DVD Format Changing Movie-making

rgmoore writes "The Los Angeles Times is running an interesting article on the impact of DVDs on the movie making process. They briefly mention the possibilities of end-users being able to re-edit the movie (with a veiled reference to The Phantom Edit) but focus more on the way that it's starting to influence directors and producers during the course of making the movie."

Comments

Good

[dlb]

Does this mean I can change the end of the recent "Planet of the Apes" so it makes sense and doesn't suck? I'll add my own commentary too -- anything is better than the sham that Tim Burton slapped together on that disk.

~dlb

Re:Good

[TheCyko1]

if you think about it, Tim Burton was just trying to make us say what Charlton Heston said at the end of the original.

Re:Good

[metacell]

I think the end of Tim Burton's Planet of The Apes was good, especially considering what he had to work with.

It can't be easy being compared to one of the greatest classical science fiction movies (the original Planet of The Apes).
Since the first movie had a surprise ending, Burton had to come up with a surprise ending too. And just rehashing the old ending wouldn't make it a surprise, would it?
So he had to come up with his own unexpected ending.

Apparently, the main character and the space station were sent *back* in time at the beginning of the movie, to before the human race evolved technology, making the apes the dominant species. At the end of the movie, the main character travels back to his own time -- but history is irrevocably changed. At the national monument where he crash lands, instead of a statue of a human founding father, there is a statue of an ape.

Re:Good

[Alan Partridge]

but, of course, no-one forced him to do a remake did they? If Burton had any respect for the original (and his own reputation as a creative director) he wouldn't have gone anywhere NEAR a reamke. Shame on him - how many MORE millions do you suppose he earned?

Re:Good

[Lordie]

No No NO.

** SPOILERS **

...

...

Order in which items entered the anomaly:
1. Chimp
2. Chi...Marky Mark (soon after Chimp)
3. Big Ship (an hour later?)

Order in which items left the anomaly:

3. Big Ship (it's occupants populate the Planet)
2. Chi...Marky Mark
1. Chimp

The anomaly reverses the order, so that First In -> Last Out.

At the end of the movie:

1. Marky Mark enters the anomaly

...time passes

2. Tim Roth enters the anomaly, the human uprising being thwarted, he escapes his prison and has his craft legion of human slaves repair Marky Mark's original ship, or mayhap another vehicle that crashed inside the orbiter

THEREFORE:

2. Tim Roth gets to Earth anywhere from 1 to 30 years before Marky Mark does, siezing control of Earth.

1. Marky Mark arrives on Earth and says, "Woah."

Re:Good

[EvilAlien]

Will DVD technology be apply to insert a plot that doesn't suck too? The whole movie was embarassingly weak, not just the ending.

This is the film that made me recind my "Tim Burton is a genius" claims.

Planet of the Suck had nothing more than good special effects, everything else is a stain on the careers of all involved.

IMO.

Re:Good

[metacell]

Good point there, Tim Burton could have insisted on his artistic integrity.

Trying to make things better?

[SealBeater]

According to the article, it sounds like they are trying to make things better
for the consumer, considering things like camera angles and music to make a
more enjoyable home experience. I guess since we can more easily see what
mistakes, or whatever go into the movie now, they are trying to take that into
consideration.

SealBeater

Re:Trying to make things better?

[AaronMB]

Likewise, movies now are made more for a "formatted for television" style than they used to be. Most directors now shoot shots such that the 30% of the shot can be cut without losing too much in the way of content. They also tend to shoot/edit movies such that they fit nicely(or can be editted nicely) into the hour and a half timeslots. It just goes to show you that as post-theatre mediums become popular, directors begin to take them into account when making the film...

More info on The Phantom Edit

[Zuna]

In case you're not familiar with it, you can read all about it here.

Re:More info on The Phantom Edit

[Spy Hunter]

I think it is interesting that the phantom edit was directly made possible by DeCSS, and the DVD format by itself would have actually prevented its creation because of the copy controls. (in the future when VHS is no longer used, this will become even more relevant.)

Re:More info on The Phantom Edit

[LinuxTek]

If you read the article on salon, you would realize that the phantom edit was possible because the editor used a VHS copy, not the (then unreleased) DVD. So although in the future your argument may make a case in favor of DeCSS, it is out of context for this particular case.

Re:More info on The Phantom Edit

[Kallahar]

I saw Phantom Edit many months ago, and I've got to say that the movie still sucked. (EP1, not the editing!) There was only one time that I liked the movie, and that was at a Drive-In Movie (where you go park your car and watch it on a gigantic screen). The only reason that was good was because we turned off the sound and only watched the visuals. Try it, watch it on mute, it's much better!

Re:More info on The Phantom Edit

[Fjord]

You can purchase Macrovision removers (so called "stabilizers") for between $40-$200, if you really want to edit VHS. I believe DVDs also use macrovision on the analogue signal (the NEO4 chip for the PS2 removes the macrovision), so you can use it on DVDs too. DeCSS, really, only enables direct digital copying and playing DVDs on linux. Getting rid of it doesn't remove access to the contents of the DVD.

More Documentary makers on sets

[TheDick]

Thats what I bet one of the biggest changes has been. Now almost any half-assed movie is gonna have a "making of" featurette on the DVD release.

Re:More Documentary makers on sets

[Paradise Pete]

Now almost any half-assed movie is gonna have a "making of" featurette on the DVD release

No kidding. And when they interview the actors I bet they talk about how giving and professional the other actors were, and what a joy it was to work at their craft.

DVD & It's potential

[kwishot]

I don't know about any of you, but I predict that DVD as a form of data storage will soon become a LOT more popular. DVD movies have been out for a few years now, but DVD as a form of data storage hasn't had much of a chance because of availability. With DVD-Burners becoming much less expensive, it'll be easier to backup our data on to these. I'll also mention the fact that a HUGE portion of new "pre-built" computers, whether they be crappy name-brand or corner-computer-store generic, come with DVD drives as a standard.
I'm also going to guess that movies will move on to something different. I haven't personally used a DVD-Burner yet, but I would assume that it's just as simple now to copy a DVD as it has been to copy a music CD for the past few years.
The movie industry likes money..... I think they'll move on to something they can have a stronger grip on and get more out of (bigger is always better, anyways, right?).

-kwishot

Re:DVD & It's potential

[Alan Partridge]

that's a genius level prediction right there. What do you do, just look at Apple's range and then wonder out loud when the features will trickle down to lower cost PCs? Dumb fuck.

Re:DVD & It's potential

[Fjord]

It's not just availability, it standards. I'm refusing to buy a DVD(+/-)RW until it stabilizes more and it's apparent which format will win. Not only does it suck to have to pay for the wrong technology and then right one, but shifting old data to the newer format is a serious PITA.

Re:GREAT!

[kvandivo]

You must not remember this post from back in November..

Changing the rating on movies

It takes care of exactly what you are wanting..

I dunno if the article mentions this

[sielwolf]

(since I am too lazy to read an article at 11:30 at night) but I remember reading that now actors are charging extra for all of the outtakes, deleted scenes, making-of footage, and commentary tracks that may or may not even be in the final DVD (and was, before this, basically all thrown away).

Of course now the "commentary" track is being ruined. Take Eye of the Beholder: Ewan McGregor[sic], Ashley Judd, Nonsensical everything, Shittiest movie Ever. And IT has a director's commentary track. Wild Things. Battlefield Earth. WTF? Are they STILL trying to snowjob you? Not like they need to after you shelled out 24 bucks for the DVD. At least if they were fucking honest on them.

Director: Now Ashley Judd starts crying here. [Puffs on cigarett] You know, I must have blacked out here 'cause I don't know what the hell I was thinking...

Instead it's like this:

Director: You can really see Denise Richards reach deep for that emotion. People say that she's just a hot piece of dumb ass but I really think she made a statement with this film...

Goddamn and Goodfellas DOESN'T have a commentary track? AND it's on a two sided DVD?

Kurosawa would never talk about his own movies. That wasn't his business. Let the scholars talk about them. What would he respond when people would as him what his favorite movie was? "The one I'm currently working on."

Says a lot (... damn, Eye of the Beholder!!! Now I'm in a really bad mood. Damn, Slashdot...)

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[halo8]

you actually have the Time to spare to watch the Directors version?

personally (IMHO).. i couldnt care a less how they made a film or shot a scene, it wouldnt make me apretiate it any more.

i have friends that always watch thoes specials on "how they made jurasic park III" and i say "computers" they used computers on this scene.. computers on that scene. thats how movies are made today.. computers computers computers.
now if they were to talk about what kind of computers? how much ram/os/HD ect.. then that would be interesting. but they dont. joe blow just knows it made by computers.

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[instinctdesign]

It really depends on a lot of factors whether a commentary track will be good or not. One the DVD of my favorite movies, Seven Samurai, has a commentary track by an "expert" on Kurosawa. Sounds interesting, no? Well... its just like the example you mentioned. "Here we see a scene with horses silhouetted against the sky." A minute or two later, "Kurosowa did that often." (obviously paraphrased) And it goes on and on like this for at least the first 30 minutes when I just turned it off and watched the film.

Now, quite ironically, the best commentary track I've ever listened to was also on a Criterion DVD but of a vastly different caliber of film, Michael Bay's Armageddon. If you rent/buy it, (frankly I wouldn't recommend the film by itself but the extras make up for it) I highly suggest you listen to the commentary. Its got great tidbits from Bay about the making of such a huge scale feature, from an ex-NASA guy who talks about the "facts" of the film (one of the greatest lines, "now this just couldn't happen in real life"), and others.

Its really hard to make a great commentary track, and you can never really tell what movie will have a good one and what won't. Another example, both Mel Brooks commentaries/movies, Spaceballs: boring commentary track, like a voice track for the blind; Young Frankenstein: hilarious, like Armageddon, worth listening to.

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[Gorobei]

Ah, it sounds like you have the Criterion version of the Seven Samurai. Listen to the commentary again: yes, at first, it sounds trivial. Now listen again: body drops into a perfectly framed triangle, deep focus on big sword, rain on the village.

Of course it easy to provide good commentary on a bad film, the great ones (Seven Samurai, Seventh Seal, Dr. Strangelove) have no errors: all you can do is praise the technique.

The Seven Samurai is one of the best movies ever made - could you annotate any scene with more than "this is perfect?"

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[Galvatron]

Sometimes they're really entertaining though. Like for Rush Hour, the director was a total nitwit, so listening to him talk about how people used to play practical jokes on him on the set, but he didn't think they were funny, was a riot.

Also, the best commentary track, hands down: Ghostbusters. Every bit as funny as the movie. Three guys (one was Harold Ramis, don't remember who the other two were), talking MST3K style.

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[instinctdesign]

"could you annotate any scene with more than 'this is perfect?'"

I definitely see your point, and I agree that its probably easier to make a good commentary track for a bad film, yet I would have liked to learned more from the Seven Samurai commentary. Just reading some of the notes over at IMDB on Seven Samurai or the single on Rashomon (which I had been waiting for the Criterion version to be released, haven't had a chance to peruse the special features though), there are all these juicy tidbits that made, what could have been a good film, in to the amazing films we see now.

That said, I'll be going back and listening to the Seven Samurai commentary, its been awhile since I last listened to it and its probably worth another look.

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[prockcore]

Two of the best commentary tracks I've ever heard are vastly different.

The first is Roger Ebert's commentary on Dark City.. he pointed out obscure references, and sounded like he new more about the movie than the director.

The second, is the director's commentary on The Big Hit. It was absolutely hilarious. During that one scene where Marky Mark does a breakdance spin with guns-in-hand, the guy says "a lot of people have told me how stupid it was that Marky Mark is breakdancing here, and how it was completely pointless. Well I don't care. I think it just plain looks cool."

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[migurski]

A lot of awful movies could be salvaged by a good DVD version.

Perfect example: a correctional technical commentary for Hackers. "When evil hacker says 'set your computer to receive a file,' what he really means is..."

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[boopus]

I agree that most of the time I don't care enough about the movie to watch it a seccond time with the comentary tracks, but that's usualy because the comentary tracks aren't worth it.

I disagree with your view that what they should focus on is "ram/os/HD" which is pretty inconsequential a lot of the time. Movies are an artistic vision, not a computaional problem. The matrix is a movie made with "computers" but what's interesting is the entirely new cameras they developed for it, or the hand drawn storyboards that show exactly what scenes ended up looking like.

