There are 10 messages totalling 585 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS (7) 2. The Methos Chronicles has PETER & a BB... 3. Testimony - Minutes - Euros 4. Eurominutes_Raven - The Unknown Soldier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:54:27 -0500 From: Trilby <trilby23@bellsouth.net> Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 1 > 2 Lynn: > << 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.) > >> Annie: > 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*. And let's face it, there are moments like this in even the biggest movies (although I certainly grant you that I can't think of another movie that has quite so *many*). I remember very well seeing "The Untouchables", and laughing out loud during a scene between Kevin Costner and Sean Connery - one moment Connery's shirt is buttoned all the way up, the next he turns around, the camera cuts to a closeup, and his shirt collar is hanging open. It was so incredibly blatant that I couldn't *believe* nobody from the production company caught it before this huge movie with its big stars opened. ------------ Trilby "Who's the African-American professional investigator who has safe, consensual sex with strong, independent women who work for equal pay? Shaft." - Steve 2000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:38:57 -1000 From: methos <methos@pixi.com> Subject: The Methos Chronicles has PETER & a BB... http://www.themethoschronicles.net/html/htmlhome.html Go to this website, click on The Methos Chronicles button at the bottom ...and see what's NEW! See Peter in his trademark Henley with the sleeves rolled up and ready to record, see his nicely accessorised green coffee mug, see the script.....and see his beautiful, huge, happy grin! When you're all done there, click on the new "Community" button to the right of the Methos Chonicles button, and say hello and/or thank our producer, Joshua Davis. Send him an email directly to get email updates on the Chronicles site at: highlanderthoughts@yahoo.com . This is pure speculation, of course, but I suspect Peter might be checking in to read messages posted to the board, at least in the early days of the venture, just out of pure curiosity about our reactions to his work. So..... let's keep it nice! <g> TC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:15:53 -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 > me before-- >> >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.>>> Lynn-- > Fine, it's sloppy editing, in your opinion. You got it. > Editors do not have final cut. No, but they are supposed to be the technical people competently carrying out the instructions of those who do have final cut. Here, it looks like the carrying out part was sloppily done. Or, are you suggesting that some suit (or, possibly "kilt") actually told the editors to delete the couple seconds of footage where DM removes his coat? (For what conceivable reason?) If, in the alternative, the editors decided to cut those seconds in order to bring the movie length down to the mandated time, then they goofed in picking those particualr seconds because the resulting noticable glitch was distracting & thus detracting. This was the climactic fight scene of the film; it should have been done right. The question of exactly who had final cut re: HL:EG is an interesting one. It has been asked & answered. Unfortunately, the various answers conflict. >>>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).>>> So, how do you explain all the "obvious" mistakes made in movies generally? The things that just weren't done for any good reason, yet are glaringly there. The disappearing coat looks like one of those to me, while the poof-we-go-from-basement-to-roof thingee looks like "hey, it's too complicated & time-consuming to do that right, so let's hope the dopes don't notice." There was so much wrong w/ the theater release that, logically, I can't believe _anyone_ looked it over w/ a careful eye beforehand. >>> 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.)>>> But, I noticed these particular goofs (& lots of others) the 1st time, or the 2nd. So did other people. > The point is, just because something was "sloppy" in the editing (in someone's > opinion) doesn't mean it's the editors' fault. Before, as I recall, you claimed that the editors might not have had good footage to work with, thus excusing these goofs. The producers' cut proves that usable footage existed. Annie-- >>>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*.>>> And who aspires to be one of those? Nina geiger@maui.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:42:44 -1000 From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net> Subject: Re: Testimony - Minutes - Euros ZK-- > Actually, they do change stuff. Deliverance, they altered the > scene with the butcher shop (not sure if they actually dubbed > anything different). In OMTM/Judgment Day, in the tango scene on > the Eiffel Tower, the French version has different dialog; they > wouldn't allow the line about jumping or hitting the ground or > something. > That's the only place I can think of off-hand, though. Well, they also occasionally changed the music. I think it was because they bought US rights, but couldn't afford world-wide rights to some songs or at least didn't secure those wider rights in time. So, "Who Wants to Live Forever" was used in the domestic version of Line of Fire's FB, while the foreign version had a Roger Bellon composition instead. Others? Nina (gee, I used to just know this stuff; now, I have to look it up) geiger@maui.