must feel very strongly about this. I’ve never seen you respond so much. With all the work you have done on your own film must really be bringing this home to you. Some of the best DVD’s extras give good insight to how a film is made. Maybe you guys might remember what director/editor said this “Sometime the scence you love the most, for the sake of the film it must be cut. It is the hardest cut of all. And when you can make these tough descisions, can can make a really great film.”
How is this news? This happens ALL THE TIME.
“If I don’t like it, I can have my name removed from it and leave the website. Just that simple. Taymor can have her name taken off the movie if she wants too.”
Maybe in the old days, but in today’s Hollywood it isn’t that simple. When you sign on to direct a movie, you also agree to go on endless press junkets, many lasting through the eventual DVD release, to promote your (their) movie.
Everyday in Hollywood, there are artists who have their artistic vision sliced, diced, and edited by some director or studio somewhere. I think they’re called “writers.” For years, writers have had their work chopped up by a hired director in the name of commercial, artistic, and personal vision. If anyone besides the studio owns a film, it might also be the writer who created the story from an idea and a blank piece of paper.
What gives directors more power or say-so than writers?
Hey “Some Guy”
That is an excellent excellent example. If someone else owned The Movie Blog… it’s their call as to what gets put on the site.
If they hire me, I would hope they trust my judgement… but maybe once in a while i write something they are REALLY uncomfortable with and edit me.
If I don’t like it, I can have my name removed from it and leave the website. Just that simple. Taymor can have her name taken off the movie if she wants too.
John,
What if someone else owned your website, and edited your posts if they didn’t like them? You’d be angry if the posts that had your name on them reflected views different than your own.
Their argument would be, “Screw you, we pay for your website.”
Your (proper) response would be, “But you pay me to express MY OWN opinion.”
Hey Jason,
you said:
“Because arguing for the studio in this instance undermines everything that directors, actors, artists, etc., do, which is providing the world with something worthwhile as art – not as something that’s only commercially viable.”
Man, you are seriously over romantizizing this (In my opinion). So making some edits to cut down the film “undermines everything that directors, actors, artists, etc., do”??? Come on… that is a SERIOUS exageration.
Also, don’t think for a single second that for Taymor this is all about art. If it was, why not make the movie herself with her own money? Because she wanted to get paid. She wanted someone else to assume all the financial risk.
Sorry man, your idea of “You pay all the money, You assume all the financial risk, You pay me, if the movie doesn’t do well YOU take all the loses… but you get no say over anything, all while I count my money that you paid me… that’s nonsense.
You’re talking as if directors all make great movies. Great art. They DON’T. Sometimes they make total shit. Sometimes when they do a studio needs to step in and protect their investment.
Sometimes studios overstep that and act like idiots. But so do Directors.
If this was an “Art vs. Business” issue like you suggest, Taymor should have just made the movie on her own. Or she wouldn’t have accepted money for it. It is BUSINESS for Taymor too.
At the end of the day, when stuff like this happnes… someone should have the final say. And it should be the people who pay the bills unless otherwise negotiated and areed upon.
hey jason,
Do you see the stuff that gets made in America? Do you see the useless garbage (Transformers, Spider-man) that the movie blog always talks about?
there is no such thing as artistic integrity in American filmmaking, even in tv productions. In movie and TV productions, they can recast, refilm, reedit things as they please with no say from the actors, directors, or even writers.
Then tell her to use the internet as a movie distributor. She can use it to play a directors cut of her vision.
since she didn’t have Final Cut rights, then the studio does have the right to change it. I don’t think there’s much more to talk about in this argument. No need to spend hundreds of wasted words on this dumb issue.
i guess since she didn’t have Final Cut rights, then the studio really does have the right to say what shows up in the final film.
But i won’t likely be watching this movie anyways, so it’s not that important to me.
In other words then, there is no value based on artistic integrity and a director who has just spent months of her life working on her movie and her vision has absolutely no rights to any of it?
Seems dangerous, especially given the fact that studios are never 100% correct about these matters. Eventually, under this system, movies are going to go the way of popular music where huge studios and conglomerate radio stations have sucked all the life out of music to appease their sense of what will sell better.
