IF george lucas directed Apocolypse now

**jb_617** · November 23rd, 2004, 01:12 PM

I don?t know how to make the quote thing work, so I?ll rely on my old friend ?Cut ?n? Paste?

Your quotes will appear in the weak and slightly shifty italics; mine in the strong confident bold. I have left your mangling of the English language intact for posterities sake.

Here we go:

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 ?

Yes, I would be. Most authors make some minor corrections and changes between the hardback and paperback releases. They might even make some minor changes to structure and story depending on the reader reaction. Paperback sales are greater than hardback by some factor that I don?t have to hand right now. But, think of hardback sales as a ?test audience? for the book. What you may be thinking of is books where the language has been updated or text altered in subsequent reprints, examples that come to mind are ?East of Eden? by John Steinbeck and ?Tess of the D'Urbervilles? by Thomas Hardy. It would take a Ph.D. thesis to explain the difference here, or maybe some basic understanding that books are NOT films.

As to plays; as I said, they are supposed to be reworked. A play is performed over and over, maybe with the same cast and the same text, but it is different every time. It is NOT ok to do this with films. If you videotaped a play and then reinterpreted it (for that read ?re-edited?) and showed it on a screen to audiences every night they would be pissed off because they paid to see the play. My point is, if you?re not happy with the film you made, then remake it. As far as I can tell, Coppola shot far more footage that he could ever have used and couldn?t decide what to use to keep the film at a reasonable length. Or maybe he disagreed with his editors? interpritation, I don?t know, I wasn?t there. However, Coppola has offered up his work (again) for critique and I am critiquing.

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 ?

Architects? I never said they weren't artists. Anyway what do they have to do with re-editing a film? Yes, a lot of bridges do look similar because they?re fulfilling a similar purpose. It?s like saying all films are the same because all I saw was some flickering lights! My point there, which you missed by a country mile, was that architects don?t take the bridge they made to pieces and start again. Or if they complete a building and think ?I wish I?d put some minarets on that bugger.? They put them on the next building (if appropriate) they rarely tinker with a finished one. Structural defects aside. Again, this is a silly argument because structural design and engineering is NOT film.

I think REDUX stands on its own merits ;-p

It does; I prefer it to the original. Most people I have spoken to about it agree it is better. This was never my point. Here is my original point in case your scroll button is not working :

My whole point here is that he's already made and released the film. Why do it again? If this new version is better then isn't that admitting that you failed the first time around. As for adding in deleted scenes, there was probably a good reason why they didn't make the final cut in the first version. I realise that last sentence contradicts my first sentence in this post, but I don't care.

WHY DO IT AGAIN? Yes, it?s better; most things would be with 20 some-odd years of hindsight, access to reviews and millions of people?s opinions being offered. But you already did it. It you want to be a commercial success, this great. But as a piece of art, let it stand.

How many times has artist recycled a canvas ? lots.

Again true, but you?re being a bit selective with the facts here. They paint DIFFERENT pictures over the top of ones they?re not happy with. Ok, it?s easier for an artist to do that. Once a film is out there you can?t pull it back in. A painter can simply destroy the work and nobody will ever know. Coppola could have done this in the editing room. But he didn?t. At the time he?d done his best with it and let it out for all to see. Now he wants a do-over. No deal from the JB on that one. As untamed aggression is fond of saying ?You watched it, you can?t un-watch it.? Artists DO paint over canvasses but very rarely is it one they?ve EXHIBITED. And if they do, they?re a chicken ;-)

Weird double quote coming up here so that yours is in context:

Steven King does not write literature.

yes he does.

No. You?re wrong. That?s harsh but there is no other way to put it. He does not. He writes Fantasy, he writes horror, he writes drama, he writes Sci-Fi. He writes all of these. He writes them very well. But he does NOT write literature. The End.

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

You seem to have validated my point and invalidated yours. Again, if your scroll button isn?t working, here?s your quote:

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 ?

?Nuff said? I did laugh at the ballet joke though :-)

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

It is logically impossible to exceed your best. That is what your best is.

Cave walls? Are you comparing the artistic social and scientific evolution of the species to some guy re-editing his film? Have some sense of proportion man!

Dont like the guy anyway

I know you don?t. I was making a joke, but still?if you have to ask?

To much quoting is bad for your health.

I smoke and drink. Scare me.

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

It burns!

