A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Raiders of the Lost Ark -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Oblivion138]

Contracts notwithstanding, if a director, years later, temporarily loses his mind, I think a DP has a right to step in and point it out. haha Which thankfully, Roizman did. Because if he hadn't, I doubt that we ever would've gotten that second French Connection release. Which I personally consider to be a correction of a wrong that was perpetrated against the film by its director. Was it Friedkin's right to completely alter his film? Absolutely. Should the original version ever be withheld in the presence of a "redux" version? No. That's the gripe I have with Lucas, et al. Not that they alter their films, but that they don't make the original versions equally available. We've got five cuts of Blade Runner on BD...we can't get two cuts of Star Wars? Which brings up the other interesting point...George Lucas didn't direct Empire or Jedi, but is considered to be the "author" of those films, regardless. So what's this about the entire crew, above and below the line, being there to serve the director? Clearly, there are those who disagree, and George Lucas is chief among them.
Make all the changes you want...but supply the original, as well. The initial French Connection release would've been just fine if it had included both versions of the film.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Contracts notwithstanding, if a director, years later, temporarily loses his mind, I think a DP has a right to step in and point it out. haha Which thankfully, Roizman did. Because if he hadn't, I doubt that we ever would've gotten that second French Connection release. Which I personally consider to be a correction of a wrong that was perpetrated against the film by its director. Was it Friedkin's right to completely alter his film? Absolutely. Should the original version ever be withheld in the presence of a "redux" version? No. That's the gripe I have with Lucas, et al. Not that they alter their films, but that they don't make the original versions equally available. We've got five cuts of Blade Runner on BD...we can't get two cuts of Star Wars? Which brings up the other interesting point...George Lucas didn't direct Empire or Jedi, but is considered to be the "author" of those films, regardless. So what's this about the entire crew, above and below the line, being there to serve the director? Clearly, there are those who disagree, and George Lucas is chief among them.
Make all the changes you want...but supply the original, as well. The initial French Connection release would've been just fine if it had included both versions of the film.

Who is to say what the difference is between loosing one's mind, and creative genius?
Irvin Kershner nor Richard Marquand had final cut on their respective Star Wars films. Unlike Steven Spielberg on the Indy films, they were director's for hire. Again its all about what the contract says.
Doug

 

[TravisR]

Who is to say what the difference is between loosing one's mind, and creative genius?
Irvin Kershner nor Richard Marquand had final cut on their respective Star Wars films. Unlike Steven Spielberg on the Indy films, they were director's for hire. Again its all about what the contract says.
Doug

I don't know if I would 'reduce' them to just being a director for hire. I agree with Lucas when he makes the analogy that with the Star Wars sequels, he was like an executive producer on a TV show- he's the captain of the ship and the director helped bring what Lucas wanted to the screen.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't know if I would 'reduce' them to just being a director for hire. I agree with Lucas when he makes the analogy that with the Star Wars sequels, he was like an executive producer on a TV show- he's the captain of the ship and the director helped bring what Lucas wanted to the screen.

Well director for hire means just that. They are there to get what the producer wants, and they don't have final cut.
Doug

 

[rich_d]

Well director for hire means just that. They are there to get what the producer wants, and they don't have final cut.
Doug

Agreed. With the caveat that the producer may have hired the director because of their vision for the project (one perhaps quite different from the producer's ideas before they met). But, that's what the great ones often do. Regardless, for-hire does not degrade a director of a feature film ... there are thousands of directors out there that should be so lucky.

 

[JoshZ]

Well director for hire means just that. They are there to get what the producer wants, and they don't have final cut.