You argue whether they can do this, I argue the wisdom of whether they should. The problem is that I don’t think you can straddle the fence on this one. Because arguing for the studio in this instance undermines everything that directors, actors, artists, etc., do, which is providing the world with something worthwhile as art – not as something that’s only commercially viable.
Hey Jason,
No, I didn’t miss it. But in my opinion it’s totally irrenevant. LOTS of people have their names on the film… and they have the right to have their name removed if they want. Taymor has that right too.
It doesn’t change the fact that it’s not her money on the line. It’s the studios. If they feel their investment is at risk and don’t like the job she did… they they have the right to do somehting about it.
Hey Nord
You said:
“This is not a home renovation!, this is someones passion, blood, sweat, tears and reputation.”
It’s more than just blood sweat and passion. I know no one likes to admit this… but I’ll say it. It’s also someones MONEY.
I think you (and me too for that matter) would be singing a totally different tune if it was YOUR money.
You hire a director to do a movie. You invest a small fortune in it. When you see it at the end, you hate it. More than hate it… you’re actually really concerned that you’re going to lose all that money you invested and won’t make any of it back.
What would YOU do? I’ll tell you what you’d (me too) do. You’d change it, or hire someone else… and it would be totally understandable for you to do so.
Everyone wants to ask “Well why did they hire her”? And that is a GOOD FAIR question. But here is another one… Why did she take the job if she didn’t first negotiate Final Cut rights?
For the most part I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying. BUT… you have to conceed (well, you don’t HAVE to) that there are circumstances where it’s understandable for a studio to step in if they think they’re investment (UNGODLY HUGE amounts of money) is in danger.
If Taymor didn’t like the idea of that… she should have negotiated Final Cut rights, or not taken the job.
John, did you read my entire comment or just scan it for a phrase you could misconstrue?
As I said earlier, the situation with movies is a bit more nuanced than “Studio owns it, Director is employee of studio, therefore Studio can slice and dice as it sees fit.”
I’ll reprint what I said without the final sentence, since you missed it the first time:
“The problem with the painted room analogy is that the decorator or painter you hired has nothing invested in the room. You paid the decorator and they did the work. Whether you choose to keep that room yourself makes no difference to that decorator.
“It’s different with movies because the director’s name will end up on the final version of the film. Nobody remembers what studio released a film, but the director and the movie go hand in hand. Now, obviously, a director can take his or her name off of it, but, to me at least, that begs the question of why the studio would hire someone like Taymor in the first place.”
John —
Isn’t your argument a bit too reductive? A bit too black and white? “I own it therefore I can do what I want” might hold water legally, but what about professionally, ethically, etc?
Arts have always required patrons, true, but those with the money shouldn’t be the arbiters of taste. (That’s why they have all the money, and none of the talent.)
It’s a tricky situation, I realize, but I think there has to be a certain understanding between art and commerce. If you want a film custom fit to a certain audience and box office return, you bring on a director-for-hire (again, Chris Columbus comes to mind.) But if you bring on a Julie Taymor, you get what you hired. Studios often negotiate a running time in the contract, though that doesn’t seem to be the case here. The “owners” of the film decided THEY didn’t like it, and changed it at their whim.
By supporting this argument, you would find yourself in a world with very bland art. Someone said it best — art shouldn’t be created by committee.
If thats the argument then we are all sitting here wasting our time having this debate aren’t we? The question as to who owns the movie, and has the right to whatever they want, has never been in question. The fact has been and remains that this is a studio film.
I personally thought we were debating whether it was right or not, thats the question (to me anyways)
And Alfie said it beter than I tried to, “you cannot make art by committee” If i were her I would take my name off the project before I let some studio chumps pandering to a lousy test audience touch my shit.
This is not a home renovation!, this is someones passion, blood, sweat, tears and reputation. All things a painted house are not. A bad movie could seriously damage a person’s career, why would I let some dude in a suit tell me what works and what doesn’t.
For a lighter side of the issue check out Jim Carrey in The Majestic, it’s quite comical and deals directly with how an artist feels about their work being reworked by the studio.
Nord
Jason,
you said:
“This will always be Taymor’s film regardless of what the studio does to it”
That sounds sweet and all… but no it’s not. It’s owned by the people who paid for it. Period. The movie belongs to them. Period. Thus, they can do with it as they please. Period.