[ November 23, 2004 09:15 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

[ November 23, 2004 09:20 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

[ November 23, 2004 09:21 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

[ November 23, 2004 09:22 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

[ November 23, 2004 10:02 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

[ November 23, 2004 10:04 AM: Message edited by: jb_617 ]

**twister!** · November 23rd, 2004, 01:30 PM

"Art is never finished, only abandoned."
Leonardo DaVinci

**jb_617** · November 23rd, 2004, 02:01 PM

That is an awesome quote Justin.

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

I will never top that.

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 02:10 PM

I don?t know how to make the quote thing work, so I?ll rely on my old friend ?Cut ?n? Paste?
Your quotes will appear in the weak and slightly shifty italics; mine in the strong confident bold. I have left your mangling of the English language intact for posterities sake.

Here we go:

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 ?

Yes, I would be. Most authors make some minor corrections and changes between the hardback and paperback releases. They might even make some minor changes to structure and story depending on the reader reaction. Paperback sales are greater than hardback by some factor that I don?t have to hand right now. But, think of hardback sales as a ?test audience? for the book. What you may be thinking of is books where the language has been updated or text altered in subsequent reprints, examples that come to mind are ?East of Eden? by John Steinbeck and ?Tess of the D'Urbervilles? by Thomas Hardy. It would take a Ph.D. thesis to explain the difference here, or maybe some basic understanding that books are NOT films.

A lot of books out there that as an example appeared in a serial version first, then later on the author went back and made changes for a full version especially in ye olde days and vice versa. And lot's of other reaons to Charles Perault is a name that springs to mind nice version/evil version as a differnt aspect and also printing contraints even now force some authors to cut their work and release it at a later date.

As to plays; as I said, they are supposed to be reworked. A play is performed over and over, maybe with the same cast and the same text, but it is different every time. It is NOT ok to do this with films. If you videotaped a play and then reinterpreted it (for that read ?re-edited?) and showed it on a screen to audiences every night they would be pissed off because they paid to see the play. My point is, if you?re not happy with the film you made, then remake it. As far as I can tell, Coppola shot far more footage that he could ever have used and couldn?t decide what to use to keep the film at a reasonable length. Or maybe he disagreed with his editors? interpritation, I don?t know, I wasn?t there. However, Coppola has offered up his work (again) for critique and I am critiquing.

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 ?

Architects? I never said they weren't artists. Anyway what do they have to do with re-editing a film? Yes, a lot of bridges do look similar because they?re fulfilling a similar purpose. It?s like saying all films are the same because all I saw was some flickering lights! My point there, which you missed by a country mile, was that architects don?t take the bridge they made to pieces and start again.

You dont have to physically take something apart and start again. have no idea of the guys name but he built the sewage and a few bridges and if you look at his bridges it's clear that his thought process has been, that arch was alright last time, but the support beam i'll think i'll make it pink this time. THe mental process of taking something apart is exactly the same as the physical state 

Or if they complete a building and think ?I wish I?d put some minarets on that bugger.? They put them on the next building (if appropriate) they rarely tinker with a finished one. Structural defects aside. Again, this is a silly argument because structural design and engineering is NOT film.

There are examples out there, not sure if the pavillion is one,,, aha ! The Mad Prince was forever mutiliating his palaces 

I think REDUX stands on its own merits ;-p

It does; I prefer it to the original. Most people I have spoken to about it agree it is better. This was never my point. Here is my original point in case your scroll button is not working :

My whole point here is that he's already made and released the film. Why do it again? If this new version is better then isn't that admitting that you failed the first time around. As for adding in deleted scenes, there was probably a good reason why they didn't make the final cut in the first version. I realise that last sentence contradicts my first sentence in this post, but I don't care.

WHY DO IT AGAIN? Yes, it?s better; most things would be with 20 some-odd years of hindsight, access to reviews and millions of people?s opinions being offered. But you already did it. It you want to be a commercial success, this great. But as a piece of art, let it stand.

How many times has artist recycled a canvas ? lots.

Again true, but you?re being a bit selective with the facts here. They paint DIFFERENT pictures over the top of ones they?re not happy with. Ok, it?s easier for an artist to do that. Once a film is out there you can?t pull it back in. A painter can simply destroy the work and nobody will ever know. Coppola could have done this in the editing room. But he didn?t. At the time he?d done his best with it and let it out for all to see. Now he wants a do-over. No deal from the JB on that one. As untamed aggression is fond of saying ?You watched it, you can?t un-watch it.? Artists DO paint over canvasses but very rarely is it one they?ve EXHIBITED. And if they do, they?re a chicken ;-)

not always different, i think with the painting where the women is lying down on the bed with the angel holding the mirror , has a different women laying down on the couch with a angle holding mirror underneath it :-) true i cant think of any examples of artists displaying work then taking it back and then going over it agaim, but im sure that has happened. 

