I was surprised to see that he did much the same thing he did with killshot, which was delayed so much and re-shoot to the point where most people completely forgot about it. I remember being quite excited after seeing the preview when watching Lucky number slevin. 2 movies set a bit of a precedent, are there other movies he's completely screwed up? Or any movies his antics made better?
shareNever, as far as I can tell. Go to the MB on his IMDb page sometime and you'll see mostly hate for this jerk. Ask people how they feel about what he did to Grindhouse. Ask anyone involved with Fanboys if they ever want to have anything to do with him again...
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
I don't think they effected the actual movie, but the weinstein company prevented the movie 'The Tournament' from getting a theatrical release this year, when in my opinion it's one of the best action movies in a long while. Certainly better than most of the drivel that saw theatres this year.
sharewell, i got one question then.
would the movie be better with the full-blown-cancer-plotline (no pun intended) in it an why? correct me if i am wrong, but isn't this a comedy and star wars/ star trek spoof in the first place? except for just giving a short explanation that this exactly is the groups explanation, why would you want that part of the movie in it? what would have been gained? wouldn't that destroy the comedic aspect up to a certain level? if yes, what counterbalances that loss? what would have been gained? i am really curious because people seem to be upset about that and i have no understanding for that point of view whatsoever.
i understand that it is a tough cookie to swallow for the director/writer that his vision gets blurred/destroyed, but from a rational point of view and all sympathy for the "poor director" aside, do people really would have enjoyed the movie if 20% of the runtime would be about the terminal disease of one of the protagonists and also how weird would that make the 80% of goofyness left for the rest of the movie? that would be pretty tactless, don't you think? it wouldn't even be dark or black humor, because the rest of the movie is simply "light" comedy.
so, honestly: why would the movie work better with the whole cancer sub plot included. why?
Jesus, dude. Repeats yourself much? Stop thinking of this as a "light" comedy. I don't know where you got the idea that that was all they were going for. And stop calling it a spoof. You're just approaching the whole thing wrong.
But hey, if you couldn't handle the heavier connotations, I guess the right version of the film got released for you. Yippee.
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
[deleted]
lol. pretty arrogant for someone that does not seem to be able to give a reasonable argumentation line, aren't you? ;)
let's start slow, so that even you can answer:
what is gained by an extended cancer-sub-plot?
It creates an extra level of urgency and emotional height to the road-trip. The audience is positioned to feel that the groups mission isn't simply breaking and entering, but is backed up by some kind of serious task they've set themselves, to fulfil their friends last wish. At the same time that extra bit of belief in their task allows the audience, assuming they're so inclined, to have more emotional involvement in the characters creating a more enjoyable experience.
shareWell said.
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
I believe the correct term for this conversation is: Owned.
You sir, are a douchebag.
Back on topic: there's a book by Peter Biskind called "Down and Dirty Pictures". It's basically about Bob & Harvey and it has lots of stories about unhappy filmmakers who had their films butchered or dumped by the Weinsteins. An interesting read.
On the other hand: some filmmakers are very happy with the Weinsteins because they are (were) willing to take risks with unconventional fims. I believe Tarantino is pretty close with them.
Absolutely right. The plotline adds so much to the film. By the end, I was both laughing and crying, because the film was that good.
Exterminate!
It would be better because it would feel more coherent. I, for one, don't think that any comedy has to be all-out-laughter or that one should turn off the brain be default. I liked "Funny People" explicitly because of the mix of comedy and drama. But I didn't like the second half of this movie, it simply sucked. Basically ALL Hollywood comedies have weak endings or generally a weak last third. For some reason, the fun stops when they stopped introducing characters and when they are trying desperately to make the next scene more hilarious then the one before. Same was true for "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" which has basically the exact same plot including car breakdown and prison scene. The last third of that sucked, too. If they unable to write good endings for comedies anyway, they might as well add other elements.
shareTroy Duffy (Boondock Saints) kind of deserved to be blacklisted hahaha, watch "Overnight" its on Netflix instant.
Weinsteins also *beep* with vinny chase on Entourage
I LOVE the Harvey bits on Entourage. Especially how he literally foams at the mouth when he's really pissed off. LOL!
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
Is the DVD version different than the cinema release? There's a cancer subplot and it's relatively heavy in my opinion. I was sort of missing the funeral, I just think it would've been a nice touch to have it included.
I actually felt sort of attached to the character even though I don't share their intense passion for all things Star Wars.
No, the DVD is the same as theatrical. And there's not much in the way of special features. Sadly.
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith are about the only two directors who had carte blanch under the Weinsteins.
Take a look at so many of the films (especially in the horror genre) produced by Miramax/Dimension, and you'll find a slew of highly compromised films. The biggest and boldest example I can find would be "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers."