Once again, I’m not saying the SHOULD interfere. I’d much rather they don’t most of the time. BUT… the movie belongs to them, thus they are more than within their rights to make changes if they feel itis necessary.
TO ChudTrainer:
As I’ve said 100 times on this site… I’m not now… nor ever was a LAWYER. Ever. For a few years I was a legal researcher and Litigation Paralegal for a couple of law firms. But that was it.
Hey Alfie,
You said:
“it was her who was there every day – dedicating every waking hour to creating something only to have some studio suits come along and say it isn;t commercial enough”
So… are you saying that if you work in MacDonalds making burgers… you should have more authority than the execs who own the place? You’re there everyday, making those burgers.
Yes… she was there… and she was PAID AS AN EMPLOYEE to be there… just like everyone else who works on a film. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t belong to her. It belongs to the people who paid for it and hired her. They have (and should have) the final word.
I’m NOT saying studios SHOULD do this… only that they are well within their rights to do it if they feel it’s necessary. After all… it belongs to them.
John has a film? I thought he was a lawyer?
The problem with the painted room analogy is that the decorator or painter you hired has nothing invested in the room. You paid the decorator and they did the work. Whether you choose to keep that room yourself makes no difference to that decorator.
It’s different with movies because the director’s name will end up on the final version of the film. Nobody remembers what studio released a film, but the director and the movie go hand in hand. Now, obviously, a director can take his or her name off of it, but, to me at least, that begs the question of why the studio would hire someone like Taymor in the first place.
This will always be Taymor’s film regardless of what the studio does to it.
Hey BegToDiffer,
You’re having a conversation with yourself here. You’re way off topic. The issue isn’t “Should people listen to test Audiences”. The question at hand is “Who has final say”.
Sure, you can show my movie to test audiences… but guess what. I own my movie. I produced it… I paid for it. I have final say. I can choose to listen to the test audience or to ignore them. It’s MY CALL.
The studio owns the movie. They paid for it. They get final say. They can choose to listen to test audiences or ignore them.
I’m not debating the merits of listneing to a test audience or not. That’s 100% irrelevant to this discussion. The only relevant issue here is who has the right to have final say.
To me, it’s the body that owns and paid for it. The Studio.
fuck test screenings…..worst idea in the history of film making…
you don’t make art by commitee……
if she had final cut this would not be an issue but if she didn’t have that in her deal then the studio can do what they like…..
I am on her side though and if she doesnt like the cut she can take her name of the film if she wants toop…then it will bvecome an alan smithee film(or whatever they use now) and that will doom it completely..they hired her to make a film…the studio put up the cash sure but it was her who was there every day – dedicating every waking hour to creating something only to have some studio suits come along and say it isn;t commercial enough…
you need to go and rent the player right now john…..sums it up
there is along line of films ruined by studio interference and when we finally got to see the directors original visions it is 9 times out of ten much better then the studio version…
Test audiences are usually made up of yahoos. They don’t test these movies in NY, LA, or Chicago — they do it in bumfuck Kansas, where the average IQ is about 25.
They hired Taymor to make a Taymor film, not a Chris Columbus film. Cutting it to appease test audiences is fucking retarded. Trying to make it more commercially viable is moronic. It is what it is.
Let’s think of some famous test-audience changes:
1) The American remake of the THE VANISHING — a ridiculous happy ending is tacked on, completely ruining the film. (If you don’t believe me, see the original film.)
2) A movie called THE BREAKUP — test audiences didn’t like that they breakup, so….voila!
3) PRETTY WOMAN – orignal ending — Gere dumps Roberts back on the streets where he found her. A MUCH better ending.
John, that you support this measure is beyond disappointing.
Let me have a go at your film, after I’ve screened it to a “test audience” — we’ll see what’s left.
I don’t understand why a studio would bring in a director like Julie Taymor and not give her final cut. That’s why you would hire her, for her singular style. She does not make commercial films, if they wanted a box office hit, Taymor is not your director(that’s what Michael Bay is for.). On the other hand, Taymor should of protected herself. There are a few special Directors the get Final cut, Paul Thomas Anderson(Not big box office, but gets to make his movies, his way.) comes to mind, I’m sure QT and Jim Jarmasch…
Hey Jason.
