The Final Cut...

    A few weeks back it was announced that the Snyder Cut of the 2017 Justice League movie was going to be finished finally and released exclusively on HBO Max in the United States next year. For some time fans online have been clamoring to see this version of the film, believing Snyder’s original vision for the film was vastly superior to the Joss Whedon version we got in theaters.
    I went and saw the Whedon movie back when it came out in the theater. I also own it on Blu-ray. It’s an okay film. Not terrible but certainly not great either.
    Even seeing it the first time it was obvious it was a mash-up between whatever Snyder wanted to do and what Whedon cobbled together from that and his own rewrites and reshoots.
    Will the Snyder Cut be worth the wait? Maybe. Maybe not. If nothing else, at least we’ll get one man’s vision for the story instead of the mish-mash we ended up with before.
    I’ve read that Snyder had ambitious plans to set up a trilogy with an involved story about Superman’s ultimate redemption and Darkseid’s invasion of Earth. Supposedly, the big-wigs at Warner Bros got cold feet over committing to such a potentially complicated and expensive venture and pulled the plug.
    What’s true? What’s not? It’s hard to know...
    One thing that is certain though is that trying to combine these two men’s very different visions failed. A story solely by Snyder or Whedon could have been very good. As it was, we got a mediocre film out of the deal and Marvel Studios certainly didn’t feel any pressure on their Avengers franchise when put up against DC’s Justice League. Even the weakest Avengers film is still miles ahead.
    Justice League’s relative failure and its new incarnation are interesting in another way though. Even in Whedon’s film we can see the differing tones and ideas at play. One can presently only imagine what else was originally envisioned (and soon enough, we’ll be able to see it for ourselves).
    Of course, this isn’t the first time a movie has been radically edited and/or reshot. It’s been going on for decades and the process is endlessly fascinating–especially to outsiders like ourselves.
    A simple cut here or there–or excising half of the film for new footage–can radically change the story’s intent and outcome. It’s also an interesting way to learn about editing, whether one is a novice or a practiced storyteller.
    No matter the format, editing is the lifeblood of storytelling. When the story runs too long, too short, a character does or doesn’t work, the ending needs fixing, the prose needs updating, etc. Many a countless hour has been spent pouring over the story, trying to get it just right.
    Editing can be the bane of many an aspiring writer. How many epics have been sidelined because the author decided the story just wasn’t “right”? How many tales will never see the light of day because of the author’s inability to get the story finished to their own satisfaction?
    Look at film. Both Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Aliens have extended versions where something like fifteen minutes of footage has been added back to the story. In both cases, the films are considerably better with the extra content. Great films made even better with just a little bit more.
    Then, there’s movies like 2003's Daredevil. The theatrical cut of the film was a disappointment to many. The movie felt shallow and maybe even a bit sexist (Matt and Elektra’s relationship seemed nothing but physical yet contradictorly, he acted as if she was the love of his life).
    As it turns out, there was more footage and the Director’s Cut, which eventually made it out on DVD, was a considerable improvement. In it, Matt is unsatisfied with all his frivolous physical relationships with women and when Elektra happens along he finds an equal in spirit and fortitude. Also, there is a subplot about The Arranger being responsible for murdering a young woman and framing an innocent black man. The longer cut still doesn’t rank among the greatest superhero films I’ve ever seen yet it is a significant upgrade over what we initially got.
    There’s so many examples out there for re-edited movies to chose from. From major changes like Richard Donner’s Superman II and the fourth Exorcist film (Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist) to smaller changes on countless films from every genre and era.
    It’s been said copious editing was what saved the original Star Wars film. George Lucas had hours of footage and thanks to the editing team (which included his then-wife Marsha) it was cut down to a brisk and entertaining film that became one of the most popular movies of all time. Without the two editors it might very well have turned out as a horrible failure.
    Editing works best when the Editor has a good command of storytelling techniques and understands how to make the story flow properly. Too much story (be it footage or prose) can be extraneous but too little can also rob the story of texture. Also, some times writers just put odd things in the story and it’s the job of the Editor to decide whether or not that stuff is relevant to the overall point of the story–be it the plot or characterization.
    Also, everyone is different. One creator might think something is just right for a story while another might scoff at the same notion. What if Luke Skywalker had a girlfriend in the original movie? How would that have affected his tale? Would he still have left Tatooine? Maybe. Perhaps it could’ve played into the overall plot. Perhaps it could have hindered it. One really has no way of knowing one way or the other and neither option is right or wrong. We just got the story we did and it works well as it is.
    One person’s edit may seem like genius to them while the next might find it absurd. I personally think Prometheus was over-edited (some crucial information was cut from the final version of the film and I feel it hindered it. Obviously the film’s editors felt otherwise).
    Movie studios can be even worse since a lot of their decisions are made by oft-clueless executives who only think in terms of dollars. How many rely on test audiences to try and gauge the success of a film? How often does that ever work out for the best?
    At the end of the day, editing is a necessary evil in storytelling. It simply cannot function without a judgmental eye. The trick is in trying to know what’s best for the story and following one’s experience and intuition in the spirit of communicating the best tale one can.

DKA

 

 

 

 

Continuity Cop...

