Cut off from your own film by production...

[Phil Rhodes]

I think there's a semantic issue here.

 

If he didn't fund it, it isn't his film.

 

P

[Thomas James]

In the movie 2001 a Space Odyssey Stanley Kubrik butchered the film because according to Arthur C. Clark the original movie was going to have the spaceship Discovery on a mission to Saturn rather than Jupiter and the spacecraft was going to be powered by an atomic bomb machine gun with 1000 rounds of ammunition. These atomic explosions would be handled by the films special effects team and would have produced a profound dramatic effect. Instead Stanley Kubrick substituted what looked like a more conventional chemical booster although the booster could have been nuclear powered.

Had Stanley Kubrick not interfered we would have had the movie 2001 look more like a Star Wars movie and the Discovery spaceship would have looked like the Death Star. And we would have a more rational explanation for all the technological progress envisioned for the year 2001 because society would have embraced the more affordable technologies.

[Hal Smith]

In the movie 2001 a Space Odyssey Stanley Kubrik butchered the film because according to Arthur C. Clark the original movie was going to have the spaceship Discovery on a mission to Saturn rather than Jupiter and the spacecraft was going to be powered by an atomic bomb machine gun with 1000 rounds of ammunition. These atomic explosions would be handled by the films special effects team and would have produced a profound dramatic effect. Instead Stanley Kubrick substituted what looked like a more conventional chemical booster although the booster could have been nuclear powered.

Had Stanley Kubrick not interfered we would have had the movie 2001 look more like a Star Wars movie and the Discovery spaceship would have looked like the Death Star. And we would have a more rational explanation for all the technological progress envisioned for the year 2001 because society would have embraced the more affordable technologies.

 

"2001" was a crazy collaboration with Clarke writing a novel while Kubrick put a movie together. The original Clarke story was "Sentinel" and only covered the discovery on the Moon of an ancient alien pyramid with some sort of force field around it. Everything else came out of the collaboration.

Clarke had some real reservations about what Kubrick was creating, it's possible the change in propulsion came from Clarke's more realistic notions of future technology than Kubrick's.

[Thomas James]

Arthur C. Clark"s idea to use atomic bombs as a nuclear pulse propolsion system was based on the top secret United States Air Force Orion project which was a feasibility study involving 11 million dollars. The goal of the Orion project had it been adequately funded was to put a man on the moon by 1965 and a manned mission to Saturn by 1970 using readily available 1950's technology and keeping it simple and affordable. You see the energy potential of a nuclear explosion is a million times greater than any chemical rocket. To have a realistic portrayal of a future space technology as envisioned in 2001 you have to have a technology that is affordable. Chemical rockets are simply unaffordable and that is the reason why we are no longer sending men to the moon. Nuclear reactors are twice as efficient as a chemical rockets but still do not provide the power of a nuclear explosion that is needed to build a galactic empire.

[Chris Millar]

I don't think we could get more off topic if we tried ...

[Ruairi Robinson]

In the movie 2001 a Space Odyssey Stanley Kubrik butchered the film because according to Arthur C. Clark the original movie was going to have the spaceship Discovery on a mission to Saturn rather than Jupiter and the spacecraft was going to be powered by an atomic bomb machine gun with 1000 rounds of ammunition. These atomic explosions would be handled by the films special effects team and would have produced a profound dramatic effect. Instead Stanley Kubrick substituted what looked like a more conventional chemical booster although the booster could have been nuclear powered.

Had Stanley Kubrick not interfered we would have had the movie 2001 look more like a Star Wars movie and the Discovery spaceship would have looked like the Death Star. And we would have a more rational explanation for all the technological progress envisioned for the year 2001 because society would have embraced the more affordable technologies.

 

 

Yeah, Kubrick totally dropped the ball on that one. What a loser. If only they had made it a mission to saturn instead of Jupiter, that would have made the story a million times better. Imagine changing a mission from Saturn to Jupiter? What kind of moron would do that? Any idiot knows that missions to Saturn are way cooler than missions to Jupiter. Sheesh. And nuclear explosions used as rockets would have totally made the ending profound, in a way that would have touched the souls of all of mankind and changed the how films are made, and stories are told, and the way people think, for all eternity.

 

Silly Kubrick, interfering in his own story. What a buffoon!

 

R.

 

(with apologies to the original poster, I sympathize, truly.)

[Brian Dzyak]

I don't think we could get more off topic if we tried ...

