I think there's benefits to having director's cuts and for upgrading content produced in a lower resolution. But there are problems with that as well. Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a notorious upgrade to HD because it caused problems. Apparently the HD version meant that crew members appeared on screen like boom operators and stunt people become more visible because it wasn't shot for such a high resolution.
At a certain point too, you have to just let things go. I've thought of this when it comes to writing. I could endlessly revise things that I wrote or I could simply publish them and get them out there for people. If I'm constantly revising them, I never get to the publishing stage. So I just let things go.
As someone who has been much more interested in TV over film, it took me a while to understand the idea of Director's Cuts of films. I didn't know that the voice considered to be the author of a movie is not necessarily the person writing the screenplay, unlike TV where we focus on showrunners if not a full writer's room. There are always people who blur lines in TV (who direct AND write, or who star AND write, which is happening more and more - though it's not like it's completely new, with works like Twin Peaks out there), but most of TV is much more about long-term writing than long-term directing. And so I see a lot of fan edit projects in TV, and have maybe never seen a TV director's cut?
Fans might re-edit the order of scenes or episodes or cut them together differently, use different music, do their own upscaling or re-colourization, or even throw in dubiously canonical deleted scenes. A lot of what I'm talking about here unsurprisingly immediately brings to mind LOST for me. There's the notoriously terrible (if popular) Chronologically LOST, which placed things in 'absolute timeline' order, with the date being what informs the choice of placement, and the more recent Circle cut which involves a lot more of those 'fan as auteur' choices described above (and the ordering of the plot is character-centred, based on their experiences, rather than based on a specific datestamp).
I'm just curious about if you have any more thoughts on those kinds of differences in what it means to 'reissue' content between TV vs movies.
Right now in the US all movies are copyrighted for 95 years. Which means that only films that were released before 1928 are now in public domain. But that means that in the next 15-20 years a lot of amazing movies will move there.
So I'm thinking, we might get a new popular genre of videos: re-edits of classical movies? Not just "Home Alone as a Thriller", but legitimate artistic re-edits. We might see something like Casablanca in the style of Edgar Wright, or Citizen Kane in the style of David Fincher. Not clips or trailers - full movies.
What do you think? Will there be a market for these?
I think there's benefits to having director's cuts and for upgrading content produced in a lower resolution. But there are problems with that as well. Buffy the Vampire Slayer had a notorious upgrade to HD because it caused problems. Apparently the HD version meant that crew members appeared on screen like boom operators and stunt people become more visible because it wasn't shot for such a high resolution.
At a certain point too, you have to just let things go. I've thought of this when it comes to writing. I could endlessly revise things that I wrote or I could simply publish them and get them out there for people. If I'm constantly revising them, I never get to the publishing stage. So I just let things go.
As someone who has been much more interested in TV over film, it took me a while to understand the idea of Director's Cuts of films. I didn't know that the voice considered to be the author of a movie is not necessarily the person writing the screenplay, unlike TV where we focus on showrunners if not a full writer's room. There are always people who blur lines in TV (who direct AND write, or who star AND write, which is happening more and more - though it's not like it's completely new, with works like Twin Peaks out there), but most of TV is much more about long-term writing than long-term directing. And so I see a lot of fan edit projects in TV, and have maybe never seen a TV director's cut?
Fans might re-edit the order of scenes or episodes or cut them together differently, use different music, do their own upscaling or re-colourization, or even throw in dubiously canonical deleted scenes. A lot of what I'm talking about here unsurprisingly immediately brings to mind LOST for me. There's the notoriously terrible (if popular) Chronologically LOST, which placed things in 'absolute timeline' order, with the date being what informs the choice of placement, and the more recent Circle cut which involves a lot more of those 'fan as auteur' choices described above (and the ordering of the plot is character-centred, based on their experiences, rather than based on a specific datestamp).
I'm just curious about if you have any more thoughts on those kinds of differences in what it means to 'reissue' content between TV vs movies.
Here's something that I wonder.
Right now in the US all movies are copyrighted for 95 years. Which means that only films that were released before 1928 are now in public domain. But that means that in the next 15-20 years a lot of amazing movies will move there.
So I'm thinking, we might get a new popular genre of videos: re-edits of classical movies? Not just "Home Alone as a Thriller", but legitimate artistic re-edits. We might see something like Casablanca in the style of Edgar Wright, or Citizen Kane in the style of David Fincher. Not clips or trailers - full movies.
What do you think? Will there be a market for these?