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[hyrdra]

I agree completely with you. A commentary track is really a brand new medium independent of the quality of the film. Often times I will get a brand new DVD home, having bought it just for the commentary since I have seen the movie and the track just isn't worthy listening to. It really demonstrates not all people are good orators.

My favorite commentary is in the New Line "Lost In Space" movie. Like most movies with a member of the Friends cast, this one sucked big time. When I went to see it at the theater, I walked out about a half hour of the nonsense. Oddly enough, I received the DVD as a gift from a relative and before I tossed it, I thought I would actually watch the entire thing.

It's not the worst film ever, in fact at points it's mildly entertaining. What I found interesting was the technical commentary by the director, art director, CG lead, and a few others who explained just what it took to do all the effects, what the movie was aiming for, etc. All these people in the same room talking about the film, you really get some interesting dynamics.

At one point the writer admitted "Yeah, the script sucks as far as scripts go, but we never said we were doing anything revolutionary -- just entertainment,". This is followed by a speech about the current industry in what is art vs. disposable entertainment.

There is also a quite good basic documentary with appearances by many experts on the science behind the movie (as far as faster than light travel, worm holes, space time, general relativity, etc.). Another feature is a CG documentary which really makes you appreciate things a little bit more and marvel at all the little hacks they had to do to get something silly to work right.

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[Golias]

The reason you can learn almost everything that a commentary track has to offer on IMDB is because a lot of the IMDB "trivia" is contributed by people who got their information from the commentary tracks. Sometimes comments about the movie are word-for-word what the comentator said, but not attributed. In fact, I have lately found it very rare that IMDB has any information which did not come from various special features on the DVD or Laser Disk.

I thought the comentary on Seven Samurai was actually pretty good, although it did take a while for him to really get into it.

For a good commentary of a bad film, I would reccomend the Kevin Smith flop, Mallrats. Smith clearly really loves that movie to this day, but he's brutally honest about some of the things that went wrong with that movie, and as I recall, called it a "1.2 million dollar casting audition for Chasing Amy."

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[Yottabyte84]

Actualy.... Just do one yourself in mp3/ogg and post it on the net to be listened to alongside the movie. You could ethier just correct the inacurecys, or just heckel.

Re:I dunno if the article mentions this

[andy@petdance.com]

Also, the best commentary track, hands down: Ghostbusters. Every bit as funny as the movie. Three guys (one was Harold Ramis, don't remember who the other two were), talking MST3K style.

The audio for This Is Spinal Tap is similarly hilarious, with Nigel, David and Derek commenting on the making of the film and the aftermath of it on their careers.

Directorial Intent

[peripatetic_bum]

I know this aint exactly on the radar of geeks, but the question becomes if comsumers can change the content of the movie, what happens to the Director's Intent. What I mean is we all know of movies that seemed to suck when they first came out, but then everyone finally caught up withe Director's ideas in the movie and becomes a classic.

Will this make Director just slap shit together and tell consumers to maek it better?

What if a Director doesnt want You changeing his movie because he has an exact reason for every scene but you still change it? Are you still watching the same movie the Director made?

Re:Directorial Intent

[Zalgon 26 McGee]

There's much more than the Director - what about the screenwriter? For adaptations, the source material writer? Producers control funding which restricts directors - and some are intimately involved with creating the look of a film.

All this to say: a movie is much more than the product of a mere director.

Re:Directorial Intent

[peripatetic_bum]

You're right, but Im thinking about real Directors, like Kubrick, who knew exactly what they were doing, even if the audience didnt.

Re:Directorial Intent

[bosef1]

I suppose the argument one might make is that most movies today are tripe targeting the lowest denominators, and that the director's intent is something more financial than artistic. Then of course some intelligent person can put a better film together, because the original film wasn't put together well to begin with. It includes all sorts of extra dongles and widgets that were put in to improve the draw of the movie in the theater, or provide a convenient hook for some mass-marketed product later on, not to advance the plot. Our digitally-empowered critic just has to remove all of the stuff that's put in for marketing purposes, and in principle that shouldn't be so hard for anyone with experience in storytelling.

For example, consider the editing process that was applied in "The Phantom Edit". I haven't seen this myself, but from the Salon article someone posted, it sounds like all the editor did was chop out the kiddie stuff (eg: Jar-Jar) and a little of the extranious filler. Not that the kiddie stuff is bad, but it seems that it was put into the movie as a way to lure children to the film, and not to advance the plotline in a meaningful way. It would probably be a lot harder to do the same thing to "A Clockwork Orange" for example, because it probably wasn't designed to be marketed later on (though I suppose a set of Clockwork Orange action figure would be an interesting message to send to your children).

Anyway, I'm probably completely wrong with all of this, but it is late, and I'm not a film critic by any means.

Re:Directorial Intent

[peripatetic_bum]

You know what is interesting aout you reply?

You actually seem to suggest a way to evalute films. :)
What I mean is that you seem to say that we might judge movies, say how good they are, by determing whther one could take scenes out and make it a better movie or not?

ie say in the The Phantom Menace, taking out Jar Jar Binks would make it much more palatable movie, but Try taking something out of ClickWork Orange and you harm the whole film immeasurably.

Re:Directorial Intent

[ttyRazor]

The intent of the writer goes out the window the instant 15 other hacks do gang bang treatments on it. It's a rare movie script that hasn't been touched my more than one person's hands, and rarer still when the others actually get the point of it.

Re:Directorial Intent

[jacobito]

"Director's Intent?" Who cares? Capitalizing the phrase won't make it seem any more important. Why is there this reverence for the supposed genius of the auteur/artist, anyway? I'd say that "Director's Intent" is about as important as "Viewer's Critical Faculty." No, probably less important.

Now go to a bookstore or library and read "Death of the Author."

Re:Directorial Intent

[maxpublic]

Ego. Work in the industry for a bit. It's fueled by two things: ego and greed. Neither will allow producers, directors, writers, or anyone remotely involved in the production to give the go-ahead to fans to re-edit their movies - and perhaps come out with a better product.

Hell, they'd rather see a return to the pre-computer era rather than be shown up by some zit-faced 19-year-old with some spare time and creative capability.

Max

Interesting quote

[Hitch]

Quote:
Those developments, and video on demand in particular, had the potential of endangering the lucrative retail home video market in much the same way that the free downloading of songs eventually hurt the music business.

ah. what I find so weird about this quote is that the ONLY way MP3s have hurt the music industry is by the RIAA's alienation of consumers. I enjoyed the rest of the article, though...

Re:GREAT!

[MaxVlast]

That's ghastly! It's like having a wall of Mona Lisas and passing out sharpies to all of the museum-goers. Do you have no regard for the director and the other creative people who put time and effort into creating something? I'm not talking about dross like the Planet of the Apes here, but can you imagine changing the ending of Citizen Kane so that the [old-ass spoiler warning] sleigh read "Drink Pepsi" instead of "rosebud"? Agh!

How about Corporation sponsored DVD versions....

[efuseekay]

So they can insert their product placements into existing movies viz:

Goon 1 : "Do you know what they call the Whopper in France?"

Goon 2 : "No? What do they call it?"

Goon 1 : "They call it 'Le Whopper'."

Re:GREAT!

[SirRichardPumpaloaf]

If you're only changing your own copy and not affecting anyone else's I don't see what the problem is. Your analogy doesn't hold.

Extra features in DVDs

[rob-fu]

I thought that various movie studios wanted these extras removed because of production costs (although the Warner Bros. spokesperson declined to disclose any information as to what the production costs were).

I think that these ideas are great (i.e. end-user re-editing) but it's all up to the studio as to whether or not we see these features.

Re:Extra features in DVDs

[kdogg765]

Arnold Schwarzenegger got $75,000 to do the audio commentary for the Total Recall "Special Limited Edition" DVD. That kind of exploitation is going to run into a wall sooner or later where the studio is just going to say no. To me, that's a rediculously expensive extra feature. Personally, I don't care much about commentary except by the director.

Re:Extra features in DVDs

[tftp]

Arnold Schwarzenegger got $75,000 to do the audio commentary for the Total Recall "Special Limited Edition" DVD.

Actually, I don't think it is even expensive. He probably had something to say about the movie - it was quite a big one when it was made.

It should be also taken into account that actors are not on monthly salary. They live job to job, if they get the job *and* if they have enough health left to do the job.

Re:Extra features in DVDs

[Paradise Pete]

$75,000 to do the audio commentary for the Total Recall "Special Limited Edition" DVD. That kind of exploitation is going to run into a wall sooner or later

Well, if he got 20 million to do the movie and that took sixty days or so, then $75,000 for the day to do the commentary is a substantial pay cut.

And the studio won't balk at paying 75,000 because having his commentary on it will more than pay for itself in extra sales. It's the kind of thing that gets people who already own the Not-So-Special Not-So-Limited Edition to fork over more dough for this one.

Re:Extra features in DVDs

[Alan Partridge]

is this the same Arnold Schwarzenegger who ran over his own dog in his ludicrous Hmmmm Veeeee? hahahahahahahahaha, I imagine he's got some great insight there for $75K! As stupid as Arnie undoubtedly is, he's not as dumb as anyone who would actually BUY the fucking Total Recall DVD...

Why allude to Phantom Edit in an article about DVD

[joeflies]

when it was a VHS copy that was edited.

Sum of All Fears...

[Maskirovka]

Phil Alden Robinson, director of "Field of Dreams" and the upcoming "The Sum of All Fears,"

Could that be...Sum of All Fears based on Tom Clancy's Sum of All Fears??

Re:Sum of All Fears...

[matt2413]

Sadly, and worse? BEN FUCKING AFLECK is jack ryan. how sad is that?

Re:Sum of All Fears...

[instinctdesign]

Umm... I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not, but I'll assume your not. :) Read more about the film at UpcomingMovies.com, the trailer is also over at Quicktime.com Shockingly enough, it doesn't look like it will be horrible, though I could think of other Clancy books I'd rather see made into movies (Cardinal of the Kremlin for instance, and the new Hunt for Red October thats supposed to be in the works).

Re:Sum of All Fears...

[TaliesinWI]

OK, THIS one slipped beneath my radar...there's a new _Hunt for Red October_ in the works? What exactly was wrong with the old one, other than maybe the synth-heavy musical score? Who's directing, the actors, etc? Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:Sum of All Fears...

[instinctdesign]

Erm, I should have been more specific, sorry. I think its little more than a probable rumor right now, but its a book not a movie, that would be the prequel to Hunt (in that it came before chronologically and stars Jack Ryan). Amazon has a good listing with a description. Ooook, seems the Ruskies are gunning for the Pope in this one. Not to be blunt/crass or anything, but if John Paul II dies in the next year or so, this could have rather bad timing, kinda like if Executive Orders came out last August.

Re:Sum of All Fears...

[kubrick]

I'm waiting for the version for mathophobes, The Fear of All Sums :)

Re:Sum of All Fears...

[big_cat79]

I viewed the trailer, and it appears that they have totally twisted the novel around. Instead of middle-Easter terrorists, they are dealing with Russian terrorists. One of the main points in the novel's plot was the fanaticism of the Arab terrorists. Not to mention Ben Affleck is way to young to play Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford was too old. They should have tried for Alec Baldwin again.

Re:Sum of All Fears...

[kubrick]

Right, time to change the .sig -- you're the third person to ask :)

It was a pisstake of Sun's "dot in .com" advertising, but that's now long-gone.

BTW, I'm the first 4, the other position isn't yet taken :)

Re:GREAT!

[Moridineas]

What an inane comment. Did you bother to read the article OR the post to which you replied??

DVDs of course

[littlerubberfeet]

DVDs lend so many possibilities for extra content. As a person with close connections to the documentry film world, I know that there is a conflict between people wanting 2 hour specials, and people wanting FOX like 15 minute ADHD adapted summaries. The ability to include both is a real opportunity. Since so many people watch DVDs, they can watch what they want. Unfortunatly, people will start coming out with crap made just to fill up the 4.7 gigs of space. So film has found a new media, perhaps we should concentrate on making good use of it, instead of filling it with crap. How long until everyone will get Holiday DVDs with 4 hours a family footage? Sounds like the 7th level to me.

Phantom Menace DVD Edits

[Nathdot]

The article mentioned something about homebrew SW:Ep 1 DVD edits and it got me to thinking:

*If I could use this technology I'd be able to edit out Jake Lloyd from Star Wars. What Glee!

