Battles between executives and directors are nearly always a struggle between commerce and art. Executives want a picture that will maximise box office takings. Anything that might dampen ticket sales can become part of the tussle. Film length is often a major concern as are complexity of plot and whether or not the film has a ‘feel good’ ending that sits well with focus groups.iphone 4 screen protector

The annals of movie history are filled with clashes. Early cuts of Ridley Scott’s classic science-fiction film Blade Runner (1982) infuriated producers who commented that parts of it were dull and confusing. Terry Gilliam had difficulties in 1985 with his picture Brazil, which was 142 minutes long. Although it already had been released outside the US, the president of Universal Pictures ordered a dramatic re-edit for the American market despite objections from Gilliam. After a very public dispute, a longer cut, supervised by Gilliam, was released by the studio – but it failed to drum up much excitement at the box office.designer bags sale

In fact it’s not always the case that final cut is protecting a filmmaker from heartless profit-driven executives riding roughshod over the artistry of filmmakers. Some would take the view that audiences might have benefitted from a little studio-ordered editing of films from at least two directors who enjoy final cut privileges: Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg. Jackson’s recent Hobbit films have been criticised for being overlong – as has Spielberg’s Lincoln in 2012.

Posted by: llsada at 03:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.