Pietro Scalia Talks Editing Alien: Covenant

Started by Corporal Hicks, Jun 28, 2017, 09:42:47 PM

Author
Pietro Scalia Talks Editing Alien: Covenant (Read 29,602 times)

SiL

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 07:34:41 AM
It is an industry fact that R-Rated films are not produced at 100 million + budgets because their audience and ability to fill seats is limited and this is the only franchise that has ever been able to pull that off.
Some films made in the last 17 years with an R rating and $100 million budget that didn't bomb:

Gladiator
Terminator 3
300: Rise of an Empire
Hangover Part 3
Django Unchained
Wolf of Wall Street
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant

QuoteIt is also an industry fact that films longer than 2 hours are frowned upon by Hollywood because they make less money / have less ability to make money because they have less showtimes per day.
Most major releases today are over 2 hours. The current top five highest grossing films of all time -- not adjusted for inflation -- are over 2 hours, and of the top 10 only one is under -- Frozen.

QuoteAliens, the only exception in this franchise, is the exception proving the rule. It wasnt made cheaply, and it rode the coattails of the smash hit that was ALIEN at a time when Low Budget R Rated films actually had a theatrical release
Aliens had a fairly average budget and was released 8 years after the previous film. That's hardly "riding on the coattails".

Highland

Fury Road, now that was a film. Probably my favourite out of the last few years.

BishopShouldGo

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 07:03:10 AM
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jun 29, 2017, 11:12:57 PM
Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 29, 2017, 03:55:34 PM
Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM
QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

THIS!!! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's like NO ONE understands that ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is the reason the movie is the way it is. Stop bickering and wasting your time. You aren't understanding that this is an industry issue. Its about runtime. Almost everything that wasn't good in this AND Prometheus were because of a contractual obligation to limit the length of the film. All of this bickering and finger pointing - its just because an R-RATED 100mil$ film cannot be 2.5 hours long and risk not making its money back. The editor was just doing his job. If anything the problem is that they need to write a 1.5 hour script so Ridley and his editors can keep the pace fleshed out.

Also there is nothing Scalia's interview that says there are 12 additional minutes of SHAW footage specifically. He says more stuff that bridges the gap, totaling 12 minutes. This includes what is already IN the film and the Prologue. You are assuming that means more scenes with Shaw. It doesn't. It may be slightly extended Prologue or etc but we also know that the opening Prologue with David was initially longer, for instance.
So a longer Prologue, possibly a slightly longer version of The Crossing, and the scene with David bombing the Engineers all included in that 12 minutes. He didn't say "12 additional minutes of Shaw and David on Paradise doing a bunch of stuff youve never seen." At best, there may be an additional scene or a viral that never got released.

I'm still waiting to see verification of this, but either way it's not logical and mostly nonsense. The new Transformers was much longer and was considered an event film. It failed to deliver the strong box office that was expected, but no one is blaming the run time. If what you're saying is true then Fox has no idea what they're doing ( debatable, for sure ). Usually if a movie is going to be so big that a theatre is selling out multiple showings they just get a few more screens lol.

You dont have to wait for verification. It was the same story with Prometheus. R-Rated films at a 100million + is completely unheard of. There simply is NO OTHER FRANCHISE that produces 100million dollar+ R-Rated films. TRANSFORMERS is marketable to 7 year olds. Its Rated PG-13, and anyone can see it without supervision. Its a false comparison. TRANSFORMERS is not at the same degree of risk of not making its money back. An R-Rated film thats as long as TRANSFORMERS, would play in less theaters, and has far less showtimes per day. This is why the ALIEN FILM is 2 hours and is contracted to be 2 hours. Because FOX wont take that risk and the turnout for this is verification of their rightness. If Alien:Covenant would have been 2.5 hours it would result in one entire less showtime every 8 hours. That's 2 less showtimes per day, per theatre, as per most multiplexes, and it results in much less profit for the theatre and the studio. If each showtime in a theatre amounted to 20 million dollars, thats the difference between 80million a day and 60 million per day, Thats a substantial risk to take over adding 20 minutes of additional footage to keep fans happy. TRANSFORMERS on the other hand, with its PG13 rating will automatically open in far more theaters. In fact TRANSFORMERS opened in 4,132 theatres in the US this week. Alien Covenant opened in 3,761. Thats because of its R rating, which doesnt fill seats. If it had been 2.5 hours long, it would have been detrimental to FOX's bottom line.
Waiting for confirmation of this is silly. This is a film industry fact. R-rated films at this budget do not exist and never have. This is legitimately the ONLY franchise of its caliber at a consistent R Rating.
Do I think this HURT the film? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think FOX should have taken the risk? You bet I do. Will they? Unlikely. They will just try and make the next film for cheaper.
Fans need to take this stuff into consideration and understand why they arent getting what they wish they'd were. The real solution is to write 1.5 hour scripts that allow Scott an additional half hour to be more exacting with pace.

