IF george lucas directed Apocolypse now

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 10:50 AM

To see what different things you can get out of your work.

**jb_617** · November 23rd, 2004, 11:08 AM

I guess that's valid. But you don't see artists retouching their work six or seven times after they've exhibited it.

---------------------

Onward!

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 11:13 AM

yes you do,

A lot of artist;s! Also do study's on certain themes, materials, concepts , etc etc - how many daft faces did picasso reaally need to do :-)

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 11:13 AM

you definetly see the same thing going on with musicians.

and also plays

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 11:15 AM

The Stand is a good example from the literature world too,

oh and there is architeques as well....

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 11:16 AM

The eternal quest for perfection....

**jb_617** · November 23rd, 2004, 11:19 AM

Yeah, that's true. People (Seal comes to mind) re-release the same song every couple of years because it was a big hit. Sometimes you can get a really good cover that is better than the original (Johnny Cash -- "Hurt" comes to mind) but that's pretty rare.

I really don't know where I'm going with this.

-----------------------

I'd sell my soul for a day off work -- wait, didn't I sell my soul to get this job?

**jb_617** · November 23rd, 2004, 11:45 AM

Ok, I just saw the rest of your posts and I?m going to have to put you right on a few things.

Plays are different; they are supposed to be endlessly reinterpreted. Artists and writers often explore the same theme in several different pieces of work; also true. BUT, if a writer simply took one of their published works and changed to order of the chapters or added things in here and there, maybe took some things out or expanded/contracted a character; then published a few versions of it, there would be some serious questions raised in the literary world.

Architects are not really relevant here. They don?t put up a building, take it down, put it up again, tinker with it, and then ASK YOU TO PAY for every correction/reinterpretation.

My common theme here is this:

If you make a piece of work and you are not happy with the final product, deal with it! Learn your lesson, move on and make the next one closer to what you visualised. Your quote ?- how many daft faces did picasso reaally need to do :-)? [Sic.] is a great example. He had an idea of what he wanted to do and he tried to make it real. Maybe he wasn?t happy with how the first one came out, or he though of a new direction, so he did it again and again and again, evolving the technique each time until he was happy or had run out of ideas of where to take it. But, each painting, sculpture or whathaveyou stands on its own without having to know about the rest. However, I will allow that when seen as an evolution of thought, the juxtaposition of many similar works by the same artist can be powerful.

If Coppola wasn?t happy he should have made the film again, not just reheated the same hash. Don?t get me wrong; I like a lot of his films. I like ?Apocalypse Now?. But I?m objective enough to see it for what it is, good but flawed. I can see what he was trying to do and which parts of the film I think he wouldn?t be happy with. I stand by my comment of calling it a train wreck.

As an aside, and some things to think about:

Steven King does not write literature.

Josef (or Joseph if you like) Conrad?s novel beats the living shit out of Coppola and Milius? screenplay / film.

Perfection is impossible, do the best you can and move on.

The new Tarantino / Jet Li movie will be shit.

Clarity of punctuation and spelling implies clarity of thought.

The reverse is true.

------------------------

Who needs a drink?

[ November 23, 2004 08:05 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

[ November 23, 2004 11:08 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

**eidde** · November 23rd, 2004, 12:22 PM

Everything you do, you do within certain constraints and restrictions, and you come up with something in the end. Maybe some sort of compromise to satsify all these different pressures put on you, but you come up with it. (Or you throw your hands in the air and become a plumber.)

Over time these constraints and restrictions change. If you revisit an old project under different circumstances and alter it under these different constraints, then it becomes something different.

This recut sounds interesting, but it seems to be more about nostalgia, rather than the Vietnam War (or Heart of Darkness)

Still - opens it up to a new generation. (with money in their pockets)

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 12:24 PM

Ok, I just saw the rest of your posts and I?m going to have to put you right on a few thing.
Plays are different; they are supposed to be endlessly reinterpreted. Artists and writers often explore the same theme in several different pieces of work; also true. BUT, if a writer simply took one of their published works and changed to order of the chapters or added things in here and there, maybe took some things out or expanded/contracted a character; then published a few versions of it, there would be some serious questions raised in the literary world.

I think you'd be surprised at how many books that are out there, in which the original author has put out more than one version , and if plays are ok to be redone and redone, why not film ?

Architects are not really relevant here. They don?t put up a building, take it down, put it up again, tinker with it, and then ASK YOU TO PAY for every correction/reinterpretation.

Take a walk down the thames, or a gentle roam around our waterways and see how many bridges are just like the bridge before but with something different, or a walk round town and see what bits have come from here nad there by the same architecque (or however you spell it, stupid word IMHO) and are you saying architeques are not artists in their own right ?
My common theme here is this:

If you make a piece of work and you are not happy with the final product, deal with it! Learn your lesson, move on and make the next one closer to what you visualised. Your quote ?- how many daft faces did picasso reaally need to do :-)? [Sic.] is a great example. He had an idea of what he wanted to do and he tried to make it real. Maybe he wasn?t happy with how the first one came out, or he though of a new direction, so he did it again and again and again, evolving the technique each time until he was happy or had run out of ideas of where to take it. But, each painting, sculpture or whathaveyou stands on its own

I think REDUX stands on its own merits ;-p

without having to know about the rest. However, I will allow that when seen as an evolution of thought, the juxtaposition of many similar works by the same artist can be powerful.

If Coppola wasn?t happy he should have made the film again, not just reheated the same hash.

How many times has artist recycled a canvas ? lots.

Don?t get me wrong; I like a lot of his films. I like ?Apocalypse Now?. But I?m objective enough to see it for what it is, good but flawed. I can see what he was trying to do and which parts of the film I think he wouldn?t be happy with. I stand by my comment of calling it a train wreck.

As an aside, and some things to think about:

Steven King does not write literature.

yes he does.

Josef (or Joseph if you like) Conrad?s novel beats the living shit out of Coppola and Milius? screenplay / film.

ones a book, ones a film. The Bolshoi ballets version failed before it made the stage ;-)

Perfection is impossible, do the best you can and move on.

If people gave up at their "best" and didnt push and strive on, then we would still be drawing on cave walls.

The new Tarantino / Jet Li movie will be shit.

Dont like the guy anyway

Clarity of punctuation and spelling implies clarity of thought.

To much quoting is bad for your health.
The reverse is true.

------------------------

Who needs a drink?

[/QUOTE]