*Oohh! Jar Jar has to go... I shoulda thought of him first.

*Ooohh! And ALL of the freaking gungans!

*And so on...

until it became apparent that my new "movie" was nothing more than Natalie Portman footage and light saber duels.

Alas, who was the cinematic Atlas that put DVD fire in our lowly mortal hands?!

:)

PS. I'm still not totally convinced that my home edit would be worse than SW: Ep 1.

Re:Phantom Menace DVD Edits

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did Atlas give us fire?

If I was prometheus I'd set you on fire.

Re:Phantom Menace DVD Edits

[Galvatron]

Actually, I don't think I'd even eliminate Jar Jar. I think that if I just dubbed him over with, whatever, the Japanese language track, or some other language that I wouldn't understand at all, and subtitled him, he'd be tolerable. I really don't get why every single alien in the original three movies gets subtitled, but in Episode 1, they just speak with stupid accents. Bring back the subtitles, I say!

You know, if someone with computer graphics or modeling talent were to redo the final space battle (without Anakin), we subtitled the aliens, and we cut the fart joke, the picking up apples with one's tongue, and anytime Anakin says "wizard," we could likely end up with a Star Wars movie we could be proud of!

On a side note, where does one FIND this Phantom edit? I've seen plenty of news articles, but no links to the actual thing. Where have people been picking this up from?

Re:Phantom Menace DVD Edits

[WWWWolf]

Actually, I don't think I'd even eliminate Jar Jar. I think that if I just dubbed him over with, whatever, the Japanese language track, or some other language that I wouldn't understand at all, and subtitled him, he'd be tolerable.

Actually, I heard that one of these "phantom edits" left some Jar-Jar in, but added synthetic alien sounds on sound track, and subtitled it with some Deep Wisdom. A relatively easy way to make an annoying character to sound smart =)

Re:Phantom Menace DVD Edits

[Rogerborg]

• until it became apparent that my new "movie" was nothing more than Natalie Portman footage and light saber duels

Hate to burst your bubble, but half of the fondly remembered Natalie scenes were actually Keira Knightley, who also re-dubbed half of Natalie's lines when George realised that the whole thing wasn't confusing enough...

But yeah, the light sabre stuff rocked. At least you could make a decent trailer out of it. ;-)

Re:Phantom Menace DVD Edits

[maxpublic]

Hell, wait until graphics technology advances to the point where you can make believable human-like characters. Then you'll see edits of Natalie doing the wild thing with whoever happens to be playing Anakin in Ep 2.

And *this* will definitely be a better product than anything Lucas has cooked up.... ;-)

Max

Re:GREAT!

[MaxVlast]

You, sir, missed my point. The problem I have is that this approach has the dangerous ability to corrupt the vision and effort of an artist. I have no problem unlocking the visions of others, but when we have everybody thinking that it's "no big thing" to accomplish the same feat as the filmmaker because he really has nothing to do but smudge around what the filmmaker has already done, we quickly descend into inanity.

And there would be more than one Mona Lisa if we had a wall of them.

Re:Why allude to Phantom Edit in an article about

[kwishot]

If you would READ the post.

"They briefly mention the possibilities of end-users being able to re-edit the movie (with a veiled reference to The Phantom Edit) but focus more on the way that it's starting to influence directors and producers during the course of making the movie."

Amazing isn't it

[dustpuppy]

If you run a business and you provide what the customers are asking for, your sales go up and so does your profit!!

Wow - what a concept!!

To bad the movie and music industry still don't understand this.

Re:Amazing isn't it

[halo8]

uhhh... isnt like the DVD industry and the movie idustry like uhh.. one in the same??

Re:Amazing isn't it

[wwwgregcom]

Except when what the customers want is free music, and you sell music.

Sometimes I swear the Slashdot community has gotten so attached to free musice, they convince themselfes of lies.

Re:Amazing isn't it

[swb]

If you run a business and you provide what the customers are asking for, your sales go up and so does your profit!!

But they're following the Microsoft business model -- if you don't give them any choices, you can raise your prices and your profits. I think this most closely fits what the entertainment industry is trying to do.

Multiple Camera Angles

[DeadBugs]

Maybe more standard movies outside the adult film industry will start using this feature. Many movies are filmed using dozens of cameras and then only one shot is used in the movie. I think a lot of people would like to view certain key parts of a movie from diffrent angles (Again standard movies not adult movies)

Re:Multiple Camera Angles

[maxpublic]

Most films use only two cameras, which we can call the 'A' team and the 'B' team. The A team is the most experienced and does the main shot; the B team is less experienced and does the secondary shot.

There's generally also a third team now, in charge of essentially what's a video camera setup (although most often clipped to the A team camera itself). This allows the director to rapidly look at a watered-down version of the primary shot to see if it turned out okay (especially necessary when lighting conditions are uncontrolled).

The only time more than two cameras are at work is during extremely expensive shots, or dangerous stunts. Since it isn't within the budget to do the expensive stuff again, and you don't want to risk your stunt men any more than you have to, at these times other cameras will often be set up in case something goes bad with the A and B teams.

Max

Pr0n

[cscx]

Don't underestimate the contribution the adult film industry has contributed to all sorts of video formats. According to Ron Jeremy, "People in porno have always been the leaders in new eras and new things--on tape, on CD. [...] ...Adult films have always been leading the way when it comes to technology."

Just think. If it wasn't for porno, we might not have the DVD format today. Just like porn was the pioneering format for VHS when it was first introduced. Kinda the reverse of the article's direction when you think about it... porn has probably had more of an impact on video formats than video formats have had on the film industry.

Re:Pr0n

[k_187]

of course, this was also the porn industry that was throwing its weight behind Divx (circut city). If memory serves there was a /. article about it, but I'm too lazy to look for it.

Re:Pr0n

[EvilBuu]

Ironic that most of the porn you can get right now for free, in the illegal, usenet and filesharing way, is in Divx ;) or Divx4/5 encoded AVIs. I wonder if the adult film industry will ever side with the MPAA to cut down on its "losses" due to all the avis running around.

Of course there's always the one nimrod that encodes The Uranus Experiment in windows media 8. Ah well....

Re:Pr0n

[Daengbo]

Ron Jeremy...? Good Choice! Quote the guy who sucks his own dick. If that's not credibility...

A project is never finished...

[Mumble01]

On the downside, DVDs allow perfectionist filmmakers the opportunity to keep tinkering with their creation, adding things here and deleting things there. I wouldn't be surprised if a filmmaker has already decided to shoot brand new extra footage exclusively for the DVD as a way to boost sales.

Director's comments

[miahrogers]

I think one of the greatest things about dvds is that the director can show you multiple ways to watch the same movie. Once you're done with a movie, if you really like it, you can listen to the director talk about how he made it. I did this for American Beauty.

Also more directors are able to put out the movie in wide screen, and I'm sure they love that. It's much more similar to the actual way we view things, and the film doesn't have to be "modified the film to fit your screen".

Anyways. Hooray for DVD.

Memento edit!

[Nathdot]

I'm gonna edit the Memento DVD so that it plays in correct chronological order and my idiot roommate can work out just what the fuck is going on!

ROOMMATE
(perplexed)
My head hurts! What just happened then??? Who's John G? What the?! Who the?!

ME
Here you go somewhere else and watch THIS version! Away with you!

:)

Re:Memento edit!

[Masem]

I've heard that the R2 (or R4?) version of Memento does have an alternate chapter ordering as to run through the main plot in order (starting with the B&W calls in the hotel room, ending with the death of Teddy). Sure, it wrecks the way the narration and discussion of the problem and how it's built into Leonard's discoveries in the reverse order, and some of the revelations made in the movie (how not only were others using Leonard but he himself was), but there are thsoe that might want to see it that way to figure it out. And it wouldn't have taken up that much space on the current disc, so I'm surprised it's in an R2 edit but not R1.

Re:Memento edit!

[instinctdesign]

Its not that hard, pretty much the sequence of events goes backwords... well, save some parts, and the action in each scene which goes in a linear fashion throughout the narrative that... erm, ow... /me grabs head in pain

Re:Memento edit!

[sulli]

I have the R1 dvd and it does NOT have this feature - it's moronic really that it doesn't - but of course you can always watch the scenes in reverse order by hand.

Re:Memento edit!

[ratguy]

There is a Memento Special Edition coming out soon, and the rumor is that the chronological order edit will be included as an easter egg. The source of this rumor is DVDTalk

Re:Memento edit!

[iainl]

Thats because you have the US R1 disc (its overall better, however, due to superior picture and some good extras) rather than the Canadian disc, which does have its chapter stops in the correct places to do this with.

Re:Memento edit!

[jagripino]

It's actually in the R4 version released in Brazil (and possibly in Australia as well), I found it to be mostly useless, unless you have a dumb roommate. Which I don't.

Re:Memento edit!

[JArneaud]

I thought that it was pretty easy to follow... as long as you concentrate. The sections in colour are going backwards in time, the sections in black & white are going forwards. They then meet [chronologically] at the end of the film (which is actually half-way, time-wise, through the series of events depicted by the movie).

OK, yeah, it is a bit confusing, but a pretty good movie anyway.

Big Deal

[Dr. Spork]

It seems to me that these interactive features are there to apologize for how terrible most movies are these days. It's like the studios are saying "sure, our directors and scriptwriters suck shit, but hey, you can "re-edit" the movie yourself and make it suck less." Pretty soon, movies will be so "interactive" that we will just periodically mail $10 to the MPAA, get some cameras and friends, film some footage, and edit it to our liking.

But seriously, I am happy that LOTR-FOTR is being released in a four-hour version. I really like the idea of DVD-directors cuts. I'm pretty confident FOTR would have made a lot more money if it had only been 2 hours long, because it could be shown five times a day per screen, rather than three. There is a lot of pressure on studios to avoid long movies. They want people to pay and free their seats as fast as possible. DVD releases are not under that same pressure, so I think we will see more "unshortened" versions of movies.

I hope that enough people buy the FOTR DVD for the extra footage that movie studios actually learn to always shoot extra scences (character-development, background explanations, and cheap stuff like that) that don't appear in the theater release, but show up on the DVD to drive up sales/rentals for people who loved the movie in the theater and want to see more. FOTR is one movie that definitely needs another hour or so to make it seem less rushed.

Re:Big Deal

[AaronMB]

> I'm pretty confident FOTR would have made a lot more money if it had only been 2 hours long, because it could be shown five times a day per screen, rather than three.

Actually, the only thing that would have boosted all that much was first weekend sales(which in this stupid industry are a big deal :-P). More or less(probably slightly more) the same amount of people would have gone to see the movie itself, but they would have seen it on the opening weekend, or the weekend after that. The more times a movie gets played on opening weekend, the faster its sales fall off. As an example, Austin Powers 2 which was like 1:30 long, had(at my rinky-dink theatre) 5 showings a day on 2 screens. Suffice it to say, after the first 30 showings of opening weekend, most people who were going to see it saw it. The weekend immediately after, sales were not even 1/4 of what they were opening weekend, and the weekend after that were even more bleak. So in the end, FOTR probably would not have made much more money, it would have just made the same amount alot faster...

Re:Big Deal

[Ryan Amos]

Well, FOTR also had a lot more going on than they could possibly show on screen. Keep in mind that it's based on a very well-known and loved book, and Peter Jackson was very faithful to the book. They probably filmed a lot more than ended up in the final movie, just because there was so much material to work with. They just had to choose what condensed down to a reasonably long movie while still remaining faithful to the original story and vision of the movie.

LOTR will suffer a lot of time-based editing, where the scenes are great and would add a lot to the movie, except they just don't have the screen time to use. I heard (don't quote me on this, I may be remembering incorrectly) that only about half of the scenes they shot for the LOTR movies will actually make it to the screen. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a 15 hour long LOTR DVD box set 3 years from now. The studio knows these movies deserve that kind of treatment (not to mention they'd be ecstatic to sell it to us again ;) so I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch (especially with so much quality footage ending up on the cutting room floor in the interest of time.) I know I'll buy it, along with the majority of the rest of you. : )

Re:Big Deal

[Dr. Spork]

You're probably right to some extent, but I think FOTR sold out on a lot of screens during its first two weeks out. If it had been shorter, theaters would have been able to handle a larger volume of people. I think many people just see a different movie when they are told that what they wanted to see sold out, and may never get around to seeing what they had come to see. Come to think of it, this probably does't add up to a very large number.

