-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

"It Would Have Slowed Down the Film" Overrated Statement or Legit?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
8 replies to this topic

#1 of 9 WillG

WillG

    Producer

  • 5,219 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted May 20 2004 - 05:35 PM

I have listenend to many a commentary where they say they were going to use a certain scene at a certain point but it would have "Slowed down the film" from some of the descriptions, it didn't sound too bad to me. Anyone have any good examples where extra scenes would indeed have slowed the film or actually helped it?
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#2 of 9 MatthewLouwrens

MatthewLouwrens

    Producer

  • 3,031 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted May 20 2004 - 11:57 PM

The obvious examples are the LOTR EEs. Now, I love the EEs, and I think they add a lot of depth to the films, and they are my preferred versions to watch. That said, there are points where the additional scenes may be great scenes, but they slow the pace of the film down.
Films watched in 2005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011
AFI Top 100 lists: Movies, Thrills - Completed / Laughs - 23 to go
Passions - 39 to go / Heroes & Villains - 10 to go / Songs - 42 to go

#3 of 9 EricSchulz

EricSchulz

    Producer

  • 4,475 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2004

Posted May 21 2004 - 01:36 AM

The first film that popped into my head was Erin Brochovic. I thought that almost all the deleted scenes should have been included in the original cut. It's been quite a while since I've seen it, but there was one scene in particular where Erin collapses in a parking lot because she is sick. Later in the film this is mentioned, but with the scene in its proper place it makes more sense.

I also thought that the deleted opening sequence of My Little Eye REALLY helped set up the movie much better than what was used. I think my biggest gripe is with directors that say that they make cuts for time constraints and the movie is only 90 minutes long!

#4 of 9 Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer

  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted May 21 2004 - 02:31 AM

Quote:
I think my biggest gripe is with directors that say that they make cuts for time constraints and the movie is only 90 minutes long!

There are many movies where 90 minutes is the proper running time, not 95. It is the pacing of a particular film that is important and also whether or not a scene contributes to the overall point of the film. At times these two things are mutually exclusive, perhaps the best current example being the LOTR films. For me at least the extended editions on DVD would not have played as well to the general audience as did the theatrical cuts, even though there were some scenes that added a bit to the audience’s understanding of Middle-Earth and the characters.

You might take a look at Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as 90-minute movie (actually a bit less, IIRC) that still had contemplated scenes deleted (in this case not developed), due to Disney’s insistence that they did not add to the plot development and inhibited the narrative flow.

Or consider The Wizard of Oz, where the brilliant dance by the Scarecrow was deleted, for similar reasons—as was the jitterbug number.

Although a case may be made for the inclusion of a few scenes, I mostly think that a good many films today suffer from self-indulgent editing, where the filmmakers become so enamored with a particular scene that they don’t edit tightly enough for the good of the entire film.
¡Time is not my master!

#5 of 9 DougFND

DougFND

    Second Unit

  • 250 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2004

Posted May 21 2004 - 02:55 AM

I'm reminded of T2. My first impression after leaving the theater was how the movie just never slowed down.

The added scenes for the Special Edition are excellent, but I can see where they would have detracted from the non-stop feeling I had seeing it the first time.

#6 of 9 Russell G

Russell G

    Lead Actor

  • 9,800 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted May 21 2004 - 03:14 AM

For me it's Apocalypse Now Redux. The whole french plantation scene just stops the movie. I remember Coppola saying as much in "Hearts Of Darkness, A filmakers Apocalypse"

Granted, I've only watched this version once, as opposed to hte original cut which I've seen to many times to count, so maybe I'll appreciate it more on a second viewing.

#7 of 9 Alex Spindler

Alex Spindler

    Producer

  • 3,973 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 2000

Posted May 21 2004 - 03:30 AM

I think every choice the director makes for the film is important, and finding a balance between maintaining the momentum of a film and including scenes that are fun, informative, or character building.

The momentum of a film can really make or break a great film, much like any other factor like production design, scripting, and casting.

#8 of 9 Kevin Grey

Kevin Grey

    Screenwriter

  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 2003

Posted May 21 2004 - 05:33 AM

I'm reminded of T2. My first impression after leaving the theater was how the movie just never slowed down.


Excellent example because this is the only James Cameron movie that I prefer the theatrical edition of. The additional scenes don't amount to a significant percentage of the running time but serve to make the film feel *much* more slowly paced.

#9 of 9 Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter

  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted May 21 2004 - 05:41 AM

Have you ever watched a movie that was 90 minutes long that felt like it would never end? Or a 3 hour film that seemed like it just started? That's pacing.

To answer the original question, pacing is the primary concern in every editing room, everywhere, therefore it's far from an overrated statement or sentiment. Pacing is the very core of film editing. The simple assemblage of footage is not editing, it's the careful choices that dictate how exciting a film will be.