Terribly edited films Vs superbly edited ones

IvaBigWun

Hopefully this isnt too "listy" a topic for the Mods.

I couldnt sleep last night so I decided to see what new offerings Netflix had - up popped Hancock and I thought to myself "hmm, I seem to remember this being half decent"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZQQgvhn4jg

And half decent it was. The first hour or so is grand, an easy film to switch off to, but what follows is a mess that has to lie squarely at the editor's feet.

Or indeed the studio/director who ordered him to chop it up in such a way that tonely it would be very hard to fook it up anymore so then what ends up on the screen. I noticed there was a "Director's Cut" of the film after the closing credits had rolled. Apparently it flows much better than the clusterfúck of the original's latter half.

So it got me thinking: how many great films suffered at the hands of bad editing and how many average ones soared because of great rearranging of the celluloid furniture?

One above average film that I think was lifted up into the "classic" territory because of exemplary editing was JFK. Joe Hutshing
and Pietro Scalia must have worked in shifts to get this upto the standard it is.

But the winner of "best editor of all time" for me has to be Thelma Schoonmaker



With her work on 8 films with Martin Scorsese many of them push the three hour mark yet feel like they've only been on for two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJXDMwGWhoA

So what, in your opinion, are the terribly edited films and the superbly edited ones of the last few decades? Again, give us more than just a film title as that wont go down too well with the powers that be!

Also; where does film editing come in the hierarchy of movie making for you? Is it more or less important than a great director?

Finally; feel free to share any particularly amazing edited scenes that you love and that you can find on YouTube

e_e

No one clip can do the film justice but I'd use Upstream Color as an example of some of the best editing I've seen. The way it seamlessly blends what is basically a drama about 2 people trying to piece their lives together with more abstract images is truly amazing. I tend to love films that are put together like a stream of consciousness and UC definitely does that, remarkably well too.

e_e

Also on the negative side, I hate the way many blockbusters just use frantic editing to disguise the lack of choreography in their action scenes. It's as if they just shake the camera around haphazardly and say "we'll piece it together in the editing room" when good editing is a combination of strong direction too. So many films that start off well just descend into that nonsense towards the end (I'm looking at you, Non-Stop).

_Kaiser_

Just finished watching the Wolf of Wall Street earlier and it certainly didn't feel like a 3 hour film!

Fantastic performance from DiCaprio too. Should have gotten the Oscar for it.

e_e

Wow I can't agree with WOWS being a well edited film. I felt every one of those 180 minutes and the movie just needs to repeat the same scenes over and over again just to pad out the length. It's so redundant, Leo does have a certain amount of charisma but it's such a one-note character that you just get sick of his presence after an hour.

The film takes 3 hours to basically say "he's greedy, now let's enjoy some of it!" but that's an argument for another thread. Not even close to Scorsese's best.

dirtyden

Peter Jackson has to take the Oscar for worst editing. About two hours of king Kong could/should have been edited.

johnny_ultimate

I think a lot of Hollywood films these days try to disguise overly busy editing by having relentless soundtrack. It's probably just a pet peeve of mine, but it can suck me straight out of a film. Cloud Atlas was IMO the worst offender, where what could have been quite an elegant editing job - interweaving multiple narratives generally coherently - was undermined by a score that robbed the film of any sense of pace or nuance, more a constant rush towards the finish line than anything that was allowed breathe. Christopher Nolan films can be really bad for this as well - I like TDKR a lot, but the last hour is basically just [dramaticmusic]plotplotplotplotplot[/dramaticmusic]. I always find the interplay between music and editing interesting, and they can have a massive effect on each other.

As the old statement goes, most of the time with a really good editing job you won't even notice the editor's hand - it's one of the unsung cinematic arts as their job is very often less 'visible' than say a cinematographer. There are times when the quality is impossible to ignore, though. Upstream Colour is mentioned above, and really is one of the most extraordinary editing jobs I've ever seen. The story is largely told through the way the film is put together - the audience is trusted to link images, themes and even the very basic mechanics of the plot by the way scenes are connected to one another instead of via explicit exposition or other screenwriting trickery.

bnt

dirtyden wrote: »

Peter Jackson has to take the Oscar for worst editing. About two hours of king Kong could/should have been edited.