It's always funny until someone gets hurt and then it's just hilarious!
Kevin Smith is open about changing his films to cater to studio demands and Kill Bill got cut into two movies, released a year apart, with a spoiler inbetween. When a filmmaker as talented as Tarantino has his films literally torn in two, how is that carte blanche?
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools
Didn't he plan it as two films, though?
--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/
Eh... just making one major flaw there. Tarantino wasn't A-list when he made Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. Neither was Smith when he was making low budget things like Clerks or Mallrats. In fact you could argue these people still aren't A-list. They are wellknown directors but they don't do blockbusters. Still, they can basically do what they want without interference. And Weinstein still produces a lot of indy-style movies. It's usually only when they do something commercial (hence also more expensive) that they want some quality control, which - guess what - is basically what any studio would do.
Obviously it's just some fanboys that are upset that some of their cult projects were not left untouched or are remade/rebooted at one point, but that was to be expected I guess :-)
And this movie wasn't even that good, cancer subplot or not. I can't imagine this would be a better movie if in between some rather lame jokes they would also going to try and depress me with some sickness story.
The lamest jokes in the film rest squarely on the shoulders of the hacktastic Steve Brill. The worst of the booger-eating humor was foisted on the movie by the studio. And the really sad part of the whole fiasco is that the recut was done behind the real director, Kyle Newman's back while he was out of the country getting married. Quite a dick move, but hey, that's Harvey.
At least Kyle got the better part of the deal. He got the amazing Jaime King as his wife and most of his film restored; Harvey got months of headaches and evetually walked away with a lot of egg on his face.
Fair trade-off, I'd say.
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
I thought none of those reshoots ended up in the movie? As far as recuts or reshoots in general, they often happen without the director's consent. Warner did it to Blade Runner and Superman II too for example. Only in the past few years we got to see the actual director cuts.
For the record I thought the movie was just okay, but I remember the uproar when the project was delayed more than once and some fan sites appeared against Weinstein changing the movie. And maybe the end product could have been better but overall I don't see what all the fuss is about, it's a pretty average teen road trip movie as it stands.
But I know some movies that became a lot better in an extended or recut version too (the longer cut of Daredevil for example, or even the just slightly longer unrated cut of Die Hard 4), so you never know I guess.
Eh... just making one major flaw there. Tarantino wasn't A-list when he made Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. Neither was Smith when he was making low budget things like Clerks or Mallrats. In fact you could argue these people still aren't A-list.
Eh... just making one major flaw there. Tarantino wasn't A-list when he made Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. Neither was Smith when he was making low budget things like Clerks or Mallrats. In fact you could argue these people still aren't A-list. They are wellknown directors but they don't do blockbusters. Still, they can basically do what they want without interference.
They also both work dirt-cheap, Smith especially. And they have the benefit of not lacking for options. Tarantino could take his movies elsewhere, and Smith could just make them on his own dime and self-release. There's not a whole lot of hold you can exert over people like that.
Tarantino's not even a Director's Guild member, so I've read. Don't know about Smith. But these days, with the technology available to filmmakers and the multitude of portals they can self-release through, they don't need no stinkin' studio behind them. It's a beautiful thing.
________________
there will be snark
Stop Breaking down movies into a political battle. Its a movie and a funny one at that, why the hell cant people like you just enjoy them? *beep* stop being a whiney bitch.
shareIf you don't like to talk about movies in detail, break them down as you say, then what the bloody hell are you doing on the IMDb message board? Do you go on other discussion boards and bitch at people for having discussions? If you don't like a post, ignore it. Pretty simple.
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
This article basically sums up the movies that the Weinsteins ruined: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/ten-reasons-why-the-weinsteins-can-kiss-my-ass.php. The article doesn't mention The Thief and the Cobbler, but it would take a separate article to talk about what happened to that movie.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I wish people wouldn't generalize like that but hey, it's the internet.
I'm a HUGE Star Wars geek and I really wish they had left the film alone. I still love it the way it is but I think the cancer storyline added heart to the film and really made you care about why they were doing what they were doing...instead of it being yet another silly road trip film. Say what you will and insult me all you want but I think Chris Marquette did a great job pulling off the character of Linus and the ending was kind of beautiful in a way.
You're actually in the majority, Pulgasari. I've been following this film since it was announced, and have a ton of friends who have as well. They were fully behind the original concept for the film which was, "What if I die before I can see the next Star wars movie?" In fact, I made tremendous amount of friendships fighting on the side of the filmmakers against the cynical studio.
And I couldn't agree more about Chris, though I guess I am a little biased. If you're interested in learning the truth behind what Weinstein tried to do to the movie, go here...
http://www.seeya.at/fanboys/
______________________
Let me tell you a little story. You're an idiot!
[deleted]
[deleted]