the director's cut
 

What would have done different in a movie if you were the director?

In the movie 'Back to School' I would have had a few different choices of characters, namely the love interest of Jason Melon (Keith Gordon) to Valerie Desmond (Terry Farrell) there just was no on screen chemistry between the two. I understand that they wanted to portray an underdog going for the cheerleader aspect. But sadly. You didn't care if he got the girl. Because you just could not see them together.

I also would have had someone else to play Dr. Diane Turner because Sally Kellerman just can't act. I didn't even like her in MASH.

Aside from that. It's a great little movie for two hour long Rodney Dangerfield stand up routine.

If i were Peter Jackson, i'd just unmake everything I ever did other than bad taste, meet the feebles, and dead alive.
(tank never has/will watch any of the LOTR flicks.)

If you've never seen them how can you judge them? As a fan of the books, I have many issues with the films, but I have come to grips with the fact that this is about as close as anyone will ever get to bringing those books to the screen...

That said, I loved his early work too. I was at the premiere of Braindead (Dead/Alive) at the Toronto Film Festival... Jackson was there to introduce the film. It is one of the best examples of Horrality (the mash up of comedy/horror genres), it is right up there with the Evil Dead series.

I think you are selling Heavenly Creatures short. It was an excellent film IMO.

I've actually never caught heavenly creatures. My distrust of the LOTR movies are a) those books were a big part of my childhood, and to see them ruined would ruin them for me.... rather not chance it and b) I hate to see independant directors go the way of big money and hollywood. It's my own bias, of course. I posted it more as a joke/cheap stab anyway.

I would argue that Jackson really hasn't gone Hollywood... He has more money to play with (not always a bad thing) but his style has remained intact. He had final cut on his films and controlled almost every aspect of the production and marketing of the LOTR films... but I know where you are coming from on this...

Check out Heavenly Creatures and even The Frighteners (not his best work but still pretty amusing).

I don't think Jackson has gone Hollywood either... he even cut the Lord of the Rings movie with the same guy he did his first movie with.

Plus... Did you SEE the guy at the Oscars! What a mess.

The problem with comparing any film to the book it was based on, is diffent things work on screen than on the page. I recently re-read LotR for the first time after seeing the films. While reading, I immagined how the book would look as a movie. To film the book without major changes would be long and boring. It is a very long and complicated story. To make it understandable by people who have never read the book and get it down to a reasonable length while still keeping it interesting to people who have read the books was a major task, which is probably why it's taken so long for someone to turn the books into a film.

I would mention that in my opinion many of the changes in the film probably weren't in contradiction to Tolkien's philosphy in writing the book, but I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll just leave it at that. To keep on topic, I'll just say that the only thing I'd change was add a few more hours to each of the three films to include some of the things that were left out.

Peter Jackson Bash Thread, or Director's Cut Thread?

In "Breakfast Club," I'd have refused to shoot the scene where Emilio Estevez screams out the door glass after getting high in the library. That scene was completely the wrong kind of comedy and didn't match any of the other humor in the rest of the movie. It was what is referred to in theatre as "Batman in the Operating Room." If anybody's interested, I'll elaborate, but I'm guessing not.

Never liked Allen as Indys love interest in Raiders.

What's "Batman in the Operating Room"?

If I were the director of Aliens vs Predator, I would just not fuck it up like he did. Probably base it more off the comic books than anything else. Definitely NOT present-day, use better actors, and less shat-tastic CG. And if I were George Lucas, I would have cast Anakin at least 4 years older in Episode 1, and completely obliterated Jar Jar Binks.

You can't expect a movie to stay completely to the book it was based on. A director shouldn't do that either.

Regarding the LOTR:

To me, the central theme of the books was the strength and loyalty of the hobbits. Jackson recognized it and did very well with it.

Spoiler: For me, the biggest deviation was having Wyrmtongue kill Saruman in the extended edition. At first I was thinking, WTF?!?!?! But once I relaxed, I took the fact that adding the Scouring of the Shire was took long to include and therefore it wraps up Saruman cleanly.

Other things were minor: Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron, Gimli as comic relief, igonoring the Ent water effects, etc.

I'd have Han shoot first.

Er, wait...

did you watch the Extended Edition of ROTK?

In the Prince and Me, I would have made the "extra" ending the official ending of the movie. As much as I like the "happily ever after" stories, I didn't think they should have made it so easy.

