The Weinsteins....anyone else hate these %$^#!?

[black_dust]

Of course you omit the fact that, if not for them, neither grindhouse nor Kill Bill would probably have been made at all...

Im sure QT would have had some other company pick him up

 

[odiin]

Im sure QT would have had some other company pick him up

Easier said than done, and even if another studio picked it up. Sure they would have probably let it be one movie.... by editing them both down to fit into the time frame of 2 hours as well as butchered the script and turned it into a pg-13 film.

I hate how people complain about everything, yet don't realize how lucky they truly are. You whine about things that they may have done wrong but pay no attention to the things they do right, and then people have the audacity to complain about how movie studios never listen to them.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Oh god can you imagine QT doing a movie at Fox?

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I hate how people complain about everything, yet don't realize how lucky they truly are. You whine about things that they may have done wrong but pay no attention to the things they do right, and then people have the audacity to complain about how movie studios never listen to them.

Yeah, Hitler united Germany, built the autobahn, and created one of the finest armies in the world. Let's just not worry about complaining about some of the bad stuff he did. (yes, its a very exaggerated comparison, but the point is the same. We shouldn't just forget what people do just because they do some good!!)

Ha, just imagine what MORE we could have had if the fat jerks actually put down their obsession with money and gave more respect to the art form.

Look at how Hero and Shaolin Soccer was handled. Movies that had been hits for years in their original countries but languished on shelves when they were finally bought by Miramax. They also bought up movies to keep them on shelves and out of the way during awards seasons.

They call Harvey Weinstein "Harvey Scissorhands".

And ask Troy Duffy how he feels about the Weinsteins. Granted, he was a jerk, but he could have been anyone.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

i'm really just mad about the grindhouse dvd split and inevitable double dip

 

[K.B.]

Troy Duffy is your big go to guy on this? LMAO

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Troy Duffy is your big go to guy on this? LMAO

Wow, I guess you missed all my other examples. Nice going.

 

[odiin]

i'm really just mad about the grindhouse dvd split and inevitable double dip

It makes sense. If you were to watch a real double feature in theaters, they wouldn't come out together on video. This way it's also a big "screw you" to everyone who didn't see it in theaters.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

It makes sense. If you were to watch a real double feature in theaters, they wouldn't come out together on video. This way it's also a big "screw you" to everyone who didn't see it in theaters.

The whole point -- at I thought -- was to get a sense of that type of culture, cinema, whatever. To split the movies, edit footage into them, and eliminate the trailers seems to defeat the ENTIRE POINT of the whole project. It was supposed to be a 2 for 1 movie experience.

 

[odiin]

The whole point -- at I thought -- was to get a sense of that type of culture, cinema, whatever. To split the movies, edit footage into them, and eliminate the trailers seems to defeat the ENTIRE POINT of the whole project. It was supposed to be a 2 for 1 movie experience.

Yeah... in theaters. The point was to get a sense of going to a grindhouse theater, and they accomplished that. Going to video is a totally different beast. Splitting them up is a perfectly viable option on video, as for editing the footage back in? That's a GOOD thing. It's not as if this is just random pointless footage. The DVD versions are the actual versions of the movies, the versions shown in theaters had to be cut for time. That was the trade off: In theaters you got to get a sense of the grindhouse experience, at the expense of having to see shortened versions of both films, and on DVDs you get to see the full versions of the films, but without the complete grindhouse experience. As for not including the trailers.... Well, I agree with you on that, and there's absolutely no reason for it. If anything they should have added MORE trailers to the DVDs as special features.

 

[black_dust]

Yeah... in theaters. The point was to get a sense of going to a grindhouse theater, and they accomplished that.

Well no they didnt really, England invented the Grindhouse we were the ones who were most likely to get what it was all about, but as soon as it flopped in the USA "HOLY CRAP! were losing money split them in 2 for everyone else so we can get it all back" Not the love of the film at all

 

[odiin]

Well no they didnt really, England invented the Grindhouse we were the ones who were most likely to get what it was all about, but as soon as it flopped in the USA "HOLY CRAP! were losing money split them in 2 for everyone else so we can get it all back" Not the love of the film at all

Yeah, but only because it did so poorly. What people for some reason seem to forget that a movie company is... a company, and that doesn't make them selfish, or evil, or anything like that. It's their job. I'm sure every one there loved Grindhouse on a personal level, and would have loved for it to stay one film, but they have to put that aside and do their job, and since it wasn't making money they made the decision to try another tactic. If any business if your product isn't making money, no matter how much YOU may or may not enjoy it yourselves, you're going to have to either change it or cut your losses and let it go completely. You can't fault them for that.

If you want to get pissed off at them for not advertising the film properly, that's one thing. Or even better yet, get pissed off at the public for not getting their butts to the theaters, but don't get pissed off at them for splitting the films up. Does it suck? Yes, but it was an absolutely valid decision to make on a business standpoint.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Yeah, but only because it did so poorly. What people for some reason seem to forget that a movie company is... a company, and that doesn't make them selfish, or evil, or anything like that. It's their job. I'm sure every one there loved Grindhouse on a personal level, and would have loved for it to stay one film, but they have to put that aside and do their job, and since it wasn't making money they made the decision to try another tactic. If any business if your product isn't making money, no matter how much YOU may or may not enjoy it yourselves, you're going to have to either change it or cut your losses and let it go completely. You can't fault them for that.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the concept of companies and their financial obligations, but there is a line that can easily be crossed into unnecessary greed, and once this line is crossed, the company can suffer regardless due to the public's perception of this company. Lots of companies have gone down permanently because of this type of scenario, or are headed in this direction. I feel Fox is on this path, with their very poor creative decisions.

