View Single Post
Home Theater Forum
Old 05-21-2006, 05:27 PM   #11 of 131
Aaron Reynolds
Member
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Join Date: Feb 2001
Local Time: 08:53 PM
Local Date: 10-14-2008
Posts: 1,792

Re: A few words about... Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut


Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson
I got put off Ridley Scott's films after Gladiator, which I found at times to be edited in an incomprehensible fashion. I read the relevant A.C. mag article on that film, and the cinematographer (John Mathieson, same as for Kingdom of Heaven) was quoted as saying he shoots with lots of cameras because it means "Someone has got to be getting something good". I preferred the old days when composition, organisation, planning, and direction meant something. Anyone can make a film if they shoot enough footage, and have enough hard disc space to store and edit the footage...

This is especially sad, because Scott was such a great champion of filming in anamorphic, Alien and Blade Runner are great examples of that format, he even initially wanted to shoot Gladiator in anamorphic, but was talked out of it by Mathieson. Sadly his style became increasingly erratic when he started shooting films in Super 35. But I guess I shouldn't blame film makers for the filmmaking tools they use...

The format the film is produced in has nothing to do with poor editing. They're completely unrelated. The director of photography does not dictate how many cameras are used. He's a guy who comes in and the director says "I want it to look like this conceptual idea thingy" and he makes the nuts and bolts of it happen.

I also disliked Gladiator, and found it alternately dull and incomprehensible. However, I loved Kingdom of Heaven as it played theatrically. I'll certainly pick this up, but I'm a little concerned that it'll end up bloated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank@N
Sorry to be negative, but Fox seems to be moving in baby steps to recoup low box office (which was their fault to begin with for cutting the movie).

I don't believe that Fox at any point took this film away from Ridley Scott and cut it. As I understood it, there was a contractually obligated running time maximum, and Scott cut the film to conform to this. If he knew from the outset that his film was going to run overlong (and he had to know from timing the script), then he also knew from the outset that he'd be cutting it for the original presentation and then releasing the long version on DVD afterwards.

I would blame the poor box office on the way the film was marketed. I thought the trailer was dreadful and went into the film expecting the worst -- but I had three hours to kill and it was the only movie that started and ended at the right time. Luckily, I was blown away by it.



Last edited by Aaron Reynolds : 05-21-2006 at 05:35 PM.
Aaron Reynolds is offline Quote this post in a PM Send Support Ticket Reply With Quote sendpm.gif
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum
Home Theater Forum