You said:
“it seems like Revolution/Sony made its own bed here and now doesn’t want to lie in it.”
What does that have to do with anything? So if you paint your kitchen a certain color and after it’s done you don’t like it… then you’re NOT allowed to paint it over??? You should just say “Oh well, I made the bed now I have to sleep in it”? No way.
It’s your kitchen, you can repaint it anyway you want.
Should the studio have been more selective with the director they choose or perhaps been more clear with Taymor with how they wanted the movie? Maybe… but that’s 100% irrelevant.
The only relevant issue here is how has final say. The people who own it and pay the bills and paid for the movie and hired the director. They have the final say, and that’s how it should be.
Everyone can use all the analogies they want to tailor the argument their way, but it’s a little different with movies.
First of all, I don’t know the entire history of this film, but shouldn’t the studio be aware of the type of director it is hiring? Knowingly picking an artist like Taymor, who it knows will have a singular vision for the film, seems like a dangerous proposition for a studio that gets overly concerned about audience test scores.
While the merits of studio meddling is interesting, it seems like Revolution/Sony made its own bed here and now doesn’t want to lie in it.
I gotta say that Taymore sounds like she is being prissy to me. I read the title and said hell no, but after reading the actual scenario, Taymore was given an opportunity to revise her movie when the public didn’t like it, and instead of doing so, she completely ignored everyone else. The studio completely has the right to do this since they are paying for it.
I’m not quite sure that the house analogy works completely because houses don’t stand to gain you money if you design the house well, but the situation is the same. I completely agree with you.
Darren.
Army of Darkness – I hadn’t heard that. I know there was a rights issue with using actual footage from EDII, and I’m not talking about the S-Mart beginning (Brigitte Fonda) which is in both versions of the film…I’m just talking the final few minutes. I had always thought the S-Mart ending was a studio choice.
Donnie Darko – Um the musical choices (Kelly’s 1st choices were not in the original version, he had to go with second choices…and they all turned out to be better for the film…”Killing Moon” makes the opening scene 10 times better than “Never Tear Us Apart” – Likewise, the sparklemotion scene kicks ass with the Duran Duran track compared to the Pet Shop Boys track.
Also, the additional ‘book’ sequences Kelly added hurt the film. A lot. So it’s not just the case of adding back in a few deleted scenes!
***SLAP’S FOREHEAD*** Totally forgot Gilliam (Brazil!!!! Best example in this thread. period. But also The Brothers Grimm. Gilliam always gets in fights with the studio…But tideland proves he can fuck up a movie completely free of interference….Brazil is a masterpiece though.
It’s not even something to argue about, really. The director is just an employee. The manager of GM’s Corvette plant in Bowling Green can’t shut down the plant because GM decided to change the headlight design on the new Corvettes. It would be ridiculous to assume he had that kind of authority. Just like it would be ridiculous to assume that a director should be in complete control of a multi-million-dollar film that isn’t entertaining audiences in its delivered form. That doesn’t mean that Taymor’s cut shouldn’t be preserved for posterity. Maybe history will decide that the original cut was the best cut, after all. Audiences have been dead wrong before. But since the studio is picking up all the costs of making the film they should be able to release it in pretty much any form they like. If a director signs on to a project and doesn’t secure final approval rights to all editorial changes then they need to shut the hell up when it turns out that they don’t have final approval of all editorial changes.
That last line, let me clarify: both Back To The Future and Dances with Wolves had some negative test cards in the early screenings. In Costner’s commentaries on Wolves (and Open Range) he states that studios tend to get nervous when audiences have negative reactions- even if it is negative reactions to things that they are supposed o have a negative reaction to, such as the death of a defenseless animal.
In another case of test cards:
I reccomend reading “The Cutting Room Floor” by Lautrnt Bouzerau. There is a bit about ‘Back To The Future’ (p54)
“During that first preview, we were thankful that we ddn’t have the studio there…they might have said that it took 40 minutes to understand what was going on with the movie. You should cut some stuff out of there” – Bob Gale
In other words, they had faith in the audience and tweaked the film not by what was, or might have been suggested by the studio, but rather the audience reaction. The second screening was for the execs. You know what happened next. It was a hit summer film.