The Weinsteins are unethical, pure and simple. Whether or not the two Grindhouse movies should and could be on one disc is a matter of opinion; however, some of their tactics now and when they were at Miramax aren't very debatable when it comes to morality and ethics.

 

[K.B.]

No its just that your examples are terrible. Look every company does things you won't like but honestly the weinsteins are more about "the art" then any other studio. Look at the movies that they have put out and the talent they work with and the ntry to picture any of these movies coming from a different studio and how crappy the ywould have been and then try to picture where the talent would be. Honestly half the people wouldn't have made it to where they are not because they arent talented but because theyre 'voice' is hard to work within a studio system ie, sony, fox, paramount universal etc...

 

[The Dark Defender]

They're two of the biggest pricks in the business that have butchered countless potentially great films with their immense jackassery.

Just a few of many examples.

"No, you can't have Christopher Lee in The Crow, because he's not famous enough and not enough of the audience will know who he is."

They showed up on the set of Mimic and viciously berated Guillermo Del Toro as not only a filmmaker, but a person because he didn't like the hack job that they were doing on his movie with their constant interference.

PJ got so sick of dealing with their mind-numbingly stupid bul**it on LOTR with trying to cut the project down to 2, and even 1 film that he had no choice but to take the project elsewhere.

These as**les are the movie industry equivelant of the Bush administration.

Just thinking about them pisses me off.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Oh god can you imagine QT doing a movie at Fox?

I can imagine him doing one at Lions Gate.

 

[Warhammer]

Weinsteins =

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

No its just that your examples are terrible. Look every company does things you won't like but honestly the weinsteins are more about "the art" then any other studio. Look at the movies that they have put out and the talent they work with and the ntry to picture any of these movies coming from a different studio and how crappy the ywould have been and then try to picture where the talent would be. Honestly half the people wouldn't have made it to where they are not because they arent talented but because theyre 'voice' is hard to work within a studio system ie, sony, fox, paramount universal etc...

It was hard to understand what you're saying so a response is going to be difficult.

So you're ok with they're unethical tactics? There are many other things they've done as well. I am sure we don't know 1/10 of some terrible things they've done, because they do have enormous power.

And neither you nor I can say how good a film would have been in the hands of another studio, so that's an invalid point. I could just as easily said that their movies could have been handled/treated better in the hands of another company, even though considering some of the things they have done, it wouldn't be outlandish to think so.

 

[K.B.]

Actually you can..look at Kevin Smith for example. Regardless of if your fan or not, clerks get picked up and ditributed and is successful enough then went to a studio to do mallrats where not only was it a circle jerk but the studio wanted guys like breckin mayer and seth green to play jay to make it "mainstream" then smith goes back to the weinsteins and makes good movies.

And I dunno about anyone else but I dont think i'd want to see christopher lee playing the crow lol

"i'm so incredibly old....cant i just die...again?"

 

[The Dark Defender]

He's one of the greatest actors to ever step in front of the camera, so I wouldn't mind; and their reason for rejecting him was idiotic to say the least.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Troy Duffy is your big go to guy on this? LMAO

LOL, you can throw this at me and then go on to mention Kevin Smith movies?? I dig the guy, but he's hardly a smoking gun in your argument.

Let's look at some of the more notorious examples of the Weinsteins' and their abuse of power.

Iron Monkey:
In its release in 2001, Miramax made several changes that the company felt would make it more marketable to American audiences. Since most Americans are unfamiliar with the story of Wong Fei Hung, his name was removed from the title. The subtitles were tailored to remove the political context of the story. Some scenes were trimmed to tone down the violence. Also, a new soundtrack was composed that emulated the classical score to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but in doing so the famous Wong Fei Hung theme was eliminated.

The Protector:
The Weinstein Company purchased the US distribution rights for Tom-Yum-Goong and retitled it The Protector (also the name of a 1985 Jackie Chan film). For the US theatrical cut, the film's length was reduced by at least 25 minutes, going so far as to trim down some of the fight scenes, even though it was given an "R" rating restricting audiences to people aged 17 and over. Out of all cuts outside of Thailand, it is the shortest cut of the film, even more so than the European cuts. It also features a new score by RZA. Some parts of the missing footage (including cuts to the "bone breaker" fight and Madame Rose envisioning herself in a red dress as queen) appeared in the US trailer and US TV Spots.

Mimic:
Director 'Guillermo Del Toro' disowned the film after constant clashes with Bob Weinstein, who would frequently visit the set and make unreasonable demands about what should be shot, deviating away from the script. Since then Del Toro has never worked with the Weinsteins.

Princess Mononoke:
On hearing that Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein would try to cut animator Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke to make it more marketable, one of Studio Ghibli's producers sent an authentic katana with a simple message: "No cuts".

But as long as Kevin Smith can make gems like Dogma we shouldn't worry about anything else.

 

[K.B.]

Ok and those points are fine but once again, as I and others have stated, it's nothing other and much bigger studios HAVEN'T done as well, so why are you coming down on them and not anyone else?

 

[The Dark Defender]

I doubt Del Toro would work with the Weinsteins again for a $20 million paycheck.

He refers to Mimic as "being like a beautiful daughter, that's had her arms chopped off" after the Weinsteins constant tampering.

 

[TheVileOne]

To answer one question, one Asian film they butchered and cut up was Shao Lin Soccer. They totally mishandled that movie.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Ok and those points are fine but once again, as I and others have stated, it's nothing other and much bigger studios HAVEN'T done as well, so why are you coming down on them and not anyone else?

Why not? They're pretty notorious and a lot of people have some very unkind words about them. If you're such a fan, start your own Weinstein appreciation thread. t: