Tempted to agree. Certainly, somebody let this out of the door fully knowing it was a pathetic mess in terms of characterization, motivation, sense etc. The worst examples are well documented out there. But are the producers really so Machiavellian? Scott said in an interview that he was told to get it in in less than two hours, on the basis that the suits 'knew' that more than that would turn audiences away.
This is clearly so stupid as advice (as Avengers, TDKR and many others demonstrate) that you have to think. To be in their position they cannot be stupid people. But can they really be so on the case as to be looking to Director's cuts etc to make the numbers look good? Or is it that they just know that these days, over time, high investment films tend to be very profitable regardless of their inherent worth? (Scott is very clear on this in another interview.)
My own suspicion is that the producers couldn't care less about the details of how they will get their return, and less again about the film itself. They just know it will be payday, now and down the line.
This is of course Hollywood business as usual. It only annoys me because the film was based on a great original and showed signs of having the potential to develop it really well.
(My sympathies to posters who thought it was good, but...have you actually thought about it? At all?)
Mmmm,.......I say bollox to that.
I don't believe for an instant that he was told anything of the sort.
The clout he had going for him with the phenomena that Alien has been, no suit would have dared.
This film was a guaranteed money spinner from the first moment there was news of a new "Alien" film with Scott at the helm.
More to the point, just recently there has been a hugely positive response to long films.
Think LOTR.
As you say, the suits aren't stupid.
They may have figured that a film such as this, and the controversy and buzz if it turned out to be a bad film, coupled with the extended release of unbutchered versions just adds to the hype and keeps the money rolling in for years.
They are probably looking at their retirement mansions as we speak.:D
Edited to add.
Scott made that Robin Hood film recently. Another rubbish film that had the same sort of glaring inconsistancies and utterly implausible scenarios.
I don't believe for an instant that he was told anything of the sort.
The clout he had going for him with the phenomena that Alien has been, no suit would have dared.
This film was a guaranteed money spinner from the first moment there was news of a new "Alien" film with Scott at the helm.
More to the point, just recently there has been a hugely positive response to long films.
Think LOTR.
As you say, the suits aren't stupid.
They may have figured that a film such as this, and the controversy and buzz if it turned out to be a bad film, coupled with the extended release of unbutchered versions just adds to the hype and keeps the money rolling in for years.
They are probably looking at their retirement mansions as we speak.:D
Edited to add.
Scott made that Robin Hood film recently. Another rubbish film that had the same sort of glaring inconsistancies and utterly implausible scenarios.
Perhaps he's lost it like Lucas?
Most of the complaints about The Hobbit (2hrs 50) and This Is 40 (2hrs 15) were to do with overlong running length, I think he was right to cap it at 2 hours, but maybe he should've reduced the finale to suit.
I doubt it too, the head of Fox said he didn't even know what MPAA rating it would achieve (and this was at the première), so I think the suits gave him the money and scuppered.
Most of the issues people had with Prometheus are script based, Scott is taking all the flack because he's most associated. The direction was fine, the script wasn't that good... (And that's coming from somebody that didn't hate the film)
Tempted to agree. Certainly, somebody let this out of the door fully knowing it was a pathetic mess in terms of characterization, motivation, sense etc. The worst examples are well documented out there. But are the producers really so Machiavellian? Scott said in an interview that he was told to get it in in less than two hours, on the basis that the suits 'knew' that more than that would turn audiences away.
This is clearly so stupid as advice (as Avengers, TDKR and many others demonstrate) that you have to think. To be in their position they cannot be stupid people. But can they really be so on the case as to be looking to Director's cuts etc to make the numbers look good? Or is it that they just know that these days, over time, high investment films tend to be very profitable regardless of their inherent worth? (Scott is very clear on this in another interview.)
I don't believe for an instant that he was told anything of the sort.
The clout he had going for him with the phenomena that Alien has been, no suit would have dared.
I've been back to the interview I was thinking of and it isn't as explicit as I remembered. When asked about an extended version he says
Q: You’re going to do an extended cut on the Blu-ray/DVD. Is it a lot longer?
SCOTT: Twenty minutes.
Q: So there’s, like, twenty minutes that will be added back in for a longer version?
SCOTT: Maybe. But I’m so happy with this engine, the way it is right now. I think it’s fine. I think it works. It can go in a section where, if you really want to tap in, look at the menu. To see how things are long, and it’s too long. Dramatically, I’m about putting bums on seats. For me to separate my idea of commerce from art—I’d be a fool. You can’t do that. I wouldn’t be allowed to do the films I do. So I’m very user friendly as far as the studios are concerned. To a certain extent, I’m a businessman. I’m aware that’s what I have to do. It’s my job. To say, “Screw the audience.” You can’t do that. “Am I communicating?” is the question. Am I communicating? Because if I’m not, I need to address it.