However, there's also the matter that theaters prefer playing shorter movies, other things being equal, because they just get to sell more tickets per day. That may have contributed to some early removals of FOTR from some theaters. Two half-full screenings of some crappy 90 minute film will make more money for a theater than one nearly packed showing of FOTR, and for this reason, I wouldn't be surprised if many theaters ended their run of FOTR while there was still a fairly high demand to see it.

I'm not saying that FOTR should have been shorter; I think just the opposite. I expect it would have been a better film if it had been 90 minutes longer. It's just that at a certain point, every 10 minutes of length will cost a film quite a bit of box office money, and even directors with integrity quicly reach their limit.

I'm just happy there are no similar constraints with the DVD release. In fact, I think that with DVDs there is a market incentive to make it longer. Great! Hooray for DVD! (Of course, if this becomes the rule, people might start treating the screen versions as merely butchered cuts, and wait for the DVD. That would be funny! But I'm not too worried...)

Re:Big Deal

[nick-less]

They probably filmed a lot more than ended up in the final movie, just because there was so much material to work with.

I recently saw an interview with a director stateing that normally they have around 75 hours of film material (includeing different takes of the same scene) - that is more than enough for more than one spezial edition

Re:Big Deal

[squaretorus]

Producers are on to the fact that people are willing to pay more for outtakes, missing scenes, etc...

Personally, a movie is a movie. If something didn't make it into the film then who needs it. If I trust the director enough to donate some cash and an evening of my time to his control - who am I to say I need the power to add extra scenes and stuff.

And whats the best way to make the DVD sell more? "The scenes that couldn't make it into the theatre! All the chicks get NAKED!". So when your filming you just make sure that some crappy little scene thats a million miles from the plot has the leading lady flashing her ass. Cut it from the theatre release, 'leak' some crappy stills to some fan sites to hype up expectation, release the DVD without it, then release the widescreen or directors cut DVD which costs 40% more than the first version and has a bit of 'collectable' cardboard inside. Instantly you sell an additional 50%!

Re:Big Deal

[Surak]

But seriously, I am happy that LOTR-FOTR is being released in a four-hour version. I really like the idea of DVD-directors cuts. I'm pretty confident FOTR would have made a lot more money if it had only been 2 hours long, because it could be shown five times a day per screen, rather than three. There is a lot of pressure on studios to avoid long movies. They want people to pay and free their seats as fast as possible. DVD releases are not under that same pressure, so I think we will see more "unshortened" versions of movies.


As you pointed out, DVD releases aren't under the same pressure. The bulk of the money being made from movies is no longer ticket sales. It's video sales (VHS and DVD) and merchandising (get your Frodo Baggins(TM) Action Figure (TM) Today! Only from Hasbro(R)!) that make the big $$$ today, especially for high-budget summer blockbusters like LOTR: FOTR.

Re:Big Deal

[minghe]

"There is a lot of pressure on studios to avoid long movies."

Well, I think that there is a simple solution. Pay for what you buy. For a long movie, more more. For a short movie, pay less. What I actually do is rent a seat to place my ass in for an hour or three. The location of the seat is what makes it expensive, due to the interresting view. :) Also, I think I should be able to pay more to get seats with a better view.

To pay the same for 1.5 hours as for 3, aswell as paying full price for the crappiest seats, is just plain stupid.

Re:Big Deal

[Asprin]

Only from Hasbro(R)!) that make the big $$$ today, especially for high-budget summer blockbusters like LOTR: FOTR.

So the 'summer season' has been extended into November? That's one way to boost sales! [grin]

Re:Big Deal

[Kallahar]

A good counterpoint would be the movie The Abyss (james cameron). In the theater release, it was just a fun movie that lacked any deep meaning. In the directors cut, 45 minutes of philosophical stuff was put back in which utterly changed the plot of the movie. In this case, the studios forced the director to remove all that because it wasn't as marketable in the theaters.

So, remember that the theater version is designed to make as much money in the opening weekend as possible, which means that it's the studios calling the shots, not the director.

Re:Big Deal

[Surak]

Errmm... Holiday Blockbusters.... Sorry. :(

Phantom Edit 2001

[Rufus211]

According to the phantom edit forum (only thing I can get to right now, the site is down for "6 hours" right now) a new 2001 aka DC version (what's with the city names?) has been released. One person provided an ftp to download it from, but the ftp is dead. As someone who is just now hearing about this for the first time (and has too many SW-obsessed fans for friends) I'd be *very* interested in seeing this, or really any of the 3 (LA, NY, or DC) versions. Anyone out there have a mirror of any of them on a descent connection and be willing to share with the community or know of someplace we can get this from?

Re:GREAT!

[Enonu]

The replies so far to parent reply have missed the point MaxVlast tried to make. MaxVlast is not making the flawed analogy by equating copies of the Mona Lisa to the original itself. What is doing is stating the following *opinion*:

On an artistic level, it is disrespectful to the original artist to alter his or her work to better suit your taste.

For example, let's take a print of the Mona Lisa, remove the smile, and put in a frown. Da Vinci would be rolling in his grave. (I wonder if I'll get a reply stating that dead people can't roll around).

However, in my opinion, I see one exception. If the original intent of the artistic piece is still perserved, and the alteration is for a good purpose, then I don't see a real problem. A father taking out a few nude scenes in an otherwise family film is fine with this in consideration.

so much for the final cut

[kdogg765]

I for one think that this phenomenon is opening new possibilities for the filmmakers to tell their story. A director might be able to include on a DVD the version he or she wanted to create but could not do so within the confines of the major studios. The final cut is no longer the final cut.
However, I don't think that having the ability to "interactively" select a film rating is a good idea. The ratings system has already done much to stifle films tackling serious subjects. The NC-17 rating is a financial kiss of death. (perhaps not that extreme, but close). I fear that people would self-censor themselves in some kind of denial that serious subjects and issues and violence exist. Whenever I see a movie that has been censored, time compressed, cropped and edited for the masses on a television I am saddened that I am not seeing the whole movie the way it was supposed to be, and thus may not be getting the messages at all that the film was meant to convey but did not due to the cuts.
As high quality digital tools become available at lower and lower prices, the democratization of the filmmaking process will be interesting to watch to see what happens. DVD at least offers a way for the stories to be retold or restored to the way they were intended. I hope that trend will continue. Please no more censorship, we have enough already.

let me clarify.

[dustpuppy]

yes - but in the article (you did read the article right? :-), it mentions that DVDs were introduced only for the movie industry to get more money from a saturated VHS market.

And then when DVD sales rocketed, it took the movie industry by surprise.

So my point is that the movie industry still hasn't figured out that giving consumers what they want increases sales.

uh, sure

[joenobody]

Watch a source invalidate himself: "Do you realize that in all of science-fiction literature they never predicted digital technology and how it would change our lives and our art?"

Yeah, I mean, it's not like William Gibson, Neal Stephenson or John Brunner wrote about digital technology. No, they just wrote about... er, computers changing society.

Re:uh, sure

[FreeUser]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like William Gibson, Neal Stephenson or John Brunner wrote about digital technology. No, they just wrote about... er, computers changing society.

Or Star Trek for that matter ... or 2001 a space oddyssee ... or,

Oh wait, he means the Luddite inspired tripe Hollywood thinks of as Sci Fi. He's right, Hollywood Sci Fi isn't in a position to predict the Microwave prior to its being on the market and demanding some product placement, much less something as significant as computers and the internet.

Which is why those of us who are true Sci Fi fans have such disdain for the dreck Hollywood markets and labels as such. When I see Greg Egan's "Diaspora" in an unadulterated film format, maybe I'll gain some shred of respect for the media moghuls. In the meantime, most of 'em wouldn't know SciFi if it kicked them in the face.

Re:uh, sure

[p3d0]

Yeah, but these guys were, what, 5 years ahead of the curve? It's not like they invented the helicopter 500 years ago. People like Arthur C Clarke were decades ahead of their time in (seemingly) all areas except computers.

Re:uh, sure

[Jerf]

Time is accelerating. Being a year ahead of the curve is worth more then it used to be. Read Vinge, and check the date. Neuromancer is, IIRC, early 80's, still hasn't happened yet, still largely plausible, still at least 10 years away. Sci-fi was computer ignorant in the 50's, but since at least the 80's has caught up with the idea of exponential projection, and is predicting away with its usualy single-digit percentage accuracy. ;-) (Better then most branches of lit.)

Re:uh, sure

[avsed]

"Diaspora" in film? Not in a million years - too deep a storyline, ultra-tech so way beyond our current level that there are few recognisably human characters, n-dimensional realities, and self re-engineering. It's one of my favorite books, but I can't even imagine it in film. As I discovered as a kid in drama class - some stories are meant to stay on paper ...

Dan

Re:uh, sure

[p3d0]

Ok, I guess you're right. The main thing is that it seemed sci fi writers didn't predict the exponential miniturization and performance curves before they had already started to happen.

Re:uh, sure

[Jerf]

Definately.

One of my favorite anachronistic reads is Starman Jones, by Heinlein. It's one of his "kiddie" books, in which a kid manages to bamboozle his away aboard an FTL starship, which is a wonderful large thing with dance floors. It's a routine trip; star travel is no big deal, at least among the rich. And one of the primay jobs on the ship is to read the blinking lights while the computers spell out in binary when to jump, where they are, etc. And the main input is via a bank of switches, IIRC. Horribly, horribly dated! ;-)

My (stalled) project

[swillden]

THis would help in editing the bad content of movies (cursing, nudity, etc.) and making some movies out there viewable for the whole family. I like this and hope to see this soon.

I've been thinking about and half-heartedly working on this idea for quite some time.

What I'm working on is taking an open-source DVD player (I picked Xine, but I'm questioning the wisdom of that decision) and hacking on-the-fly editing capabilities into it.

The basic idea is that for a given DVD, a person can go through the movie and carefully "mark it up", generating a file that annotates all of the portions of the video and audio tracks that are potentially offensive, tagging each one with descriptive information including the nature of the material, relevance to the plot, etc. Then, an individual can create a personalized "viewing stylesheet" that specifies how he or she would like kind of offensive material to be handled. Obviously, some default stylesheets could be provided as well. The markup and stylesheet languages will both be extensible, (so you can add the "Jar Jar tag"), and you should be able to edit pretty much anything that's marked up in any way you want. A buddy of mine wants to make himself a stylesheet that will show *only* the offensive parts ;-)

Then, of course, when you play a DVD on my hacked-up player, it would look up the markup file and use that and your personal viewing stylesheet to automatically edit the movie.

I think it would also be cool to provide another sort of editscript that allows more sequential editing, rather than a rule-based system, so that you could do more "artistic" edits, grabbing snippets of video and audio from various places and maybe mixing them with your own. That's not my major interest, though, mainly since such edits probably wouldn't be done 'on the fly' anyway.

The project has been languishing for a few months, though. The Xine support for playing DVDs is quite rough and doesn't seem to be improving quickly. The Xine developers had been talking about a 1.0 release in December, but it hasn't happened yet, AFAIK (haven't checked for a while). Actually it's the dvdnav plugin (which supports menus and such) that has been really lagging, and the regular DVD plugin doesn't support encrypted DVDs, which makes testing difficult, since I don't have any unencrypted DVDs.

What I have done is implemented various edits (masking blocks of the image, skipping short scenes [long skips are much harder; seeking doesn't work in dvdnav yet], muting the sound and substituting alternative snippets of audio, altering subtitles, etc.) to verify that it can be done easily. I have also found what I believe is the best way to insert the editing stuff architecturally; as part of a general filter plugin architecture. I've also begun to define the markup and stylesheet languages (both in XML).

I've mostly been waiting on Xine, though. Just recently I've gotten tired of that and I've started looking into some of the other options. Ogle, VLC and gstreamer are three I'm considering.

If anyone knows of other players I should look into, or has any interest in helping me with the code, drop me a line.

Re:My (stalled) project

[slamb]

I think it would also be cool to provide another sort of editscript that allows more sequential editing, rather than a rule-based system, so that you could do more "artistic" edits, grabbing snippets of video and audio from various places and maybe mixing them with your own. That's not my major interest, though, mainly since such edits probably wouldn't be done 'on the fly' anyway.

