"classic" Movies That You Piss On

[Agent ONE]

Knockin on Tarintino...

I think people often beat up on him because some of his fans seem to think he is like the greatest film maker ever, but I think even he would say thats a mis-understanding of what he is going for. He is just trying to entertain us, he isn't trying for awards, or recognition or anything else.

Think of the name of the movie "Pulp Fiction"... He may as well have named the movie "Random stuff and things".

[EXO]

*snip*

Ah... my little droogies!  It's time for a little of the ultra-violence is it?

I'm suprised that that's the one movie Hollywood hasn't tried to remake.  Kubrick's vision was awesome, but it was so far from the book.  I would think that a book like that would have 10 or 30 remakes of it by now.

357425[/snapback]

I'm grateful Hollywood has kept its dirty paws off Kubrick's work, with the exception of the disasterous A.I. No more remakes I hope.

357438[/snapback]

oh yah... I agree... I'm just suprised they haven't done it since they can say it's more based on the book and not the movie... They did a remake of the Shining for TV. lol.

Did you know that Anthony Burgess sold the rights for his book, Clockwork Orange to Mick Jagger for $500, what a putz. Then Jagger turned around and sold it for a lot more than that. Musta been drug money. lol.

[Ginrai]

Like I said in another post, I don't believe that, seeing as it's in the screenplay.

You're right that there's narration in the shooting script, but Ridley Scott actually filmed it without. The producers insisted that narration be added and it was given a few rewrites by different writers. Ridley himself has said that some noir films work with narration, and some don't. Blade Runner to him was one that didn't.

I have to say that despite his talent and my appreciation for his work (Alien is also amazing, for example), I think Ridley Scott is full of it. The narration is in both the original AND shooting script.

Also, Ridley Scott insists Deckard is a replicant, even though the shooting script deliberately leaves it ambiguous and the original script specifically says he's human. Harrison Ford also insists that they all agreed that Deckard was NOT a replicant while they were making the film.

So yeah, I have to say, I think Ridley Scott is completely full of it. Sure, they filmed it without it. Because you always film the movie without voice over, and then record the voice over in a sound booth after the fact. Maybe Scott got butthurt because the producers were telling him to finish a movie that everyone (not just Ford) was miserable making. "How dare they tell me what to do!"

If the producers forced him to record the narration and add it to the movie because he didn't want to, good for them. It's in the screenplay. It was SUPPOSED to be in the movie. I think Ridley Scott was just being difficult.

If you read some of the books on the making of the film, you'll quickly learn that basically everyone on the set hated Ridley Scott because he was so anal. They were all so miserable they called the film "Blood Runner", and wore shirts implying that that he was an ass. So his recent (within the last ten years) comments contradict what was said before, the director's cut isn't even HIS cut, and the voice over is in the screenplay.

EVEN if the producers forced the narration on and Ridley Scott wanted to dump it for whatever reason, it's still in the screenplay, and I like it. I think it makes the movie better. It's easier to follow and flows better.

I know everyone loves auteur theory thanks to damn cahier du cinema or however you spell that, but more people are involved in a film than just the director. It's a collaborative medium, and the writers are ALSO important. Ridley Scott's personal opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the rest of the people on the film. And I still think, despite the BS happy ending, the euro cut/longer home video version is a superior film to the "director's cut" (which incidently changes some of the cuts a bit and drags it on more. Eh.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, which is fine.

[Ginrai]

I didn't liked Sin City too but my reasons was It tried too hard to tell eveyone's story and ends up being too much work too follow whos alive and whos dead.  Bad Story flow

That pissed me off, too. I wrote a pretty negative review of the film for a website and got a lot of hate from Frank Miller fans. Oh well. I didn't like it. I thought it was disjointed and confusing. Eh, here's my review, anyway.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/content.c...nt_type_id=1933

I love the intelligent criticism if my review: " Your a fartin moron pal..." If you're going to insult someone, at least write correctly. It's YOU'RE a farting moron, pal.

[Ginrai]

I can see why people don't like BR though, its source material wasn't a very good story and what Ridley Scott had to work with wasn't a very good story.

While I agree that Roy is a great villain, I really like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Philip K. Dick in general.

[Metal_Massacre_79]

Does this list include cult classics?