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:57:34 -1000 From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net> Subject: Re: Eurominutes_Raven - The Unknown Soldier Wendy-- >(Amanda's crisis of conscience was unconvincing.)(*Nick* >introduced her to her >conscience?)(Nick???)(Boy...Duncan would have loved that!) That really irked me. If they were going to change everything about Amanda for Raven, then why use the character name & the actress from HL:TS? The footage of DM in the flashback here really irked me, too. Rub it in, why don't they? And rather dumb, too, given how much this show could have used a character like DM & an actor like AP. Carmel-- > I have to say that I agree fully with Elaine on this. I accept that for the > new viewer a comparison to Duncan (a character they have no knowledge of) > would be a bit confusing...but at the very least I think that it was > possible to wink at current fans with clever messages that acknowledged ours > and HL:TS's existence. "Clever messages"? I thought this thread was about _Raven_. The mask of DM's face that was in the Paris bar was a step in the right direction, though. > I found myself getting increasingly crankier and > crankier as it went on.."HellOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO???? Yooohoooooo???? > Remember us????..." Sure seemed like anyone who was familiar w/ the term "Highlander" was expendable, even deliberately expended. > I will never understand the logic that says that it is more important to > build a new fan base and disregard the fan base that already exists? I > would have thought that it makes more sense to use the current one to build > and extend the new one. Well, it didn't work out too well for them, did it? Nina geiger@maui.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:39:38 -0800 From: "R. Shelton" <rshelton2@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS We don't want to get sloppy on the spoiler spaces, okay? I saw a couple posts that I would consider spoilers if I hadn't seen the movie yet. . . (granted, I'm very picky...) :-) At 11:15 PM -1000 02/21/2001, Geiger 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 > > >me before-- > >> >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.>>> > >Lynn-- > > Fine, it's sloppy editing, in your opinion. > >You got it. After working in the movie business for over 15+ years, I have to agree that the editors must take *part* of the blame. > > Editors do not have final cut. > >No, but they are supposed to be the technical people competently carrying >out the instructions of those who do have final cut. Here, it looks like >the carrying out part was sloppily done. Or, are you suggesting that some >suit (or, possibly "kilt") LOL! That's a great picture in my head (editors running around in kilts!) >actually told the editors to delete the couple >seconds of footage where DM removes his coat? (For what conceivable >reason?) If, in the alternative, the editors decided to cut those seconds >in order to bring the movie length down to the mandated time, then they >goofed in picking those particualr seconds because the resulting noticable >glitch was distracting & thus detracting. This was the climactic fight >scene of the film; it should have been done right. I agree - we've seen way too many fight scenes done *right* (or very, very close ) in many, many movies. . .it's not like it's a new thing. > >>>But I doubt that it was a mistake rather than intentional -- if an editor So you're saying that these errors were *intentional*??? Or an I misreading something here? >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).>>> Then, that's a *lot* of errors, imho. >So, how do you explain all the "obvious" mistakes made in movies generally? >The things that just weren't done for any good reason, yet are glaringly >there. The disappearing coat looks like one of those to me, while the >poof-we-go-from-basement-to-roof thingee looks like "hey, it's too >complicated & time-consuming to do that right, so let's hope the dopes don't >notice." There was so much wrong w/ the theater release that, logically, I >can't believe _anyone_ looked it over w/ a careful eye beforehand. > > >>> 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.)>>> > >But, I noticed these particular goofs (& lots of others) the 1st time, or >the 2nd. So did other people. Yep, first time. > > The point is, just because something was "sloppy" in the editing (in >someone's opinion) doesn't mean it's the editors' fault. > >Before, as I recall, you claimed that the editors might not have had good >footage to work with, thus excusing these goofs. The producers' cut proves >that usable footage existed. Very true. >Annie-- > >>>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*.>>> > >And who aspires to be one of those? LOL! Not this lady, that's for sure. . .