HIGHLA-L Digest - 20 Feb 2001 to 21 Feb 2001 (#2001-76)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:00:02 -0500
There are 12 messages totalling 468 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. EG SPOILER: One for Wendy... (3)
2. EG (no spoiler): One for Wendy...
3. Question for Lynn (3)
4. Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:25:36 -0400
From: Rebecca Wallace <becky717@earthlink.net>
Subject: EG SPOILER: One for Wendy...
Since, IIRC, Wendy was one who was in the middle of this particular
debate, I think she will find it interesting that...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
F
O
R
E
N
D
G
A
M
E
B
E
L
O
W
/
/
in the VHS I rented from Blockbuster, Methos' line where he says that
Sanctuary was on Holy Ground was *edited out*!!! Anyone else notice
this on VHS or the DVD?
-Becky
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:41:27 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: EG SPOILER: One for Wendy...
SPOILER BELOW
>
>
>
>
>
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
> S
> F
> O
> R
> E
> N
> D
> G
> A
> M
> E
> B
> E
> L
> O
> W
> /
> /
>
Becky--
> in the VHS I rented from Blockbuster, Methos' line where he says that
> Sanctuary was on Holy Ground was *edited out*!!! Anyone else notice
> this on VHS or the DVD?
I noticed, on the VHS. It's gone, gone, gone. Now, Methos just says--"It's
called Sanctuary." So, we're left w/ a place that just _looks_ like HG,
plus the fact that the Watchers or whoever founded it _should_ have had the
basic sense to put it on HG, for protection.
Nina (how much would it have cost in time, effort & $ to actually get _AP_
to say the extra DM lines in this cut?!)
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:16:05 -0600
From: Nora Jones <najones@ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: EG SPOILER: One for Wendy...
At 11:25 PM 2/20/01 -0400, Becky wrote:
>Since, IIRC, Wendy was one who was in the middle of this particular
>debate, I think she will find it interesting that...
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>S
>F
>O
>R
>E
>N
>D
>G
>A
>M
>E
>B
>E
>L
>O
>W
>/
>/
>
>in the VHS I rented from Blockbuster, Methos' line where he says that
>Sanctuary was on Holy Ground was *edited out*!!! Anyone else notice
>this on VHS or the DVD?
Yes, I did -- I looked for this was very happy not to see/hear it! Just
got done watching the thing, which BTW was also a VHS copy from Blockbuster.
Now, lest this be an unforgiveable "me too" post... a few other very random
thoughts in the few minutes I have available at this wunnerful machine of
communication...
The whole thing flowed better even though there were some of the same YAHIs
as in the theatrical version. The Kell-henchman's "I told you I'd cut you"
was still there without the scene referred to. I was still jarred (well...
not jarred exactly... I've seen it too many times for that) by not being
able to follow how the "Forever" necklace got to all the places it got to
when. The scene in the rain, though a scene full of power, is still an
orphan, which detracts from it IMHO.
And speaking of the necklace... just what are we supposed to think happened
to make it and all those beads spill on the floor? Granted, there was no
blood falling to the floor along with the locket and beads, which was quite
a contrast to all the others that lost their heads moments before, so I
suppose we could be left to wonder if she she might still be alive. I
still feel a little cheated at not seeing what happened during those few
moments -- even if it came way after the fact as a tying-up-loose-ends
thing. I know, the reality is likely that they didn't get the other
version filmed, didn't plan to even, whatever. Woulda made a great
flashback moment, though, during the final scene when Kate/Faith tells
Duncan that for whatever reasons, Kell made his choice.
While I would have preferred the ending where Kate/Faith was a foot
shorter, this ending scene did seem to flow a little better than that uh...
er... version that we aren't supposed to know about. Or maybe its seeming
better to me had nothing to do with flow but rather the much more delicious
kissing at the end.
So.... why couldn't we have had this version in the theater? Hmmmm?
-- Nora
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:33:14 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: EG (no spoiler): One for Wendy...
In a message dated 2/21/01 12:17:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
najones@ilstu.edu writes:
<< So.... why couldn't we have had this version in the theater? Hmmmm?>>
There can be only one answer: Greed. The studio figured that trimming the
film down to 84 minutes would make it possible for theater owners to squeeze
one extra showing of the movie onto their daily schedule. Artistic integrity
be damned, they were going to pack everyone's pockets. This kind of clever
tactic happens constantly with finished film product, nowadays--Endgame is
only one of many recent films to get this kind of butchery in the name of
corporate greed. I've seen quite a few articles mentioning this in recent
months. There is even reason to believe that footage is being deliberately
cut from theatrical releases in order that it be restored in the DVD/VHS
release, to encourage sales. Call me an old socialist, but I'm starting to
really, really *hate* corporate thinking.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:15:26 EST
From: Highlandmg@aol.com
Subject: Question for Lynn
hi Lynn
Just a question If I remember correctly a while back you posted I think that
your brother was an editor for movies and etc. I was wondering what you
though on the dvd where the editors did there commentary. Talking about the
little time they had to put the movie out to fast and having the movie moved
up on them.
Mary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:48:43 -0500
From: lloschin@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: Question for Lynn
Mary wrote:
> hi Lynn
>Just a question If I remember correctly a while back you posted I >think that your brother was an editor for movies and etc. I was >wondering what you though on the dvd where the editors did there >commentary. Talking about the little time they had to put the movie >out to fast and having the movie moved up on them.
Hi Mary,
I haven't actually heard the commentary yet -- Amazon hasn't seen fit to deliver my copy yet, and I've been a little busy this past week :)
I can tell you in general that the post-production staff (everyone -- editorial, sound, visual effects, etc.) generally gets totally hosed on issues of scheduling and release date. The original date when they start a project almost never remains -- it either gets moved up or moved back (or both) often multiple times. This throws their schedule into chaos. They are also at the mercy of things like scheduling of pick-ups, second unit work, reshoots, and often actor availability when it comes to things like ADR (dialogue looping).