I can't stand any of the Kevin Smith movies, but I know quite a few people who think this moron is a genius when it comes to movie making and that anything he does is on some "must see" list. The only movie of his that was even remotely funny was Dogma.

[Ginrai]

Does this list include cult classics?

I can't stand any of the Kevin Smith movies, but I know quite a few people who think this moron is a genius when it comes to movie making and that anything he does is on some "must see" list. The only movie of his that was even remotely funny was Dogma.

357451[/snapback]

Oh Kevin Smith. Like Joss Whedon, he's good at writing snappy dialogue, but has no idea how to structure a plot and his direction is fairly bland. I also agree that Dogma is his best work, especially if you're Catholic.

Well, actually, I think the Clerks cartoon is the best thing related to him, but I doubt he actually wrote it.

[Kin]

Revenge of the nerds.

[Agent ONE]

Revenge of the nerds.

357456[/snapback]

HAHA, did anyone ever tell you that was good!?

Ironically when I went to college I thought the fraternity system would be similar to that movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. My Fraterntiy was not only the best at sports (we won all the athletic events) but we had the best grades by an entire grade point over the next fraternity. There was no "all nerd" Fraternity. I mean there were some fraternities that were full of like ugly dudes who played D&D all the time, but they weren't smart at all.

[Mr March]

Knockin on Tarintino...

I think people often beat up on him because some of his fans seem to think he is like the greatest film maker ever, but I think even he would say thats a mis-understanding of what he is going for.  He is just trying to entertain us, he isn't trying for awards, or recognition or anything else.

Think of the name of the movie "Pulp Fiction"... He may as well have named the movie "Random stuff and things".

357442[/snapback]

He would and he has. He has stated his films and influence is exaggerated by the media. However, it's hard for any filmmaker to seperate from that when they are the "IT" in the industry.

The reason Tarantino has such a rabid following is the fans who identify with him. Like Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez, Tarantino is seen as a geek-done-good. Fans of obscure, not-so-great genre films think of him as one of their own, a fellow film nerd who truely "understands" the fans and film.

Praise for directors like Tarantino, Smith, and Rodriquez is also a form of rebellion against the establishment of Hollywood. These are maverick directors, working their way up from outside the system, against the norm and laughing in the face of accepted rules (Rodriquez's infamous DGA fiasco is one example). Such directors become symbols of opposition against such "high film art elitism" embodied by Studio/Academy favorites like Clint Eastwood or Steven Spielberg.

Always have to understand where people come from. It so much more enlightening

[Mr March]

I'm grateful Hollywood has kept its dirty paws off Kubrick's work, with the exception of the disasterous A.I.  No more remakes I hope.

357438[/snapback]

oh yah... I agree... I'm just suprised they haven't done it since they can say it's more based on the book and not the movie... They did a remake of the Shining for TV. lol.

Did you know that Anthony Burgess sold the rights for his book, Clockwork Orange to Mick Jagger for $500, what a putz. Then Jagger turned around and sold it for a lot more than that. Musta been drug money. lol.

357445[/snapback]

I did not know that! And I call myself a Kubrick fan...

I heard about the Shining remake for TV. I avoided it like the plague. Part of the reason I adore directors like Kubrick, Leone, and Kurosawa is the visual brillance of the work, brilliance that most people don't notice or take for granted. Nearly every frame of a Kubrick film is like looking at a portrait or painting. I get lost in the visual splendor quite easily. Kubrick's films being great stories and provocative subjects certainly doesn't hurt either

Edited January 4, 2006 by Mr March

[Agent ONE]

Knockin on Tarintino...

I think people often beat up on him because some of his fans seem to think he is like the greatest film maker ever, but I think even he would say thats a mis-understanding of what he is going for.  He is just trying to entertain us, he isn't trying for awards, or recognition or anything else.

Think of the name of the movie "Pulp Fiction"... He may as well have named the movie "Random stuff and things".

357442[/snapback]

He would and he has. He has stated his films and influence is exaggerated by the media. However, it's hard for any filmmaker to seperate from that when they are the "IT" in the industry.

The reason Tarantino has such a rabid following is the fans who identify with him. Like Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez, Tarantino is seen as a geek-done-good. Fans of obscure, not-so-great genre films think of him as one of their own, a fellow film nerd who truely "understands" the fans and film.