Jackson didn't edit that film himself: the editor was Jamie Selkirk, who was also editor on The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, for which he won an Oscar. Obviously the director has some editorial input, and approves major decisions and the final cut, but I don't think that's what's meant by "editing" here.

One editing technique I loathe is the way they sometimes cut dialogue. It's when they always show the person who's talking, regardless of what's happening.
[Cut to person A]
A: (dialogue)
[Cut to person B]
B: (dialogue)
[Cut to person C]
C: (dialogue)
[Cut to person A]
A: (dialogue)
,,, and so on. It's as if the audience would be unable to tell who's talking without seeing their lips moving ... and where's the action? It's not in the edit ...

.jacksparrow.

Terminator salvation was the worst case of editing I ever seen in a film.

But the writer's strike halfway through filming didn't help I suppose.

IvaBigWun

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Terminator salvation was the worst case of editing I ever seen in a film.

But the writer's strike halfway through filming didn't help I suppose.

Good example. An unfathomable mess

Gatling

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Good example. An unfathomable mess

Last summers Dredd 3D into 2D

They quite literally left a lot of 3D blurry scene's in the 2D version

Rather than film in dual standard of 3D and a standard 2D version they crested a 2D movies using mostly 3D scene's if that makes sense at all

bnt

I think that the quality of editing is one major reason I like films by the Coen Brothers. They do it themselves (under pseudonyms), except for a couple of early films (Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing). The complexity of their storylines makes editing all the more important, they could lose the audience if it's done badly. With No Country For Old Men, they did an great job in ironing out problems with the source material, I thought. With Fargo, the leisurely pace of the editing perfectly matched the landscape and the people of the region.

Sad Professor

I always thought the intercutting between the different story strands in The Two Towers was terrible. They kept cutting away at the worst time, just as that story was getting interesting, so as to cut back to the other story where nothing was happening. The quality of the intercutting/transitions improved dramatically in ROTK, which I always attributed to Jamie Selkirk, but Jackson seemed to be at it again in TDoS. I reckon in both cases this is due to a deeper issue of the different stories not having much connection/relevance to each other in the middle chapter.

So while I often bemoan a film’s editing, I’m not sure it can be really judged in isolation from the rest of the film. We don’t know what the editor had to work with. The film was most likely edited the way the way it was for good reason. To take johnny_ultimate’s example, if you have a plot-heavy film consisting of numerous short scenes, continuous score is probably necessary to tie them together. A montage needs music. I’ve spoken about my issues with Nolan’s editing in the past, but I’ve realised a lot of it comes back to the writing. His films are just designed with that kind of choppy Star Wars editing in mind.

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hYsVqpiEa4

This is textbook action editing imo. Note the continuity of the sword hitting the ground and being picked up again too. Great attention to detail.

brevity

Really have to watch Upstream Colour.

IvaBigWun

Memento deserves a mention on the "superb" side of this chat. Imagine trying to get your head around that one in the editor's room!

helloiamoxygen

I think Memento would definitely be an example of good editing, but also good writing.

Where does the skill/art of editing come into play? And when is editing just following the structure of the story and putting all the bits together accordingly?
Besides reading the original novel that a film may be based, how can you tell?

Natural Born Killers, good editing anyone?

krudler

Inception has brilliant editing, especially the climax, where the different levels and kicks all come together seamlessly is fantastic.

AnonoBoy

Gatling wrote: »

Last summers Dredd 3D into 2D

They quite literally left a lot of 3D blurry scene's in the 2D version

Rather than film in dual standard of 3D and a standard 2D version they crested a 2D movies using mostly 3D scene's if that makes sense at all

That's really nothing to do with the editing of the film though.

krudler

JFK is surely a contender for the best edited movie ever, the scenes like Pesci laying out how the assassination will work or Donal Sutherland's character breaking down the conspiracy are amazing stuff. The amount of footage, shots and cuts worked into a 5 min scene is staggering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuUtu2xRGgY

IvaBigWun

Guy Richie's first two films were full of cool edits I thought.