 

 

Look, a squirrel! ;)

[Brian Dzyak]

I think there's a semantic issue here.

 

If he didn't fund it, it isn't his film.

 

P

 

It's more "ideological" than "semantic," I think. Take the Beatles for instance. I don't know who paid for their recording sessions, but would anyone argue that their songs were someone else's just because someone else paid for the time for them to record them? So whoever currently owns those songs has the right to alter them in any way they choose as if those songs were just like a house that someone wants to remodel to suit their own tastes?

 

I suppose so, but it's a disturbing concept.

[Thomas James]

I thought that this problem was solved a long time ago. Every movie has a theatrical release version and then there is the Directors cut that people can watch on Blu-Ray.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I thought that this problem was solved a long time ago. Every movie has a theatrical release version and then there is the Directors cut that people can watch on Blu-Ray.

 

 

You mean like the "director's cut" of Alien 3, that Fincher had nothing to do with?

 

R.

[Chris Millar]

Look, a squirrel! ;)

 

Ok, I'll bite

 

http://www.neatorama.com/2009/08/09/self-p...round-squirrel/ ;)

[Paul Bruening]

Look, a squirrel! ;)

 

http://www.fark.com/farq/about.shtml

[Jim Carlile]

Let's get back to the subject:

 

Question: this was "public" funding, a la grants? Well then, in who's name were they issued-- the artistic director or the producers?

 

That makes a big difference-- what it looks like is that these "producers" have taken over a project for the sake of having a project, but if the grants are in the director's name-- or give him some kind of primacy-- he has a legal case for resuming control. This is the crux of the problem.

 

Even in the grants world, "producers" often use the creators for their own ends (surprise surprise). The director may want to see the paperwork, and review it with a good non-profit grantwriter. He may have more rights than he knows.

 

BTW, the reason why 2001 went with Jupiter rather than Saturn was because they couldn't get convincing Saturn effects. My problem with 2001 is that Kubrick botched it with his re-cut, 4 days after the premiere. The original version was much better and more allusive-- and those patched-in intertitles are embarrassing, i.e., "To Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite...?" Cringe.

[Thomas James]

Actually the special effects team had access to perfectly good photos of Saturn taken with Earth bound telescopes but the world of Saturn is so strange that it would have violated the "suspension of disbelief " rule that every good cinematographer employs. Nevertheless because the rings of Saturn are so profound the movie 2001 still should have included a trip to Saturn despite the fact that few people in the audience would have believed it. As far as simulating the effects of atomic blasts as a form of nuclear space propulsion if the special effects team were dilegent enough they could have produced a working model of the spacecraft Discovery and simulated an Earth launch using conventional C-4 explosives instead of atomic bombs in order to propel the model rocket in a real flight even if it is only 150 feet up into the air. In 1959 this is exactly how the Orion Project simulated an atomic flight using model rocketry and Werner Von Braun was said to fall out of his seat when he saw the movie footage and just like Arthur C. Clark became a firm believer in atomic powered spaceships

[Joe Giambrone]

I have never been in this situation, but I do have an idea for a hail Mary pass, which is about the only thing left.

 

They didn't like your cut.

 

According to you, their cut was worse.

 

What's the common denominator?

 

The editor.

 

They have lost faith in you, and have demonstrated a quick propensity to lose faith. Well, what if the axe fell on the editor, and you miraculously found an even better editor to come on board with "fresh eyes?"

 

And if that happens, then let them create their own cut of the film, cut 3, and see what happens.

 

That's the hail Mary pass, and it will cost some bucks, if you can even get anyone to listen at all.

 

http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/

[Sasha Riu]

do you have any cut of the movie that is presentable?!

 

If you do:

 

If things get rough, simply publish online, a "DIRECTOR's CUT version for FREE (it sucks) through a third party so that they can't hold you liable for a damage ( your friend puts it on torrent os somethin') so that at least you damage them in a sence of money, honour and credits as much as they damaged you!

 

true you both are loosing in that case , but at least they didn't got what they want!

:)

 

 

 

:(

Edited August 21, 2009 by Sasha Riu

[Rob Vogt]

do you have any cut of the movie that is presentable?!

 

If you do:

 

If things get rough, simply publish online, a "DIRECTOR's CUT version for FREE (it sucks) through a third party so that they can't hold you liable for a damage ( your friend puts it on torrent os somethin') so that at least you damage them in a sence of money, honour and credits as much as they damaged you!