Praise for directors like Tarantino, Smith, and Rodriquez is also a form of rebellion against the establishment of Hollywood. These are maverick directors, working their way up from outside the system, against the norm and laughing in the face of accepted rules (Rodriquez's infamous DGA fiasco is one example). Such directors become symbols of opposition against such "high film art elitism" embodied by Studio/Academy favorites like Clint Eastwood or Steven Spielberg.

Always have to understand where people come from. It so much more enlightening

357465[/snapback]

So true. Really great points you make in that post.

[reddsun1]

The classic I didn't particularly enjoy was "Bullitt" with Steve McQueen. After all the talk, I couldn't wait to see the famous car chase scene - which ended up much less spectacular than I had expected. I suppose at the time it was filmed it was groundbreaking, but I've seen better car chases in "Ronin", for instance.

The rest of the movie seemed to be just boring filler.

357403[/snapback]

I think even the actors who were in the film agreed it was kinda "bleh," even when it was new. The plot was kinda "huh," somewhat disjointed--but for anyone professing to be a "car guy" it's ALL about the car chase scene. Yeah, there may be better-filmed or edited chase scenes to come along since then, but it's arguably still a benchmark film for "guy movies." One for the "mantle" of great car-guy movies, along with LeMans, Ronin, French Connection [i STILL wanna see that one], Gone in 60 Seconds [original], etc., etc...but yes; it is a "classic" that, other than the big chase, is kind of a pisser of a movie.

As for the earlier mention of John Wayne's deficiencies as an actor, I'd have to say "but au contraire." One mustn't forget--John Wayne didn't really act, per se--he just played himself, i.e. John Wayne as a cowboy, John Wayne as fighter pilot, John Wayne as soldier, etc., etc. How this schtick actually worked with audiences--and for so many years--is still one of the mysteries of cinema. Definitely a "man's man," hearkening from a different era in pop culture.

[mikeszekely]

I think people often beat up on him because some of his fans seem to think he is like the greatest film maker ever, but I think even he would say thats a mis-understanding of what he is going for. He is just trying to entertain us, he isn't trying for awards, or recognition or anything else.

But he's failing miserably at that "entertain" part. The extent of my "entertainment" was being like 15 when From Dusk Til Dawn was in the theater, sneaking in to see it, and thinking to myself, "ooh, titties!" as horny 15-year olds are wont to do.

I'm no film student. I can't comment on what Tarantino has or hasn't done for the industry, so I'm not going to knock him for anything more than the fact that I think his movies flat out sucked. I mean, you know it's bad when, if I died and went to hell and could only watch one movie for all of eternity, I'd choose Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark over Kill Bill.

I'm just suprised they haven't done it since they can say it's more based on the book and not the movie... They did a remake of the Shining for TV.

For what it was, the TV version of the Shining wasn't that bad, and it was actually a lot closer to the book, which remains my favorite of King's works to this day.

[yellowlightman]

The only thing I can fault Tarantino for is making John Travolta popular again, the guy was decent in Pulp Fiction but everything he's done since then had been garbage. Personally, I consider Pulp Fiction one of the best movie of the decade, tied with HEAT.

There's another film version of A Clockwork Orange, but it was unofficial and filmed by Andy Warhol. It actually bares very little resemblance to the book (from what I've heard) and was filmed in some post modern bullshit style, as it's one long 60 minute scene with no cuts.

[Agent ONE]

...

There's another film version of A Clockwork Orange, but it was unofficial and filmed by Andy Warhol. It actually bares very little resemblance to the book (from what I've heard) and was filmed in some post modern bullshit style, as it's one long 60 minute scene with no cuts.

357493[/snapback]

HAHA that sounds like the worst thing ever.

[jenius]

Holy snot, someone praised the Clerks cartoon in here? That had ONE funny moment in the entire series. That was when they left the courtroom in a car that transformed killing the driver right before the episode swung into Korean dance party mode or some such nonsense.

Chasing Amy is funny stuff... I would rank it ahead of Dogma. What makes Kevin Smith so appreciated are the lines that you can pull from his movies. Even his worst films have some funny lines that stick with you. "Try not to suck any **ck on your way across the parking lot." C'mon, that's funny stuff. How 'bout "The monkey shot me! OOoh the irony!" "Fly fat-a** fly!" let me leave you with:

My love for you like burning truck

BESERKER

Would you like to making fu**

BESERKER

[Fortress_Maximus]

While I don't love Kevin Smith, I do believe he is a skilled writer if for nothing else, comics. His revamp of Marvel Knights title Daredevil was awesome!

