Countingdown.com interviewed director Guillermo del Toro as he worked on scoring the upcoming action film. The director discusses his passion for post-production, the status of the film as of now, and staying faithful to the source material, as well as clearing up rumors about his next projects. He mentions a tidbit that will get DVD fans salivating, saying that the current version of the film is "1 hour, 50 minutes. It will stay that length until the DVD ... We cut 45 minutes of the movie. I think that the final cut on the DVD will probably be 2 hours and 10 minutes. We're including a lot of scenes that are more permissible to put back after the movie's release, because if someone is buying the special edition, they want to see more. As opposed to trying to be prudent ... I think that an action-adventure movie shouldn't be longer than two hours, but that's my opinion."
-------------
If those 45 minutes are so important that they need to be put on the DVD, are we going to get a movie with big holes in it? I can remember when special director's cuts were a special thing. Like with Blade Runner, where for years you heard about how Ridley Scott was unsatisfied with the movie and the released cut was different from what he had wanted and then finally he got the chance to re-edit the movie. Nowadays, it seems that every movie, even before it becomes any sort of a hit gets to have a "special director's cut" when it hits dvd. It seems to me that the studio is covering its ass in case the movie tanks, people will pick up the director's cut to see if it is better.
Sorta like waiting for the trade. If everyone waited for the DVD, fewer movies would be made. Studios make buckets of money at the theater. The DVD market give them nice additional, but not enough to justify making a movie.
I tend to see most movies on DVD these days, for 2 reasons primarily: First and foremost I have never been fond of the "theater experience" -- which has only become worse over the years as more and more people tend to forget they are not in their livingrooms.
The unfortunate tendency of far too many directors to "finish the movie" on the DVD is the other reason. I have no interest in plopping down $10 to see a "work in progress".
Yes, and I'm sure that filmmakers prefer that you watch their work on a tiny computer screen instead of projected onto a large screen in a darkened theatre with an audience of appreciative moviegoers. Who needs to have the experience enhanced by all those factors, anyway?
Brendan Howard
(this comment directed at cactusmaac, not JB. I agree with his annoyance at the "finish the movie on DVD" effect)
This message has been edited by brenhow on Feb 20, 2004 10:22 AM
Yes, and I'm sure that filmmakers prefer that you watch their work on a tiny computer screen instead of projected onto a large screen in a darkened theatre with an audience of appreciative moviegoers. Who needs to have the experience enhanced by all those factors, anyway?
Did I post somewhere that I want all movie theatres to shut down? Did I insult somebody who said they like going to the movies?
I don't think I did.
Me, I occasionally go to the movies when something's on which really benefits from the bigscreen experience like LOTR or the IMAX showing of Matrix Reloaded I went to.
But if I'm on a train trip to London than I don't think I'm losing out much by watching Supertroopers and School of Rock on a 17" screen.
SCHOOL OF ROCK was a phenomenal experience with an audience. Comedies are always better with a large, appreciative crowd -- which seem to be in abundance in the Boston area.
But how did you get SCHOOL OF ROCK on DVD? It's not out for another couple weeks yet.
If you tell me you downloaded it, I'm going to sock you in the nose.
. . . even the biggest big screen tv cannot compare to a twenty foot movie screen.
******
Not sure I entirely agree with this. If you are one of those folk who like to sit in the first couple of rows, so the screen fills your entire field of vision, I can see where this would be so. But I like to sit about halfway back, and at that distance the theater screen is about the same size as my 61" TV seen from 8ft.
SCHOOL OF ROCK was a phenomenal experience with an audience. Comedies are always better with a large, appreciative crowd -- which seem to be in abundance in the Boston area.
But how did you get SCHOOL OF ROCK on DVD? It's not out for another couple weeks yet.
If you tell me you downloaded it, I'm going to sock you in the nose.
I live in the UK. Here movie audiences stay completely silent throughout teh length of the movie (unless there's a group of idiot teenagers around talking in the back).
I was just using School of Rock as an example of something I wouldn't mind watching on the smaller screen.
I'll be renting it since my brother liked it when he saw it at the cinema and I'm getting into classic rock.
Sorta like waiting for the trade. If everyone waited for the DVD, fewer movies would be made. Studios make buckets of money at the theater. The DVD market give them nice additional, but not enough to justify making a movie.
I don't think that is quite the same thing. The death of the theater could possibly boost the DVD market and the amount of movies it puts out. There is no way to know. The theater survives because people want to get out of the house.
As for waiting for the DVD, even the biggest big screen tv cannot compare to a twenty foot movie screen.
Nope...at least not as long as the management is taking care of that screen. As of right now, I'd say I'm disappointed in the quality of the picture or sound at least 10% of the time I go to the movies, not to mention how annoying some people are in the theater. Personally I'd choose to watch movies on DVD but there are a few movies I just don't want to wait for.
When I went to see ALMOST FAMOUS, microphones were apparent at the top of the screen. Has anyone else experienced this? I don't think ringing cell phones have taken me out of a movie as much.
When I went to see ALMOST FAMOUS, microphones were apparent at the top of the screen. Has anyone else experienced this? I don't think ringing cell phones have taken me out of a movie as much.
Did you complain? That's a mistake of the projectionist, giving you too much headroom and revealing parts of the frame never meant to be seen by audiences. It's easy for the projectionist to correct, but they can't know unless you tell them.
Sidebar: I have known people who expressed vehement hatred for a movie I liked, only to find out that they were annoyed by the boom mikes being lowered into the shot. As if that was the FILMMAKER'S intent rather than the theatre's gaff.
Did you complain? That's a mistake of the projectionist...
Sidebar: I have known people who expressed vehement hatred for a movie I liked, only to find out that they were annoyed by the boom mikes being lowered into the shot. As if that was the FILMMAKER'S intent rather than the theatre's gaff.
It was a rather ironic situation since I had never experienced that in all my life but had just read an article about it by Roger Ebert not three days prior. So yes I did complain and it was corrected. I do think human logic is to think it WOULD be the filmmaker's fault, as the person thought that was presenting the question to Ebert. I know I never would have thought the camera would capture MORE than what the filmmakers intended.
Wasn't there some Star Wars merchandise (or some other movie) that included actual frames of film? Were there microphones in it?
Countless millions of dollars are dumped into the production and marketing of a major motion picture, and the producers are going to let the print go out with visible microphones?
Doesn't ring true to me, but then I have been a slave to film since I was a teenager.
JB said "...at that distance the theater screen is about the same size as my 61" TV seen from 8ft."
***
JB, do you have the 61" Samsung DLP? I've got the 50" version of this and it has spoiled me completely. Every time I've seen a movie in a theater since, I can't help but think about how much better it will be on my TV at home!
Every time I've seen a movie in a theater since, I can't help but think about how much better it will be on my TV at home!
Sharper, anyway!
I'd be interested to know how people here feel about this, from an article about digital projection:
Intriguingly, the two mediums—film and video—actually have different psychological effects on human beings. Jerry Mander’s groundbreaking, if somewhat outdated, tome Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, reports that motion pictures—because they are composed of 24 pictures per second, in between each being only blackness—create something called the Flicker Effect in viewers. That Flicker Effect triggers an alpha state, something akin to reverie or dreaming. Television, conversely, is a perpetually moving flood of images, and creates a beta state, something akin to hypnosis.
This explains (to me, anyway) why it is that I always have a deeper experience when I see a film projected. I get the same information on video, but not the same experience.
Brendan Howard
This message has been edited by brenhow on Feb 20, 2004 11:46 AM
Just want to say that people need to lay off the new posters a bit, cactus said very little that was different than JB, and on 3 different threads people have jumped all over his ass. Give people the benefit of the doubt at least.
OK, back on topic- I think the movie theatre experience is something that I have been acculturated into believing as a much bigger deal than watching a movie at home. Growing up in a smaller beach town in Florida, it was either go swim or go to the movies, and as a poor college student a decade ago, it was still a great place to take a date. In fact, couples with kids (like ourselves) will often compare on when the last time one has "gone to the movies" sorta like showing your scars on Jaws.
Countless millions of dollars are dumped into the production and marketing of a major motion picture, and the producers are going to let the print go out with visible microphones?
Like anything else there are two ways to look at it. They DO let the prints go out with visible microphones, so why leave it in the hands of a projectionist? If I were a filmmaker and the picture wasn't centered I would want it to be obvious that it was the projectionist's fault (i.e. black at the top of the screen). Human logic dictates what we know; If someone takes a picture with a camera and a thumb pops up in it, that's the mistake of the photographer.
I agree...you must have had some movie knowledge at an early age, but there ARE also LOTS of obvious mistakes in movies.
Just want to say that people need to lay off the new posters a bit, cactus said very little that was different than JB, and on 3 different threads people have jumped all over his ass. Give people the benefit of the doubt at least.
I already knew JB owned a huge, state-of-the-art television set, and I already knew why he watched movies at home. Mr. Cactus says he watches "more" movies on his computer's DVD-ROM drive -- which is obviously not the best way to view an image meant to be projected 30 feet high.
In any case, I'll try to be more gentle in the future.
But as our fearless leader said, too many people forget they're not in their living rooms these days. I'm basically down to seeing the Big Summer Blockbusters (usually because the sound effects are so loud they drown out nearly all cell phones and inane comments anyone makes) and midnight movies at the Music Box.
Actually I really do mean Better. From the prices, to the rude people, to the inconsistency in sound/picture quality, and on and on, I just can't find many reasons to pay 8 bucks a person to go see a movie anymore when I am lucky enough to have such a great setup at home. The popcorn is cheaper too!
DVD does have its own problems and is no replacement for a good theater experience but like I said, I'm spoiled now.
Yes, and I'm sure that filmmakers prefer that you watch their work on a tiny computer screen instead of projected onto a large screen in a darkened theatre with an audience of appreciative moviegoers. Who needs to have the experience enhanced by all those factors, anyway?
Appreciative? You mean those people who talk all over the film and eat noisy food. I prefer the sharper image I get at home anyway*
* on a sidenote, I once when to see a film in the middle of the afternoon and I was the only one in the performance. First the film was delayed so they give me some food. During the film I went to the toilet, when I got back I noticed the film had stopped, when the project guy saw me he re-started it.
Actually I really do mean Better. From the prices, to the rude people, to the inconsistency in sound/picture quality, and on and on, I just can't find many reasons to pay 8 bucks a person to go see a movie anymore when I am lucky enough to have such a great setup at home. The popcorn is cheaper too!
DVD does have its own problems and is no replacement for a good theater experience but like I said, I'm spoiled now.
And ... you completely miss my point and the rest of my post.
Mr. Cactus says he watches "more" movies on his computer's DVD-ROM drive -- which is obviously not the best way to view an image meant to be projected 30 feet high.
Well if he perfers it, it's clearly the best way to view the image.
Appreciative? You mean those people who talk all over the film and eat noisy food. I prefer the sharper image I get at home anyway*
Wow, EVERYONE is missing my point today!
The reason I used the word "appreciative" is to differentiate from the audience members who, yes, seem to think they are in their living room. When you are in an audience with a few hundred like-minded people -- who are reacting to the screen but not distracting others in the audience -- the experience is enhanced.
But you knew that, didn't you?
While I'm at it, let me remark again that I consider myself much luckier than most people here. I have been to hundreds of movies in dozens of theatres in five states over the past 25 years, and I have only had a negative experience with an audience member 4 or 5 times. And on each occasion, all I had to do was shush them or say a few harsh words and they got the idea.
Brendan: Mr. Cactus says he watches "more" movies on his computer's DVD-ROM drive -- which is obviously not the best way to view an image meant to be projected 30 feet high.
Well if he perfers it, it's clearly the best way to view the image.
Yes, because his eyes and his brain work differently than other human beings.
Dude, I know the happy face is supposed to indicate that you are joking, but ... COME ON. You know what I mean.
Emotional reactions are stronger when everyone in a group is sharing that emotional reaction. It's mob mentality, only as a reaction to the arts.
If you hate crowds and don't like the hassle of going out, then just say that. Don't pretend that watching a movie alone on a small screen is somehow an enhancement of the experience. Your eyes and your brain would argue otherwise.
Can I just thank Brendan for establishing the best way to view movies for all of us. In the past I've have wrongly thought I was getting the most benefit from watching those at home.
Emotional reactions are stronger when everyone in a group is sharing that emotional reaction. It's mob mentality, only as a reaction to the arts.
If you hate crowds and don't like the hassle of going out, then just say that. Don't pretend that watching a movie alone on a small screen is somehow an enhancement of the experience. Your eyes and your brain would argue otherwise.
But I didn't actually say I thought DVDs offered a superior viewing experience. I just made the point that to me they're more convenient.
If I could somehow transport myself to a movie theatre while the train was delayed because of an engineering mess-up I would. But until matter transportation becomes viable I'm stuck with my laptop screen and a pair of headphones.
Brendan - you keep reviewing to the cinema experience as "better" based on the link. I don't see it saying that.
As someone who's PHD Research work is based around Cognitive processes I'd be interested to read all of that article.
I think the cinema experience is "better" because the filmmakers intend for their work to be seen projected in a theatre with a large screen and because the presence of a large, appreciative audience adds to the experience.
The reverie/hypnosis factor is up for discussion, as I noted in the original post where I mentioned it. I learned about it from Roger Ebert, and it rings true to me, but I wondered how others felt about it. Perceptual scientists have studied this effect and various theories have been tossed about. Poke around for it if you are truly interested.
But I didn't actually say I thought DVDs offered a superior viewing experience. I just made the point that to me they're more convenient.
But you said you wait for the DVD, didn't you? Meaning that you don't bother going to the theatre because you'd prefer to see it on DVD?
I agree that DVDs are more convenient. I own hundreds of them, and I adore my home theatre. But I have never in my life CHOSEN to wait for a movie (if I wanted to see it) until it arrived on home video. In my world, video is for second viewings and catching up on films I missed out on.
Well the analysis produced there is simplistic at best and plain wrong at worst. Sure, watching a certain type of movie may produce Alpha waves but it would to a large extend depend on what you are watching. It's quite possible for a film to produce a beta effect. It's not an either or as suggested there.
TV = staring at a light source flashing into your eyes
Film = staring at the projected EFFECT of a light source with an almost indiscernible flicker between the image and blackness
These are different phenomena, which your brain is likely to deal with in different ways. I have always wondered if projection TVs would create the same effect as film, because you are not staring into the light source, but there is no flicker.
Sure we can think about that all you want. But the idea that one induces one mental state and the other induces the other is ....
well just wrong.
(I will however point out this is not my real area of expertise - I'm more interested in how people seek information and the fraud of Knowledge management)
This message has been edited by Charlesknight on Feb 20, 2004 2:02 PM
No I'm not saying that but the article you are quoting states that Film induces an Alpha state and that's it
Maybe if it's a nice peaceful film it may well do.
You are trying to equate the flicker effect=Mental state, it's more complex than that.
Sure the Fickler may be more likely to induce an alpha but that theory takes no account of what you actually watching. If I am trying to work out who the murderer is - I'm going to be in a Beta state, If it's horror with stuff that makes me scared - beta.
That theory also takes no account of the fact that we can quickly cycle between states.
This message has been edited by Charlesknight on Feb 20, 2004 2:24 PM
But I have never in my life CHOSEN to wait for a movie (if I wanted to see it) until it arrived on home video. In my world, video is for second viewings and catching up on films I missed out on.
I often wait for films to come out on DVD before watching them. I can't always make it to films I want to see, or they're in a small indy theatre that's over an hour drive away. Sometimes I just can't justify the expense. Movies here in LA range from $10.50 to $16 per ticket. For that amount of money, it's worth it to me to wait for the DVD and purchase it for only a few dollars more. I did that with LOST IN TRANSLATION and I didn't feel the experience was less than what I would have had if I had chosen to view it in the theatre. I also have the advantage of owning the film for repeat viewings. It's really a win/win for me.
No I'm not saying that but the article you are quoting states that Film induces an Alpha state and that's it
Maybe if it's a nice peaceful film it may well do.
You are trying to equate the flicker effect=Mental state, it's more complex than that.
Sure the Fickler may be more likely to induce an alpha but that theory takes no account of what you actually watching. If I am trying to work out who the murderer is - I'm going to be in a Beta state, If it's horror with stuff that makes me scared - beta.
That theory also takes no account of the fact that we can quickly cycle between states.
I pasted a few sentences -- I am certain that there is more to the theories of perceptual scientists than that. The underlying theory is "there is a difference between watching an image on video and the same image on film." Which I find to be true, and this theory back that up.
I'll often wait for movies to come out on DVD to see them, just based on the price of movie tickets these days! Esp. mysteries / cop dramas and such, because there's no reason to see them up on the big screen -- they'll be just as good on my 19in screen at home!
There's really no comparison between waiting for the DVD of a movie, and waiting for the trade paperback collection of a comicbook series. For one thing, the motion picture industry is not quite coughing blood in the same way the comic book industry is. The threat of real financial damage inflicted by "waiting for the trade" is not present in the percentage of the audience (still small compared to those who go to the theater) who wait for the DVD.