So it's a bit more complex than I said. What seems to be happening is that he's internalised the Fox rules. There are occasional references to the idea that Fox want films to run at two hours, and Kingdom of Heaven was butchered to achieve just that. So in a way the suits won't have needed to tell him anything--he already knows.
But I agree with your fundamental point, which I should have made clearer in my post--it's inconceivable that if Scott had insisted it needed more running time, or editing so that it made sense or whatever, no-one would have stood in his way. And there seems to be agreement that the deleted scenes would have made a somewhat better movie. But he didn't. So he's morally responsible!
Pity he didn't take more notice of those questions that come after the bit I've highlighted rather than living in cuckooland.
As you say, the suits aren't stupid.
They may have figured that a film such as this, and the controversy and buzz if it turned out to be a bad film, coupled with the extended release of unbutchered versions just adds to the hype and keeps the money rolling in for years.
They are probably looking at their retirement mansions as we speak.:D
You might be right, but it seems very risky to build a business model on bad word of mouth. And people will get wise to being strung along buying repaired versions. Maybe... I'm sure you are right though that this was a guaranteed moneyspinner. Whether this led to cynical exploitation of people's expectations and wallets or they just didn't give a toss if it was any good or not, we may never know. The appearance of a (denied) Director's Cut would certainly add weight to your argument.
Scott made that Robin Hood film recently. Another rubbish film that had the same sort of glaring inconsistancies and utterly implausible scenarios.
Perhaps he's lost it like Lucas?
I think the problem lies with Pietro Scalia - who Ridley clearly loves and gets to edit all his films. I think it is he that has "lost it" and Ridley that is blind to it.
If you look at Kingdom of Heaven - a hugely better film in Directors Cut version - it is clear to see just how much impact Scalia has on Ridleys films.
The 2 hour thing is clearly rubbish as many films these days are over 2 hours long and an extra 20 mins for Prometheus would of made a big difference judging by some of the scenes they cut out to achieve the magic sub 120 min runtime.
I think both he and Ridley are also guilty of forgetting that we the audience are not as close to the film/plot etc as they are. many of the cut scenes were explanatory - which they didnt think the film needed - but clearly going by the comments - the audience did need very much.
it's inconceivable that if Scott had insisted it needed more running time, or editing so that it made sense or whatever, no-one would have stood in his way.
I think the problem lies with Pietro Scalia - who Ridley clearly loves and gets to edit all his films. I think it is he that has "lost it" and Ridley that is blind to it.
If you look at Kingdom of Heaven - a hugely better film in Directors Cut version - it is clear to see just how much impact Scalia has on Ridleys films.
I know it's only wikipedia but the story is the same everywhere: it was Fox head Tom Rothman who demanded Kindom of Heaven get heavily cut:
Studio head Tom Rothman ordered the film to be trimmed down to only two hours, as he did not believe that a modern audience would go to see a three-hour-and-fifteen-minute movie. Ultimately, Rothman's decision backfired, as the film gained mixed reviews (with many commenting that the film seemed "incomplete") and severely under-performed at the US box office.
I gather he has now left, doubtless headed for the gold plated mansion his excellent work earned him!
Doesnt really matter who ordered the cutting - its how the cutting is done that has more of an impact.
I do actually think the editing of Kingdom of Heaven was very cleverly done whereas Robin hood and Prometheus seem to have suffered from some poorly thought our chopping with the only rational seeming to be it got the film down to the required length.
I liked it.
it suffers from "prequel syndrome" which means what ever could of been made, would have disappointment some fans. Just like Star Wars Ep.1.
Doesnt really matter who ordered the cutting - its how the cutting is done that has more of an impact.
I do actually think the editing of Kingdom of Heaven was very cleverly done whereas Robin hood and Prometheus seem to have suffered from some poorly thought our chopping with the only rational seeming to be it got the film down to the required length.
Ah, OK, I see what you mean. But that makes two of them who've lost it, doesn't it?
I liked it.
it suffers from "prequel syndrome" which means what ever could of been made, would have disappointment some fans. Just like Star Wars Ep.1.
"Some" fans??????????????:D
I don't think you have to be a fan to be disappointed when you see a bad film that makes no sense, has a poor script, no character development and is a vehicle for visual effects over substance.
Comments
Mmmm,.......I say bollox to that.
I don't believe for an instant that he was told anything of the sort.