But my previous comment was geared more towards the question of audience cards, and that studios should not always be focused on them.
How is anyone even debating this? Studio owns the movie. What else is there to discuss beyond that fact?
I’m split on this.
@Kurt.
Army Of Darkness – the studio intereference in question had little to do with the cut of Sam Raimi’s film. Dig a little. You’ll find that the battle was between Universal and Dino DeLarentius on an unrealted issue, specifically rights dealing with another property.
Donnie Darko- Not really studio interference as opposed to actor/producer (Drew Berrymore), seeing how Darko was made+distributed. In addition, what are we talking here? A few deleted scenes?
Soccer- like you said. But’s it’s not really the same thing. **The director’s vision still exists**. It should also be said after the scissors came out…the recut film spent years on the shelf for no good reason.
Alien3- To be fair, Fincher was brught on the film when it was already sinking; yes, the stuff with the Oxen in the DC was a great idea.
@John/Gio.
I would like to hear this issue brought up on either Friday’s LA bit or on Monday’s roundtable…but only if you include the difference between this and other directors and films who have stood up to the studio system, such as Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”, or how some comprimse leads to “a director’s cut” years later -before it became a generic term today. If Gilliam did not stand up to Universal at the time, the film would not have gotten some of the acclaim that it did.
I want to be claer that I don’t entirely disagree with you. But I also want to be clear that there are exceptions. I do think that some test screenings are not always a good thing. If the cards come back low, and that means something needs to be changed – should it? If the answer is yes, then both Back To The Future and Dances With Wolves should not have been successful.
Tedward,
You said:
“Doesn’t the owner have any responsibility whatsover? He can’t just give out money without ‘checking under the hood’ first. If I pay a guy to paint my house, and tell him pick whatever colour he likes, and he picks fuscia, but I HATE fuscia, then is it the painters’ fault or mine?”
Tedward, no one here said anything about it being Taymor’s fault OR the studios fault. Let’s stick with your painters analogy (a good one by the way)
Yes, if the home owner says it’s ok to paint it yellow, and the painter paints it yellow… then the owner can’t complain. BUT… the own still has the right to paint over it if he so wishes.
From the story, it doesn’t look like the studio is “pissing” on Taymor… just explaining why they made changes to the film (which everyone needs to remember belongs to them).
I kind of agree with John on this one, no matter how frustrating it is for the artist the studio is paying. If the director puts up their own money for the film then no one has any right to touch it, but as they didn’t in this case then that’s life. It’s no different in any other job artistic or not if you’re paid to produce something and your employer does not like it and wants changes they have that right. Say John paid for a website design and he and us visitors hated it. He has the right to ask the graphic/web designers to change it, if they don’t wish to he can then take that design he paid for and either alter it himself or bring in a new web design company to do so.
Movie making for the most part and certainly at large studio level is a business not a charity helping out “artists”, if they truly believe it will fail then it would be insane of then to leave it unchanged. That’s not to say they are right, but although they are not directors these people have made millions they do know what they are doing more than people give them credit for. Just look at Lady in the water, the studio told him that the audience would think it was self indulgent crap and while some people liked the movie for the most part they were 100% right.
John,
Doesn’t the owner have any responsibility whatsover? He can’t just give out money without ‘checking under the hood’ first.
If I pay a guy to paint my house, and tell him pick whatever colour he likes, and he picks fuscia, but I HATE fuscia, then is it the painters’ fault or mine?
Sure as a homeowner I have every right to say I don’t like it, but I also have to accept the fact that because I wasn’t involved, in any way, in approving the colour beforehand, I can’t go and demand my money back. I’m going to have to eat the loss, and pay someone else again to paint the house.
If that’s the case with the studio, then they either eat the loss, or give out more money to another director & make another movie. But they can’t piss on Taymor, she did what was already approved.
Again, I’m talking hear on wether that was the case. We don’t know for sure
Going to split hairs on this one John (at the risk of sounding anal-retentant):
No analogy is ever perfect, people only use them to simplify or hilight an aspect of the argument.
