criterionforum.org

It's a bad sign when the making-of documentary is longer than the fucking feature!

Superman Returns - 2 hours, 34 minutes
Requiem for Krypton: Making Superman Returns - 2 hours, 53 minutes

Of course, that neither of these are very good movies hurts also....

tavernier wrote:It's a bad sign when the making-of documentary is longer than the fucking feature!

Superman Returns - 2 hours, 34 minutes
Requiem for Krypton: Making Superman Returns - 2 hours, 53 minutes

Of course, that neither of these are very good movies hurts also....

I fail to see how this is bad. Should the amount of information about the making of the movie somehow be less than the movie itself?

Mr. Sausage wrote:I fail to see how this is bad. Should the amount of information about the making of the movie somehow be less than the movie itself?

In a word, yes.

Given that the movie is the equivalent of a bad handjob, why spend even more time examining how it was made?

tavernier wrote:It's a bad sign when the making-of documentary is longer than the fucking feature!

FWIW, evidently the making of doc on Kiarostami's Five is as long as the feature, maybe even longer!

John Cope wrote:FWIW, evidently the making of doc on Kiarostami's Five is as long as the feature, maybe even longer!

I spent 2-1/2 hours watching a bad Superman movie; I won't spend another three watching how they did it! (I got through 40 minutes before giving up.) I'm sure there are lengthy making-ofs about certain films that would be worth watching, but those theoretically would get into more depth about the film's classic status, etc., not just showing us endless green screen shots of Lois and the Caped Crusader. Those hour-long docs in the new Superman boxed set are easier to watch. But even something like the 2-hour doc on the making of Jaws is too much.

tavernier wrote:But even something like the 2-hour doc on the making of Jaws is too much.

I disagree. No one is forcing you to watch the entire doc in one sitting. Break it up into chunks.

I like how some discs break up lengthy docs into easily digestable chunks. For example, on the new Kong DVD there is a 3hr.+ making of doc but it is broken down into something like 8 featurettes that you can either watch altogether or separately.

And there are some films, like Jaws for example, that I could watch endless amounts of anecdotal info on. To each their own I suppose.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I like how some discs break up lengthy docs into easily digestable chunks. For example, on the new Kong DVD there is a 3hr.+ making of doc but it is broken down into something like 8 featurettes that you can either watch altogether or separately.

Another horrible film that doesn't deserve endless amounts of making-of footage...but then, Peter Jackson has the most swelled ego in movie history by now.

tavernier wrote: ... not just showing us endless green screen shots of Lois and the Caped Crusader.

Wrong superhero.

Don't most of these big-budget Hollywood block-buster "epics" have these huge making-of documentaries nowadays? Some die-hard fans of film/Superman will find the information interesting. Why exactly would someone who hated the film feel the need to purchase the DVD to watch the extra features? So if someone were to watch a 2 1/2 hour Superman film and determine that they thought it was awful, why are they bothering to watch a longer documentary about how they made the film?

tavernier wrote:I'm sure there are lengthy making-ofs about certain films that would be worth watching, but those theoretically would get into more depth about the film's classic status, etc.

The long docu on Warner's two-disc King Kong (1933) comes to mind. But that features a synopsis of O'Brien's abandoned Creation project, background info on Cooper and Schoedsack, and the recreation of the lost scene.

To be honest, however, I understand Tavernier's objections. If I'm going to make a 2-hour+ time commitment, I think I'd prefer to watch whatever movie I'm interested in again. After all, how long does it take to summarize a film's production history and major themes for a general audience?

tryavna wrote:If I'm going to make a 2-hour+ time commitment, I think I'd prefer to watch whatever movie I'm interested in again.

But why even bother making any commitment of your time if you're not interested in the movie in the first place?

tavernier wrote:I spent 2-1/2 hours watching a bad Superman movie; I won't spend another three watching how they did it!

I don't see the point. You're here to whine about how you don't want to watch a three hour documentary on a movie you didn't like? Who cares? Certainly not anyone who isn't you. And pretending like you're obligated to watch the thing just because it's on the DVD doesn't help.

Your problem is not with the length, it's with the content. If it was rip-roaring stuff I'm sure the three hours would make little difference. And even if it was a bit long for one sitting, like Fletch says, take a break and come back to it. And that "but" about 'theoretically' getting into the classic status of the movie or what have you is beside the point.

tryvana wrote:To be honest, however, I understand Tavernier's objections. If I'm going to make a 2-hour+ time commitment, I think I'd prefer to watch whatever movie I'm interested in again. After all, how long does it take to summarize a film's production history and major themes for a general audience?

Are you saying that you'd very much like to know how a film was made, but would rather it be more easily digestable and not demand so much of your time? Fair enough. But I think most DVDs these days are not interested in summary, but are interested in giving as full an account of a film as possible.

Andre Jurieu wrote:But why even bother making any commitment of your time if you're not interested in the movie in the first place?

Good question! I was trying to distance myself from Superman Returns by phrasing it more generically ("whatever movie I'm interested in"). I'm just saying that I have some difficulty working through very long making-of documentaries.

Of course, that still doesn't answer why Tavernier would subject himself to a making-of docu for a movie he doesn't even like. Reminds me of how I once sat down to listen to the commentary for Crash, then realized what I was doing and smacked myself.

Mr_sausage wrote:I don't see the point. You're here to whine about how you don't want to watch a three hour documentary on a movie you didn't like? Who cares? Certainly not anyone who isn't you.

Thank you for your pithy insight. I must try that sometime.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here tavernier. It is not uncommon for extras outlast the running time of the actual film. The Panic Room 3-disc edition has two discs dedicated to the entire making of the film - preproduction, filming, effects, postproduction - everything. It is insanely thorough. It just matters if you're interested enough to watch them or care enough about the making of the film.

If you don't --- why are you watching?

Antoine Doinel wrote:I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here tavernier.

I think his point is 'vote for me not Gilmaz'.

Huh, I check out this thread to see what people were saying about the DVD, turns out it's just somebody wasting everyone else's time. Thanks, tavernier.

I think this thread has outlasted its...actually, I don't think it ever had any usefulness. Nor do I think it will. Consider it closed.