Here's a good example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ3VGb2fa-Q

Average-Ro

helloiamoxygen wrote: »

I think Memento would definitely be an example of good editing, but also good writing.

Where does the skill/art of editing come into play? And when is editing just following the structure of the story and putting all the bits together accordingly?
Besides reading the original novel that a film may be based, how can you tell?

Natural Born Killers, good editing anyone?

As mentioned earlier; editing is at it's best when you don't notice it.

An editor's job is to be a storyteller. She/He gets all the footage and starts putting the clips together. They'll look at it and say "the end isn't clear enough/ the audience will get lost at this point/ we need more empathy for our main character etc.

Editors have to be strong and be able to stand up to directors with egos or are stubborn. They have to be able to say "I know this is how you wanted to do this scene, but this isn't working. I have another idea as to how to make it work".

Often, when crews go out again to shoot some additional footage that's needed for the movie, the Editor will be there on set explaining whats needed. Sometimes the editor is even the director on the day as they know EXACTLY what's needed to tell the story.

I can't think of any examples off the top of my head; but it's said that editors usually make a very good transition into directing full time; as they know exactly what they need to tell a story.

vidor

Always find this a difficult one to figure out as we really don't know what the editor had to work with.

krudler

An editing thing that bugs the crap out of me for how overused it is, when Edgar Wright insists on jump cutting and using overblown sound effects for things like ordering a pint or making tea in Hot Fuzz or Shaun Of The Dead, stop it!

brevity

I've always found David Fincher's movies well edited, there is a just great flow and pacing to them. I've just checked IMDB and he seems to work with the same guys, Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall. They have won oscars for The Social Network and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Adamantium

brevity wrote: »

I've always found David Fincher's movies well edited, there is a just great flow and pacing to them. I've just checked IMDB and he seems to work with the same guys, Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall. They have won oscars for The Social Network and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

As a director I think's one of the best alive:

"People will say, "There are a million ways to shoot a scene", but I don't think so. I think there're two, maybe. And the other one is wrong."

I love this one:

"I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but somebody has to."

"Directing ain't about drawing a neat little picture and showing it to the cameraman. I didn't want to go to film school. I didn't know what the point was. The fact is, you don't know what directing is until the sun is setting and you've got to get five shots and you're only going to get two"

Adamantium

krudler wrote: »

An editing thing that bugs the crap out of me for how overused it is, when Edgar Wright insists on jump cutting and using overblown sound effects for things like ordering a pint or making tea in Hot Fuzz or Shaun Of The Dead, stop it!

That's the joke.
I always thought he was laughing with the audience knowingly at the complete OTT nature of blockbusters that add significance to the most mundane moments.

I think it's a bit like how people imagine themselves in a movie soundtrack to their lives

Hilarious and intense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY6mymW4oA

thomas anderson.

Daredevil and the directors cut, prime example of editing gone wrong.

The directors cut is actually not a bad movie and makes way more sense than the other cut

DamoKen

Ironically enough, it took bad editing....or would probably be more accurate to say no editing to make me appreciate just how much editing can add to a film.

Film is Aliens Original Release Vs Aliens Directors cut.

One of my all time favourites so picked up the directors cut from a bargain bin a few years back, sucker for the "30 minutes previously unseen!!!" blurb.

All I can say is it was unseen for a reason and by Directors Cut read No Cut. Dumbed it down completely ruining any sense of suspense.

Like when the marines and Ripley first touch down on the planet after no communication from the colony. You could cut the suspense with a knife as they advance in silence through the rain into the base with you the audience having no idea what's going to be on the other side.

The whole power of the opening scenes for me was always the great unknown. And giving your audience a bit of credit, let their imaginations do a bit of work instead of handing it to them on a plate with 5-10 minutes of completely unnecessary scenes on the planet pre disaster.

Great example of how important editing can be to a film overall. Wouldn't have believed it possible to ruin such a great film but all it requires is poking through the cutting floor 20 years on coupled with a bit of marketing and the thought "how can we make more money out of this?"

brevity

Adamantium wrote: »

As a director I think's one of the best alive:

"People will say, "There are a million ways to shoot a scene", but I don't think so. I think there're two, maybe. And the other one is wrong."

