Schrader, Cage Anton Yelchin, and Nic Refn PROTESTING this movie?
Schrader, Cage Anton Yelchin, and Nic Refn PROTESTING this movie?
http://deadline.com/2014/10/paul-schrader-dying-of-the-light-nicolas-cage-protest-853521/
http://deadline.com/2014/10/paul-schrader-dying-of-the-light-nicolas-c age-protest-853521/
Yes, they should!
I wanted to see a Paul Schrader film and not a crappy re-cut by greedy executives.
Now I won't pay for it, pigs!
The studio paid money for Schrader to make the film that was written in the script. He edited into something totally different. They asked him to make it more like the script, he refused, so they got someone else to edit it.
I love Schrader movies by the way. Light Sleeper is one of my favourite movies.
"If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck."
The studio paid money for Schrader to make the film that was written in the script. He edited into something totally different. They asked him to make it more like the script, he refused, so they got someone else to edit it.
'Keith', this is what the execs said to justify taking over, but I doubt it.
I'm positive that Schrader knew his material and film best.
Many people have forgotten what a great, serious filmmaker he can be.
I even liked "The Canyons" which is way, way underrated.
I want to see his original Director's Cut after the 'producer's version'.
share
Refn called the script an "existentialistic journey."
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/nicolas_winding_refn_said_dying_of_the_light_fell_apart_because_harrison_fo
This is from before the movie was even made. It doesn't sound like it was ever a formulaic thriller.
The studio paid money for Schrader to make the film that was written in the script.
The script he wrote?
~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/ share
The script he wrote?
Yep. Imagine if you read a script and liked it so much that you gave someone millions of dollars to make a film out of it. Now imagine they present you with a totally different film. It ain't always the studios fault.
"If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck." share
Yeah man that is totally the other side of the coin. Nice to see an alternative perspective.
shareFilm studios don't make movies because they like the scripts, they make movies to make money.
- I'm the Pied Piper of cool!
the problem with you your reply is the producers are involved all the way, they get to see dailies and follow the production. there is always someone from the studio there to check where the money is going.
its not like it was a closed set with only actors and a crew involved.
any changes to a film involve budget considerations, which means producers have to ok.
if you are skilled and have a good team you might be able to move budgets around without increasing it, but the story I have heard is the running length was greatly increased that is absolutely a budget increase. the big killer for many directors is budget increases and falling behind on a timetable (which is again a cost problem) and this is what forces them to lost control. producers will let just about anything past regarding onset behavior if you keep to budget.
still we don't know the actual story behind this film.
maybe his original cut was a mess, or not commercial enough.
could be something related to ratings
at some point it clearly broke down and they got someone else involved in the editing.
The unfortunate problem is producers often rely on test audiences and if there is one thing I can say for sure in this life it is that test audiences are made up of the most simple minded, dim witten nimrods with nothing good to say about anything and when execs makes changes based on what they say, it always ends up worse for it.
this might not apply here- I don't know if that is how they decided how to cut this film, but as a general rule, if they did do it that way, it's probably a collection of terrible choices.
That's incorrect, there's not always people from the studio on set. Sometimes there isn't even a producer on set.
I'm a writer/director and I was talking to an established producer yesterday. We were discussing a movie which we both thought could have been a lot better, despite having three very talented and established leads. The reason? There wasn't a producer on the set every day.
Another movie produced by my fried, which has an acting legend in the lead. There was only one person from the studio there, for one day.
If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fvck.
Schrader wrote the screenplay, and part of his protest is that the execs wouldn't let him make the movie he "wrote and directed." Based on some other producer moves I've seen, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they were pitched the script and bought the pitch without ever actually reading the script.
And the pitch was probably something like "It's like a Bourne movie without all the expensive set pieces..."
--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.