In the movie Troy I would have gone for a more historically acurate movie. For instance I would have had Brad Pitts character Achilles die before the use of the Trojan horse. Also I would have focused more on the importance and influence of the Greek Gods in the story. For instance that Apollo guided the arror shot by Pairs hit Achilles or showed the troops praying to the gods before battle.

The movie was well made and I liked it but I felt that I would have been much better if it was more accuate.

WHAT??!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...eagl/allen.jpg

Have you lost your mind?????

yeah, she was WAY better than the blonde screaming annoying chick in the 2nd one

It's a phrase used to describe the irresponsible mixing of two different kinds of comedy, which usually results in creating a confused audience. The explanation goes something like this:

Remember the old 60's TV show "Batman" with Adam West?
Remember "M*A*S*H?"
There are all kinds of different types of comedy, from satire, to slapstick, to parody, to farce, etc. And in order for each type of comedy to weave its magic over an audience, it must stay consistent.

So, imagine you're watching an episode of M*A*S*H (a comedy), and then suddenly Adam West's Batman character (also a comedy) walks into the operating room ready to perform surgery on somebody. As an audience member, how do you react to Batman? The Batman character is played as a cornball farce and there's no physical way to integrate that character into an episode of satirical M*A*S*H without destroying either M*A*S*H or Batman in some way. You might reduce Batman to some deranged psycho who's gotten loose at the 4077th and simply thinks he's Batman, or you might reduce the M*A*S*H episode into a weird dream of one of the patients. Either way, you're going to lose the integrity of both ingredients; either Batman can't stay that way, or M*A*S*H can't stay that way, or you won't be able to deal with it as an audience member.

To me, that's what happens in "The Breakfast Club" when Estevez blows out the library glass door with his scream. It's the wrong kind of comedy, and doesn't match the rest of the movie.

There'll be a quiz later.

HMMMM. That different from what I thought it was. I thought it meant that you see the hero of the story in a vulnerable position.

But I completely agree with the Estevez scene. It does not fit the rest of the movie.

Now that's heresy...

What's even weirder about it is that I believe it was Robert Reed (dad on Brady Bunch) who coined the phrase "Batman in the Operating Room." Since then, it's kind of stuck and industry people use it now. It allows them to reduce a long-winded explanation into a stupid, simple, and memorable phrase.

Like "Jumping the Shark."

The scenario you describe would be utterly hilarious to me. Not only that, but it could be left completely unexplained, and once Batman is out of the scene, it is never mentioned again.

I see what you mean by the door glass being shattered by the scream though. Out of place, in an unfunny manner.

Batman was a comedy? :hmm:

In any case, that sounds awesome. A confused audience is the best audience.

Yeah, it was a tongue in cheek kind of thing. It was one of the few successful campy series that was able to laugh at it's self. And have it work for them.

Now the Green Hornet had some real potential. But it just didn't click with the TV audience of the time.

in 2001, i would have made hal addicted to psychotropic drugs. he would always be asking dave, "did you just say something? right now? no?... did you just say something?" etc.
i would have made the obelisk out of some kind of space age metal that slowly deteriorates and sags as if it were human flesh. the pr people will call the metal "antenarccirium," but will be known to the general public simply as "fludge." the apes at the beginning of the movie won't understand the obelisk, still, but now they'll be grossed out a bit about, in the primitive way apes get grossed out by things.

also, since it's oscar night, i think the awards, instead of the lame old oscar statues, should instead be depictions of the winners' heads' on sticks, made out of some accelerated type of "fludge", so that by the end of month the celebs can see what their old decaying heads would look like on sticks, making them much better prepared for the trauma that is the coming apocalypse.

oh, forgot. this is a great idea for a post, i've got a ton more ideas coming to me, too!! and kate allen is one of the few actresses ever with real, human appeal.

Apparently the director liked her........a lot............a whole lot. ;)
:thumbsup:

If I directed Donnie Darko, I would have made damn sure that Drew Barrymore would never get anywhere near the camera. Man, did she suck in that role.

IN the movie 'Sister Act' I would have moved the songs the choir sang around a bit. I would have changed the second to 'Rescue Me' and played it first. The second song is still up in the air. But I was kinda thinking 'Sprite in the Sky' and saved the first song for the last one.

Now. here's why

The up beat tempo of Rescue Me would more believable to lure people into the church. To where a average church song would not have.


The second song 'My Guy' change to My God. Was not that well sung? And didn't have the tempo to lure or keep the people in the pews.

The last song (which was the first) would have showed how the two worlds could co-exist together. And would have been better to show the pope that song then the one they played.