I think that would be really great for stuff like The Phantom Edit. LucasFilm's objection to it is that their material is being passed around unauthorized. Something like this would allow you to basically distribute The Phantom Edit as a patch to the official movie. So in this format, people who have purchased the original can watch it and others can not. There's a clearer distinction between pirates and fans doing things like this. As a bonus, it'd take up a negligible amount of disk space and would be easier to re-re-edit.

Re:My (stalled) project

[Saeger]

For me to interested in such a hack, there would have to be a way to apply video overlays.

While there's many uses for such a thing (including inserting MORE ads), I'd be using anti-product-placement DVD "patches" like there was no tomorrow. For example, Cast Away would be much more bearable to watch, IMO, if every attempt to beam the FedEx brand into my brain magically became the generic ACME brand; I can deal with ACME. :)

More generally, I'd want this functionality in a networked PVR such that live TV could be buffered for the 30 minutes or so it took for a trusted-network-of-distributed-johnny-rebels to "whitewash" the annoying digitally inserted advertisements out of baseball games, and off the pavement in Nascar races, etc. (not that I watch Nascar cars go round-dee-round.. ahem.)

Anyway, since there's valid uses for this kind of thing -- just like there is for a 30-second skip button -- I don't see why it couldn't make into mainstream PVR's like a 3rd(?) generation Tivo.

--

Re:My (stalled) project

[Harbinjer]

This seems like a really great Idea, I mean there are so many movies that are barely worth watching that could become decent. While this could be great for making PG-13 cuts of R movies, I think I might be much better to cut scenes and story parts to just make the moveis plain better.

there many movies that could benefit greatly from editting and even a few that could go from garbage to awesome, just from story editting.

my big gripe with movies today is the writing, they start out as a bad story, e.g. Star Wars Epsode I, and no amount of superb acting, speciel effects, or cinamatography, short of a story rewrite can save such film from mediocrity.

Re:My (stalled) project

[swillden]

I think this is a terrible idea. The "bad content" of movies are, 99% of the time, important to the plot.

My experience is completely opposite. 99% of the language, nudity and gore is completely irrelevant to the plot. It's so blatant that I frequently think they finish up a movie, look at the result and say "Damn! That's gonna be PG! We need to spice it up a little so that it will sell. Gotta get a PG-13 rating at the least, better yet an R." That, plus I think some directors get their jollies by making pretty young actresses strip for them on-set.

However, I do think that some "objectionable" material is important to the plot, which is why I want to tag possibly-offensive material with plot relevance descriptors. For example, if you dislike nudity, chances are you do not find offensive the scenes of the naked Jews running for their lives in "Schindler's List". More precisely, you probably find them extremely offensive and horrifying, but that's not only important to the movie, it's the *main point* of the movie. The scene where Schindler has sex with one of his workers is also important to the movie (though less), but the nudity there is not.

Re:My (stalled) project

[libertynews]

This is a great idea (not only because I too have been thinking about this). The PC provides a great way to allow users to 'mask' the playback so that, for example, they can let their kids watch a pretty good movie like Doc Hollywood and edit out the totally unneeded nude scene at the start.

If Hollywood were smart they would be releasing multiple ratings on DVD. Just like selecting sub-titles or commentary you could select the PG, PG-13, R or NR version of the movie. You could go so far as to have user ids in the DVD player so that your kids are locked from seeing the R rated version.

This is an idea that consumers would buy.

Brian

Re:My (stalled) project

[swillden]

If Hollywood were smart they would be releasing multiple ratings on DVD. Just like selecting sub-titles or commentary you could select the PG, PG-13, R or NR version of the movie... This is an idea that consumers would buy.

I agree completely, and when the DVD buzz first started, this was one of the features that they talked up.

What has puzzled me for a long time is the question of why the studios don't release edited versions. They allow their movies to be edited for the airlines, or for TV, but they won't sell cleaned-up copies to the public. Why is that? Some of my more radical acquaintances are convinced it's because the movie studio execs are minions of Satan and are busily trying to desensitize us to all sorts of evil. I'm not... err... completely satisfied by that explanation.

Another common explanation is that they just don't want to deal with the hassle of managing multiple inventories of the same film, but that doesn't really hold water. How many popular films are there for which you can get the original version, the extended version, the director's cut, etc., in addition to versions on different media, with different bonus materials, deluxe copies, boxed sets, etc. Also, DVD clearly allows them to offer multiple edits while distributing only one disk.

My current thinking is that its directors who don't want people to mess with their "artistic vision" (at least not any more than the studio execs already have). The studios like to keep these people happy, and they don't see huge profit potential in releasing edited versions (I happen to think they're mistaken, but I could be the one that's wrong) so they choose not to irritate the 'talent'. Where they do see large additional profits (airlines and TV), they release edited versions without hesitation.

I've talked with a friend of mine (actually the guy who gave me the idea in the first place) about whether or not we could commercialize this idea, and it's possible, and we might even try it. At the very least, though, I hope that if the studios can see that an open source implementation is popular and that it encourages a few people to buy movies who otherwise wouldn't, then they'll eventually start supporting the idea themselves.

Re:My (stalled) project

[libertynews]

You may have problems trying to commercialize it, but it sure would be fun! They'll probably start lobbying congress to make software DVD players illegal because you can 'edit' their movies :>

Now if I someone would donate a DVD player I'd be glad to join the project.

Brian

Re:My (stalled) project

[swillden]

Brian,

If you're really interested in helping, and if you have the required skills and time, send me e-mail and we might be able to arrange a way for you to get past the lack of a DVD-ROM drive.

Re:GREAT!

[pben]

Can it really be the view of an artist if it takes a crew of 250 and 100 million dollars to make? Who is the artist? The writer, the director, the actor, the editor, or the money man? Movies are industral scale entertainment, if there is art in there it must have slipped in by accident.

Re: When that day Happens

[halo8]

So my point is that the movie industry still hasn't figured out that giving consumers what they want increases sales

"The Olsen Twins.. Grown up.. and XXX-RATED"

Its changed FOR THE WORSE

[halo8]

DVD Format Changing Movie-making

Its changed the Movie Buying experiance all right.

THEN: I just went to blockbuster and grabbed a movie on VHS and bought it.

NOW: go on internet.. search sites.. Collecters Edition has X amount of footage, Directors Cut has Y amount of Footage and comments. the SuperBit version has Better footage but no Z and no Y. and of course finding a review that says EXACTLY what one has over the other is hard to find.
and obvisoly i go to the store and they dont have that version i wanted.

Re:Its changed FOR THE WORSE

[EddydaSquige]

It does seem to be getting a little greedy out there in DVD market land. My personal biggest gripe is with the Superbit editions. They're pretty much worthless and they charge you more for them. The extra resolution that you get on them is more than a normal tv, so no added benefit there, and still not close to the res of HDTV. They do look a little better on a computer screen, but not $10 worth. I'd like to see 'budget' versions that just have the movie like the VHS copies do, I almost never look at the extra stuff and I'm certainly not going to sit through a whole movie listening to an alternate track where the director bables on about how the cater was late that day.

Copy Protection by Staying Too Big To Copy

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Hmmm. RIAA is currently unhappy that digital technology
(particularly broadband and P2P software) will soon make
it feasible to copy and download movies.

Solution: keep expanding the content of a typical movie
so the average viewer feels it's cheaper and easier to
just go buy it, rather than spend 10 hours downloading.
To quote an old MTV ad, "Too much is never enough".

So, a typical "movie" in 2010 might include 32 different
camera angle choices for each scene, dubs for most major
languages spoken on earth (complete with CG airbrushing
to resync the actors lips), etc. etc. etc.

>;K

Digital Controls

[jchawk]

From the article:

"Sales of DVDs last year reached $4.6 billion, 21/2 times their 2000 revenue, according to the L.A.-based DVD Entertainment Group, a consortium of the major studios and distributors."

Isn't this just another reason why we don't need digital controls on hardware and yet another reason why we don't need the sssca?

- I think so.

Interesting

[jchawk]

From the article:

"New low-cost digital technology gives enthusiasts the chance to be desktop filmmakers, shooting new footage and combining it with existing movies. While DVDs are encoded to safeguard against piracy and copying, and the studios vigorously pursue civil and criminal proceedings against people they catch, more sophisticated computer users still find ways around that. With DVD-writing software, and illegal but fairly easy to find encryption decoders, not only can adventurous viewers reedit movies like "Star Wars" on their computers--removing "characters from a movie that they don't like," as Coppola suggests--but there's the possibility of creating entirely new movies from existing ones."

Couple interesting things here. In this article we are not criminals, we are sophisticated computer users.

And number two, it seems to me that there is support for this behavior by the directors of these films.

Maybe they realize that this is not a crime, it is simply our fair use right when we buy the dvd.

- Just my 2 cents.

Re:Interesting

[i_am_nitrogen]

Well, you know what? "Fair use" is two words. Grammar -- it's the single most misused facet of the English language on Slashdot. Also, if the Utah (US?) Supreme Court decided it's legal for a company to edit your movies for you, then it's certainly legal to edit them yourself. Who says your archival copies can't be modified? While the fair use doctrine doesn't specifically provide for the ability to modify content, it could be interpreted to imply it to some extent, and nowhere is it prohibited. Distribution to those who don't own a copy already is what is (and should be) disallowed.

Memento

[CaptCanuk]

I could be the first person (legally) to cut up Memento and put it reverse order so the story makes sense from the beginning thereby wrecking the novelty of the twisted ending.

to-en-Mem

Re:Memento

[SuiteSisterMary]

I believe that there IS an option (possibly an easter egg) on the DVD to play the scenes in chronological order.

Re:Memento

[0xB]

There definitely is in Nolan's earlier film, "Following".

Re:Memento

[prockcore]

I wouldn't be suprised to see a version of Memento that does exactly that.

Christofer Nolan (writer/director of Memento) had an earlier film called Following. It was told in a similar way, (only slightly more complicated, it cycled between 2 different spots on the timeline. So the first scene was from the middle of the movie, the second scene was from the beginning, the third was just after the middle.. etc).

The DVD of Following has the option to play the scenes in-order. I'm guessing they're seeing how people take it before using that feature on his "big" film.

Why I buy DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

The article went a bit too far in casting DVDs as a heroic art form. What was most irksome was it failed to mention the single biggest reason I was an early adopter of the DVD format. Yes, the directors' commentaries are fascinating. Yes, the deleted scenes, making-of documentaries, bios, trailers, and other assorted doo-dads are keen. Yes, the improved picture and sound quality are wonderful. However, even if DVDs were missing all that, I would still be buying them at a voracious rate for one simple reason -- they don't degrade.

The back end of my twenty year old VHS collection is crumbling away. In another twenty years the front half will be gone too. But in 100 years all my DVDs will play with the same quality they do today. You never really own a VHS tape. You're renting it from a decaying universe, and every 15 or 20 years you have to make the rent payment again or you lose your lease.

Re:Why I buy DVDs

[bitrate]

I'm inclined to agree.

I'm a former VHS collector turned DVD collector now, and I have over 200 VHS tapes that are crumbling away into nothing as the years (not many) slip away since I've purchased them.

However, I have over 100 DVDs now (and purchased that number in the last two years) and each and every one is just as pristine and enjoyable as the minute I brought it home.

VHS stretches over time and quality degrades to the point where a movie is no longer even enjoyable (at least, once you've seen the DVD of it, the VHS version is sub-par). As well, the MPAA trying to squeeze every last dollar out of VHS consumers by tacking on extra footage and other stuff at the END of the tapes, so you have to fast forward to the end. I think one of the other main selling points for DVD was the instant chapter access.

How many times have you wanted to see one part of a film and couldn't remember the exact HH:MM:SS of the spot? It will only get better with director edited cuts on DVD too (perhaps even a guide that shows certain extra things you might not notice on the disc - but with timecodes so you can actually LOOK for yourself)

Bravo to those who have championed DVD in the past and who will in the future - just make the next format's player backwards compatible - or I'm going to be really pissed.

Re:Why I buy DVDs

[Brendor]

This is a problem I've recently started to conquer in my own life as well. The oldest tapes that are important to me are 21 years old. Sony says:Don't expect your professional- grade tapes to last more than 20 years.

Cost of a propietary DVD authoring studio with UNIX underpinnings:
$3200

Watching my long passed great grandfather hold me as an infant:
$ Priceless

This is their idea of 'interactivity'?

[ikekrull]

Man, the film industry is going to get *killed* by the games industry in a few years, and it seems they don't see it coming.

