The film that was shown on ch9 was not actually the film that I made. The executive producer removed me from the process a good year and a half ago. The Directors Cut plays out VERY differently.
1st of all, the actual cut of the film is completly different. Different takes and even different scenes. In fact, the whole structure of the film is different.
2nd, the film you saw wasn't even graded. It was a one light pass that the DP wasn't even there for.
3rd, the sound mix was a rough stereo mix that was SO bad, it even had my voice doing other characters voices that I lay down before I was removed. These were temp tracks that were never supposed to be heard.
The production of this film was a mess from the start. If you would like to know more, then watch the film "The Plex" or goto
I'm sorry you all sat through this version of the film. The directors cut is supported by not only myself, but Sam Worthington, Steve Bastoni, Jason Crewes, Brian Cobb, David Wheeler and the lists goes on.
Hopefully one day, the correct version can be released. Until then I hope you enjoy the future projects more than this one.
If its not the film you intended on making then, I have no intention of watching it. If the film version you wanted to show ever comes out then I will keep my eye out for it. Good luck with The Plex, I will also keep an eye out for it.
That is just a bunch of childish crap. You really won't get far in this business if you don't realise soon that film making is collaborative and painfully social, it is not painting mate, where you get to wield the brush from start to finish.
I have seen your 'version' which was a mess that you could never have saved yourself. And the POLISHED version is like night and day.
The talent should be pleased it has turned out AT ALL, and be even more pleased to see this version. To think they support you and your version is a stretch, why don't you have them post a comment here to prove your point? Why don't we hear from them? Surely they have an IMDB username and can support you with a comment?
I can tell everyone out there with complete confidence that what you finished up with was 10 times better than what you would have finished up.
1.) the different takes etc. are a pretty good considering I heard you had a MEGA ratio and no real substance to begin with, the talent must have chuckled under their breath before every take, but they delivered what you asked for and you got what you got, fortunately someone tightened it and made it look more funky and fun.
2.) your DP should have been there, but maybe you sabotaged the producers and kept them back?? This was shot on HD and the 'grading' is not really such an issue man, surely you don't think it was up and down?
3.) BUT your sound WAS up and down, it was a mess, if you had of directed your sound guy properly there might have been something to work with, it's suprising how well the producers pulled this off too!
Are you saying it is worthy of 5.1? C'mon it's a comedy for chrisakes, and your voice talent is not real good as it is, so you should be happy you got ADR'd.
Man, I can't believe how much aof a spoilt upper north shore snob you sound like, go back to drinking and partying with airheads and prostiutes, and leave filmmaking to talented hardworking creative people who can take criticism.
I'm with efutoo on this one. Film is a collaborative art form and there is no room for "Visionaries" that spend more time dreaming about being on the cover of TV Week than actually creating a film that will get them there.
I saw the Channel 9 "hacked" version and to me it played out exactly like it was shot. Badly.
I was an extra that gladly helped out a fellow film maker by sitting around on location for 6 hours before any talent was shot or given direction. Why, because the director was busy shooting cut ways of television sets and hospital walls before it was decided to turn the cameras on the actors who gave up their night for cold pizza's and no money. (and no credit I noticed!) I guess no one had ever heard of a schedule or shot list. (this style of no idea film making continued for 3 years as the story was "hacked" together in the editing room)
Fundamentals of film making, start off with a great script and the rest will follow.
P.S. Does anyone else feel Tim Boyle thinks he is Tarantino with his mannerisms about pop culture and his hip jive vocabulary??
I've waited over a year to comment on this. The truth is, despite the hard done by tone of his post, the director ( Tim ) was destructive and tried to sink his own film when he realized that he would not have another year to play in the sand box editing. All the while playing politics and wasting the money and time of the producers. The resulting film is a good representation of what he wrote and shot - tighter actually. Garbage in, garbage out.
This new cut was the result of a lot of late nites and sweat by the producers and the new team. The finished film and sale was cobbled together by people trying to finish it despite Tim's concerted effort to sink his own work. The director was given every chance to be engaged but actively fought to cause conflict and stop the process. As a result the film was released without him.
I think its too soon to judge if Tim is a hack or if he just lacked maturity to understand when it's not your money, you need to be responsible.
Tim should be judged by his future body of work not just this film. Filmmaking is hard. It's undeniable Tim worked hard to make this film. If he works as hard as he worked to sink Fink - making new movies - the future can only hold great things for him.