Andrew is working on a Miramax movie right now ("Get Over It" -- it finally ran an ad during Buffy last night) and I can tell you that every story you've heard about Miramax in particular is pretty much true. Wes Craven's comment "Miramax doesn't pay you for what you do, they pay you for what they do to you" seems to be a generally held belief among those who work on Miramax projects.
If the editors complained that they didn't have enough time, I tend to believe them. That was probably only the tip of the iceberg and we'll probably never hear all of the real details of what went on (and I'm not sure we'd want to) -- what is it they say, there are things you never want to see getting made, like legislation and sausage? Movies are probably right up there on the list.
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:59:29 EST
From: Highlandmg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Question for Lynn
Lynn
Thanks spending all day and last night watching this dvd I can say that you
will love it. All the extra stuff the two commentary's are very interesting.
Mary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:06:22 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
E
R
E
N
D
G
A
M
E
Lynn--
>>> I can tell you in general that the post-production staff (everyone --
editorial, sound, visual effects, etc.) generally gets totally hosed on
issues of scheduling and release date. The original date when they start a
project almost never remains -- it either gets moved up or moved back (or
both) often multiple times. This throws their schedule into chaos. They
are also at the mercy of things like scheduling of pick-ups, second unit
work, reshoots, and often actor availability when it comes to things like
ADR (dialogue looping).>>>
On the other hand, the complete footage of the final fight seen in the
producer's cut (it was also in the workprint) proves the editors had plenty
of good, usable footage to work with. Yet, they sent to the theaters a
climactic fight scene that was disjointed & nonsensical, marred by
distracting goofs like DM's coat disappearing mid-shot & also Kell & DM
going from a sub-basement to high above the city in the blink of an eye.
These problems could have been avoided by inserting mere seconds lifted from
existing footage. Sloppy editing.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:30:07 -0500
From: lloschin@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS
geiger@maui.net wrote:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
I
G
H
L
A
N
D
E
R
E
N
D
G
A
M
E
>On the other hand, the complete footage of the final fight seen in >the producer's cut (it was also in the workprint) proves the editors >had plenty of good, usable footage to work with. Yet, they sent to >the theaters a climactic fight scene that was disjointed & >nonsensical, marred by distracting goofs like DM's coat disappearing >mid-shot & also Kell & DM going from a sub-basement to high above >the city in the blink of an eye. These problems could have been >avoided by inserting mere seconds lifted from existing footage. >Sloppy editing.
Fine, it's sloppy editing, in your opinion. (I disagree that "mere seconds" would have solved either problem, except in a very distracting way -- far more distracting than what was ultimately there.) That's a matter of opinion. But it doesn't mean it was the *editors'* decision or mistake. Editors do not have final cut. Could the coat thing initially have been a mistake by an editor? Sure. That's theoretically possible. But I doubt that it was a mistake rather than intentional -- if an editor made a "mistake", then it wasn't caught by any of several assistant editors, an associate editor, anyone else in post-production, the producers, or the studio, which I think is pretty unlikely, given how many sets of eyeballs are on a movie before it's finally released (including, in the case of all Miramax movies, Harvey Weinstein's).
It could also have been something decided by the producers or by Miramax, or some combination of both (Miramax sayeth scene must be shorter -- producer decides this is the least damaging part to cut, despite the continuity glitch that most people who see the movie once probably won't notice. Movies are, after all, made for the majority of people who see them once, not the minority who see them 5, 10 or 20 times over a relatively short period of time.)
The point is, just because something was "sloppy" in the editing (in someone's opinion) doesn't mean it's the editors' fault. That's like saying that every acting decision solely belongs to the actors, or every design decision solely belongs to the production designer, or every directoral decision belongs solely to the director. That's nice in theory, but has nothing to do with how movies are actually made, which is a highly collaborative process on every level. It's rare that one person is solely responsible for anything in the final product -- at least not anything important.
(Maybe the caterer.)
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:48:06 EST
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS
In a message dated 2/21/01 2:33:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lloschin@sprynet.com writes:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
<< producer decides this is the least damaging part to cut, despite the
continuity glitch that most people who see the movie once probably won't
notice. Movies are, after all, made for the majority of people who see them
once, not the minority who see them 5, 10 or 20 times over a relatively short
period of time.)
>>
I never even noticed the glitch... in fact, I only finally saw it the third
time we saw the movie *because* people mentioned it on the lists. It's a true
continuity error, true, but like Lynn says, it's not something that so
important that it really sticks out for *most people*.
Annie CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:12:06 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS
In a message dated 2/21/01 2:33:09 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
lloschin@sprynet.com writes:
<< Editors do not have final cut.
That is absolutely true.
What is so puzzling about Endgame's theater release is that by all accounts
the person who was sitting at the editing console up until the very last
minute was none other than Bill Panzer himself. That is a fact. But why
would he shoot himself in the foot like that with the version of glitches
that got released ? More than likely the 87 minutes was Mirimax legislated
and keeping the movie to that limit may have made the task more difficult. As
you say, we will never know and maybe we don't want to. The slightly more
packed version is a tasty sausage though *g*.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:17:32 EST
From: Highlandmg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS
hi
Listen to the commentary where the editors say they had days to get the film
to be sent so it would go out because the studio wanted it Now and did not
care or want to hear wait a day or two. It had to be shipped so it would be
in the theater by the date stated.
Mary
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 20 Feb 2001 to 21 Feb 2001 (#2001-76)
**************************************************************