Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[badfingerboogie]

Originally Posted by spf781

https://www.darkhorizons.com/flower-...-longest-film/

Runtime: 234 minutes.

Slap a small intermission in there, we’ll all be fine.

Can't wait.

[BluBonnet]

The longer director's cut of the movie will be 5-1/2 hours, I'll bet

[spf781]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

The longer director's cut of the movie will be 5-1/2 hours, I'll bet

Doubtful.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/ma...202182329/amp/

[BluBonnet]

[Talal86]

I'm tuning in for sure, but can't say I'm excited for the runtime.

Scorsesse didn't need long runtimes to make classics at his peak, it's a sign of self indulgence imo

[spanky87]

Whoa. This is going to be 33 minutes longer than Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.

[BudBaxter]

This is what happens when you make pictures for a streaming service rather than a movie studio...

Still gonna watch it though.

[Foggy]

I reckon this’ll go back to the editing suite after its Cannes screening. Just a feeling I have.

[Gacivory]

Let’s go!!! I’m ready for it at this length!!!!

[OnlyJapantown]

Scorsese is the only one who can get away with a runtime like this, because he has the pacing down pat. There are 2-hour movies that feel longer than WoWS or The Irishman due to poor pacing/not enough going on in the plot.

I really think a movie this long should have an intermission though, just for biological reasons.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Whoa. This is going to be 33 minutes longer than Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.

And it'll be a much better movie, I can assure you.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by OnlyJapantown

Scorsese is the only one who can get away with a runtime like this, because he has the pacing down pat. There are 2-hour movies that feel longer than WoWS or The Irishman due to poor pacing/not enough going on in the plot.

I really think a movie this long should have an intermission though, just for biological reasons.

Killers of the Flower Moon branded diapers available at all participating theaters!

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by spf781

Doubtful.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/ma...202182329/amp/

Didn't he recut New York, New York?

[CreasyBear]

4 hours? I love it.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Didn't he recut New York, New York?

Well, "New York, New York" was literally taken from him in 1977, cut way down by the studio (butchered) and then was a massive bomb. Several years later, MGM let him come back and restore it to closer to his original vision. That was re-released in 1991. Most critics reevaluated it and decided that, while it is still flawed, his later cut was much better than the studio's theatrical cut.

I think that is pretty much the only time he's gone back and redone a film like that.

Generally, he is solemnly against changing a film after it has been out for a while. He says really only when the film was taken away from the filmmaker does he support a 'Director's Cut'. Otherwise, he says what went out in the first place IS the 'Director's Cut'.

He dislikes this "The (Whatever) Cut" culture, where there winds up not even being a definitive version of the film.

He says there's certain things he sometimes wishes he'd done differently with this film or that one, but says he'd never change it after it's released.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Well, "New York, New York" was literally taken from him in 1977, cut way down by the studio (butchered) and then was a massive bomb. Several years later, MGM let him come back and restore it to closer to his original vision. That was re-released in 1991. Most critics reevaluated it and decided that, while it is still flawed, his later cut was much better than the studio's theatrical cut.

I think that is pretty much the only time he's gone back and redone a film like that.

Generally, he is solemnly against changing a film after it has been out for a while. He says really only when the film was taken away from the filmmaker does he support a 'Director's Cut'. Otherwise, he says what went out in the first place IS the 'Director's Cut'.

He dislikes this "The (Whatever) Cut" culture, where there winds up not even being a definitive version of the film.

He says there's certain things he sometimes wishes he'd done differently with this film or that one, but says he'd never change it after it's released.

I thought there were rumors that he and Weinstein had huge disagreements about the final cut of Gangs of New York to the point that it could be considered compromised to a certain degree, when it comes to Scorsese's authorial intent.

[BluBonnet]

[BluRayTim]

Originally Posted by dvining

I thought there were rumors that he and Weinstein had huge disagreements about the final cut of Gangs of New York to the point that it could be considered compromised to a certain degree, when it comes to Scorsese's authorial intent.

Well, the Weinstein’s forcing Martin Scorsese to cast Cameron Diaz instead of Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet (both of whom Martin likes far more) messed things up with Gangs Of New York much more than anything else.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by BluRayTim

Well, the Weinstein’s forcing Martin Scorsese to cast Cameron Diaz instead of Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet (both of whom Martin likes far more) messed things up with Gangs Of New York much more than anything else.

Wasn't Scorsese's first choice Sarah Michelle Gellar? She left due to Buffy commitments. Then he wanted Sarah Polley before Weinstein forced him to cast Diaz.

I think we now know why Weinstein wanted her...

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Poya

I think we now know why Weinstein wanted her...

Harvey had only one thing on his mind....