I felt the Aliens DC let the damn thing breathe and add some calm before the nightmare moments. Without the frantic pace. A few elements of it are extraneous I agree, but majority of it i felt helped. But to each their own.
I felt the Aliens DC let the damn thing breathe and add some calm before the nightmare moments. Without the frantic pace. A few elements of it are extraneous I agree, but majority of it i felt helped. But to each their own.
Count me as someone who prefers Aliens DC as well. The added scenes show that Ripley has lost her daughter and Newt needs a mother. Far from subtle but it works.
Regardless, in most cases I agree that films should have a final shape at their theatrical release. It's the best movie the filmmakers could deliver at their deadline. Producer interference is just another factor that can benefit or harm the final product. I know I've read Lynch and Scorsese express similar sentiments.
Enviado desde mi SM-G935F mediante Tapatalk
Another fan of the DC Aliens here. Gives the Marines a cockier version of themselves along with what was already shared.
Wait, how can anyone think Blade Runner's theatrical cut should be the cut, since it's the definition of studio meddling and imposition?
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
You can call me out by name. I'm right here.
"Interference" is part of the process and there are plenty of examples of great work being produced, released, and loved that were "interfered" with.
I mean, thank God something like "Casablanca" wasn't made in this era. If it had been, there'd been 3 different "special editions" and each one would feature Ilsa getting on the plane with a different character.
"Blade Runner" was released in 1982. Not 92 or 97 or 2005 or whatever. The original film may be flawed but that's also the film, and the flaws are part of what makes it worth talking about.
ETA: Again, getting back to the idea that director's cuts are bullshit --- every one of the "Blade Runner" cuts coincided with a special edition DVD/Blu release.
The whole idea is a marketing angle, not an artistic one.
Last edited by Irish; 05-19-2020 at 04:14 AM.
Here's a relevant example of studio interference on "Alien," btw:
- The original title was "Starbeast."
- Ash wasn't in it.
- Ripley was a man.
The producers rewrote the script to include Ash and the studio head suggested making Ripley a woman.
https://books.google.com/books?id=4e...%20ash&f=false
I can't , because in writing that I also include Grouchy's comment of theatrical final shape and producer interference as just another factor. I just think Blade Runner is different from something like his Alien (or the following Aliens with their multiple cuts) or Kingdom of Heaven though. Even if most of those director's cuts are better, especially KoH, Scott has final cut privilege and what's released is with his approvement. I feel like for Blade Runner it's a less extreme, director-losed version of Brazil.Quoting Irish (view post)
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
That's not true, though - none of those changes were ordered by the producers.Quoting Irish (view post)
It was O'Bannon himself who changed the title from Starbeast to Alien in his later drafts, while the Ash subplot was added by Walter Hill on his re-write. And the screenplay intentionally left the gender of the whole crew vague.
Enviado desde mi SM-G935F mediante Tapatalk
Walter Hill was a producer on "Alien" and he's been a producer on every subsequent "Alien" production. He and his partner David Giler are a major force behind series' longevity.Quoting Grouchy (view post)
Ronald Shusset, co-writer, credited Hill and Giler with the creation of Ash and the subplot around him. It's literally in the source I referenced. Ditto notes about Ripley's gender.
But in case you still don't believe it (??!!), here's an early draft where all of the characters are male and the script uses male pronouns to refer to them:
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/alien_early.html
Alan Ladd Jr was President of Features at 20th Century Fox (in other words: a studio executive) when "Alien" was made and suggested Ripley's gender swap. There are multiple and numerous sources on this. Here are 3 random ones, just for fun, in addition to the one I already posted:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...i-1695001.html
https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/ent...rove-hollywood
https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Alan_Lad...te_note-Saga-0
Stopped reading right about here, btwQuoting Peng (view post)
Last edited by Irish; 05-19-2020 at 07:28 AM.
lol, you are needlessly aggressive all the time and just a mild eyeroll because you're being that again gets you all grandstanding? Please. And given your history of editing posts wholesale or especially deleting them some time afterwards just to distort truth and "win" (instead of viewing it as constructive discussion/disagreement) or to whatever it is those actions accomplish, I can't help but wonder about 20 minutes between the posting time and your last edit if you had actually replied to me, maybe even in a losin-head kinda way, then decided to backtrack because you want to appear that you can't be bothered?
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
btw, Duke, can you actually do this yet?
Quoting Dukefrukem (view post)
Last edited by Peng; 05-19-2020 at 11:09 AM.
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
Quoting Peng (view post)
lol
I mean, in this case it kinda was. It was finished by a completely different director with a completely different vision. I'm shocked they even put Synder's name on the thing when it released.Quoting Irish (view post)
What was added?Quoting Irish (view post)
If this is like other forums, where the functions are similar and mods can view edit history, they can see that the edit is to belatedly add "yet". Which is dumb, I know , but my English-as-second-language self can't stand that minor mistake when noticed.
But this also proves that the "stopped reading" thing is just pure "sure jan" grandstanding.
Midnight Run (1988) - 9
The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - 8.5
The Adventures of Robinhood (1938) - 8
Sisters (1973) - 6.5
Shin Godzilla (2016) - 7.5
No I'm not an admin. Even though it says I'm admin. I'm like... a super moderator?Quoting Peng (view post)
From what I remember, Scott balanced the run time by shaving minutes and seconds off early scenes and adding new material at the end.Quoting Dukefrukem (view post)
In particular, there's a sequence where we see one of the characters (Stanton, I think?) cocooned on the wall. But this wasn't part of the original release. The idea that the xenomorphs behaved like hive-minded insects was introduced in Cameron's sequel.
I remember reading about the cacooned wall stuff but never thought it made it into a release. That means I have never seen the DC.Quoting Irish (view post)
I recall the cocooned person was Kris Kristofferson? Whatever his character name was
Irish is always wrong. Just look at his terrible opinion on Aliens.
lol, yeah. Dallas, the captain --- Skeritt, not StantonQuoting Skitch (view post)
pic of him here: https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Alien_Director%27s_Cut
LOL yeah tom Skeritt
Wow....*sips coffee with whiskey*...mornin'....quaranti ne is a helluva thing...
I knew you'd point that out, but Hill was far from being the studio head. He had a company called Brandywine Productions and through that he shopped the re-written script to Fox. The title change was all O'Bannon. Point taken about Ladd Jr. making that call but it's not like I don't believe you out of stubbornness. I looked this stuff up and what you're saying is inaccurate. It might not be the case with the draft you linked to, but O'Bannon and Shusett's final script already had the unisex crew.Quoting Irish (view post)
The bottom line is that none of these things constitute what we understand as "studio interference", which is the studio overriding the filmmakers. In all these cases these changes took place even before a director was attached. They're simply examples of the development of a story over time, which is not under discussion.
Last edited by Grouchy; 05-19-2020 at 02:07 PM.
No, it's really not.Quoting Grouchy (view post)
Yeah, that was addressed by one of my sources --- saying that roles could be played by men or women ("to reach a broader audience") isn't the same as writing Ripley as a woman.
Do you not understand what a producer does?
Or what happens when an executive gives notes?