That is unless we have different views of what ‘perfect’ means.
(yes, being catty…)
:)
Kurt,
You said:
“The studio is in their right to interfere, but it’s very seldom a good idea to do so”
That is the bottom line. Maybe it’s a good idea, maybe it’s not… but all that matters is that the studio is within their rights to do so since (as I argue) it’s their movie, their money, their risk, their decision.
AND…
The house analogy is perfect. The ower (The Studio) vs the Hired Hand (The director)
Yea, but are we talking “who has the right” or “what makes a better film”?
I think “What makes a better film” is the more interesting question.
Hey TAL
You said:
“when the hell did we start assuming that studios know what’s best from an artistic standpoint”
That’s not the question here TAL. You’re talking about another topic all together.
The only issue here is, Who has the right to have the final say. The director who is hired by the studio, didn’t pay for the movie themselves (in most cases) and doesn’t stand to lose anything if the movie fails… or…
The Studio. Who are the ones who hired the director. They paid for everything, they’re the ones who stand to lose millions if the film fails, and they own the movie?
The answer is obvious (to me anyway)
“I don’t disagree with you. BUT… the part you left out is that lots of directors have fucked up movies all on their own without studio interference. Situations where studios should have steped in.”
Agreed on the part that filmmakers have messed up movies again and again. The risk of making art. But I’d rather see an interesting failure sometimes than a pandering hack-job…just me.
Ultimately, like anything there is a balance. The studio is in their right to interfere, but it’s very seldom a good idea to do so (especially in the ultimatum heavy handed way…) Collaboration is a good thing MOST OF THE TIME…Yes, that art/commerce thing is a sticky one. David Mamet goes after it big time with his new book “Bambi vs. Godzilla”
And keep in mind that the artist name and career are much more associated with the film than the studio (of which it is on investment of very, very many). So they certainly have a right to throw a tantrum when their ‘baby’ is having new arms and legs grafted on over the bloody stumps left behind by studio scissors.
Sorry, John, but I’m afraid I’m gonna have to disagree with you and almost everyone that’s responded thusfar.
First and foremost, when the hell did we start assuming that studios know what’s best from an artistic standpoint…or even test audiences for that matter. I loved Frida, and I thought it was a brilliant artistic vision, but I’m sure it wasn’t as commercially appealing as it probably could have been. If it was a bit shorter and faster paced and perhaps a little less depressing, I’m sure it would have gotten better scores by test audiences and maybe even grossed more money. But would it have been a better movie? I don’t think so.
Commercial and quality don’t always mean the same thing. If the studio wanted a purely commercial movie, what were they doing hiring the woman who made Frida? They should have hired Brett Ratner!
John:
The analogy is a bit flawed because both the filmmaker and the studio want the film to be widely seen, and the final judge is the fickle will of moviegoers (either the Multiplex set or Arthouse set or both). The Artist Trusts their vision, the studios trust their statistics. Both are often bad for business.
Using the house analogy, there is only one (or two or three) homeonwers/financiers…Even if you consider the Studio the homeowner there are many, many execs involved in a studio film of this magnitude.
I think the analogy is a deadend side-track…
Not meaning to offend, just sayin’
I agree 100%… It’s the studio’s money, they weren’t happy with what they paid for so they changed it themselves.
I think it’s perfectly fine, AS LONG AS THE STUDIO MAKE IT CLEAR THEY MADE THE CHANGES IN THE CREDITS.
Hey Nord.
You said:
“If there is one thing studios generally are not, it’s wise”
Ummm… generally they’re brilliant. But yes, they do make fucking ridiculous decisions sometimes…. but here’s the catch… so do difrectors. DUN DUN DUN!
And Kurt, you said:
“because the studios heads do not want to look like fools when their hack-job fails and the Director’s Cut succeeds (Recently KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is an example of this)”
I don’t disagree with you. BUT… the part you left out is that lots of directors have fucked up movies all on their own without studio interference. Situations where studios should have steped in.
Hey Tedward,
The main problem with your argument (as I see it anyway) is when you say the homeowner “is screwed”. NO!!! It’s STILL HIS HOUSE. He owns it. It doesn’t make one lick of difference if all the plans were approved in advance or not.
It’s still HIS HOUSE. He owns it. He’s the one who stands to suffer if it doesn’t go right. So yes, the owner does and should have the right to demand changes, or do them himself, or get someone else to do them for him if he so chooses.
It’s not a matter of it it’s the best choice or not… the issue is does the home owner have the right to do it. Should he be allowed to do as he sses fit. The answer (as I see it anyway) is yes. His house, he has the final word. End of story.
John, regarding your house analogy;
If the home-owner gave someone money to redesign his home WITHOUT approving the designs beforehand, and he’s not happy with the final product then he deserves to get screwed.
Of course, if the final design deviated from what was originally approved, then he has every right to demand changes.
I highly doubt though, that the studios gave out millions of dollars without approving the script beforhand.
The next question is, did Taymor deviate from what was originally planned, or not?
“Taymor SHOULD have done the changes herself… but she refused. So what was the studio supposed to do? Just let their money fly out the window so Taymor could get her way? No. In my opinion, they did the right thing in this situation. Taymor should have been more professional and cooperated with the people who paid her to do the job and paid for the movie. Just my two cents worth.”
I think I agree with Taymor’s stand on this position. Here is the movie I’m willing to make, F-You if you want something else. And the studios are reasonably in their right to bring in a 3rd party editor to put out what they (think) they want.
I think in some cases a SE DVD may be withheld (see Gangs of NY) because the studios heads do not want to look like fools when their hack-job fails and the Director’s Cut succeeds (Recently KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is an example of this)…
Oh, just thought of another one the studio Wrecked – ALIEN3. The ‘almost-directors’ cut on the recent Alien Quadrilogy shows just how damn good Fincher’s Alien3 could have been when it was re-assembled by his editor (Fincher wasn’t present for this though).
While I agree with the logic as you spell it out John, you also make mention of something that concerned me from the start.
In this situation the logical thing to do is use the studios cut of the film…..right? I say wrong, I hope she fights with her last breath to stop this from happening.
“If they are wise, they will use this power rarely” DUN DUN DUN!!!!
If there is one thing studios generally are not, it’s wise, and this will set a scary precedent, which is probably why all of the cinephilles are losing their shit.
SO like I said, logical choice is to use the studio cut….but logic doesnt nessesarilly have a place in art.
Nord
Marina has a good point. In this day and age, in nearly all cases of large studio films, we end up getting both cuts of the film anyway (Gangs of NY and Idiocracy are notable recent exceptions). Gotta love huge ‘douple-dipping’ released later SE-DVDs – Thank you *partly being sarcastic, but also partly liking this* Peter Jackson for making that trend a reality for nearly every movie with a budget larger than $60M.
I really want to take Julie Taymor’s side on this, and that was certainly my initial reflex. Art/filmmaker = YAY! Commerce/studio = BOO! I usually tend to side with the artist in situations like this.
But any time you mix art and commerce, things such as this are bound to happen. Maybe it’s not a fair comparison, but in literature or journalism, if I turn in a book or article, and an editor decides to make cuts based on market concerns or space considerations, that’s really a part of the job I have to accept. Especially if it’s a work-for-hire situation.
And sometimes, you really need that second pair of eyes, an objective perspective (though it’s arguable how objective the studios are, and maybe Taymor just doesn’t trust Joe Roth’s sensibilities) to take a fresh look at your work and point out something that maybe you can’t see because you’re so close to it and it’s your creative baby.
So I tend to agree with you, John. Even though Taymor can say, “Hey, you hired me to do this, and this is what I do,” a studio ultimately has a right to protect their investment and get the most out of it.
First off John I don’t own a house, I would rather live in a apartment and pay the rent every month.
Hey Tedward…simultaneous posting! Great minds think alike!
Haven’t seen either of the Exorcist Prequels, I heard they are both terrible…the studio botched that one right from the outset!! And spent a heck of a lot of cash doing so!
This doesn’t happen often but I agree with you on this one John.
She had the opportunity to make the edits herself and didn’t so it’s too late to bitch about it now.
