Mulholland Drive edited? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Larkin]

Fair Use applies. Otherwise, they'd all be gone.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

who said that?

Laura Harring, I presume.

 

[RobertR]

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is only the tip of the iceberg with regard to films having been released theatrically in states that do not reflect what the director thought at the time of release.

So what? NONE of the "it isn't what the director wanted" argument applies to MD, SW, or ET (or are you going to claim that Harring's pubes HAD to show or Spielberg HAD to put the guns in or Han HAD to shoot first because of "budget constraints" or "studio pressure"?).

 

[Damin J Toell]

Otherwise, they'd all be gone.

really? do you have any idea how impractical and costly it is to attempt to find and shut down every website in the world that contains unauthorized copyrighted pictures that someone owns? many sites do, indeed, get sued and lose. the fact that others exist doesn't at all lead to inference that they are legal.

DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

So what?

So what? you made a blanket statement ("The released product reflects what the director thought at the time he finished it.") that i refuted. that's so what. you can keep talking about E.T. all you want, but it doesn't respond to what i've said.
DJ

 

[Paul_D]

Laura Harring, I presume.

I would bet that she was leaning more towards: "I don't want people having digitally enhanced pictures of me fully nude on their computer," rather than "the websites don't have a right to put up....."

P.S. you were right about the sig.... it might've offended people. :b

 

[Damin J Toell]

Laura Harring, I presume.

so now we're making up things for Laura Harring to say and then arguing against them?

that's got to be the most blatant straw man argument i've seen in years. yowza.

DJ

 

[Mark McLeod]

I have promised myself I'd stay out of this discussion because it would just make me more angry then I always was about how big a deal people are making out of 1 second of film.

Do I wish it was unedited. Yes. There's no question. I'm not going to cry bloody murder and boycott one of my favorite films of 2001 and quite possibly all time.

That said I must defend myself againest Larry Davis's last post

As far as the censorship is concerned, I am completely stunned that Lynch agreed to this and carried it out. Mulholland Drive is still a great movie and I still recommend the DVD, but this version on DVD is a very big disappointment - to me.

Lynch didn't agree to anything. He voluntarily made the change to approximately 1 second of film. He did it out of respect to one of his actresses. Remember Laura Harring originally signed on for a TV show in which nothing remotely close in terms of graphic nudity or sex would have been seen.

You are entitled to your own opinon as is everyone else. I just think some of you are taking things way too far.

I was happy with the DVD before i knew about all this and I'm just as happy after.

As to you Larry, perhaps I was a bit harsh in my comments originally but in my eyes the scene was not any lighter in the print. If you can prove me wrong with visual evidence or a confirmation from Lynch. Then I'll admit to being wrong. Lynch has been nothing but open with his fans on this issue. If the scene has been tweaked more then just the "one portion of one shot" that Lynch is admitting to then I'd be more concerned.

To me however this is a Non Issue. Period. Full Stop..

I'm going back into lurk mode on this thread unless someone questions me and I feel the need to defend myself once again.

 

[RobertR]

what i've said

What you've said doesn't change the fact that people can still prefer the original version or that the product reflects what the director thought given what he had to work with (ALL directors ALWAYS operate under budget and time restraints, so what is in the mind can NEVER be fully realized on film), or that once he finishes it under those circumstances, it exists outside his mind.

 

[Damin J Toell]

i just noticed this...

Now EVERY actress has the right to ask to be removed from digital copies of films? Give me a break.

people don't have a right to ask? yeesh.

DJ

 

[Patrick McCart]

Let Lynch do what he wants to his film.
How about we give him and Laura Harring some respect by respecting their wishes?

 

[Mark McLeod]

Let Lynch do what he wants to his film.

How about we give him and Laura Harring some respect by respecting their wishes?

Well said Patrick.

I agree.

 

[Damin J Toell]

the product reflects what the director thought given what he had to work with

this still simply isn't true. some films are modified without the director's permission or input. for a recent example, check out Tor Ramsey's story with regard to what happened to Children of the Living Dead, a film he directed. this has nothing to do with standard issues of time and budget; the finished product simply doesn't even come close in any sense of the word to what the director thought.
DJ

 

[RobertR]

How about we give him and Laura Harring some respect by respecting their wishes?

Can we ask directors to give equal respect to the people without whose patronage they can't make their art?

 

[RobertR]

some films are modified without the director's permission or input

Your entire argument is based on a director's right to change HIS mind about HIS decisions, so your point is moot.

 

[Lawrence Davis]

Mark McLeod,

You stated that I posted "false information". Period. Full Stop. Obviously, you had no factual basis to apply that label to me and I just proved it. Maybe next time you will think twice before you pronounce someone's observations as "false".

Yes, I am also presenting my own, more informed (in terms of the theatrical projection of 35mm film) opinion. But I am not making sweeping statements about the observations of others, or their accuracy in doing so. If you want to be angry, so be it. But I am the aggreived party here. Other than that, I have no problem with you. But I don't think I'll be taking your reviews very seriously from now on (yes, I did read yours before I watched my MD DVD).

 

[Shane Gralaw]

Before, Lynch had stated that he isn't into altering his films from their original theatrical presentations (with the exception of audio remastering and color correction) which is why he wouldn't release a reedited Twin Peaks: FWWM with the extra scenes or director's cut of Dune. Has he softened his position on this? If so, I wouldn't be upset at this slight alteration if it meant we could have a definitive Dune (just none of Sean Young's pubes ).

 

[Mark McLeod]

Mark McLeod,

You stated that I posted "false information". Period. Full Stop. Obviously, you had no factual basis to apply that label to me and I just proved it. Maybe next time you will think twice before you pronounce someone's observations as "false".

Yes, I am also presenting my own, more informed (in terms of the theatrical projection of 35mm film) opinion. But I am not making sweeping statements about the observations of others, or their accuracy in doing so. If you want to be angry, so be it. But I am the aggreived party here. Other than that, I have no problem with you. But I don't think I'll be taking your reviews very seriously from now on (yes, I did read yours before I watched my MD DVD).

Ok. False may have been not the word to use in this case. I have altered my original statement slightly. I was pretty angry to read that you believe the scene to be darkened at the time when I initially posted that. I had just woken up and was doing my usual scan of the board when I came across the thread. I thought this issue was solved when Lynch admitted to altering the scene. Lynch has been so open about this that I have no reason to believe he wouldn't come out and say he darkened the scene if he had done it. It looks exactly the same as it did in the theaters to me. I tend to remember projection problems I come across and even note that in my review of the disc.

As for my review of the DVD. It was written before the controversary surrounding the blurring was brought to light. I believe I was one of the first members on the forum to receive a copy. I still stand by my review as being correct.

As for you not taking my reviews seriously in the future. That's your own call. My reviews are just my opinon on the disc. Just one man's thoughts. I've read reviews I don't agree with before. I'm sure everyone has. What exactly do you have a problem with in my review. If you don't want to post it publically. I invite you to email me. I'm interested.

 

[george kaplan]

I'm not going to join the fray and repeat the arguments that are being made over and over here. I'll just say that for me this has now become a non-purchase. Whether or not it's censorship, whether or not it's Lynch's right to do so is one thing. It is certainly my right not to buy such an altered product.

 

[Lawrence Davis]

Mark McLeod,
In light of your last post I would like to drop the issue. You're man enough to admit that you may have jumped the gun with your label and you edited your post. That's good enough for me. Ok, so maybe I will continue to read your reviews.