Back on track, Dogma was enjoyable but I would also support Chasing Amy as a slightly better film, with Clerks tied IMO. It really is subjective since both films share Smith's sense of wicked humor.

[Sundown]

I have to say that despite his talent and my appreciation for his work (Alien is also amazing, for example), I think Ridley Scott is full of it. The narration is in both the original AND shooting script.

I'm not denying that there was narration in the drafts and scripts. There was. But we have two sources, Scott, and Ford, who both state that the movie wasn't made with narration in mind. Furthermore, two writers were hired to write the narration after the movie's filming, which implies that the narration wasn't set in stone, if it was to be included at all. It at least suggests that the narration in the script was largely unsatisfactory. To say flatly that the narration had always been intended from the get go by those that matter and that anyone who disagreed was simply being difficult involves a great deal of speculation. It also requires us to dismiss what's been said by more than one of the film's crew in favor of our personal theories.

Also, Ridley Scott insists Deckard is a replicant, even though the shooting script deliberately leaves it ambiguous and the original script specifically says he's human. Harrison Ford also insists that they all agreed that Deckard was NOT a replicant while they were making the film.

Yep, Scott obviously revised his opinion on Deckard, which cheapens the film a tad and eliminates the ambiguity that added to the film's meaning. But if we're taking Ford as a source here to disprove Scott's credibility regarding the film's narration, I'd think that what Ford himself says about the narration should also have some merit.

I know Scott was a pain to work with, and I'd concede that at least the writers and producers thought that there should be narration, but it's pretty apparent that Scott's dislike of the narration made him film and direct the movie in a way that didn't best serve the inclusion of a voice-over. His approach and direction also seems to have affected Ford's opinion on whether Blade Runner required narration, and thus, Ford's actual performance and delivery. In the end the voice-over, to me, feels pieced together and the production value of the film suffers, even as it helps some parts of the viewing.

[Sundown]

Chasing Amy is funny stuff... I would rank it ahead of Dogma.

Agreed. Chasing Amy is one of my favorites, and is a more solid film than most of Smith's other works. Dogma's amusing, and Jay and Silent Bob has its moments, but Chasing Amy has more going on for it. It's also features Ben Afleck in his most believable role before he annoyingly became heartthrob/superhero. As an actual semi-Smith fan, I find Clerks largely unwatchable. It has like all of two interesting scenes, and the rest just sort of hurts to sit through.

[Duke Togo]

Chasing Amy and Swingers make for good back to back viewing.

[Agent ONE]

Chasing Amy and Swingers make for good back to back viewing.

357519[/snapback]

Never thought much of Swingers, I was hoping for couple swaping I guess, I think that stuff is funny.

[Greyryder]

I liked Maximum Overdrive. Mostly, because it has no redeeming values. Sometimes I just want to veg out, watch big trucks run over things, and see a couple of explosions. Plus, it's funny to watch the ATM cuss out Stephen King.

I've never seen the original The Shining, but I have seen the TV movie that King himself was involved in. It stayed pretty true to the book. The Jack Nicholson movie always put me off, because they gave him an axe. It's supposed to be a big assed mallet. You just don't get the same kind of splatter, with an axe.

Aliens is just about number one on my poo list. Alien was a nice tense horror movie, then Cameron sent in the space marines. A lone alien, carefully, and intelligintly stalking its prey is scary. You never knew where that thing was going to pop out from. A bunch of aliens running willy nilly down a hallway towards a machine gun emplacement, getting mowed down like a bunch of lemings isn't scary. I came here to see to terrified people getting munched, not a bunch of artillery laden bravado. That's what Predator is for!

Pulp Fiction didn't do much for me, either. At least the first From Dusk Till Dawn was entertaining. How many roles did Cheech play in that, anyway?

Not really a classic, but Transformers: The Movie pisses me off. Can you say deconstructing a franchise? What mental midget thought it would be a good idea to kill off all of the popular characters, and replace them such flat annoying stand ins? Sure, Ironhide and Kup were both veterans, but Ironhide knew when to STFU! Don't even get me started on Hot Rod/Rodimus.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Greyryder

[Agent ONE]

...

