So I'm gonna do a Terminator 3 re edit - Page 2

I'm guessing that the goal there is usually the first (imitation as a means to build skill), not the second (improvement upon the "flawed" original). To take your example, it's like saying "DaVinci did a swell job, overall, but his genius just didn't extend to the smile, which I, despite not having 1/1,000th of his technical skill or inspiration, will fix."

Whatever you may think of Terminator 3, a a group of talented people spent a bunch of time on it. It's one thing to critique it as is. It's another to take all of the work that went into the actual filming and fiddle with the result to ostensibly "improve" on it.

There's a small, but important, distinction between this type of fan edit and the underground remixes Justin alluded to. Good remixes (or songs based largely on samples) don't seek to improve on the original, but to put a new spin on it - to use parts of the original to get across an original artistic vision. In other words, if Sairus' goal were to tell an original story exclusively using footage from Terminator 3, it would be kind of impressive (bizarre, but impressive). Or even if he were editing it to emphasize some peculiar subtext he picked up while watching it, it would be kind of interesting. But it sounds like he's just changing what's there, not commenting on it, not adding anything particularly creative.

I may be biased, since the idea of taking the time to re-edit the Terminator 3 fits somewhere between Ren Fair and plush fetishism on DaveB's list of things so bogglingly dorky that he can't imagine doing them, much less admitting it to people.

I agree there may be an overabundance of hubris in the fan edit intended to make the movie objectively "better," but I got the sense (maybe wrongly) that this was more about trying to make T3 subjectively more enjoyable for the "editor," with the bonus (or maybe main point) of having fun dicking around with editing tools and showing bits of what you've done to friends and asking "whaddya think?"

I wouldn't see anything wrong with that.

So where does a garage band's ska-core cover of "Nothing Compares 2 U" fit in this discussion?

None of which equates to thinking "I can improve on this", which is what lies behind fan edits.

How is a fan edit not ripping the creator off wholesale?

Compare this to someone saying that they're going to rewrite a book to make it more to their liking. Should this also be considered a legitimate hobby, or would we be justified in chiding this person for not just writing something of their own? There seems to be this idea that movies don't exactly count in the same way as other art forms, possibly because they're populist entertainment, and that somehow, fans should be allowed to monkey with them if they don't match their expectations.

Editing is a technical ability, but it is also a form of art. Re-editing a movie is taking a form of art that someone else created, and altering it. Thus, you are entertaining the idea that you are capable of making that particular piece of art better than the people who created it. So what's the essential difference between this and deciding to rewrite Frankenstein with a happier ending?

Like I said at post #52, if someone claims they are making an existing artistic work (movie, novel, painting) objectively "better" for all of us by monkeying with it then I can see being critical of that, and if they try to use their new "creation" to make money (directly or indirectly) then that strikes me as wrong, too.

But if someone wants to add elements to a Matisse or rewrite "Lonesome Dove" so that they characters never leave Hat Creek or add some music and remove some jokes from T3, solely because he thinks he'd like it better that way and he enjoys painting/writing/screwing around with editing tools I don't think that is a "bad" thing. I might question the use of time and effort, but that applies to all kinds of hobbies and undertakings.

When I was in junior high, we had to read "Jane Eyre." I hated it and to maintain my sanity I rewrote the entire thing as a 5 or 6 page comedy. I'm sure it is terrible but I thought it was histerical at the time, read it to a few friends and they laughed, too. Is there any real harm in that?

Wow. You sure seem to know a lot about the pitfalls of fan edits, Greg David. I wonder if there isn't some half-finished, de-shittified reworking of Escape From LA languishing on your hard drive...?

The American Godzilla, actually. I removed all the parts with people in them and replaced them with split screen footage of Rock Hudson and Doris Day on the phone. It was a bold experiment, but the music scores did me in.

You should have spliced in some random Raymond Burr footage while you were at it.

And that's where our complaints lay. I was curious as to why someone would spend time doing so but really Sairus' time is his own. I drew the line when he said that he was better then those who make films in Hollywood.

Agreed, I won't defend that...

Some Perry Mason (most recent footage) would certainly spice things up.

Or if you want to keep Hank Azaria, use his footage as The Blue Raja.

About the same place in the discussion where Sairus said that he was remaking Terminator 3 as a Western, using the same story, a new script, new actors, and everything else.

How about this, serious question- is it more or less objectionable to make your own remix of another artist's song (using only the existing song elements from this or other songs by that artist) than to make a re-edit of an existing movie?

Depends on the intent and amount of original creative vision behind the remix/re-edit. Granted, these are impossible criteria to fully quantify, but it sounds like Sairus has no desire to put forth any sort of original idea with this - he just wants to "improve upon" the ideas of the original. It's the equivalent of a remix artist taking a song, keeping the structure, and most of the recorded parts, but removing exactly one measure of the bridge and putting an extra tambourine part over the chorus.

The bare minimum you can do in claiming a remixed version of a song as "yours" rather than the original artist's is putting a new beat behind it to make it danceable (see? there's a new intent there, even if it's not particularly innovative or unusual). And even that can be a stretch, in my book, depending on how much was really added to do this.

I'd liken it to the recent remaster of Halloween that "fixed" the color timing, taking out all the blue gels from the night scenes, if you're looking to compare it to a "legitimate" venture.

And Sarius, good luck to ya, but throwing a filter onto a scene does not make day-for-night.

More cowbell?

Makes sense to me and I just thought of a similar real-world situation: haven't there been lawsuits by movie producers/studios against "family friendly" edits of movies like Titanic where someone cuts out all the swears and boobies?

I can't imagine that someone would do that!

Youtube? Sure, you can probably get away with confusing the average viewer because the video quality it so bad. Except for sound... without the original sound elements, like said above, it's impossible to make it sound professional. You'll just be stacking sounds. Anyone really wanting to watch it to enjoy it will probably be taken out of the movie though, even if they've never seen it. Editing isn't just deleting frames/scenes, which is all you can do without access to the dailies. It's also adding; nuance/scenes/beats, extending shots, etc. You'll just be making a cliffs notes version, but not a real movie. What's there is there for a reason. Any changes made, takes away from the whole, and without adding other things to balance, it's fucked. Try making a real film and you'll know what I'm talking about (if you haven't).

But it's cool what you're trying to do.

Wow. Though an edit of T3 was completely unnecessary in my mind, I was still going to back you up...until that statement. You think you really have some skill?

Okay, the day you can edit videos like AMDS, you talk to me. I don't remember his real name but the man did the Robocop vs. Terminator edited films, and even Neo vs. Yoda vs. Robocop vs. God knows what else. The man was fucking gifted. He got shut down though because they violate copyrights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4LMxEtsNh8

Oh and best editing in the world can't save a sucky movie, so don't say you're so much better because most movies suck.

Actually, i'd say that version successfully puts a new spin on the original. The original was a cappella and probably not something you'd expect to hear in a club. It does recontextualize the original in significant ways.

Uh...you can be cocky and SUCK. Cocky-ness doesn't mean dick. My problem is that in a real movie, the editors go through TONS of film to get the right cut in, they have to cut it all cohesively, they have to take the large amount of score and cut it to make it roll with what they're editing. They have the studio, producers and directors on their backs the whole time. If they think this is a good decision, they can be overruled just as easily. If they're cutting a comedy, they have to make sure the timing is right so the jokes don't fall flatter than they usually would. Theres tons of other things but other people have an idea of what I'm talking about. The point is you're saying you're SO much better yet you haven't done the same shit they do on a daily basis. Fan edits are simple because the majority of the source is already edited FOR you. You can't just delete some scenes, make it flow a little, slap a filter on and say you're the shit.

This is not a personal attack on you, it's just where my flu-and-med-addled brain went:

I'd be weirded out/cracked the fuck up to find out that my doctor went home and made fan edits of genre films. I don't know why.

On the other hand, George Miller was a practicing MD before he made Mad Max, so who knows.

Nah, SAIRUS, I didn't mean it like that. This isn't about experience at all.

I meant these people do it for a LIVING. I meant it's not easy to sift through 50 takes for a scene just to decide which one should go in and deciding how it's going to go in, and music cues, and all of that stuff. My whole point is that you're NOT doing the same thing as they are. You're deleting scenes, making it flow more, slapping a filter maybe on some, some music, and you keep saying you're greater than.

I just personally don't see any basis on why you think you're so much better. I don't mean to be so hostile about it, I'm just saying that's the point I'm trying to make.

The only reason I mentioned studios and stuff controlling is that editors sometimes have to make shitty decisions because someone else told them to, not because they're lacking ability, which would explain some horrible edits in film.

Bingo. Look at it this way when I worked on Scar we had a running length limit that we had to fall under, we had 15 TB of space and a director who shot too much footage (approx. 35 TB of footage), we were over budget on the production (guess where that excess budget gets stolen from), we had a brand new script super so continuity was a bitch, we had an editor and two assistants (normally we have at least three more people), no post super, we did dailies ourselves, we were only the second film in history to shoot in RealD, and we were allowed no overtime. That's all before we get to cut a single frame of film.

Now, hang that all over your head plus try to cut a decent movie.

And that experience is not uncommon in the post field. On bigger films you can add in personality clashes, unreasonable deadlines, each previous department (pic edit, sfx, cg etc) all missing their deadlines, then two months of audience testing plus the correction that are demanded because of said testing.

So, after a hugely stressful experience, you've done the best job you can on a film, and it's released to the world. The some guy on the 'net with a copy of a prosumer editing software is saying he can make it better then you did just simply by cutting some bits out and adding some new music. Can you see why that may be insulting? You and your peers have already done ninety nine percent of the work plus taken 100 percent of the stress and this guy has the audacity to see that not only can he make it better but that your talent and skill is overrated. Particularly when he hasn't taken one step into a professional edit suite or ever been inside a mix room with said film.

And, Sairus, if you think I'm taking this personally, you're right. I've spent years working in the industry to get to the point where not only do I make a good living at it but that I'm also respected by my peers and by potential clients. To have someone say what you have said in here is a personal insult to my skill, my craft and my years of sacrifice to get where I am.

Sigh.

This is like spitting into the Grand Canyon to raise the water level.

I just hope that you will practice medicine with as much vigor and passion that you are approaching the fruitless reediting of Terminator 3. You should be a great doctor.

That's the key right there. Without experience with those necessary steps, you'll never know if you're better.

Anyone can be a critic, after the fact. Especially if they don't have knowledge of the circumstances or processes that came before.

Depressed? What did you do, kill all the characters off?

edit:
I read your open letter. Nice sentiment.