Extended Edition discussion thread

[clockworkboy1]

thats what I was thinking! maybe we'll get good news? *fingers crossed*

Maybe he's getting fired!

*fingers crossed*[/quote he will still stay

[Mooseboy018]

Save the Q&A slot for the more important questions like how soon can we expect an extended cut of the movie.

Or "why did you feel the need to suck the life out of the characters and cram exposition into every line of dialogue?"

And he's already said that there won't be an extended cut by the way.

[hasdi]

Save the Q&A slot for the more important questions like how soon can we expect an extended cut of the movie.

Or "why did you feel the need to suck the life out of the characters and cram exposition into every line of dialogue?"

And he's already said that there won't be an extended cut by the way.

As I noted before, the question posed to him was if we will eventually get a "director's cut" of the movie, not if we will get an "extended cut" or rather, an "extended director's cut". He is probably one of the few directors that insist on the final cut privilege, so of course he responded "All my movies are the director's cut." Just because Paramount gave him the privilege does not mean he has the allotted running time that he wanted. If the studio wanted an R-rated cut of the The Happening, he'll give it to them, but it will be under his direction and care, not the studio.

I read somewhere that Paramount aimed the movie at kids, and that kids have a short attention span. Basically, if a scene drags on for too long, the kids get restless.

M.Night said he wanted to do an epic movie, like Narnia, Harry Potter, LOTR, etc, etc. Well, you know what? Epic movies are supposed to be long by definition, not only to bring the life to characters, but also to immerse the audience in a fantasy world and familiarize with its mythology. For PG epic movies (i.e. aimed at kids), the last two Narnia movies were 2.5 hours. The last six Harry Potter movies were also 2.5 hours. Star Wars movies were between 2 to 2.5 hours. Even the first Percy Jackson were given 2 hours, and most of its scenes took place in our familiar real world.

Maybe Paramount didn't have faith in the test screening? It's possible but it would also mean they don't have faith in the popularity of the original animated series either. I have a theory, if correct, the next Harry Potter movie (November 19th 2010) and Narnia movie (December 10th 2010) will also be under 105 minutes. The same goes for the upcoming Paramount movies, Thor and Captain America in 2011.

[Kesho:]]

M.Night said he wanted to do an epic movie, like Narnia, Harry Potter, LOTR, etc, etc. Well, you know what? Epic movies are supposed to be long by definition, not only to bring the life to characters, but also to immerse the audience in a fantasy world and familiarize with its mythology. For PG epic movies (i.e. aimed at kids), the last two Narnia movies were 2.5 hours. The last six Harry Potter movies were also 2.5 hours. Star Wars movies were between 2 to 2.5 hours. Even the first Percy Jackson were given 2 hours, and most of its scenes took place in our familiar real world.

Maybe Paramount didn't have faith in the test screening? It's possible but it would also mean they don't have faith in the popularity of the original animated series either. I have a theory, if correct, the next Harry Potter movie (November 19th 2010) and Narnia movie (December 10th 2010) will also be under 105 minutes. The same goes for the upcoming Paramount movies, Thor and Captain America in 2011.

Right now, if he wanted to do something like narnia or even Harry Potter... he didn't make it :S so...
and if it's true that Harry Potter and Narnia will be under 105 minutes ): would be a shame...

[Mooseboy018]

the question posed to him was if we will eventually get a "director's cut" of the movie

He's explicitly stated that THIS IS HIS DIRECTOR'S CUT. I can't find the article, but this has been known for a while.

[hasdi]

the question posed to him was if we will eventually get a "director's cut" of the movie

He's explicitly stated that THIS IS HIS DIRECTOR'S CUT. I can't find the article, but this has been known for a while.

I KNOW that. That's why I included the LINK in my post.

No worries. A good propaganda is worth repeating. The article is from the MTV interview with M.Night Shyamalan by Rick Marshall.

I want to first give my take on the MTV interview with M.Night Shyamalan.

I asked him what we're likely to see on the DVD release of the film — and whether we'll eventually get a "director's cut" of "The Last Airbender."
"All my movies are the director's cut, so that's it," he laughed. "You get to watch it in the movie theaters."

Some readers interpret this as he does not want an extended cut, as the movie is "intended" to have a running time of 103 minutes. I disagree with this, as I consider the director's cut and the allocated running time as two different things. In the case of Blade Runner, both the 1982 "studio-imposed" theatrical cut and the 1992 director's cut were 116 minutes long. For the Lord of The Rings film series, the director Peter Jackson said that the theatrical cuts are his preferred cuts even though he made available the extended editions. Paramount may have given M.Night the final cut privilege, but he may still be constrained with the running time.

The link to the full post is also in my current sig.

[Mooseboy018]

the question posed to him was if we will eventually get a "director's cut" of the movie

He's explicitly stated that THIS IS HIS DIRECTOR'S CUT. I can't find the article, but this has been known for a while.

I KNOW that. That's why I included the LINK in my post.

But clicking links is haaaaaaaaaaard.


He probably was "forced" to cut out a lot because he's not the kind of director to butcher his movie (his script on the other hand...), but I doubt we'll ever get a longer version whether or not he really meant what he said about it being his "director's cut".

Maybe if the sequel gets made and by some miracle it turns out great...maybe then they'll take the time to do some kind of alternative cut of the first movie to help it look slightly less bad compared to the second one.

[Project 86]

the big mistake paramount made was treating this film at a NICK Property and not a fantasy epic like Narnia or LOTR

[Kesho:]]

the big mistake paramount made was treating this film at a NICK Property and not a fantasy epic like Narnia or LOTR

maybe because it's part of nickelodeon...
dunno...

[RockinDMG]

the big mistake paramount made was treating this film at a NICK Property and not a fantasy epic like Narnia or LOTR

maybe because it's part of nickelodeon...
dunno...

Well, of course Nick owns some of it. But I think Project's point was that with film adaptations of Hey Arnold, Rugrats, and Jimmy Neutron, they weren't meant to be interpreted by film goers as a huge studio blockbusters. With adapting Avatar, Viacom didn't comprehend that even though it came from Nickelodeon, the property should be treated with respect and have a worthy film made from its roots from the time it was greenlit to when the film premiered. Any film, given the right amount of effort from production and enough audience support can be remembered for decades. Harry Potter, LOTR, and Matrix for example have done so. This film didn't have carefully reviewed drafts of the script or maybe it did but M. Night told doubters that he knew it was all for the best. This film was reduced in time to fit in more slots a day to maximize profits as well as not to bore the kiddies. That.....is where they went wrong. It will more than likely be mocked despite our best efforts to defend its existence.