    Everyone likes their fiction to make sense, no matter what form it takes. For the most part, it does. Writer, artists, film makers, etc. go out of their way to make their plot and whatever points they’re trying to make understandable to their audience. Badly written fiction can fly in the face of this, as can projects rushed out before someone’s considered the idea carefully or if someone’s not properly edited it.
    There’s continuity that matters and continuity that doesn’t. Ridley Scott’s recent production Prometheus is set in the same universe as his seminal work, Alien. For the most part it works as it is but there is one glaring continuity issue that goes unexplained... in the original film, the Space Jockey as it’s known, is around twenty feet tall. The Engineers/Space Jockeys in Prometheus seem to all be around eight feet tall. This is necessary for them to be comparable to the humans in the film in the practical sense but the size discrepancy is never addressed in-story. Is it just a retcon–a this-is-how-it-is-now-deal-with-it situation or is there some reason they’re smaller that was cut from the theatrical edit (we know at least twenty minutes were trimmed from the film). We might assume that since they have a mastery of genetic engineering that there is some reason for it–but at best all we can do is make assumptions. Try to fill in the blanks with our own logic rather then know for certain what the film makers intended (if anything).
    The discrepancy in this instance matters to me. Even if it were a simple line or two, it should be addressed somewhere. Taken together, this compromises internal story logic within the two films overall. It’s comparable to having a character act completely different between two acts of a story with no explanation given. It stands out and it shouldn’t.
    There is also continuity that doesn’t matter. Sometimes it can be a challenge deciding which is which and it always falls to personal perspective on a given concept. 
    Certain movies I tend to ignore in my own universe. Nothing after Aliens exists, as far as I’m concerned (Alien 3 is basically a rehash of the first and it’s story is depressing. I do concede the film is well produced and visually pleasing but I hate the story. Alien Resurrection is pointless and the less said about the Alien vs. Predator movies, the better). I also don’t care for Die Hard 4, Star Trek Generations, Robocop 2 and 3 or the Abrams Star Trek film.
    A great example of when continuity doesn’t matter is the Transformers concept. Even from the get-go, the original Generation One concept contradicted itself. The comic went one way and the cartoon its own. The cartoon was more widely seen and established a lot of the beloved character types the fans know and love today (monotone Soundwave, dumb Grimlock, treacherous Starscream, etc.) The comic was better written generally though, and many of its stories still stand up well even today (while the cartoon plots are dated in many instances). Both featured essentially the same characters in the same overall set-up but didn’t follow each other’s stories or internal continuity (it would have been a difficult feat but not impossible).
    The UK comic, which was in effect a third continuity (featuring the US comic’s stories and also stories that happened between issues of that comic but which may or may not have counted to the US comic continuity) tried following a loose cartoon continuity by acknowledging the events of the 2005 based Transformers: The Movie and even having some of its character time travel back and forth to the present. It was a cool idea but it ended up making things even more complicated in the final analysis as things that happened before the movie chronologically had to be retconned out–theoretically–in order for the future-set movie to happen and still make sense as it originally did. The Transmasters UK fan club of the nineties tried to do a comic and set about explaining how the Generation One comic, Generation Two comic and TF:TM could have all occurred in the same continuity (in my opinion they were so focused on the continuity fixes it interfered with trying to tell a good story in their fan comics/text stories of the time).

    To me, Transformers exist in several sub-sets. Instead of trying to make it all work together, I accept that the G1 cartoon and comic were two different continuities. End of story. The Marvel UK comic was it’s own thing, which related to the US one but was not the same “Universe” per se. With the advent of the recent Regeneration One comic, I now see Marvel’s comic as Marvel US G1 comic; Marvel UK G1 comic; Marvel G2 comic, which continues the G1 US comic; and also, Regeneration One comic that continues the Marvel G1 US comic in a different continuity all together. It sounds confusing but trying to reconcile all this contradictory information so it can work together sensibly is more effort then it’s really worth.
    I feel like I can enjoy a story, regardless of whether or not it fits with everything that’s come before. IDW’s recent Autocracy comic tells a new origin for Optimus Prime and the start of his personal battle against Megatron. It’s a great tale and I accept it for what it is. But there have been other tellings of his origin and I like those too for different reasons. I can’t accept Autocracy as the one and only definitive telling. It’s a good story and a good interpretation but I can leave room for other versions, if they end up telling a worthy tale. I don’t have to try and figure out how it all fits together in my personal universe or shun one for another. And like with the earlier examples, if I hate something (Star Trek Generations) I can completely ignore it or pretend it happened in an alternate interpretation.        
    This even appears to be happening in official media at times. Notice that Lance Henriksen played Charles Weyland in Alien vs. Predator while Guy Pearce played Peter Weyland in Prometheus. It is possible that one is the ancestor of the other. But AvP was released in 2004 and was presumably more or less the present time. Prometheus has its Weyland giving a TED speech (in a viral video. Does that count as really happening in this instance?) that takes place in 2023. They could be related but AvP 2 implies that the Yutani Corporation already exists in the present as well. It seems like Prometheus is ignoring the AvP movies all together and doing its own thing (which is fine with me. I hated the AvP movies).
    Will the Before Watchmen comics count in comic fans minds as really happening? DC Comics is counting on them being accepted but many despise the very idea of their existence. Watchmen is beloved by many–if people despise the idea of prequels they don’t have to accept them as part of the “real” story if they chose not to. The reverse also applies.
    Taking this a step further, we define our reality through our perspective. We gather information from varied sources then act on it. We can decide what’s important in life, be it something as trivial as fiction or even more important matters (it seems like that’s what certain political parties excel in. Not always a good thing but true despite it). One man can see himself as outgoing while others interpret him as shy. A person can be seen as a jerk by some but a saint by others. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Perhaps both are depending on the circumstances.
    As long as a story is good, I’ll like it. Continuity be damned. It may fit my idea of the “real” way it happened or it may not. In the end, it has to entertain me above all else. If it doesn’t then the rest is irrelevant.

DKA