<g> 'Nite, Rachel Rachel Shelton rshelton2@earthlink.net @}->->->- "I think you need a taste of life. . . ." Duncan MacLeod ~Justice~ Highlander:TS * ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:10:55 EST From: Highlandmg@aol.com Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS I won't cut and paste here But if people have the dvd? They will here why the editors did what happen. they received some stock of film days before it was to go to print for distribution. They were told to send it out as is. They were NOT happy with what they sent. But the were told to sent it and they did. It is said many times in the dvd if only we had one more day we could have done so much more. So I don't think you can blame the editors. I think the blame here lies with Miramax. Mary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:18:02 -0800 From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com> Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS On 21 Feb 01, at 23:15, Geiger wrote: > > Editors do not have final cut. > > No, but they are supposed to be the technical people competently carrying > out the instructions of those who do have final cut. This is probably the most inaccurate description of the editor's job that I've ever read. Have you actually ever been in an editing room, talked to an editor, read a book about editing or post-production, or seen what editors do on a day-to-day basis? I am genuinely curious on what knowledge you are basing this amazingly oversimplified (and fundamentally wrong) statement of "fact". It's about as accurate as saying that all doctors do is hand out prescriptions. If you feel better blaming the editors, go right ahead. I doubt they care about what someone with no understanding of what they actually do thinks about their competency. Lynn Loschin Mailto: lloschin@sprynet.com Web: http://home.sprynet.com/~lloschin ICQ#: 308138 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:26:45 EST From: Ashton7@aol.com Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS In a message dated 2/22/01 11:12:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, Highlandmg@aol.com writes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1` 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 << They were NOT happy with what they sent. But the were told to sent it and they did. It is said many times in the dvd if only we had one more day we could have done so much more. So I don't think you can blame the editors. I think the blame here lies with Miramax. >> Absolutely. And it wasn't the editors talking on that feature, trying to excuse themselves. It was all of the visual effects people and the like, who were saying that they just weren't given enough time to do things exactly the way they wanted. They showed lots of different "takes" of different scenes, demonstrating how they would try different things until they could get everything just right, including the sound and lighting and color correction...and they said at one point that not only was their release date pushed up but that there were a number of scenes that were reshot that changed things drastically and meant they had to scrap everything they had already previously done and START OVER with an even tighter deadline. I think the making of the film was bungled... but I don't think it was primarily the fault of the editors or the crew. I think it was whoever was making the money decisions who decided to a) make them cut the film down to even less than 90 minutes and b) insisted on pushing for a release date that obviously wasn't feasible. Annie CWPack ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:01:02 -1000 From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net> Subject: Re: Question for Lynn--HL:EG SPOILERS [Lynn removed the spoiler spaces, so....] me before-- > > they are supposed to be the technical people competently carrying > > out the instructions of those who do have final cut. Lynn-- > This is probably the most inaccurate description of the editor's job > that I've ever read. Lynn, you keep saying that the editors don't make the decisions, they don't have any real say in what stays in the movie & what goes out, they don't make the final cut, etc. Fine. But now, in rather odious fashion, you say they also aren't technicians who carry out others' instructions as to how the movie is edited. So, editors aren't in charge, & they aren't taking instructions from others? OK.... Guess the damn movie just hatched or something. Honestly, how many different ways do you insist on having this? (As if anyone cares.) > If you feel better blaming the editors, go right ahead. W/ HL:EG, there's plenty of blame to go around, including a big helping for the editors. > I doubt they > care about what someone with no understanding of what they > actually do thinks about their competency. But, on the other hand, they are hanging on your every apologist word, writing home about your valiant defense, inspired by your tireless succor to make it to another day? Nina (will all the HL:EG editors on this list please stand up?) geiger@maui.net ------------------------------ End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 21 Feb 2001 to 22 Feb 2001 (#2001-77) **************************************************************