The clout he had going for him with the phenomena that Alien has been, no suit would have dared.
This film was a guaranteed money spinner from the first moment there was news of a new "Alien" film with Scott at the helm.
More to the point, just recently there has been a hugely positive response to long films.
Think LOTR.
As you say, the suits aren't stupid.
They may have figured that a film such as this, and the controversy and buzz if it turned out to be a bad film, coupled with the extended release of unbutchered versions just adds to the hype and keeps the money rolling in for years.
They are probably looking at their retirement mansions as we speak.:D
Edited to add.
Scott made that Robin Hood film recently. Another rubbish film that had the same sort of glaring inconsistancies and utterly implausible scenarios.
Perhaps he's lost it like Lucas?
I doubt it too, the head of Fox said he didn't even know what MPAA rating it would achieve (and this was at the première), so I think the suits gave him the money and scuppered.
Most of the issues people had with Prometheus are script based, Scott is taking all the flack because he's most associated. The direction was fine, the script wasn't that good... (And that's coming from somebody that didn't hate the film)
I've been back to the interview I was thinking of and it isn't as explicit as I remembered. When asked about an extended version he says
SCOTT: Twenty minutes.
Q: So there’s, like, twenty minutes that will be added back in for a longer version?
SCOTT: Maybe. But I’m so happy with this engine, the way it is right now. I think it’s fine. I think it works. It can go in a section where, if you really want to tap in, look at the menu. To see how things are long, and it’s too long. Dramatically, I’m about putting bums on seats. For me to separate my idea of commerce from art—I’d be a fool. You can’t do that. I wouldn’t be allowed to do the films I do. So I’m very user friendly as far as the studios are concerned. To a certain extent, I’m a businessman. I’m aware that’s what I have to do. It’s my job. To say, “Screw the audience.” You can’t do that. “Am I communicating?” is the question. Am I communicating? Because if I’m not, I need to address it.
So it's a bit more complex than I said. What seems to be happening is that he's internalised the Fox rules. There are occasional references to the idea that Fox want films to run at two hours, and Kingdom of Heaven was butchered to achieve just that. So in a way the suits won't have needed to tell him anything--he already knows.
But I agree with your fundamental point, which I should have made clearer in my post--it's inconceivable that if Scott had insisted it needed more running time, or editing so that it made sense or whatever, no-one would have stood in his way. And there seems to be agreement that the deleted scenes would have made a somewhat better movie. But he didn't. So he's morally responsible!
Pity he didn't take more notice of those questions that come after the bit I've highlighted rather than living in cuckooland.
As I said.
You might be right, but it seems very risky to build a business model on bad word of mouth. And people will get wise to being strung along buying repaired versions. Maybe... I'm sure you are right though that this was a guaranteed moneyspinner. Whether this led to cynical exploitation of people's expectations and wallets or they just didn't give a toss if it was any good or not, we may never know. The appearance of a (denied) Director's Cut would certainly add weight to your argument.
But...
Whatever, this seems the most likely answer!
I think the problem lies with Pietro Scalia - who Ridley clearly loves and gets to edit all his films. I think it is he that has "lost it" and Ridley that is blind to it.
If you look at Kingdom of Heaven - a hugely better film in Directors Cut version - it is clear to see just how much impact Scalia has on Ridleys films.
The 2 hour thing is clearly rubbish as many films these days are over 2 hours long and an extra 20 mins for Prometheus would of made a big difference judging by some of the scenes they cut out to achieve the magic sub 120 min runtime.
I think both he and Ridley are also guilty of forgetting that we the audience are not as close to the film/plot etc as they are. many of the cut scenes were explanatory - which they didnt think the film needed - but clearly going by the comments - the audience did need very much.
I should of course have said 'anyone'.
I know it's only wikipedia but the story is the same everywhere: it was Fox head Tom Rothman who demanded Kindom of Heaven get heavily cut:
I gather he has now left, doubtless headed for the gold plated mansion his excellent work earned him!
Pity she didn't use them to run to the side...
I do actually think the editing of Kingdom of Heaven was very cleverly done whereas Robin hood and Prometheus seem to have suffered from some poorly thought our chopping with the only rational seeming to be it got the film down to the required length.
it suffers from "prequel syndrome" which means what ever could of been made, would have disappointment some fans. Just like Star Wars Ep.1.
Ah, OK, I see what you mean. But that makes two of them who've lost it, doesn't it?
"Some" fans??????????????:D
I don't think you have to be a fan to be disappointed when you see a bad film that makes no sense, has a poor script, no character development and is a vehicle for visual effects over substance.