 

true you both are loosing in that case , but at least they didn't got what they want!

:)

 

 

 

:(

 

If he doesn't own the footage he can't publish or distribute it whether it is for sale or not because then he would be liable for punitive damages. Either way it's not really important because most likely he doesn't have a copy of the footage.

[Paul Bruening]

If he doesn't own the footage he can't publish or distribute it whether it is for sale or not because then he would be liable for punitive damages. Either way it's not really important because most likely he doesn't have a copy of the footage.

 

What he said.

[Bob Hayes]

I must say this situation is more common then not. One question I would ask is this. Was this your script? Did you bring the project to the producers or were you a hired hand? If it is your baby from the start I can see why you are upset. If not read on.

 

The concept of the Director being the creative vision behind the film is really something that started in the 70’s. There were lots of brilliant directors before but film was considered a producer’s medium. They would pick the script, the cast, and hire a director they thought would create the film the producer’s had in mind. In many ways we are heading back to this system again. Most producers’ still feel that way. Also investors want to make a great film for sure but they want to make there money back. Producers want to keep their investors happy. And both parties will aggressively work toward this end. Remember it is usually NOT your film, it is their film. They paid for it. They own it. So, it is in your best interest to maintain a good working relationship with them. They need to feel you are on their team. If they don’t feel that way you’ll get cut out of the process very quickly.

 

My advice to you is to connect with the producers and financiers as a partner trying to achieve a successful film. Get back into the editing process but try not to control too much. See what they are trying to achieve and see if you can work you vision in also. Also don’t take your name off the film if you worked hard to make it you deserve the credit. And who knows it may do well and it will kill you to see the producer’s name up on the screen as director.

[Bob Hayes]

Also it is important to keep on good terms with these guys because you are going to want to get a good quality copy of your film and they will control the masters.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I must say this situation is more common then not. One question I would ask is this. Was this your script? Did you bring the project to the producers or were you a hired hand? If it is your baby from the start I can see why you are upset. If not read on.

 

The concept of the Director being the creative vision behind the film is really something that started in the 70’s. There were lots of brilliant directors before but film was considered a producer’s medium. They would pick the script, the cast, and hire a director they thought would create the film the producer’s had in mind. In many ways we are heading back to this system again. Most producers’ still feel that way. Also investors want to make a great film for sure but they want to make there money back. Producers want to keep their investors happy. And both parties will aggressively work toward this end. Remember it is usually NOT your film, it is their film. They paid for it. They own it. So, it is in your best interest to maintain a good working relationship with them. They need to feel you are on their team. If they don’t feel that way you’ll get cut out of the process very quickly.

 

My advice to you is to connect with the producers and financiers as a partner trying to achieve a successful film. Get back into the editing process but try not to control too much. See what they are trying to achieve and see if you can work you vision in also. Also don’t take your name off the film if you worked hard to make it you deserve the credit. And who knows it may do well and it will kill you to see the producer’s name up on the screen as director.

 

He already made it clear that he wrote the script.

 

R.

[John King]

Our director friend elaborates:

 

First of all please forgive me for intruding here, as I do not know much about the way Hollywood works from a personal standpoint. However, I have read quite a bit about the way business is done there, and also I used to study contract law. So I do not know how valid my opinion is here:

 

Our Friend Writes:

[[These 3 facts are significant in that usually when a director loses control over edit it is due to producers fearful that the director is taking the film in a direction away from genre expectations and thereby, as they see it, limiting it’s potential audience and the return for commercial investors.

 

My contract is unfortunately all too standard in these parts, and weighed heavily in the producers favour. Legally, at least in the written contract, I do not appear to have a leg to stand on. Ethically and by way of verbal agreements, I am in a stronger position but whether these count for much is another matter.

 

Some 6 weeks ago a first cut was shown to the main funders. The expressed their disappointment with it, and suggested strongly that I re-visit and re-work the material.]]

 

It seems to me that as the producers have put up the money, and hired the director, the movie is basically theirs, very much the same way as the old Studio System. The contracts he describes are very similar to those, or so it sounds. Now, if the director was also the writer he (or she) might have more legal grounds. However, form the sound of this, the person seems to have been working as a "director for hire" and not as an "autuer" of the film.

 

I am so sorry to present news that is such a bummer, but I think this is the case.

 

J.M. king