Seriously, 'interactivity' is not about downloading a flick and laboriously re-editing it (a process of questionable legality in the curent political climate), it's about the viewer/audience being able to influence the content at 'run-time'.

DVD offers minimal interactivity, and everyone who has ever tried to 'interact' with a DVD knows this.

The moviemakers are just trying to talk up their pathetic 'interactivity' to make it seem like they aren't still just rehashing the same old shit and ripping off the viewing public over and over again.

Fascinating Rhythm MisStep

[Quirk]

The underlying force to storytelling is pace. The rhythm of storytelling can perhaps adequately be referrenced by Ezra Pound's injunction that music must never stray far from the dance and storytelling (poetry) must never stray far from music. Film as we experience it in a moviehouse demands suspension of belief while the storyline carries us along. Those of us who have difficulty relinquishing the critical faculty perhaps best enjoy the polished gems extracted from the narrative stream which all too often demands too much naivety especially as the neverending story flags after viewers attain an adequate understanding of their culture (such as the western civilization's troubadour traditon of courtly love and trial by ordeal or contest). Is it possible that the DVD experience will disenfranchise movie makers as viewers are able to revisit the storyline at will and learn the tricks of the trade to the extent that only the special effects gems and big punch of the climax is culled from the 'usual filler' that serves only to set the tempo for the storyline? Will pushing so much of the film maker's technique into the public in the hope of wringing the last bit of revenue prove to be a misstep, or, will it up the ante and provide the impetus to break free from the traditional storylines of our culture and provide film makers an opportunity to educate a new audience?

Just a thought. To hold the mirror up to the nature of our culture... but now I have to go listen to my fav two hours of radio drama shows from the 40s and 50s

:)

Wrong.

[bnavarro]

The DIVX goons specifically did NOT allow porn, softcore or hardcore, on their format. In the post mortum analysis that followed, I remember that this prohibition was compared to a lack of porn (I don't know if it was actively blocked or not) on the Betamax format. Most people tend to believe that blocking porn was one (of many) reasons why DIVX failed.

On the other hand, the porn industry threw their support completely behind Open DVD (just like they did for VHS), and you can see where the state of things are today... :-)

Riding the Torch (slightly OT)

[MaxQuordlepleen]

just picking a nit, but someone interviewed the article mentions that "nowhere in SF was digital technology's impact predicted"

Spinrad's "riding the torch" comes pretty close in my opinion, and it's from the early 70s. I first read it in the mid '90s, and my immediate thought was, "groovy, he's talking about the internet."

Of course, in the 80s a great deal of people starting thinking about digital communication & media, not least of which was Gibson...

Re:Riding the Torch (slightly OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

Spinrad's "riding the torch" comes pretty close in my opinion

Michaelmas, by A.J. Budrys, also touched on a few points.

remember what your mom told you about assuming?

[ebbv]

i won't go into details, you can find them out by doing a google search but while it is possible it is not nearly as easy to copy a DVD, especially if you want a true duplication of the original disc.

Who cares about editing films?

[xelph]

And what about letting Joe Blow edit other works of art too, like the Mona Lisa maybe? Really, who wants to edit a film except a film student, for experimental purposes? Yet another great idea doomed to failure. Someone, once again, should be fired...

Re:GREAT!

[cpt kangarooski]

You've never seen the painting L.H.O.O.Q. by Marcel Duchamps, have you? I'd suggest checking it out.

There is of course, NOTHING wrong altering a creative work, insofar as the original is left untouched. Indeed, it is a lovely opportunity to create more art -- art which is a reaction to the original. Or an improvement. Or using it as raw material for satire, parody, or wholly different creative works, e.g. via sampling.

A person who does so probably has great regard for the original creator. After all, they like the work enough to want to put time and effort into revising it, and you don't do that for crap.

But in doing so, they're creating MORE art. Art is a living thing; it doesn't just belong on the wall of a museum, static and untouched.

Re:GREAT!

[tftp]

On an artistic level, it is disrespectful to the original artist to alter his or her work to better suit your taste.

In arts, new is usually based on old. A new dance is a variation of old dance; a new song borrows something from the old one; a new movie relies upon somebody's else plot, and so on. It is normal, it is expected, and that's how arts progress. In music, for example, a special name - potpourri - is used for new compositions that mostly consist of old, well known pieces, put together into one new work of art. In movies, the name remake is used for a movie that uses the same plot as the older, known movie, but adds something new (like better acting, better effects, better scripts etc. - or nothing at all :-)

Of course, the original author might think that the derived art is not as good as his own original work. Beethoven, for example, would wince hearing a techno remix of his 5th Symphony - well, too bad, he can't stop people from listening if they like the new piece.

Now if I can only get...

[Technician]

The original.

Too many movies are chopped and edited for home release. I liked Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I loved the tearing up of the garden. The obsession of enhancing the train layout is missing. The finished hill looks nice and all, but they needed to keep in driving the wife crazy getting all that dirt into the living room. Too bad they chopped it up for home release to add the extra footage at the end.

Disney is doing this way too much. I loved the scene in Pete's Dragon with the song Candle on the Water sung at the top of the lighthouse. Don't look for it in the home tape version, it was chopped. They cut the beautiful sensitive moment. I think the song ran in the closing credits, not in the movie. Some Disney movies are even released with a new title for home release. The Unidentified flying Oddball and A Spaceman in King Arthurs Court is one example of one movie with two titles.

I am not buying these on DVD just to see if these scenes are back in the movie. When you buy a home verion of a movie, It's like a box of chocolates, you just don't know what you are gonna get.

Re:Now if I can only get...

[nobody69]

Well, I think I may be humiliating myself by responding to this comment, but here goes...

My wife and I just watched Pete's Dragon (Oh, the embarassment! It was a gift and we were too tired to go to the video store, OK?), and I'm pretty sure that I remember a scene where everything gound to a halt while Whatsherface sang on a lighthouse, that was followed by some more plot stuff, then the credits. Details are sketchy becuase I kept dozing off, but I'm pretty sure that the song came during the middle. That was one of those movies that I liked a lot more when I was a kid.

Re:Now if I can only get...

[Chelloveck]

I'd really like to see the DVD laid out so you can pick and choose which edition you want to see. This would be perfect for something like Star Wars. Wanna see the original? Great. Press "Play Original Version" and you get just that, no Special Edition footage. Wanna see the special edition? Great, press that button instead. And if you let me program the scene order myself, I can keep in the cool scene where the Millenium Falcon takes off out of Mos Eisle but take out the lame Jabba scene just before it.

This was one of the promises of DVD that I haven't seen used in any title yet. I remember hearing it touted that you'd be able to switch between, say, an R-rated original or the PG-rated cut-for-TV release. Or maybe I'd like to see the deleted scenes in the context of the movie rather than as snippets to be viewed separately. *sigh*

Re:Now if I can only get...

[nat5an]

This option is sort of present in the Terminator 2 "Super Ultimate Edition" or whatever the hell it's called. Either way, you can choose between the original theatrical cut, or the cut that has additional scenes. It's kind of nice, and I've watched both all the way through. A lot of things in that movie make more sense with the deleted scenes re-added. In short, you can see the deleted scenes in context with the movie.

An idea

[CarbonJackson]

Here's an idea that's been dancing around in my head. Let me see if I can make sense of it. Basically, I'm thinking of a program that would allow people to produce custom edits of DVD's. It would depend on someone owning the actual DVD for the video, but could import audio tracks (for commentary) and tracking scenes (for custom edits).

In essence, you end up with a little script that tells the end user which audio track to play when and where to "drop the laser" on the video. No explicit IP problems that I can think of.

Re:An idea

[nat5an]

Except that you'd need to deCSS the DVD in order to cut of the video, which is, of course, already illegal under the DMCA, although I would consider it fair-use, but IANAL.

Re: When that day Happens

[sconeu]

"The Olsen Twins.. Grown up.. and XXX-RATED"

Ewwww! I feel.... dirty... somehow. Now how do I get that horrid image out of my head?

Re:GREAT!

[Paradise Pete]

Thanks... I had never seen Citizen Cane and was going to enjoy viewing it with my family this evening...Needless to say, the ending of the movie was spoiled by your inconsiderate self

How thoughtless he was. BTW, in The Crying Game, It's a guy.

Last Days of Disco

[Cerberus9]

"This film has been described by Video-Audio Canada"

No, you're utterly wrong.

[TheMCP]

No DVD burners on the market have anything like the capacity of the discs being sold commercially with videos on them, explicitly so you can't copy them.

So, the whole storage medium (and thus, the progress of computer science) is being held back because they want to make it hard to copy videos.

Re: When that day Happens

[screwballicus]

The Olsen Twins.. Grown up.. and XXX-RATED

It may happen yet. The Olsen Twins could be subject to the same phenomenon that prevented Shirley Temple from ever becoming a successful adult actress, that being that they will always be seen by the public as some kind of pre-pubescent ideal. When an icon of pre-pubescent virtue like Shirley Temple or the Olsen Twins becomes publicly sexual the public gets creeped out. I know I do. And I'm not even heterosexual. If I were heterosexual, I'd probably be forced to sever my genitalia out of sheer terror upon seeing things like this.

At any rate, we need Jon "My Sworn Duty To Explain The World To Its Oblivious Residents" Katz to handle this kind of social pontification.

sounds good to me

[jcsehak]

until it became apparent that my new "movie" was nothing more than Natalie Portman footage and light saber duels.

Your point being...?

Sorry but no - here's the scoop:

[matt_maggard]

Commercially available DVDs hold up to 9GB of data. This is divided between 2 platters (typically referred to as layers but I thought platters made sense visually for this explanation) that are basically glued together. Note that this is not the same as dual sided discs which are capable of holding 9GB per side for a total of 4 layers. The first platter can hold 5GB and the second holds 4GB. The second platter is read through the first layer and therefore can hold a little less data. Consumer level DVD burners can only write to the first platter/layer. Without a fairly radical technology departure from current burners, they never will. Therefore duping a commercial DVD is impossible with currently available hardware.

Note that this does not include the actual DVD production machines that are surely in use by large scale pirate rings. Also of note is that using DeCSS, you can rip the video data, recompress and store to the medium of your choosing. I assume that neither of these solutions is what the original poster meant by "copy."

-matt

Re:Sorry but no - here's the scoop:

[PCM2]

Thankfully, most DVD titles are actually set at a reasonable enough price point that ripping the data and recompressing it to fit on a single-layer disc probably just isn't a cost-effective solution, in terms of just how long it actually takes to do that.

On the other hand, while it's true that many commercially available DVDs use DVD-9 format (more and more all the time, it seems), not all of them do. Even fairly recent releases are still on single-layer discs. "Legally Blonde," for instance, ships on a double-sided, single-layer carrier, as does "Breaking Away." Most TV shows are only going to use single-layer discs. (One oddball exception being the final disc of "The Prisoner" box set, which is double-layer while all the rest are single-layer.)

Also, don't like the fact that "Goodfellas" still ships on a double-sided "flipper" disc instead of a remastered Special Edition? No problem -- steal the damn thing! It's obviously a single layer disc, so with a little DeCSS you should have no problem voting with your dollars.

That's ONE interpretation

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the article:

As audiences became acclimated to music videos' jump-cutting and nonlinear storytelling techniques, they were able to absorb information more rapidly and in different ways, allowing filmmakers to short-cut exposition and action without necessarily sacrificing clarity.

I suppose. Or maybe audiences just got desensitized to mishmash logic and gaping plot holes, because their attention spans were shrunken past the Schwarschild radius... I happen to believe that the influence of music video directors on mainstream media has been a disaster that's consigned nearly a whole generation of films to the dustbin of failed art.

And don't even get me started about the influence of advertisement directors....

Re:That's ONE interpretation

[iluvpr0n]

I suppose. Or maybe audiences just got desensitized to mishmash logic and gaping plot holes, because their attention spans were shrunken past the Schwarschild radius... I happen to believe that the influence of music video directors on mainstream media has been a disaster that's consigned nearly a whole generation of films to the dustbin of failed art.

