Longer & shorter "Zodiac"
When shooting on Zodiac finally ended, director David Fincher "found himself sifting through the digital equivalent of 1.3 million feet of film, enough footage to fill two features," writes EW's Benjamin Svetkey in the current issue. "After months of slicing and dicing, he emerged from the editing room with a cut of Zodiac that ran a tick over three hours.
"Even he knew it was too long, so the movie's original fall 2006 release was pushed to January, then to March, to give Fincher time to make more trims."
Why are we stuck with outmoded, old-hat concepts of releasing movies, concepts that are out of synch with the various-choice options available through DVD? Fincher shouldn't have been pressured to trim Zodiac down to 160-plus minutes because it wasn't necessary. If it had so decided, Paramount could have easily put out the shorter version in general release while simultaneously releasing the three-hour version is select big-city theatres. Why not?
A friend who saw a somewhat longer version of Zodiac (maybe 10 or 12 minutes longer than the version hitting theatres on 3.2) told me a while back that he likes it more. Sometimes longer is just longer, but I have a feeling that people like myself may possibly enjoy the 180-minute version even more when it hits DVD.
"'We had to lose a lot of connective tissue and a lot of little character moments,' Fincher says with a sigh. Among the victims: Robert Downey Jr., as a boozy San Francisco reporter, lost three scenes, including "a great one of him sleeping in his car," according to Fincher."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 24, 2007 at 8:56 AM
comment #1
Nick29
says ...
The only thing that matters to me, did Fincher have final cut?
Posted by Nick29
at February 24, 2007 9:31 AM
comment #2
malibugigolo
says ...
Can he go ahead and make a 90 minute version? That would be great!
Posted by malibugigolo
at February 24, 2007 9:32 AM
comment #3
JD
says ...
Here's what I don't understand. The most successful film of all time (Titanic) is 3 hours and 14 minutes long. It made nearly $2 billion worldwide. If a movie's good, it really doesn't matter how long it is. In fact, Kingdom of Heaven is a good example of a movie that basically tanked because it was cut down (though the incoherent dialogue didn't help). The studios need to get over the opening weekend mentality -- it only applies to bad movies that invite negative word-of-mouth -- and realize that good commercial movies are actually more successful in their best version, even if it's 3 hours long.
Posted by JD
at February 24, 2007 10:43 AM
comment #4
The Bandsaw Vigilante
says ...
Yeah...I'd heard about the 10-12-minute-longer version before this, and from what I picked up, Fincher's lamentations are quite justified.
It would surprise me if he *didn't* have final cut -- on paper -- but was "beseeched" by the studio for a much shorter version.
Ten to twelve minutes...like, what the fuck? It's not like the existing 160+ minute version's exactly a svelte thing to begin with, though I hear it flows pretty well. Here's hoping Fincher gets to restore those missing character moments on the DVD in a few months's time.
Posted by The Bandsaw Vigilante
at February 24, 2007 10:45 AM
comment #5
D.Z.
says ...
Kingdom of Heaven tanked, because girls didn't want to pay to see an R-rated film with Orlando Bloom as the lead, and guys didn't want a thought-provoking war movie.
Posted by D.Z.
at February 24, 2007 11:22 AM
comment #6
Thrudvangar
says ...
The reason I never finished watching KOH was because it sucked. Orlando is no leading man and can't carry a film. It's too bad Liam's character didn't stick around longer.
Posted by Thrudvangar
at February 24, 2007 12:21 PM
comment #7
OddDuck
says ...
Yep, Orlando Bloom is a pussy. I flat out don't buy him as a leading man or epic hero.
Can you imagine Kingdom of Heaven with a younger Daniel Day Lewis? Or hell, today's Christian Bale? Who here doesn't think Christian Bale - or Daniel Day Lewis - could kick the shit out Orlando Bloom with one hand tied behind their back. I'm not an imposing guy and I'd feel pretty confidant in a fight with him. That's not what you want in a leading man.