Not really a classic, but Transformers: The Movie pisses me off. Can you say deconstructing a franchise? What mental midget thought it would be a good idea to kill off all of the popular characters, and replace them such flat annoying stand ins? Sure, Ironhide and Kup were both veterans, but Ironhide knew when to STFU! Don't even get me started on Hot Rod/Rodimus.

357526[/snapback]

I would have liked TF the movie more if that were the end, what pissed me off was trying to continue after that. If the whole thing had ended there, then Prime's death wouldn't have been in vain... But with the way they left it was just no big deal and they made Hot Rod the replacement.

[Ginrai]

Holy snot, someone praised the Clerks cartoon in here?  That had ONE funny moment in the entire series.  That was when they left the courtroom in a car that transformed killing the driver right before the episode swung into Korean dance party mode or some such nonsense.

Finally I pissed someone off! And I was trying so hard!

No, seriously, I liked it. The first episode starts with, "Previously on Clerks" and cuts to static. That's awesome. And I did love that the car transformed and the blood squirted out, but the entire "fart the episode, Korean animators took over!" sequence was awesome. I also like that the second episode was a fake recap episode like sitcoms always do, except they only had one previous episode, so they kept flashing back to the SAME SCENE. I guess I like a lot of their running gags, and how juvenile the whole show is (like an entire episode spent on this ridiculous monkey contagion which is really an elaborate plot to try to get Dante to admit to being gay). And then there was the Last Starfighter riff where Randal was really good at building pyramids in a video game, and was therefore selected to build ACTUAL pyramids, by dragging giant stone bricks around. Hah. I guess I like it for two main reasons: running gags I think are really funny, especially since they're pounded into the ground (the entire episode where insane things are happening outside the store but we never get to see them rules), and I love the way it parodies awful TV shows and movies.

[Ginrai]

I'm not denying that there was narration in the drafts and scripts.  There was.  But we have two sources, Scott, and Ford, who both state that the movie wasn't made with narration in mind.  Furthermore, two writers were hired to write the narration after the movie's filming, which implies that the narration wasn't set in stone, if it was to be included at all.  It at least suggests that the narration in the script was largely unsatisfactory.

I'll have to go compare what's in the scripts to the actual movie, but I remember it being very close the narration in the movie, so I suspect this is misinformation, too, but I will check it out, for sure.

To say flatly that the narration had always been intended from the get go by those that matter and that anyone who disagreed was simply being difficult involves a great deal of speculation.  It also requires us to dismiss what's been said by more than one of the film's crew in favor of our personal theories.

This is less about my personal theories and more about my respect for the writers, who totally get short shrift from everyone.

Yep, Scott obviously revised his opinion on Deckard, which cheapens the film a tad and eliminates the ambiguity that added to the film's meaning.  But if we're taking Ford as a source here to disprove Scott's credibility regarding the film's narration, I'd think that what Ford himself says about the narration should also have some merit.

Well, yes, Ford agrees with him on one aspect and disagrees on an another, so I suppose I can't rightly say Ford is the more reliable source. I think it's more like, "There is no reliable source." The fact the actual production of the movie was so fraught with emotion and so difficult and overbudget (and a lot of this misery was apparently Scott's fault) suggests to me that it's REALLY hard for anyone involved in the production to give a straight account.

However, the screenwriters were working PRE-production, so I think they would be much more reliable sources, since they weren't dragged through the mud like everyone else was. Same is probably true for the producers, as producers aren't usually on the set every day in the muck and mire, unless they're REALLY hands on or David O. Selznick style tyrants. I'd be really interested in what they had to say about the narration.

I know Scott was a pain to work with, and I'd concede that at least the writers and producers thought that there should be narration, but it's pretty apparent that Scott's dislike of the narration made him film and direct the movie in a way that didn't best serve the inclusion of a voice-over.  His approach and direction also seems to have affected Ford's opinion on whether Blade Runner required narration, and thus, Ford's actual performance and delivery.  In the end the voice-over, to me, feels pieced together and the production value of the film suffers, even as it helps some parts of the viewing.