And don't even get me started about the influence of advertisement directors....

i think it really depends what you're looking at..david fincher, director of "seven", "the game", and "fight club", started his career directing advertisements. part of his appeal, for me, is the visual style he uses (influenced, i would imagine, by his commercial days). this could be a problem- all flashy showmanship with no real substance to back things up, but fincher seems to have something to say in most of his work (i haven't seen "aliens 3" or "panic room" though).

spike jonze is another example- and he came from the dreaded music video world (however, he's been one of the most celebrated video directors; by doing the beastie boys' "sabotage", "it's oh so quiet" by bjork, and many others. again, "being john malkovich" was very interesting for its visual style, but there was more there than in your average jerry bruckheimer festival of stupidity.

i think the real assault on filmmaking comes from imitators trying to copy some of the mtv-style 5 edits per second madness. the guys that actually come from doing videos and commercials can be very successful at creating cinematic substance, even if their contemporaries trying to catch up to them cannot match their styles.

iluvpr0n.

Re:GREAT!

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

That's ghastly! It's like having a wall of Mona Lisas and passing out sharpies to all of the museum-goers.

No, it's like printing many copies of the Mona Lisa and selling them to people who might have Sharpies at home and who might be inclined to draw on their copies.

I'm not (just) being pedantic here. The one original "true" Mona Lisa remains safely in the Louvre, available to all for adulation. Yet the viewer also gets a chance to make a statement. Since the great piece of art is not defaced, I don't see how it is threatened. And of course, maybe, just maybe, new art can be created.

Here's a different analogy: This is like handing out copies of a story and Bic ballpoints to people. They get to go edit the story, modify its order, change its dialog. Horrors of horrors! All that you get from that kind of mucking is... Hamlet. To quote one of many sources,

Shakespeare's Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is based on a 12th century tale by Saxo Grammaticus... the missing link between Saxo and Shakespeare may be an earlier play about Hamlet (called by scholars the Ur-Hamlet), which may or may not have been written by the Ur-Revenger himself, Thomas Kyd, based in turn on François de Belleforest's Histoires tragiques (1570), a free translation of Saxo.

In other words, since a story can be easily copied and modified, the public domain is rich and future writers can build upon and reinterpret earlier ones. Often, the result is transitory garbage. But sometimes it is Shakespeare. Or West Side Story. I don't see the overriding merit of the artist's vision. Saxo's Hamlet has faded to obscurity, dwarfed by Shakespeare's. On the other hand, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- itself drawn from earlier sources -- gave rise to West Side Story. WSS is extremely popular (ask any high school drama department) yet Shakepeare's is still performed. I guess I see more value in a free market in artistic ideas, much as I do in political ideas. The truly significant and important will survive by dint of being truly important and significant, not by decree of a self-proclaimed critical expert class.

ObPoliticalRant: And that's why recent and proposed copyright law -- giving unprecedented "access control" to copyright holders -- is a disaster of the first magnitude for the arts and for science. The partitioning of the public domain into private little plots threatens our intellectual future and makes a mockery of copyright law as a means "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution).

Like trying to fit a 2.88mb floppy on a 1.44mb one

[Kjella]

Pretty much every movie out there is made on a DVD-9 (9 gb), dual layer disc, while all burners you see DVD±R(W) are about 4.5gb, single layer disc. So, no, you can't copy them directly.

Ironic truth

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Those developments, and video on demand in particular, had the potential of endangering the lucrative retail home video market in much the same way that the free downloading of songs eventually hurt the music business.

You mean, by empowering end users and thus driving further sales of things they would otherwise not buy? Oh, yeah, I guess it's true. Exactly the same way the VCR "killed" Hollywood.

It disturbs me to see such a misreading of the actual trends (hmmm: Napster peaks, CD sales soars; Napster shut down, CD sales contract) slipped so quietly into an article about something else.

Re:Ironic truth

[SuiteSisterMary]

You mean, by empowering end users and thus driving further sales of things they would otherwise not buy? Oh, yeah, I guess it's true. Exactly the same way the VCR "killed" Hollywood.

They went to court to stop the home video trade, and nowadays, it's the only thing that makes some major titles even profitable. Hey, MPAA, guess what! If you put out a product that's worth buying, people buy it. I don't go to theaters; too much damn hassle. I think I've seen five theatrical movies in as many years. But I've got over 200 DVDs. It averages out, in my case, to something like a DVD every four days. That's a DAMN GOOD business model. Don't screw it up for yourselves.

Re:Ironic truth

[THB]

I've seen that sig here for over a year, probably living with his parents

Only 1 camera usually:

[matt_maggard]

Typically, most movies only have 1 camera rolling at a time. For instance, when two people are facing each other and speaking (the typically camera looks at one, then the other, then back scene) the camera is only photographing one actor at a time. Then the other actor is filmed. Sometimes when one actor (actor A) is being filmed, the person they are acting with (actor B) in the scene may be unavailable and the scene will be shot with someone else so they can get the shot of Actor A.

So my point is that you would have to re-edit in all this extra footage and it isn't even shot at the same moment.

The exception is that explosions are often shot on mutiple cameras so they are sure they captured it. it would be too expensive to redoo if they fucked it up.

Currently, some DVDs use the multi-angle function in the extra features for comparisons between the storyboards and the finished edit.

-matt

Re:Only 1 camera usually:

[burts_here]

I think the fast and the furious DVD had multiple camera angles for the last actin scene. (the one where the supra races the american muscle car) Havent seen it my self though.

Um, why?

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the article:

"There is a risk of completely demystifying the [filmmaking] process," producer Bouzereau says, "which is why it [DVD production] needs to be controlled by the filmmaker."

Aah, the usual argument from an elite that feels the ground slipping out from under it. (Believe me, I don't despise elites... just ones that can't provide enough extra value to maintain their survival). "Demystification" is a tired rallying cry used by people defending the status quo... It boils down to, "I can't tell you why I am an expert and you are an uninformed boob, but it's just so. Now listen to me!"

Again, we see that a major concern of the Content Cartel is not preventing illegitimate copying or even maximizing profit. It's about maintaining control. It boggles my mind that in a culture that purports to embrace individuality and democracy in politics, we suffer the arrogance of people who despise that impulse in art. If art is about universal human truths, maybe actual humans should have a say.

Coppola points out the impetus behind things like CSS and the proposed CBDTPA:

"Once computers become married with film, the form becomes promiscuous," Coppola says, "and that can bring about new ways of making movies that the studios can't control."

'Cause as my man Cosmo said, "It's about who controls the information... what we see and think".

self-censor-ware: for or against?

[matt_maggard]

Me, I'm against it. I remember the first time I heard of this was when Titanic came out on video and some video store in Utah started selling versions of Titanic that they had edited to remove the nudity. Nevermind the people screeming as they died a freezing death - that's all OK for little johnny and jane - but a woman's bare breast (!) banish that! Let's all just forget that every child (well almost - a few people choose not to) suckled from their mother's breast and it was also probably in use during their procreation. But death due to tragedy - bring it on! No one is too young!

Sorry for the rant. As I see it, film can allow for a small amount of growth in a person. One can see lives of other people and places. You may not like what you see and that is your perogative but at least you've been exposed to it. The bare breast scene in titanic was an important part of who those people were and the ways in which they had grown together. If you want to remove it then you just don't get the movie at all. And by not letting your children see it, you are sending a message that being naked is bad - regardless of circumstance.

Sorry for the rant #2. I really am interested to hear what others have to say on this topic both for and against. Are movies as important as I have made them out to be or are they just weekend filler?

-matt

Re:self-censor-ware: for or against?

[libertynews]

Just a quick correction, the video store wan't selling edited copies. They were editing previously purchased copies for people. They were physically slicing the scene out of the tape and splicing it back together according to the stories they read.

And who are you to decide what they want their kids to see? Its about freedom, and since Hollywood has refused to give people the option to buy other 'edits' of a film they will find other ways to get what they want.

Brian

I think that re-editing should read correcting...

[heideggier]

Rather then taking fan re-edits and a indication of a growth in the interactivity of movies, which this article does. I get the impression, that this current tread should be a warning to hollywood that they simply haven't been doing their job(period). After-all it is now possible that a person with no training and without access to the raw cut of a movie, to do better then the movies own director. This just serves to demonstrate how pathetic the standard of direction has gotten in hollywood, these days. Also, just putting three different alternative endings as extras doesn't count either, the final movie you cut should be the best possible version.

To better illustrate my point, would anyone bother to do a re-edit of a "classic" like, say, 2001. It seems that the only movies which are getting the "interactive" (re-edited) treatment, are those which have been hopeless butchered to appease some market demographic by a director who has always been overrated (like Star Wars EP1).

Perhaps, guys, rather then playing this up as a "feature", you should take some heed now, to lift your game. After all, how long does it take before these same people tire of fixing your crap, To find out that they could do a better job with their cheap-arse Dvd-cam, making your chosen occupation redundant.

However, I feel that with so much money coming in from dvd sales you can always lobby congress, to make any form of creativity, which doesn't directly benefit you, illegal.

I don't want interactive films

[samael]

I want to be entertained by my films and told a story. I want to be presented with a work of art.

When I play games, I want things left nice and open, so I can do what I want, but with films I want to see the directors vision up there on the screen.

Re:I think that re-editing should read correcting.

[Graymalkin]

Why are you comparing a notably good movie (2001) to modern Hollywood tripe? Are you suggesting any movie directed prior to 1980 was better than anything directed after? How about I use your argument but with Shichinin no samurai, it is a classic and a notably good movie, anything not directed by Akira Kurosawa is crap and ought to be reedited in the Kurosawa style. Please. There's plenty of good directors and plenty of bad ones, comparing all directors to a "classic" or merely your favorite movie is stupid.

Fan re-edits are an indication that directors aren't doing their job? Nobody is sneaking into a film studio to take all the movie's raw footage and make a fan cut of it, they are just rearranging scenes to better suit their preference. That is not a fucking reedit. I don't think you've got the skill to edit a movie, if you did and had edited ANYTHING before you wouldn't make such retarded comments. By the time you're done editing anything, be it music, video, or literary you've seen it so many fucking times and are so displeased with it (even if it is good) that you can hardly stand to watch it. It isn't like people don't make their own movies, people make movies all the time just most people don't like them. Where can I buy a Dvd-cam anyhow, it would be interesting to get ahold of one of those.

And why are you spreading this propaganda here?

[linuxguy]

Any particular reason you feel compelled to post
your propaganda here on Slashdot under a DVD story?

You almost smell of a Scientology activist.

Re:Sum of All Fears...(director's thoughts)

[DimitryP]

lets see, we'll take this movie...it came after these other ones, but we'll change the roles of everybody, and while we're at it, muslim terrorists arent good right now, so we'll go with neo-nazis, and...

COME ON! I know that movies rarely follow the books, but this is too fucking stupid. maybe the dvd will have the option of actually following the book.

Re:I think that re-editing should read correcting.

[heideggier]

I was just trying to demonstrate that the general standard of direction as gone down, Kuburk, sometimes took years to make a movie. The final product had to be just so. With everything being in place, could you imagine if he had an alternative ending where all the people in cryo had survived (as was the original plan), and how that would have changed the context of the movie.

There was a time where the people who made the movies where the ones which where passonate about the movies Now, movies seem to be glued together without much thought, and normally by people whose interests are not in making a good movie, ie producers. Sometimes only wishing to make a buck.

That it is getting to the point where the fans of these movies, have to correct the mistakes that these people make, I mean, half of that Star Wars should have been on the cutting room floor, and would have been a good movie had that been the case (as the re-edit proves).

Also that these are the same people who will be making movies in the future, sometimes without the cost of having to rent a stdio, or overrated hollywood actor, or crappy over-promotion (unless its made illegal ofcourse).

I never said that there weren't examples of good direction today, or acting or writing. rather that marketing movies just cause of a bunch a extras is a road that hollywood shouldn't be follow. Or, to the extent of forgeting about making decent movies to begin with.

btw, could you name one good movie from today that has been re-edited?, hell, its called the star wars correction.

Who gives a damn?

[evilviper]

Remeber the Slashdot slogan? News for nerds, stuff that matters. This doesn't exactly qualify as news and it sure as hell doesn't matter one damn bit.

Slashdot is getting to be more and more like the mainstream news media. I hear 2 minutes about the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and 10 minutes about the bus driver's strike, and another 10 about how all the movie stars dressed at the latest hollywood function.

Who gives a damn? It's not important in the slightest. Besides, if we kept up on all the rumors and assumtions on what's going to happen in hollywood, there'd be tons to read about, and 1 in 10,000 would actually have a small bearing on reality.