Weird double quote coming up here so that yours is in context:

Steven King does not write literature.

yes he does.

No. You?re wrong. That?s harsh but there is no other way to put it. He does not. He writes Fantasy, he writes horror, he writes drama, he writes Sci-Fi. He writes all of these. He writes them very well. But he does NOT write literature. The End.

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

You seem to have validated my point and invalided yours. Again, if your scroll button isn?t working, here?s your quote:

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 ?

come back in a second here 

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

It is logically impossible to exceed you best. That is what you best is.

Cave walls? Are you comparing the artistic social and scientific evolution of the species to some guy re-editing his film? Have some sense of proportion man!
 Are you saying that film is inept to the way man thinks? 

Dont like the guy anyway

I know you don?t. I was making a joke, but still?if you have to ask?

To much quoting is bad for your health.

I smoke and drink. Scare me.

Justin quotes is brilliant, but I think to help me understand your argument JB can you clarify

Are you saying that film is its own medium which is so heavily fixed in its own rules and ways that once something is finished it should be left alone never for the person to revisit ? In which case why ? who does it harm ?

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 02:20 PM

TO summarise my point is , i dont think there is anything wrong with going back to old work and having a fiddle

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 02:21 PM

except if you are George Lucas

**eidde** · November 23rd, 2004, 02:25 PM

eek this post is getting scary! Now theres a font
war going on too!
At least its come full circle.....

**jb_617** · November 23rd, 2004, 02:50 PM

This is the reason I did not become a teacher??But please, Sir. Why??

Once again, to clarify, as succinctly as I can, here is my position:

Francis Ford Copolla is entitled to do whatever the hell he wants with his own work. It is his. All meant by my post was that I do not agree with what he did.

Now for some new opinion:

I do not agree IN GENERAL with tinkering with something. I am aware that there are THOUSANDS of examples in all forms of art where this has been done; some for the better, some for the detriment, IN MY OPINION. I don?t care. Just because there is a historical or contemporary precedent for something, it does not validate it. There are about a million ways to ?win? an argument (I prefer discussion myself) by dragging something up and saying ?Look so-and-so did this is the past so it must be ok.? And that is fine, too. It?s just not my bag.

If you put something out there, just leave it there. That is my OPINION (subjective). I am in no way endorsing this to anyone else.

I definitely say that film is its own medium. However, I did not say that it is fixed in rules. I did not mention rules. I do not know of any rules. Why take the argument in that direction? Reducing it to a game of brinksmanship where, if I don?t agree with you or another artist, I am suddenly ?The Man?. I am suddenly ?The Establishment? with my rules and my hate. Crushing all that does not conform. The ?you don?t agree with me so you?re against artistic expression? line is tired. It?s played out, it was never valid to begin with, and it pisses me off. People can do whatever they hell they want as far as I am concerned. BUT, expect me to have an opinion and expect me to voice that opinion.

If I finished something, then I probably would leave it alone. Probably, I don?t know what I?m going to feel like in 25 years, I am stating no definates here. That?s just me. I wouldn?t put something out there that I wasn?t happy with. Maybe Copolla was happy but now wants to make some changes. That?s cool with me; it?s his thing. I just wouldn?t bother. But that?s me.

It doesn?t harm anyone or me that Copolla re-cut his film. I just think that it?s pointless. If he wanted people to see the extra footage he could have put it in the movie 25 years ago. If he?s changed his mind now and wants to go back, then fine. I didn?t say he COULDN?T do it. I didn?t say he SHOULDN?T do it. I just said I WOULDN?T do it.

As for all that architecture junk. You?re way off the mark, trust me ;-)

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

Font war? Is that the Tv. programme where printers assistants build fighting robots?

**Chance1234** · November 23rd, 2004, 03:08 PM

You did say

"Can someone explain to me why "Redux" is any different to "Re-released on DVD?"."

"If this new version is better then isn't that admitting that you failed the first time around. "

For the Record Deadlights Redux will consist of entirely new footage except for the evil doll.

**twister!** · November 23rd, 2004, 03:09 PM

As with his talk of doing a Godfather 4 - I think 'App Now Redux' was partly to help fund his 'Megalopolis' film project.

He says that Megalopolis "is bigger and more ambitious than Apocalypse."

Thread: IF george lucas directed Apocolypse now

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions