ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Mar 20 15 5:49 AM
Count Gamula wrote:I have to admit I rankle a bit every time someone refers to these two reconstructions as "fan edits" or when someone assumes they are an attempt to "fix" the movie or make it better through creative choices made by Clark or myself. Or they think we claim that our re-edits represent what Browning wanted the final film to be. All Clark and I have done is arrange the the scenes in their original order according to the script to see how the film plays that way. Clark worked only with footage from the Browning film to create a very watchable alternative version of the movie based strictly on the structure of the script.
Mar 20 15 11:30 AM
Mar 20 15 1:08 PM
Mar 20 15 3:33 PM
Rick wrote:Yeah, I kind of agree with Craig. I absolutely understand what you're doing in simply editing to follow the script. I agree that some folks here either don't understand that or get carried away and forget it. I also understand that "fan edit" might bother you. The problem -- well, my problem, anyway -- is what else to say. "Restored" really raises some folks' hackles. Same with "revised". I guess I could say "the Clark cut" or "the Kerry cut." I don't think I've actually used the "fan edit" terminology but I understand others using it, because it's not technically incorrect. Personally, every time I post something about it I go through the "what do I call it this time?" struggle.
Mar 20 15 4:08 PM
Mar 20 15 5:35 PM
Count Gamula wrote: Rather than "fan edit," these could be called the "Garret Fort edit".
Mar 20 15 7:01 PM
Mar 20 15 7:15 PM
Mar 20 15 7:51 PM
The Batman of Gotham wrote:Count Gamula wrote:I have to admit I rankle a bit every time someone refers to these two reconstructions as "fan edits" or when someone assumes they are an attempt to "fix" the movie or make it better through creative choices made by Clark or myself. Or they think we claim that our re-edits represent what Browning wanted the final film to be. All Clark and I have done is arrange the the scenes in their original order according to the script to see how the film plays that way. Clark worked only with footage from the Browning film to create a very watchable alternative version of the movie based strictly on the structure of the script.That's what was fascinating about Clark's re-edit when I first saw it. It did "fix" continuity errors that I never realized existed and made the storyline play more cohesively. But it wasn't intentional on Clark's part - he'd just re-arranged the scenes to match the Latino version! The results to the Browning version, however, were indicative that it was no coincidence. The movie had been designed to play that way in the first place.- GJS
Batman,
That's the point of my beef, it fixed "continuity errors that" you AND others "never realized existed and made the storyline play more cohesively". In other words you didn't see any continuity errors until you had the re-edit to point them out to you. At least that's how your post makes it sound. So, what is it really, were there really continuity errors in the original film that you just simply failed to catch because of a lack of understanding of what you were watching to the extent that you needed to have them pointed out to you in black and white, or, more likely, "continuity errors" that really did nothing to harm the flow of the film and spoil your enjoyment of the picture? I never found DRACULA 31 to be so complicated an epic that I needed to have any so called blanks filled in.
Now, I understand the difference between the Browning and Medford versions and just accept them as two versions of the same picture. When I want to watch one I watch one, when I want to watch the other, ditto. I don't need to have elements from the later combined into the former to have a "cohesive" story where everything is spoon fed to me. I like using my imagination, sometimes. I suppose Universal feels the same way, because in this age of director's cuts and so on, we have yet to see a legit re-cut of DRACULA from Universal. At least then it would give them a faux reason for an umpteenth home video release on 3D Blu OR SUPER DUPER BLU when that technology is released. Now, all this being said, again I have no problem and no real say in what anyone wants to do with their time. But, I think a more worthwhile project would have been to re-edit the Universal Frankenstein saga from FRANKENSTEIN through ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. Real continuity problems exist in those films which cry out for a major re-cut on the line of the GODFATHER SAGA.
Mar 20 15 8:00 PM
Some friends here-- and some oddly-thinking others privately -- have clung to the erroneous Bizarro World logic that certain production photos from DRACULA must have been especially staged, rather than representative of scenes being filmed. That is, the director (Browning, Melford, or J. Pismo Clam) decided not to film a certain scene in the script, but instead had an entire soundstage dressed and lit for the sheer joy of posing a couple of actors to get unwanted and rather undramatic still photographs.
Mar 20 15 8:16 PM
Count Gamula wrote:I have to admit I rankle a bit every time someone refers to these two reconstructions as "fan edits" or when someone assumes they are an attempt to "fix" the movie or make it better through creative choices made by Clark or myself. Or they think we claim that our re-edits represent what Browning wanted the final film to be. All Clark and I have done is arrange the the scenes in their original order according to the script to see how the film plays that way. Clark worked only with footage from the Browning film to create a very watchable alternative version of the movie based strictly on the structure of the script. I did the same thing, but included footage from the Spanish version and photos in an attempt to construct a rougher but more complete version that was as close to the script as possible. No personal changes were made to the movie by either of us. I know "fan edit" is a common term for this kind of altering, but it implies that we each edited the movie the way we wanted it to be, in an attempt to improve it. Clark and I have only attempted to construct the movie as is was on paper at the time that shooting began, which I think is a fascinating exercise . Viewers can decide if they think the movie worked better as it was originally structured or as it was in the release version. Rather than "fan edit," these could be called the "Garret Fort edit".
Kerry,
Not being as talented as you or Clark, I have no idea of the amount of work that is needed to accomplish what the both of you have accomplished. However, if I had to guess I would imagine that it does take a certain amount of time and patience to get the thing right. Considering that I am correct in my assumption of the cost in time and perhaps money(?), I have to wonder what could possibly be the incentive if not to improve upon something you obviously think is flawed enough to warrant a recut. Obviously you can't make any money on the thing, so what was it then, just as you say a fascinating exercise, like some high school science project which simulates a volcano? Sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but I truly believe you wanted to improve upon the original film and show how much better your versions are. They very well might be, I dunno, I just don't like the whole concept.
Mar 20 15 8:26 PM
Mar 20 15 8:32 PM
The Batman of Gotham wrote:Some friends here-- and some oddly-thinking others privately -- have clung to the erroneous Bizarro World logic that certain production photos from DRACULA must have been especially staged, rather than representative of scenes being filmed. That is, the director (Browning, Melford, or J. Pismo Clam) decided not to film a certain scene in the script, but instead had an entire soundstage dressed and lit for the sheer joy of posing a couple of actors to get unwanted and rather undramatic still photographs. Would that be A. Pismo Clam's brother?- GJS
It would indeed. Jose Gonzales-Gonzales Pismo Clam made the 8mm versions of his elder brother's major flicks for years, designed for the Spanish-speaking home video market. Unfortunately, his work was 70 years ahead of the curve and languishes in a refrigerated film vault in La Jolla, California, awaiting his long-overdue fame and international damnation.
"Joe Clam" (as his few friends called him) damned Universal to his dying day for using tape splices on his 8mm versions instead of more stable glue splices. This was verified by his mother, a court reporter and stenographer, with whom Joe lived until they both passed away. There are those academics who argue that Joe's specific condemnation of Universal's tape splices has been grossly misinterpreted, and that what he actually said to his mother was, "I don't like Scotch tape!"
He did, however, make sure his cast posed on sets of some other movie entirely, to make ticket-buyers think the actors were in a real movie.
While making the Esperanto version of brother Alfredo's PRC classic A MILLION BUCKS FOR DUCKS, Jose took his stars Beppo Manfredi and Julietta Coaxialcable over to the Selznick lot to take advantage of some picture which had a big special effects scene (see below). As a result, his foreign language 8mm version, UNA PATERNA PETITE POR MEEPMEEP, earned twice as much as big brother A's original. Which was nothing, anyway. I hope this is clear. After all, I value the high esteem of being considered a "film historian."
(You see? Sometimes studios put actors in shots which aren't even in the movie!)
Mar 20 15 8:39 PM
Mar 20 15 9:24 PM
Mar 20 15 9:29 PM
Ted Newsom wrote:Yeah... what's the deal? Spending all that time on something that interests you? While we're at it, why is it people "discuss" movies? Why don't they just say, "Wow, that's a cool flick!"? And those guys, and even some women, who draw those pictures and paint those portraits and make those models of stuff from monster movies-- what's the matter with them? Why can't they just look at the real stills from the movie and say, "Wow, cool picture!"? I don't get it either.
Mar 20 15 10:15 PM
infinite1 wrote:I never found DRACULA 31 to be so complicated an epic that I needed to have any so called blanks filled in.Now, I understand the difference between the Browning and Medford versions and just accept them as two versions of the same picture. When I want to watch one I watch one, when I want to watch the other, ditto. I don't need to have elements from the later combined into the former to have a "cohesive" story where everything is spoon fed to me. I like using my imagination, sometimes.
Mar 20 15 10:22 PM
Mar 20 15 10:23 PM
Mar 21 15 12:56 AM
Share This