357505[/snapback]

I'm not sure how you direct a movie in such a way that it serves narration badly unless you make it so talky there's no room for the narration. Blade Runner, on the other hand, has a ton of room for narration. There's a lot of empty spots where the camera is just panning around looking at things in the "director's cut", which is probably a big part of why the movie has a reputation for having cool visuals but being boring. That's the PERFECT place for narration. As for the narration, Ford said he had to do the narration over and over again (like five times) because Scott was never happy with it. I think it's pretty likely the reason he was never happy with it was that he was anal retentive as hell and never happy with anything, which is fine, but makes people hate you. If they brought in another writer to rewrite the narration at the end, it was probably because, again, Scott was anal as hell and never happy with anything. That doesn't mean the movie wasn't supposed to have it, just that Scott couldn't find anything he liked. Maybe it's an ego thing and because he was never happy with how it came out, he claims it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, thus removing his responsibility for "artless" narration.

I'll have to check the screenplays against the actual narration when I get a minute, and also poke through my Blade Runner book to see if it says anything about it.

Regardless, I still think the film works much better with the narration, as it helps the pacing immensely, adds the noir feel, and helps paint Deckard as an unhappy schmuck, instead of just this inscrutible guy you don't like. And if that's basically who he's supposed to be. You lose a lot of important things, like the fact that Deckard has an ex-wife without it.

[Graham]

I liked bullitt.. The acting was good, the car chase scene was good for the time the movie was made, which is really unfair to compare with Ronin... I didn't think the movie was awesome or anything though.  As far as cop movies go, any Dirty Hary movie beats it.

357408[/snapback]

Any Dirty Harry movie (except The Dead Pool), beats all other cop movies.

Clint (well, early Eastwood) is to me what Arnie is to A1.

Graham

[Nightbat]

Not really a classic, but Transformers: The Movie pisses me off. Can you say deconstructing a franchise? What mental midget thought it would be a good idea to kill off all of the popular characters, and replace them such flat annoying stand ins? Sure, Ironhide and Kup were both veterans, but Ironhide knew when to STFU! Don't even get me started on Hot Rod/Rodimus.

357526[/snapback]

And why couldn't that be a classic?

the only good thing about TF - The Movie was Unicron

[Graham]

The only good thing about TF - The Movie, was that some Transformers actually died.

And yes I cheered when they died.

Graham

[Ginrai]

Okay, just found an interview where Ridley Scott contradicts your argument, Sundown.

This is an interview about the special edition DVD of BR that never came out, I believe.

"Are you making any big changes?"

"Well, the voiceover's off, so I may condense some sections that were sustained for the voiceover. There's a scene where Deckard (Harrison Ford)'s reading a newspaper looking up at the blimp and there's a lot of voiceover. So he'll just look like he's staring at the blimp and people will wonder why. So I'll condense that."

That right there shows they were shooting for the narration.

Here's the source: http://www.brmovie.com/Articles/Empire_RS_2002_Feb.htm

Again, I believe that Ridley Scott is unreliable (especially since he decided to say Deckard was uneqvuivocally a replicant), but you do have to admit, that shot sucks in the "director's cut" and you wonder why it goes on so long. The narration. He probably just hated how it came out and wanted it gone.

The interview also talks about how Scott and Ford "clashed" on the set...

[Sundown]

I'm not sure how you direct a movie in such a way that it serves narration badly unless you make it so talky there's no room for the narration. Blade Runner, on the other hand, has a ton of room for narration.

I'd thought about this as I was writing, that there were lots of gaps that could be served by narration, whether intentional or whether Scott wanted the silence-- but it seems that if Ford felt that the narration didn't fit the movie as made, it may have been a sentiment he inhereted under Scott's direction, and thus, he might simply not have been properly prepped to do it as well as he could. I myself find his delivery surprisingly subpar for Ford, and keep thinking that it certainly could have been done better.

Either way, I see more anecdotes supporting that in the minds of major players (Scott, Ford), narration didn't fit Blade Runner as Scott envisioned. The view that narration had been intended by everyone, including Scott through most of the movie's production (later disowned simply because of his obsessive personality), requires considerable conjecture and speculation on Scott's psychology that I personally don't feel comfortable making.

Yes, he was an anal-retentive director and a pain to work with. But whether that anal-retentiveness is what caused him to retroactively change his stance, simply as an ego-saving measure to distance himself from what he didn't like, is not something I'd freely assert.