Very few directors have the right of final cut. In fact, almost none do. The small number who insist on that contractual right (like David Lynch) do so by trading for a significant reduction in pay.
Almost all directors are "directors for hire." The studio owns the film. The director is hired to provide a product.
William Friedkin had no legal authority to demand that changes be made to The French Connection. Only the studio does. In that case, when Friedkin asked to make changes, the studio said, "Yeah, sure, we're sure that'll be fine. Go ahead and do whatever." Had someone actually been paying attention, and given a damn about the artistic preservation about one of their important properties, they could (and should) have stepped in to prevent Friedkin from desecrating his own work and the studio's property. Unfortunately, no one at the time thought it would be a big deal to let him tint the movie purple.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I find all this "It's the director's/producer's film" fascinating. In no other industry where people are paid upfront to do work, do the people who do the work own it. The person or company that paid them and took the financial risk owns it in its entirety. Combine that with workers (directors, actors, etc.) getting paid residuals after the work is done and what a strange accounting world.
Imagine of software development used such a model. Any new OS would cost thousands of dollars and go up every time because every developer who ever worked on it or its base products would have to be paid for each copy sold. You would have to pay the DOS, Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista developers for every copy of Windows 7 sold. Also the person in charge of the original DOS could say that the company can't morph DOS into a windowing UI because it changes his intent or the Windows 3.1 person could prevent the UI redesign for Win95 because they don't like that look and feel. Just crazy.
That isn't to say that other industries don't have contracts where a person might take a low or no salary to do work and then get a cut of the profits but it is not the norm. In Hollywood it seems the norm is for people to get paid upfront and get more money later and for some to have a say in the finished product later.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by JoshZ /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/660#post_3984593
Very few directors have the right of final cut. In fact, almost none do. The small number who insist on that contractual right (like David Lynch) do so by trading for a significant reduction in pay.
Almost all directors are "directors for hire." The studio owns the film. The director is hired to provide a product.
William Friedkin had no legal authority to demand that changes be made to The French Connection. Only the studio does. In that case, when Friedkin asked to make changes, the studio said, "Yeah, sure, we're sure that'll be fine. Go ahead and do whatever." Had someone actually been paying attention, and given a damn about the artistic preservation about one of their important properties, they could (and should) have stepped in to prevent Friedkin from desecrating his own work and the studio's property. Unfortunately, no one at the time thought it would be a big deal to let him tint the movie purple.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. My clients have final cut, and their pay isn't reduced in order to get it.

And Friedkin didn't "demand" to change the film. The studio INVITED him to supervise the transfer. And the transfer was a slightly different look; not a desecration, and certainly NOT tinted purple. It has been grossly exaggerated. I own both blus. I get that some people didn't care for the difference, and I'm glad they put out a new transfer to please them, but the hyperbole around the initial blu ray transfer has reached ridiculous proprtions. You'd think he'd re-edited the film and cut out the car chase.

 

[David Mackenzie]

To each their own. Speaking personally, when I watch a BD, I'd rather it didn't have the chroma resolution of a VHS tape

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I think a creative industry is different from some analogy you might make to "you were paid for your widget now get lost".
In MOST cases, in film, the director is the lead creative force.
In the past, there was a period when this was actually the producer's role - think David O. Selznick or Hal Wallis, or Walter Wanger.
So Lucas on Star Wars is functioning in this Selznick role - who thinks of Gone With The Wind as a Victor Fleming film (or Sam Wood or George Cukor, or William Cameron Menzies...) I think most of us think of it as a David O. Selznick film.
But by and large, the director is the lead creative force. everyone gets their questions answered there, and he or she is the arbiter of suggestions suggested.
This system exists because films generally can't be made by one person, as a novel or a painting can, but they are none the less creative endeavors where the rights of the lead creative force should be respected - as you see in many cases they are by the studios that legally control them and can ignore them if they wished once they had been paid.
Studios know that if they are not "talent friendly" they won't be able to get the best talents to create works that will hopefully fill their coffers...

 

[Carlo_M]

I agree I don't think the film-to-software analogy is appropriate. As Moe says, nowadays directors are the creative force, vision and often the writer or genesis of the idea. So it's not like Fox could've said "okay we don't like Lucas, someone else make Star Wars". Without Lucas there is no SW. Even Coppola and The Godfather, in which the source material existed, it's pretty certain that had another director taken on the project, it would look NOTHING like what we got. That person may not have even cast the same people as Coppola did. Just try and wrap your head what that Godfather might look like.

 

[JoshZ]

And Friedkin didn't "demand" to change the film.  The studio INVITED him to supervise the transfer. 

Generally, when a director supervises a transfer of his older movie, the expectation is that he will want to make it look as close to the original photography as possible, not turn it "pastel" (Friedkin's word) out of the blue and for no reason at all.

And the transfer was a slightly different look; not a desecration, and certainly NOT tinted purple.  It has been grossly exaggerated.  I own both blus.  I get that some people didn't care for the difference, and I'm glad they put out a new transfer to please them, but the hyperbole around the initial blu ray transfer has reached ridiculous proprtions. 

I'm going to ask this without sarcasm: Have you been checked for color blindness?
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/the%20french%20connection%20blu-ray/large/large%20french%20connection%20blu-ray8.jpg

 

[Mark Oates]

Remember about ten pages back when I said I'd make up my own mind once I'd got my hands on my own set of discs? Well, I have.
I cannot fault the discs. They look and sound marvellous.
I've run comparisons between the DVDs and the new Blus, and the issues panicked over on this thread are totally overexaggerated. Many of the issues seem to me to be figments of overactive imaginations, a misunderstanding of technologies or at worst pure mischief.
If you have issues with that standpoint, it's your own problem. Maybe you could do with a change of hobby,

 

[Oblivion138]

Who is to say what the difference is between loosing one's mind, and creative genius?