Go right ahead and mod me down if you like... I'm posting at +2 because I've got too much karma to care, and this is a rant. But it's informative, insightful, ontopic, and neither flamebait or a troll.

"Moral rights" are not the American way.

[jbn-o]

Why is there this reverence for the supposed genius of the auteur/artist, anyway?

Because a large portion of European copyright law is based on it ("moral rights")—contrary to freedom-loving Americans, there are those that think the author has non-transferrable rights to the work that even go so far as to allow retraction of the work if it's not received according to the author's wishes. A previous /. story talked about this where some half-baked /. submitter agreed with Michael Fraase's article that America should adopt European artists rights, perhaps not realizing that doing so would grant an author the power to squelch parodies of their work. Moral rights, like "property" talk and "idea protection" (a growing body of law that will be the next battle for freedom-minded Americans) create the ability for copyright to limit the use and distribution of ideas (which copyright explicitly does not protect) instead of expressions.

What Fraase's conclusion doesn't acknowledge a full awareness of is that US copyright law evolved as a utilitarian bargain among authors, publishers, and the public, while European copyright evolved as a way to reward artists and authors for building culture. As Vaidhyanathan explains in his book far better than I can here, Mark Twain was integral to American copyright, he fought for perpetual copyright (see Twain's "The Great Republic's Peanut Stand") so his heirs and estate would be benefitted forever. He liked the control moral rights gave authors. He thought the public's claim on his works was unjustified and therefore undeserved. Unfortunately his influence exceeded his prescience and he didn't realize moral rights help threaten, not support, creativity. Modern corporations share Twain's motivation—greed—and they share the same conclusion as Twain—everlasting copyright power.

Instead of reading the all-too-short Fraase article, read Siva Vaidhyanathan's "Copyrights and Copywrongs" (ISBN: 0-8147-8806-8) for more on the exchange that built American copyright and why preserving the idea-expression dichotomy is so important for freedom and maintaining democracy.

Once again the mainstream lags behind

[Rogerborg]

Where have we already seen these groundbreaking developments?

• Handheld cameras?
• Straight to video releases?
• Online releases?
• Mock-amateur participant observers (aka gonzo filmaking), as used in the "innovative" Blair Witch?
• Multiple POV scenes on DVD?

Porn, that's where. Where the porn industry (and niche market filmmakers in general) innovates, Hollywood trails along, years afterwards.

Want the know the Next Big Thing? Real time audience generated scripts. I'm thinking ho cams chat sessions, I'm thinking Troma and their script contests, especially the one where each scene was written by a different fan. Throw some budget at it, put a film crew and some Semi Big Names in a shiny van with a satellite uplink, webcast the filming and solicit "what happens next?" in real time from viewers. Zoom around Hollywood (or Toronto, more likely) with a lawyer and a light meter, spending bushels of money to shoot a quick scene in this cafe or that warehouse among real honest Joe Public, then edit it up and release a movie/DVD of the final version, complete with various alternative scenes, "the making of" documentary, and some stuff about the scene submitters. Cinema verite on steroids: "Yeah, my aunt's boyfriend's dog walker wrote this scene! Look, that's him in the credits, telling Harvey Keitel what to say!"

You can edit the outcome?

[Trevoc]

Finally, I can make every movie I watch End in a porn scene! A true techies dream.

Re:GREAT!

[MaxVlast]

Like I said, I'm not really worrying about damaging the Planet of the Apes or Blade II. But if someone were to start splicing up The Talented Mr. Ripley or even Ocean's 11, I'd be a little annoyed. Those movies, though commercial and big budget, have at least some vision and artistic merit.

Duchamp's mona lisa is a powerful thing, I agree. But, call me elitist, I have more patience for Duchamp doing that than Vinny next door. It's like a Jackson Pollack painting: anyone can throw paint around, but people only spend tens of thousands of dollars on one by Mr. Pollack.

Re:GREAT!

[MaxVlast]

I think there's a subtle difference between derivative works and modifications of the original. To extend an already-faltering analogy, it's like buying an original Mondrian painting (the guy with the primary colors and lines/squares) and deciding that the white background doesn't match the living room, and painting the white parts sea foam green. That's subtly different from taking the same Mondrian painting and gluing cow penises to it. Gross, but an artistic statement, not a forced conformation to a whim.

Hudson Hawk

[Enry]

Listen to the commentary to that movie. I loved the movie, but the director had a few things to say.

Re:GREAT!

[ArticulateArne]

&ltasbestos on&gtYeesh! How many moronic moderators does this board have now? Flamebait? What kind of retarded two-year olds are they giving mod points to these days? This is an insightful comment, people. Listen up, not everybody wants to expose their kids to bloody murders and naked women at age five. And you know what? That's a GOOD thing. Little kids shouldn't have to deal with all the bad stuff in the world. They're kids, for pete's sake. Let them have a childhood that's fun and has some security to it.

What ever happened to all the freedom of revision that /.ers love? Open-source code so that you can make the program do whatever you want? That's exactly what this is for a movie. C'mon, people, the guy just wants to shield his kids eyes a little bit.

Well, there goes my karma.

Seven Samurai and others

[sielwolf]

I actually thought the Seven Samurai Criterion guy got better as he went along. He talked about Kurosawa's brother and other effects upon the actor, the production of SS (which almost bankrupted Toho), and other little technical throw away stuff (like the scene of chopping firewood).

But the best DVD Commentary Track? Chopper on his autobiographical movie Chopper! Hands down! Mark "Chopper" Reid: psycho crim, proletariat sociologist, best selling Aussie author, humorist. I mean it has it all.

You can hear him pitching back the beers while their recording, its great!

Just hear him say "The year two-THOUSAND???" is worth the 20 bucks itself!!!

This can only be a good thing

[sher0209]

Imagine how much better pr0n will be!

Memento LE, etc

[Obiwan Kenobi]

And it wouldn't have taken up that much space on the current disc, so I'm surprised it's in an R2 edit but not R1

A few things:

First, the Canadian release is nowhere near the picture and sound quality of the US release.

Second, watching Memento in chronological order is an unbelievably boring and predictable experience. It's brilliant backwards, but it's also a very simple story: it had to be, or no one could follow it.

Lastly, a 2-disc special edition, with director's commentary and other goodies, is on it's way May 21st. Check out the cover art here, and go to the digital bits for more info. I don't think it has the chronological order option, but it might be on there as an easter egg (for those desperate and/or bored enough to watch it that way).

Re:Memento LE, etc

[spectecjr]

Lastly, a 2-disc special edition, with director's commentary and other goodies, is on it's way May 21st. Check out the cover art here [misterorange.com], and go to the digital bits [thedigitalbits.com] for more info. I don't think it has the chronological order option, but it might be on there as an easter egg (for those desperate and/or bored enough to watch it that way).

ARGH!

I'm getting so sick of this.

It happened with Fantasia - I go out and buy the new one and the old one. A week later, there's a special DVD set with an *extra* disk.

The SAME thing happened with ToyStory 2.

I did it again with Dogma.

WHY CAN'T THEY JUST SAY THAT THEY'RE DOING A SPECIAL VERSION LATER SO I DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT UNTIL THAT ONE COMES OUT?

*pop*

Si

A Couple Quotes that Trouble Me

[nathanm]

Those developments, and video on demand in particular, had the potential of endangering the lucrative retail home video market in much the same way that the free downloading of songs eventually hurt the music business.

Somehow, the recording industry has tricked the media into believing the bygone conclusion that "downloading hurt the music business." Will they realize that it's just the dying gasp of a dinosaur business model before it's actually extinct? The record companies think they're entitled to stay in business with the same ridiculous profits, and they're trying hard to convince the media and legislators to help them.

"There is a risk of completely demystifying the [filmmaking] process," producer Bouzereau says, "which is why it [DVD production] needs to be controlled by the filmmaker."

What's risky? Why is the filmmaking process "mystical" and what's the big deal if it's demystified? I must be missing something since I didn't realize it was "mystical" in the first place.

Alternate ending is a good idea?

[iamr00t]

Not in my mind.
It's great idea to boost DVD sales, but from movie point of view it's bad imho.
I mean why would I want it? It's like having 100 types of icecream.
Movie is a piece of art (at least the ones I watch), and it's complete. Especialy on DVD where director can put what he wants.
Movie should leave certain expression in the end.

An example of in-DVD editing, sorta...

[spaten-optimator]

If you fool around with the DVD Edition of Made (by Jon Favreau of Swingers fame), you'll see an example of in-DVD editing.

You're allowed to 'edit' a few scenes. The tone and feel of one scene in particular, the 'pottery painting' scene, can be completely changed by your editing. Basically, the DVD splices the scene up into three or four shots, and gives you three or four options for each of these shots. These shots include the one used in the movie and some that were left on the cutting room floor. Once you've finished selecting your shots, the DVD shows you your completed splice. Granted, the splice is a little rough on the edges, but, man, what a cool-ass feature.

The editing feature not only gives you an insight into what an editor's job is like (having such control over the tone of a scene is really amazing), its just a fun toy. It also neatly showcases the incredible power of DVD.

If you haven't rented it, the DVD is worth a rent - packed full of special features, and just a good movie to boot. Highly recommended.

Re:I think that re-editing should read correcting.

[Graymalkin]

Making movies isn't a fucking commitee action. Just because you're a "fan" of a particular movie doesn't mean you somehow have a better idea on how the movie should be directed. That is foolishness. Are you going to go in and add a Gundam to Starry Night because you think it would fucking look better? What ridiculous crap. If you think you're such a badass editor why don't you do it for a living and make your badass movies that "fan" don't have to reedit. It is so easy to do of course you shouldn't have a problem.

Without a doubt, the best DVD comment track is...

[makohund]

Spinal Tap.

You know, the hilarious mock-rockumentary?

The commentary track is by the 3 main actors (and band members), which is no biggie.

But the whole thing is done completely IN CHARACTER. As the band, commenting on the DVD as if it is still a real documentary. Complaining about this and that, ripping the "director" to shreds, filling you in with "backgroud stories" and telling you about the "stuff that got cut out".

It's like a whole new Spinal Tap movie, all over again. Funniest damned thing I've ever seen.

Re:GREAT!

[tftp]

The difference is *very* subtle. To counter your example about buying an original Mondrian painting [...] deciding that the white background doesn't match the living room, and painting the white parts sea foam green.: that's exactly what composers do when they make different arrangements of the same piece for different instruments, different performers, different audience. This would be very close to changing colors in the painting.

Re: When that day Happens

[Jburkholder]

>When an icon of pre-pubescent virtue [...] becomes publicly sexual the public gets creeped out.

Then how do you explain Drew Barrymore? ;-)

DVD Unleashed

[The_Mighty_Squid]

It seems a lot of people here have a lot of opinions about what should be included with a DVD. Being this is "News for Nerds" it might be a good idea to know how they really work. Not the simple imac stuff. I work in Multimedia for the largest Fiancial services company on the planet. We do a lot of Corporate video and recently we turned from VHS to DVD. Which basically ment I had to figure out how to do it. The company shelled out 5K+ for the just Sub-Hollywood burner and software (Spruce DVD Virtuoso).

DVDs are just like anything else in the computing world. You have to program it. You have to say what happens when you press whatever button at whatever time.

Also something to keep in mind is that video at this resolution is really freakin big. Video is anything from 6 - 9 Mbps. Imagine a 4 hour movie with maybe a half hour of "extra footage" plus menu screens. That's maybe 9 Gigs of Data if encoded at 7 Mbps.

Needless to say I can no longer really enjoy DVDs for the content. I was blown away by the Zoolander DVD. Not because of the movie, extra stuff, or commentary but because of the freakin cool way they programed the DVD.

Re:I think that re-editing should read correcting.

[maxpublic]

What the fuck do you care? If fans want to play around with a movie and re-edit it, who are you to say otherwise? Especially if the end product turns out to be more popular than the shit released to the theaters?

There is no mystery here; being employed in the industry doesn't grant one automatic access to skill. Nor does *not* being employed in the industry somehow guarrantee that a fan won't be as good as the as the people who get paid for job.

Max

Re:GREAT!

[maxpublic]

Um, how about "fuck the artist". If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa, scan it into my computer, and put her in a teddy sucking schlong, that's my business. The considerations of the artist don't matter for shit.

Max

Lazy directors

[swe]

So now the directors can shoot a whole bunch of (possibly crap) footage, slap together something that resembles a basic film and then expect us to re-edit it ourselves using our DVD players?