Cost is another factor. The DVD is still more expensive than a movie ticket, at least for a single viewing (altho a family that sits down with a DVD can save a bundle!)
The main difference, however, lies in the incomplete versions of the movies that are lately being released to the theaters. It really does not makes much sense to pay to see an unfinished film, when the "final" version will be coming out on DVD a few months later. At least in the case of the comics, if you buy the monthlies, you still get the whole story. (M***** and DC have not quite figured out how to pull off the "Director's Cut" scam with quite the success Hollywood has managed.)
But you said you wait for the DVD, didn't you? Meaning that you don't bother going to the theatre because you'd prefer to see it on DVD?
Yes but it varies from case to case.
In the case of Hellboy which is in the hands of a very capable film-maker who's given advance notice that there will be a lot more material to watch on the DVD it might just be worth waiting especially since the previous movies of his I've watched (Blade 2 and The Devil's Backbone) were fine on the smaller screen.
In the case of Return of the King where I know there will be an extended edition out, I'll go anyway because seeing it on as big a screen a possible is how it's meant to be appreciated.
Did you complain? That's a mistake of the projectionist, giving you too much headroom and revealing parts of the frame never meant to be seen by audiences. It's easy for the projectionist to correct, but they can't know unless you tell them.
-----------------
They can't? I was a projectionist for a while in college and it was my JOB to check that stuff. It's what I was getting paid for - start the movie on time, check sound levels, check framing, ensure lighting went down and correct any problems (such as film breaks.)
I've seen movies across a bunch of different cities in various cinemas and can't recall a single showing where the audience clapped, booed, chuckled or showed any signs of life at all.
<I've seen movies across a bunch of different cities in various cinemas and can't recall a single showing where the audience clapped, booed, chuckled or showed any signs of life at all.>
**************
Ahh, my friend, then it is time for you to find a good old-fashioned drive-in movie theater! There are 4 within an hour or so from my house in south central PA, and it is a FANTASTIC time! There is one theater in Baltimore where there is all sorts participation. I highly recommend it.
And to truly witness signs of life, attend a theater in a predominantly black neighborhood! Sometimes, if you're lucky, you can witness gunfire!
"First and foremost I have never been fond of the 'theater experience' -- which has only become worse over the years as more and more people tend to forget they are not in their livingrooms"
________
I admit I have stolen a lot of JB one liners from this board to boost my clever factor in public. But I want to point out that this is exactly how I have described today's theater expeirence for years. Great minds are annoyed alike. It's staggering how rude people are in theaters. Although it's a fun joke, I believe that with the advent of television, the theater experience has been corrupted from a communal experience of art into a the equivalent of haviung to watch a favorite movie with your ignoarnt second cousins just in from Fuckstick. It's torture.
But the theater experience is something you can never lose. The biggest saving grace is the presence of non-megaplex theaters in the city. If you can find the right thearers, then the audience is a benefit and not a detriment. I'm one of those people mentioned above who sits close and tells them they need to turn it up.
Before they renovated the Cineramadome on Sunset, they had a frew weeks of special programs so you could watch a film in the theater one last time in its original form. I got to see a 70mm print of "Lawrence of Arabia" that was beyond amazing. Omar Sharif never loomed so large. I attended a university program recently in which "Citizen Kane" was projected and William Friedkin spoke for two hours about why it was his favorite film. An amazing night.
This weekend in Los Angeles has an embarrassment of riches at its theaters. The New Beverly has a double bill of "Big Lebowski" and "Raising Arizona". Sunday is a triple bill of "Duck Soup", "Monkey Business" and "Horsefeathers". It's like they're having a Tim O'Neill Weekend or something. The Egyptian has an American Cinematheque series running all weekend called "The Welles Rarities", showing shorts, TV appearances and unfinished business by Orson Welles.
Speaking specifically of mainstream cinema: I used to be a big advocate of the theater experience...before I moved to Los Angeles. But after six years of cell phones, Palm devices, nonstop chatter, and babies and young kids being dragged into PG-13 and R-Rated films, my trips to the theater have become much less frequent, and I don't miss it very much. If I can get to a quality theater like the Cineramadome in Hollywood or the Grove, I'll catch a film I badly want to see but that's now reduced to a few times a year. Otherwise, I wait for the DVD or HBO.
Current Topic - OT: Extended cuts on DVD and Hellboy.