There's also the story of a the ill-received sneak preview that caused the producers to request the reintroduction of the narration, so if that story is true, it seems to me that Scott was ready to consider the film done without voice-over.

Ford said he had to do the narration over and over again (like five times) because Scott was never happy with it.

Ford has also said himself that his many attempts didn't work because the movie wasn't meant to have one. Whether this is out of deference to Scott or not, I can't say.

So, I'd agree that the movie is a collaborative effort, that at least some of the creative team thought voice-over fitting of the movie, and that narration might in certain spots. I also think that narration could have worked even better than it did. But Ridley was definitely a force guiding the film's production, and his sentiments and lack of commitment to Blade Runner's narration produced what we know as the theatrical release. In my viewing of the that version, it shows.

[Ginrai]

Hah, okay, three things from an interview with the guy who wrote Future Noir, the book on Blade Runner I have. He was on the set all the time.

A) "Well, at the time, Ridley was known for constantly changing his mind." Fits right in with the issue about whether or not it was supposed to have narration.

B) There was all kinds of friction between the writer Hampton Fancher and Scott. "Well, the most intimate moments between Hampton and Ridley took place when they were alone together, spitballing ideas for the rewrites. I wasn't there for that. No one was. I did have the opportunity of seeing them interact a few times during prep, however. And the differences between their personalities was the most immediate observation one came away with."

C) I was totally wrong, as "Hampton FancherHampton, for instance, was the more emotional of the two", so hah, no one's very reliable who actually worked on the project. You agree that there are lots of shots that have all kinds of room for narration and that Scott was really difficult, and it says here that he was always changing his mind.

You're right, I can't say if it was ego or another reason, but based on what I just read, it seems like the narration on, narration off thing comes from Scott changing his mind constantly and being anal.

Source: http://www.brmovie.com/Articles/Sammon_Interview_09.htm

Dunno about the veracity of the sneak preview thing... could be apocryphal. Will try to find out.

[Mr March]

*snip*

Clint (well, early Eastwood) is to me what Arnie is to A1.

Graham

357532[/snapback]

I always recall a quote about Clint Eastwood's early work that always makes me laugh

"There are two types of people, those who enjoy Clint Eastwood westerns and dorks."

Course, I'm not a huge fan of ALL Eastwood westerns, but all the Sergio Leone films with Eastwood were brilliant. The spaghetti westerns...yummy!

A Fistfull of Dollars

For A Few Dollars More

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

Of course, Once Upon A Time In The West is Leone's magnum opus (of the Leone westerns I mean), but no Clint in that one

[Ginrai]

Oo, found something else good about narration. On why Ford hates Blade Runner, "Additionally, he hated the way the voiceover was written, he disliked working with Sean Young, and Harrison must have been disappointed by the way audiences initially shunned Blade Runner. After all, that turning away meant, to a certain extent, that they were shunning him. I'm sure there were other things Ford couldn't stomach about BR either." So maybe it was Ford's urging that got the narration killed?

[Sundown]

Okay, just found an interview where Ridley Scott contradicts your argument, Sundown.

"Well, the voiceover's off, so I may condense some sections that were sustained for the voiceover. There's a scene where Deckard (Harrison Ford)'s reading a newspaper looking up at the blimp and there's a lot of voiceover. So he'll just look like he's staring at the blimp and people will wonder why. So I'll condense that."

That right there shows they were shooting for the narration.

Not necessarily. Most directors shoot a lot more film and some longer scenes than what actually ends up on the reel, and it gets pieced together and cut in editing. Ridley might be referring to the actual movie, edited with scenes sustained for the voiceover, not his specific intent at that moment of shooting. But I'll concede that he might have filmed it with voiceover in mind, just as he have been undecided when he was filming that scene and filmed it long enough to go both ways. I don't think that snippit states unequivocally Ridley's established mindset and intent while shooting, but it is suggestive that he at least had the narration in mind.

I'm not sure who to listen to anymore, except I can't find anyone who outright says "narration had always been intended every step of the way." It seems more likely that there was a lot of indecision, and Ridley started to lean one way somewhere in production. But that's just my own speculation. For what it's worth Ford also hates the original, and feels after viewing the Director's Cut that with the voice-over removed, the movie is actually "not so bad".