826
Current Talk '23 I / Re: And Now The Return of Another New Slideshow (Sort of), Part 2 [**Now featuring alternate versions of scenes - see replies #18,#21,#23,#49,#64,#69,#76,#88,#90,#100,#105,#107,#115**]
« on: July 20, 2017, 09:20:41 PM »
Thanks again, MB, for those pages from the Dan Ross book and that unusual still of the exhumation party inside the mausoleum--I'm quite sure I never saw that shot before. Bravo! You'd give Diego the Explorer (if I'm remembering what some of my friends told me a few years ago about a popular children's program properly) a run for his swag.
I can see why all of this was cut. If all of it was actually written out in some draft of the script, it does foreground how little experience the main people involved had in constructing a screenplay for a feature film, particularly in the horror genre in the early 70s. The 90 minute running time was pretty much standard and had been for years. Of course that was long compared to the horror films of the 30s and 40s which usually clocked in at 70 minutes or less.
I was startled to see a couple of articles posted to social media a week or two ago with this director explaining why his new film about Dunkirk is "so short." The running time is reported to be 100 minutes. My initial reaction was: "that's short?"
A number of people I know have complained to me in recent years about all the big blockbuster feature films routinely running around 2 and a half hours. That's a little too long both for children and people living in what we euphemistically call "the golden years."
G.
I can see why all of this was cut. If all of it was actually written out in some draft of the script, it does foreground how little experience the main people involved had in constructing a screenplay for a feature film, particularly in the horror genre in the early 70s. The 90 minute running time was pretty much standard and had been for years. Of course that was long compared to the horror films of the 30s and 40s which usually clocked in at 70 minutes or less.
I was startled to see a couple of articles posted to social media a week or two ago with this director explaining why his new film about Dunkirk is "so short." The running time is reported to be 100 minutes. My initial reaction was: "that's short?"
A number of people I know have complained to me in recent years about all the big blockbuster feature films routinely running around 2 and a half hours. That's a little too long both for children and people living in what we euphemistically call "the golden years."
G.