Posted by OddDuck
at February 24, 2007 2:09 PM
comment #8
DavidF
says ...
By all accounts the director's cut of KoH is a totally different film and, moreover, a great film. That was the point of mentioning it above.
I haven't seen it yet - it's on my list! - but people should reserve judgement before declaring why it sucked.
Posted by DavidF
at February 24, 2007 2:16 PM
comment #9
L.B.
says ...
OddDuck, Daniel Day Lewis could kick Orlando's butt with both hands tied behind his back and without bothering to cross the room to get to him. He'd just look at him a certain way and the next think you know, all the shit in him would be beaten out. I'd still give Bale odds with both hands tied, though I imagine some judicious kicks and shoulder throws would be involved. Results would be much the same.
KOH bombed because it was a misfire of a movie. Not accurate enough for history buffs. Not beef-caked enough for fangirls (and boys). And not compelling enough for whoever was left over.
Posted by L.B.
at February 24, 2007 3:35 PM
comment #10
Craig Kennedy
says ...
Shoot Abigail Breslin with a tranquilizer dart, lock her in a room with Orlando Bloom and 5-1 within 30 minutes she emerges with Bloom's balls between her teeth.
Is the director's cut of KoH truly better? I've heard yes and no.
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at February 24, 2007 4:18 PM
comment #11
JD
says ...
The director's cut is definitely better, but I had to watch it with subtitles just to make sense of all that turgid, heavy-handed dialogue. Thankfully, William Monahan decided to allow some personality into his writing on The Departed. A lot, in fact. Basically, the long version of KOH flows better and has more narrative cohesion than the theatrical version, but most of the other problems are in tact.
Posted by JD
at February 24, 2007 5:07 PM
comment #12
York "Budd" Durden
says ...
Since Daniel Day Lewis has been mentioned, I have to admit that all day now I can't stop thinking about Harry Knowles' suggestion on AICN that JJ Abrams cast him as Spock, and Russell Crowe as Kirk in the Star Trek re-boot, as it is referred to on that site.
Posted by York "Budd" Durden
at February 24, 2007 8:20 PM
comment #13
Nick29
says ...
All this talk about Daniel Day Lewis and cut up films has me wishing for that long version of Gangs Of New York that Wells saw, and didn't steal. In a column of great lost director's cuts, that's the one im dying to see above all else.
P.S. KoH:DC is a great film.
Posted by Nick29
at February 25, 2007 12:14 AM
comment #14
OddDuck
says ...
If the director's cut of GoNY has a lot more of Daniel Day Lewis, man would I love to see that. He was by far the best thing about that movie.
But a director's cut of KoH, hmm, wouldn't that necessarily entail more Orlando Bloom? No thanks.
And another thing that bugged me about KoH just a little bit was that the battles - the end siege in particular - seemed like just so much CGI. I felt a little like I was watching one of the Rings movies, and frankly was quite bored with it. This may be Ridley Scott's fault, but to be honest, I'm not sure ANY director in the past ten or so years has staged a big battle that I found convincing. There's gotta be a better way to balance CGI and real world than what we've seen so far.
Posted by OddDuck
at February 25, 2007 4:03 AM
comment #15
slothroplt
says ...
NICK29: "I'm not sure ANY director in the past ten or so years has staged a big battle that I found convincing."
1998. Private Ryan, D-Day.
Posted by slothroplt
at February 25, 2007 12:21 PM
comment #16
OddDuck
says ...
slothropit, that was me you meant, and yes, you're absolutely right. I wasn't thinking straight when I made that comment. SPR, and also from that year, The Thin Red Line both had immersive battle scenes that blew my mind. Also, Children of Men's 11 minute ride through the detention camp was equally impressive in its realism and terror. In short, I'm a doofus for making such absolute statement. Still, most big budget action sucks and looks like a cartoon, which was the point I was trying to make.
Posted by OddDuck
at February 25, 2007 2:22 PM