Sam R. Aucoin
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Jul 5, 1999
- Messages
- 210
Over the past few years, I have noticed (and participated in) several threads that have dealt with pan&scan, movies edited for content, etc.
The overwhelming majority has essentially stated that, at the very least, if a film is to be released to the public for renting or ownership, then the film should be released in the same format at was presented for the original theatrical release. This, obviously, includes the "pro-OAR" groups (such as this forum, and of which I include myself as a "member"), as well as those who are against tampering, of any kind, with a movie once it has been theatrically released.
But I have also noticed a select group (which I believe I can safely call a "vocal minority") that even objects to DIRECTORS coming back and making changes to "original" versions of theatrical movies. The best known example is, of course, the initial Star Wars Trilogy. Others include E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner - obviously the list is finite, but it is substantial.
After reading my post so far, many of you may be thinking, "Okay, I probably agree with what he is saying, as his statements are basically assertions of fact, and can probably be supported with empirical evidence. But what in the hell does all that have to do with this "economic" business he says in his title?"
Well, this is what I mean
If directors are as passionate about their movies at they generally claim, and they thoroughly detest the fact that their movies are later edited for whatever reason (be it pan&scan, removal or overdubbing of cursing to show films on television in prime time on non-cable channels, etc.), why don't they ALL get together (or at least a sizeable, very influential majority, including the likes of Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron, Scorsese, et al.) and tell the studios: "We have decided that we will no longer make any more movies unless you, the studios, agree to show/release all movies made by us in their original theatrical release format".
Before you laugh, consider the following:
1. I know (or know of) many, many people who are so passionate about their work that they would do this very thing when it came to THEIR "art". The venerable Mike Knapp is just one such example - he told me in one thread that he EXPECTED that none of his art would ever be modified, in any way, by any of his clients, EVEN AFTER THE ART WAS SOLD. Now, by citing Mike, I am NOT soliciting comments on his ethics or decision - I cite him ONLY as an example of the first sentence I made in this numbered paragraph.
2. All of the directors I just mentioned are fabulously wealthy by, I think, any definition used by the average American. In other words, I seriously doubt that any of them needs to make any more movies for their livelihood.
3. We, the general public, do EXACTLY what I proposed the directors SHOULD do (whether intentionally, or as Adam Smith said, with a collective "invisible hand"), except we do it on the buying end. Generally, we buy those things we like, and don't buy those things we don't like. If a sufficient number of people buy something, it succeeds and continues to be available; if not, it goes away (ala "New Coke"; although it is still available, it is so in very limited markets, and for all practical purposes, it is "gone").
So, as "we" continue to go along bashing "Joe Sixpack" for "causing" the release of pan&scan/edited-for-content-movies, I think we also need to look at the makers (that is, directors) of the product as well.
Wal-Mart cannot sell a movie that does not get released by a studio for public consumption. A studio cannot release a movie for public consumption until it has a movie to release. A movie cannot be made without a director. And finally, no one forces directors to make movies (unless they are contractually obligated to do so, and I think this would be a very small number).
If Mike Knapp can feel as passionately as he does about his work to the point that he would attempt to buy back his work if he gets wind that it is about to be changed from his original design, why can't a Scorcese do essentially the same thing by saying, "I will make the film, but only if you agree to not distribute it in ANY format other than the format of its original theatrical presentation"?
Just some thoughts . . .
The overwhelming majority has essentially stated that, at the very least, if a film is to be released to the public for renting or ownership, then the film should be released in the same format at was presented for the original theatrical release. This, obviously, includes the "pro-OAR" groups (such as this forum, and of which I include myself as a "member"), as well as those who are against tampering, of any kind, with a movie once it has been theatrically released.
But I have also noticed a select group (which I believe I can safely call a "vocal minority") that even objects to DIRECTORS coming back and making changes to "original" versions of theatrical movies. The best known example is, of course, the initial Star Wars Trilogy. Others include E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner - obviously the list is finite, but it is substantial.
After reading my post so far, many of you may be thinking, "Okay, I probably agree with what he is saying, as his statements are basically assertions of fact, and can probably be supported with empirical evidence. But what in the hell does all that have to do with this "economic" business he says in his title?"
Well, this is what I mean
If directors are as passionate about their movies at they generally claim, and they thoroughly detest the fact that their movies are later edited for whatever reason (be it pan&scan, removal or overdubbing of cursing to show films on television in prime time on non-cable channels, etc.), why don't they ALL get together (or at least a sizeable, very influential majority, including the likes of Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron, Scorsese, et al.) and tell the studios: "We have decided that we will no longer make any more movies unless you, the studios, agree to show/release all movies made by us in their original theatrical release format".
Before you laugh, consider the following:
1. I know (or know of) many, many people who are so passionate about their work that they would do this very thing when it came to THEIR "art". The venerable Mike Knapp is just one such example - he told me in one thread that he EXPECTED that none of his art would ever be modified, in any way, by any of his clients, EVEN AFTER THE ART WAS SOLD. Now, by citing Mike, I am NOT soliciting comments on his ethics or decision - I cite him ONLY as an example of the first sentence I made in this numbered paragraph.
2. All of the directors I just mentioned are fabulously wealthy by, I think, any definition used by the average American. In other words, I seriously doubt that any of them needs to make any more movies for their livelihood.
3. We, the general public, do EXACTLY what I proposed the directors SHOULD do (whether intentionally, or as Adam Smith said, with a collective "invisible hand"), except we do it on the buying end. Generally, we buy those things we like, and don't buy those things we don't like. If a sufficient number of people buy something, it succeeds and continues to be available; if not, it goes away (ala "New Coke"; although it is still available, it is so in very limited markets, and for all practical purposes, it is "gone").
So, as "we" continue to go along bashing "Joe Sixpack" for "causing" the release of pan&scan/edited-for-content-movies, I think we also need to look at the makers (that is, directors) of the product as well.
Wal-Mart cannot sell a movie that does not get released by a studio for public consumption. A studio cannot release a movie for public consumption until it has a movie to release. A movie cannot be made without a director. And finally, no one forces directors to make movies (unless they are contractually obligated to do so, and I think this would be a very small number).
If Mike Knapp can feel as passionately as he does about his work to the point that he would attempt to buy back his work if he gets wind that it is about to be changed from his original design, why can't a Scorcese do essentially the same thing by saying, "I will make the film, but only if you agree to not distribute it in ANY format other than the format of its original theatrical presentation"?
Just some thoughts . . .