I love this one:

"I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but somebody has to."

"Directing ain't about drawing a neat little picture and showing it to the cameraman. I didn't want to go to film school. I didn't know what the point was. The fact is, you don't know what directing is until the sun is setting and you've got to get five shots and you're only going to get two"

A little off topic, but I would love to see Fincher do a Batman/Bruce Wayne film-noir detective movie.

He's one of my most favourite directors.

Adamantium

I always wanted him to a Star Wars movie ala Empire Strikes Back. He actually designed some of the shots for ROTJ as his first summer job at ILM.

In his own words:

“Star Wars. Empire. It’s the only answer. I appreciate Star Wars; it’s an amazing accomplishment, it is an A+. I think Empire’s an A++ because it’s one of those movies where it was, remember, it was my senior year of high school in the summer. When I saw that George Lucas was going to do the AT-ATs on baking soda with stop-motion and he was going to turn a pivotal character over to Frank Oz and he was going to play it as a Muppet, I thought, “This ****ing guy has balls, man.” It’s unreal the risks that he will take in order to tell us his story. And the fact that it comes off so well, that it’s so deftly done, is just the ultimate to me, the cobbling together of all of these magical disciplines to make this thing that is so much greater than the sum of its parts. That’s spectacular. The cast is spectacular, everybody works well, it’s fun, it’s crazy good. Crazy good entertainment, amazing cinema.”

http://collider.com/david-fincher-star-wars-empire-strikes-back/

The problem is he isn't commerical at all and he's too good for it in s (Like Irvin Kershner), which is exactly what that series needs and should be. He'd be better than even Kershner was in the 80's.

Fincher reminds me of perfectionist moviemakers of old and the quality of his films shows this. You can feel the care in all aspects.

krudler

Adamantium wrote: »

That's the joke.
I always thought he was laughing with the audience knowingly at the complete OTT nature of blockbusters that add significance to the most mundane moments.

I think it's a bit like how people imagine themselves in a movie soundtrack to their lives

Hilarious and intense.

Oh I get the joke, it's just overdone. once was funny, or when Shaun lays out the plan and its different variations, but in Hot Fuzz it's just so overused.

IvaBigWun

Adamantium wrote: »

That's the joke.
I always thought he was laughing with the audience knowingly at the complete OTT nature of blockbusters that add significance to the most mundane moments.

I think it's a bit like how people imagine themselves in a movie soundtrack to their lives

Hilarious and intense.

I always thought Edgar Wright did it for laughs more than style too.

Keeping it British, I quite like Matthew Vaughn's style of editing (Im sure he must have a say in the chopping room)

Burky126

A great scene that comes to mind in terms of editing is Henry Hill's last day as a gangster in Goodfellas. The narration that outlines his day and his growing paranoia as he makes his way to do his errands keeps you on the edge and gives you an impression of how erratic his mind must have been.

As mentioned JFK is probably the best for me, much of Stones work has fantastic editing. Any Given Sunday is easily the best when it comes to sports movies. Nixon and Natural Born Killers also outstanding.

IvaBigWun

Burky126 wrote: »

A great scene that comes to mind in terms of editing is Henry Hill's last day as a gangster in Goodfellas. The narration that outlines his day and his growing paranoia as he makes his way to do his errands keeps you on the edge and gives you an impression of how erratic his mind must have been.

A great example. Ive never taken cocaine but Id imagine it captures what its like to be on it and panicking perfectly

AnonoBoy

Burky126 wrote: »

A great scene that comes to mind in terms of editing is Henry Hill's last day as a gangster in Goodfellas. The narration that outlines his day and his growing paranoia as he makes his way to do his errands keeps you on the edge and gives you an impression of how erratic his mind must have been.

Thelma Schoonmaker is a master.

Mike Litoris

IvaBigWun wrote: »

A great example. Ive never taken cocaine but Id imagine it captures what its like to be on it and panicking perfectly

It does! The director obviously knew exactly what its like when you take a bit too much.:P