Quote:
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
Rowling replied that she would have edited Phoenix more, as she feels it is too long.
|
Huh. That's really interesting, and puts a bit of a spin on things. I'm glad she left it, though. While not my favorite of the series, I can't think of anything in it that was extemporaneous. Thanks for the quote, though. I'd never heard that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
That's the problem, I'm not happy with the short versions. The short versions (in the last two LOTR movies anyway) were a mess and I believe it is directly attributable to the fact that Jackson knew that the theatrical versions didn't have to be all that good and just hint to the long version.
Like I said, I have no problem with long movies. Most of the best movies of all time are pretty long. Take as much time as it takes to make a good movie. But don't make a bad movie saying "oh, we'll make it all better on DVD." Or if you do, be honest about it so that I won't waste any time or money on the theatrical version.
|
Ah, my bad then. I understood you to be saying that you prefer films short and sweet without too much detail. I get what you're saying now. Still, I don't fully agree. Still using LotR as an example, I think Jackson made the theatrical releases as good as was possible and fully intended for them to be the best, definitive versions, with the extended cuts being more for us geeks who wanted to geek out even more. I agree with you about always making the best film possible, but I see nothing wrong with making the best film for the theater and then letting the niche of fans who want more, get more. As long as both versions receive the attention and care they deserve, of course.