Sane people? I trust the creative genius of Friedkin circa 1971 plenty...the creative genius of Freidkin circa 2009, not as much.
A couple of examples of "Losing One's Mind":
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=510&y=278&action=1&image=9&cID=941&cap1=8340&cap2=2614&lossless=#vergleich
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=586&y=184&action=1&image=5&cID=941&cap1=8344&cap2=2618&lossless=#vergleich
Anyone who calls this look "slightly different" needs corrective lenses.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Fellas:

Even with all the "winky" smilies, let's put the personal remarks on hold and stick to comments about the discs themselves...not each other's ability (or inability) to properly assess those discs.

We are each entitled to our own opinion.

 

[Oblivion138]

Apologies...didn't mean to offend...'twas all in the spirit of humor.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Very few directors have the right of final cut. In fact, almost none do. The small number who insist on that contractual right (like David Lynch) do so by trading for a significant reduction in pay.
Almost all directors are "directors for hire." The studio owns the film. The director is hired to provide a product.
William Friedkin had no legal authority to demand that changes be made to The French Connection. Only the studio does. In that case, when Friedkin asked to make changes, the studio said, "Yeah, sure, we're sure that'll be fine. Go ahead and do whatever." Had someone actually been paying attention, and given a damn about the artistic preservation about one of their important properties, they could (and should) have stepped in to prevent Friedkin from desecrating his own work and the studio's property. Unfortunately, no one at the time thought it would be a big deal to let him tint the movie purple.

In the case of Lucas hiring directors for the Star Wars film, it was fairly well known that they were there to get the work done that Lucas just didn't have the time to do himself. Story boards were created by Lucas for both films, and in the case of Jedi they were created before Marquand was even hired.
I don't know the exact deal that Friedkin had with the studio, but it is possible (though probably unlikely) that the studio is contractually prohibited from doing anything with the film with out Friedkin's approval and or supervision. It really just depends on the deal he had on that particular film. He was hot at the time so it wouldn't surprise me if he had that kind of deal. Of course he couldn't get that today.
Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I find all this "It's the director's/producer's film" fascinating. In no other industry where people are paid upfront to do work, do the people who do the work own it. The person or company that paid them and took the financial risk owns it in its entirety. Combine that with workers (directors, actors, etc.) getting paid residuals after the work is done and what a strange accounting world.
Imagine of software development used such a model. Any new OS would cost thousands of dollars and go up every time because every developer who ever worked on it or its base products would have to be paid for each copy sold. You would have to pay the DOS, Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista developers for every copy of Windows 7 sold. Also the person in charge of the original DOS could say that the company can't morph DOS into a windowing UI because it changes his intent or the Windows 3.1 person could prevent the UI redesign for Win95 because they don't like that look and feel. Just crazy.
That isn't to say that other industries don't have contracts where a person might take a low or no salary to do work and then get a cut of the profits but it is not the norm. In Hollywood it seems the norm is for people to get paid upfront and get more money later and for some to have a say in the finished product later.

You can thank Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin for this.
Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I agree I don't think the film-to-software analogy is appropriate. As Moe says, nowadays directors are the creative force, vision and often the writer or genesis of the idea. So it's not like Fox could've said "okay we don't like Lucas, someone else make Star Wars". Without Lucas there is no SW. Even Coppola and The Godfather, in which the source material existed, it's pretty certain that had another director taken on the project, it would look NOTHING like what we got. That person may not have even cast the same people as Coppola did. Just try and wrap your head what that Godfather might look like.

The case of Lucas is probably slightly exaggerated in this case, because he literally owns the films. In fact he could have taken the distribution of the last 3 films to another studio if he wanted too. You notice that the Clone Wars TV show is distributed by Warner Bros. The same is true of the Indy films. Paramount paid for the making of the films, in order to get distribution rights only. They don't actually own the movies.
Doug

 

[Carlo_M]

My point wasn't one of ownership. It was the director-for-hire-equal-to-a-software-programmer analogy Chuck used in post 665. Whereas a random programmer can be replaced and the outcome will likely be very similar to what it would have been with him, subbing out a film's director would likely yield a very different product (or no product at all, in the case where the Director was also the writer and/or main visionary). Even discounting Lucas, would a non-Coppola-helmed Godfather have been the same? A Scott-less Blade Runner? A Nolan-less Batman? A Burton-less…any film he does?
Yes Director's are hired by studios and paid, but they have (rightfully so) more control over their output than some other random hired gun in another industry.