Variety: Cinematographers Fight for Control of the Image

[News Feed]

Cinematographers live in interesting times, with technological developments offering more options, but also opening the door for others to meddle with the image. “It’s a changing time and that’s not a bad thing because we have new tools. The bad part is that our influence is diminishing,” Steven Poster, who is a former president of... Read more »

Continue reading...

 

[menace-uk-]

Why hire these people if you will not let them do their job. They're the masters of the their field, like a director is the master of his.

The one comment at the bottom made me laugh, obviously no clue what the article is about.

 

[Plainview]

Why hire these people if you will not let them do their job. They're the masters of the their field, like a director is the master of his.

The one comment at the bottom made me laugh, obviously no clue what the article is about.

I agree. You hire these people for a certain look and expect them to deliver. The vision of the film is come up with everyone involved and the cinematographer and his or her crew make it happen. Deviating from that is the ultimate slap in the face after all of the hard work and preparation that goes into it.

FIX IT IN POST!

 

[menace-uk-]

I agree. You hire these people for a certain look and expect them to deliver. The vision of the film is come up with everyone involved and the cinematographer and his or her crew make it happen. Deviating from that is the ultimate slap in the face after all of the hard work and preparation that goes into it.

FIX IT IN POST!

Exactly.

It is the same thing that directors bitch about when a studio head tells them they need to edit the s*** out of their movie. A great example would be, Once Upon a Time in America. The cut version is absolutely butchered and the movie sucks. Then you watch the directors version, the full version the director envisioned it as, and it is fantastic. Sure, the studio head was right, it is a bit too long, but it is the 270 minute version or none at all.

 

[Plainview]

Exactly.

It is the same thing that directors b**** about when a studio head tells them they need to edit the s*** out of their movie. A great example would be, Once Upon a Time in America. The cut version is absolutely butchered and the movie sucks. Then you watch the directors version, the full version the director envisioned it as, and it is fantastic. Sure, the studio head was right, it is a bit too long, but it is the 270 minute version or none at all.

Same happened with Bong Joon-ho with Snowpiercer. Joon-ho wanted it the way he envisioned it and Harvey Weinstein demanded it be cut for domestic distribution. Joon-ho stood his ground and Weinstein spitefully said, 'Ok, then it'll be an extremely limited release.'

 

[menace-uk-]

Same happened with Bong Joon-ho with Snowpiercer. Joon-ho wanted it the way he envisioned it and Harvey Weinstein demanded it be cut for domestic distribution. Joon-ho stood his ground and Weinstein spitefully said, 'Ok, then it'll be an extremely limited release.'

Makes me lol. Why hire a director like that just to make him butcher his work. Hey, I might have thought Snowpiercer was rubbish, but I would rather watch the directors rubbish than a hacked up bit of rubbish.