Link tho.

Salt The Fries

Quote from: Highland on Jun 30, 2017, 12:53:41 PM
Fury Road, now that was a film. Probably my favourite out of the last few years.
Actually it didn't grab me and I fully expected it to do so... :( it had "my kind of film" vibe written all over it.

XenoHunter99

Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jun 30, 2017, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jun 30, 2017, 12:53:41 PM
Fury Road, now that was a film. Probably my favourite out of the last few years.
Actually it didn't grab me and I fully expected it to do so... :( it had "my kind of film" vibe written all over it.
That movie had a certain amount of spectacle, but it was also largely boring and stupid. The characters frequently behaved like morons, and you might as well have called it Furiosa for all the impact Max had on the proceedings. The one time the guy actually got to do anything, it was off-screen. Waste of time. YMMV.

newagescamartist

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 30, 2017, 01:41:54 PM
Link tho.

There won't be one because this is almost assuredly nonsense. Unless someone is privy to contractual obligations this is all speculation, and I'm ok with speculation, but saying that it doesn't need verification because of industry standards is ridiculous.

BishopShouldGo

Yeah I know aha

CainsSon

CainsSon

#112
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jun 30, 2017, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 30, 2017, 01:41:54 PM
Link tho.

There won't be one because this is almost assuredly nonsense. Unless someone is privy to contractual obligations this is all speculation, and I'm ok with speculation, but saying that it doesn't need verification because of industry standards is ridiculous.

Yeah no its not. Not only have I gone to school for Film and TV but I work in production as a production manager and have been on all kinds of sets. On top of that I was a Projectionist/Manager for AMC theatres for 3 years.
I don't have to provide links because Im qualified to write this. This isn't a trial. Im teaching you about the film business.

Here's a FANBOY talking about this at this link below. You will see listed countless high budget R-Rated movies. Almost NONE of them, are close to 100 million and in almost every case of them being so, you have some other reason like it being the work of an extremely bankable OSCAR winning director. Like THE REVENANT, right AFTER an Oscar is won. And thats the only reason he got the money to make an R Rated movie at a 2.5 hour runtime (because of BIRDMAN being JUST prior to it).
If you dont believe me you can cross reference every single one of those listed 100mil range R Rated films with RUNTIME and you will see the exceptions to the rule are like NEVER. Literally like never. And in every single one of those cases NONE of them is a PART 6 or 8 or 10 of any franchise. The only exception I see is MAD MAX (150 mil) and that film was a massive box office risk and was exactly 2 hours long. That its EXACTLY within 2 hours, isn't a mistake. I loved it and thank god for them taking that risk, but don't confuse my instruction with my desire or agreement. Im just telling you why it is the way it is.

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/the-financial-potential-of-r-rated-movies.html

If its R Rated and has a budget of anywhere near 100 mil, its 2 hours or less because theatres lose showtimes and the films cant make their money. The exceptions are few and prove the rule. If all of your money is made between 7pm and 11pm, and it takes a half hour between each film to clean and set up a new theatre, plus trailers and etc, and you can only sell tickets to people over 17, you would not be smart to want 1 showtime between 7pm and 11pm instead of 2 showtimes. You see? Why would you need a link to prove that?

SM

So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

CainsSon

CainsSon

#114
Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

Ridley stipulated it himself because he IS the business. He stated clearly in interviews during rounds for Prometheus that he knew he had to get it down to the 2 hour mark or risk there being no sequel.
These were almost his exact words.
Anyone who works in the business would know this is a factor. Contract or not. Why would he want to risk that?

BishopShouldGo

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

IT'S A CONTRACTUAL ORDER!!!

CainsSon

CainsSon

#116
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 30, 2017, 11:20:40 PM
Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

IT'S A CONTRACTUAL ORDER!!!

"Final Cut" is a the name for this contractual order and that the studio has that say is common practice. But you can bet Ridley is smart enough to make sure of this himself.

If its R Rated and has a budget of anywhere near 100 mil, its 2 hours or less because theatres lose showtimes and the films cant make their money. The exceptions are few and prove the rule. If all of your money is made between 7pm and 11pm, and it takes a half hour between each film to clean and set up a new theatre, plus trailers and etc, and you can only sell tickets to people over 17, you would not be smart to want 1 showtime between 7pm and 11pm instead of 2 showtimes. You see? Why would you need a link to prove that?


Quote from: SiL on Jun 30, 2017, 12:34:07 PM
Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 07:34:41 AM
It is an industry fact that R-Rated films are not produced at 100 million + budgets because their audience and ability to fill seats is limited and this is the only franchise that has ever been able to pull that off.
Some films made in the last 17 years with an R rating and $100 million budget that didn't bomb:

Gladiator
Terminator 3
300: Rise of an Empire
Hangover Part 3
Django Unchained
Wolf of Wall Street
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant

QuoteIt is also an industry fact that films longer than 2 hours are frowned upon by Hollywood because they make less money / have less ability to make money because they have less showtimes per day.
Most major releases today are over 2 hours. The current top five highest grossing films of all time -- not adjusted for inflation -- are over 2 hours, and of the top 10 only one is under -- Frozen.

QuoteAliens, the only exception in this franchise, is the exception proving the rule. It wasnt made cheaply, and it rode the coattails of the smash hit that was ALIEN at a time when Low Budget R Rated films actually had a theatrical release
Aliens had a fairly average budget and was released 8 years after the previous film. That's hardly "riding on the coattails".

Sorry nope.

GLADIATOR -  2.5 hours (not a sequel or a part 6)
         A winner but not a franchise and also its a very SOFT R and not a horror film. IE Exception proving rule.
TERMINATOR 3 - 1hour 49 minutes  - Nope
300: RISE - 1 hour 42 min    - Nope
HANGOVER 3 - 1 hour 40 min    - Nope
DJANGO - 2hours and 41 min 
         WAIT!!! WAIT!!! We have a winner. OOOOOOH Guess what? It only made 162 million and was a Box Office Failure but also universally acclaimed. Ergo - why this is never done.
WOLF OF WALL ST - 3 hours. Budget 100 million HOW MUCH DID IT MAKE? 116 million. Once again. Why this is never done.
Even when you have a name recognized director like Tarantino of Scorcese, this is a huge risk.
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD - 2 hours.
REVENANT : 2.5 hours (director just won oscar) It was a risk and it was a success. But it also was only due to the director and because it wasnt a sequel.

So there it is. Not a single one of these films is a sequel in a big franchise, with a 100m budget, R Rating and over 2 hours.

If its R Rated and has a budget of anywhere near 100 mil, its 2 hours or less because theaters lose showtimes and the films cant make their money. The exceptions are few and prove the rule. If all of your money is made between 7pm and 11pm, and it takes a half hour between each film to clean and set up a new theatre, plus trailers and etc, and you can only sell tickets to people over 17, you would not be smart to want 1 showtime between 7pm and 11pm instead of 2 showtimes. You see? Why would you need a link to prove that?


SM

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 11:15:34 PM
Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

Ridley stipulated it himself because he IS the business. He stated clearly in interviews during rounds for Prometheus that he knew he had to get it down to the 2 hour mark or risk there being no sequel.
These were almost his exact words.
Anyone who works in the business would know this is a factor. Contract or not. Why would he want to risk that?

That's a start. I guess.

I wouldn't be at all surprised that Fox wanted specific running times.

It's more the 'This is what I thank and it's all completely true and if you don't agree you're dumb' attitude that's tiresome.

SiL

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 11:24:24 PM
So there it is. Not a single one of these films is a sequel in a big franchise, with a 100m budget, R Rating and over 2 hours.
If you would care to re-read your own post, the part I was replying to was you saying that "R Rated movies aren't made for 100 million dollars". You didn't stipulate there that it needed to be an R Rated franchise film with a 2 hour runtime. Your box office numbers appear to only be domestic as well, which isn't a complete indication of success.

You said that movies over 2 hours don't make money, but the highest grossing movies ever made are over 2 hours. Almost every major studio release these days is over two hours. Almost every Marvel movie grossing $800+ million is over two hours. Scott knows that 2 hours is "more" commercial, but the idea that the studio is standing over his head with a stopwatch is silly.

As for the films you've been a production manager on, I'd love to hear some of them!

CainsSon

CainsSon

#119
Fair enough but whats tiresome to me is hearing people with no understanding of the constraints of the business model trash talk the work of some very talented people. All the hate towards Scalia here and Ridley Scott is what I find tiresome.

He's just doing his job and film is a business.

That said I think he'd be smart to sacrifice some of his desire to make practical sets and settle for more green screen and a 80 million budget that can justify the longer run-time. 80 million and 2hours and 20 min and I think we have something workable, but he has to be willing to compromise certain things a bit, but so do deluded fans who are asking for things that this series cannot conceivably give them. Like a 3 hour 200 million dollar movie with Giger-designed landscapes all practical sets and no CGI for instance.  ;)

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News