SPREADING THE PLAGUE Interview Trailer 2
Uploader Comments (halmasonberg)
All Comments (3)
-
Dont misunderstand me. some movies I dont mind being spoon-fed the story. some movies are better with more thought. but the original story and subsequent ending are oil and water. it isnt a matter of leaving it to be deciphered by the viewer. there is just nothing in it to decipher. i have more insight into the concept of spacefaring tapdancing turtles than i do into why dawsons creek did what he did in the end.
-
However, if what you want is a film that answers all your questions, I'm guessing that you will not be a big fan of the director's cut either. That said, the director's cut IS a completely different film and the end is vastly more appropriate to that cut than the one currently avaialble. Thanks for your interest.
Hal Masonberg
-
Clive Barker's audience was never the film's intended audience. Not that they wouldn't appreciate it, but it's not the kind of film you market to that crowd without disappointing them. It's not what Clive Barker's name represents. That's a different film entirely. They tried to turn this film into that and what they ended up with was a mess, in my opinion. They lost the Barker audience AND the film's intended audience.
-
The ending of the film was not made for or appropriate to the producer's cut. Their intention was to turn what we shot into a standard horror film geared toward Clive Barker fans and slasher-movie fans. That was never the film's intention.
-
That said, the ending in the director's cut makes sense to that film, whereas in the producer's cut of the film, it feels tacked on, arbitrary, a cop-out. It is, in all ways, the ending to a completely different film.
In the director's cut, through the characters and storytelling, you are given more information about events, more thoughts, ideas, suggestions that leave the audience with something different at the end even though the end is conceptually the same.
-
The film was never intended to answer all questions posed. I've always felt the films that were most effective to me were the ones that left me thinking and asking questions. The ending of the director's cut is similar to the ending of the producer's cut, though edited differently. The entire film is. From first frame to last.
-
The film was never intended to answer all questions posed. I've always felt the films that were most effective to me were the ones that left me thinking and asking questions. The ending of the director's cut is similar to the ending of the producer's cut, though edited differently. The entire film is. From first frame to last.
-
Honestly, that's a hard call. The film was never intended to answer all the questions. I've always believed the most effective films for me were the ones that left me thinking and asking questions. That said, though the ending of the director's cut is the same as the producer's cut in concept, it is handled differently and everything builds differently so that the ending resonates in a way I believe the producer's cut does not.
-
Honestly, I' m less interested in the characters being fleshed out then I am about the story making sense and having a real ending. If the version you are trying to get out offers some explanations and wraps things up with some kind of logic, I'd be interested.
Agreed. Again, the producer's cut tried to be a completely different film maintaining the same conceptual ending. Does not work. The director's cut is the story as it was written and directed. And the ending does, in my opinion and the opinion of most who have seen it, works. Thanks again for your comments. I heartily agree.
Hal
halmasonberg 4 years ago