This reminds me of another thing I hate and that is when editors stop editing writers (Stephen King, Anne Rice and J.K. Rowling are perfect examples): the artists gets so big that editors stop making cuts and suggestions and as a result, the book suffers.
I think movies are the same and this appears to be the case here. And seriously, if folks want to see “her cut”, they can watch the special 2DVD Director’s Cut which (I’m sure!) will be coming down the line.
Studio Interference That did work:
Army of Darkness – The “S-Mart” ending was required by the studio, and it is far better (and even fitting with the jokey tone of the movie) than the ‘original ending’.
Shaolin Soccer – I’m going to sound like a complete ass and hypocrite, because I hate Harvey “Scissorhands” Weinstein, but I actually think the Miramax hack-job cut of Shaolin Soccer is a more enjoyable watch that the 25-minute-longer HK version. OK, so this is just a foreign distrib and not a studio, but same idea.
Donnie Darko – Given the choice between Richard Kelly’s 2001 released Donnie Darko and his 2005 Directors Cut, the earlier version is superior in EVERY possible way: pace, tone, music, editing.
Of course I can think of thousands of movies seriously harmed, or even outright wrecked by the studios and/or foreign distibs by editing – Nightwatch, Gangs of NY, Heaven’s Gate, Ultraviolet, Kingdom of Heaven, Blade Runner, Idiocracy, Von Stroheim’s Greed, Several Orson Welles’ film, etc. etc.
To make a decent judgement on the issue, I think you’d have to watch both versions of the film.
Right now, we’re hearing one side of the story, and Taymor has definately had a good track record of late, with Frida & Titus (one of my fave Shakespeare films of all time).
The studio obviously decided to fund this film based on some sort of script. If the film deviated from what they orginally decided to fund too much, then I suppose they have some right to change it. If not, then I wouldn’t think they have any right to touch it.
If Taymor doesn’t have final cut though, then she can’t do much to change this series of events.
She’s in good company though. Scorcese had Gangs of New York completely changed from what he originally planned. Schroeder had the Exorcist prequel redone.
These test screenings mean nothing though. How many times have the studios bragged about great test-scores only to have the films fall flat at the box-office?
When I hear a studio suit mentioning wonderful test-scores, that sends up a red-flag in my mind right away.
Just because the studio says her version was confusing, doesn’t mean it’s actually so. It could be they’re just to dumb to understand it.
Of course, wouldn’t it have been nice if they took Lady in the Water away from Shaymalan, and redone it?
The complete story isn’t out yet, so it’s too early to make any definative comments on this specific situation.
well it’s the studio money right?
but on the other hand, it’s her right to have her work untouched, at least they had to talk to her before the re-editing.
and also, if she doesn’t have the “sense” of commerical potential, then i think someone needs to tell her that there’s an alternate option for directors that don’t care about money: independent films but she will need to give away her big paycheck [something i think she won’t like ;) ] so if she wants big paychecks and a decent budget for her films with support from a studio, she needs to (at least) have the will and be open for changes to make her films a potential box office hit.
For once I agree with the studios. Even though I would be angry at the studio if they changed my movie without permission, I still would listen to what they ahd to say and why they cut the movie. If something is blatantly bad, the studio doesn’t like it, the audiences don’t like it, then as an outsider I would want the studio to shake me into realising my mistake. This is one of the rare times where I will side with the big movie studio, if THEY are ultimately paying for it and then ULTIMATELY loosing the moeny if the movie sucks and therefore doesn’t do well, then the STUDIO should get the final word. Period.
Hey Nick,
Why? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to have a say in their movie that they’re paying for and they’re the ones who will lose millions if the movie isn’t done right?
Senario:
You own a house and hire a contract designer to do some renovations on your home to increase it’s resale value. You trust the designer. But when the job is done, you don’t like it at all and fear you’ll actually LOSE money unless changes are made.
Your neighbors don’t like it, and the realestate agent doesn’t like it either and they all fear you’ll lose money.
Don’t YOU have the right, as the home owner and the one who stands to lose your money, to demand changes are made? And if the designer refuses… to then do it yourself or get someone else? It’s YOUR house. It’s YOUR money.
HELL NO!! The studio should’nt interfere in the production of a movie. Yes they watch what’s going on but they should’nt be calling the shots.