From: hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel Hafner)
Subject: Re: REVIEW: 1492: THE CONQUEST OF PARADISE
Keywords: author=Gorcey
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 09:53:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.214831.23338@cs.ucla.edu> reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>This film has taken a lot of heat for its somewhat incoherent storyline
>and uninteresting supporting characters.  The LA Times review of the film
>commented on these flaws, faulting the screenwriter.  The Times runs
>a regular feature in which non-journalists can respond to Times criticisms,
>and a recent one concerned the script of "1492".  According to the
>article's author (who was not the screenwriter), the screenplay, both
>as written and shot, suffered from neither of these flaws.  The problem
>arose in the editing.  In order to bring the film in at around 2 1/2 hours,
>Scott was forced to cut something.  The decision came down to cut plot
>and character development, to save visuals and spectacle.  According to
>this article, the cuts amounted to around 30 minutes of material, and
>included lots of dialog (which developed the characters more) and a
>complete sequence concerning Columbus' last voyage.  The author of the
>article expressed hope that a video release would restore the material.
>I find this last comment interesting, and somewhat ironic.  Television, long
>the bane of both commercial and artistic film interests, is turning into
>the savior of both.  Films that don't make enough money in the theaters
>turn a profit thanks to videocassette sales, and material that studios
>cut for theatrical release (for reasons rarely having much to do with
>art) is restored for video release.  In a way, it's sad, because the
>full versions rarely make it to theaters, and even the finest video
>presentation does not compare to seeing a good print well projected in
>a quality theater with an appreciative audience.  On the other hand, it's
>a big step better than nothing, which was pretty much what filmmakers
>had before the video revolution.

I wonder why we can't have two versions in theaters right from the beginning?
For example, why didn't they release say 1000 prints of "Basic Instinct" with
the US cut and say 50 with the European cut in US? So major cities had at
least one print for people interested in the hotter/longer/weirder etc. version
as backed by the director? Why don't they do that?

- Too expensive? ( Fixed and additional direct costs too high, less shows per
  day --> revenue/ROI per print too low )
  - If the second cut is released anyway in Europe etc., how can it be unpro-
    fitable in US?
  - If the second cut is not released to cinemas anywhere, but a LD release is
    planned and considered as profitable, why then is a theatrical release
    not worth some thoughts? When the two versions are released at the same
    time there are no extra costs for publicity since the ads can tell you
    about the two versions at the same time. There are higher lab costs and
    maybe other post production costs, but since these extra prints would have
    above average attendance ( certainly in the case of "Basic Instinct" ) a
    careful cost analysis should justify additional direct costs for these
    prints. Are producers/distributors overlooking some real chances for
    profit here? 

- Too confusing for spectators?

  Will the audience be so puzzled by two versions that at the end they
  simply won't go to see either, because they can't figure out what the
  heck is going on?
  I doubt that.

- US audiences' average taste and attention span is different from Europe's
  etc.. --> (artsy..) longer versions will be rejected, only some hard core
  freaks will show interest ( and they will be served by LDs ).

  I guess this one of the major arguments against it, but how can they know,
  if they never test a few cases? I'm pretty confident that they would have 
  made major profits with alternative cuts of "Basic Instinct", "The Abyss",
  "Once Upon a time in America" ( right from the start, not x months later ),
  "Highlander" etc.. ).

								M.H.
From: cn@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Needham)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:34:55 GMT
Subject: LIST: Dead (Ch-F), Part 2 of 5
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.