MovieChat Forums > Heaven's Gate (1981) Discussion > The Single Biggest Mistake They Made...

The Single Biggest Mistake They Made...

posted 13 years ago by CalvinValjean
12 replies | jump to latest

I would say that the single biggest mistake made in the long Behind-the-Scenes drama of this film was not all the stuff Cimino did during production (not that I’m defending it at all) or anything that happened in the editing room or even how big the budget eventually became.

It was the decision they made to withdraw the movie from distribution after one week of release. Whether it was Cimino’s decision or UA’s, it was truly a stupid and fatal move that sunk the film more than anything else.

As bad as the premiere may have gone, if they had left the film playing in distribution, there would have at least been a chance that people would have gone see it and it might have been able to build some decent word of mouth. Even if people disliked the movie, they might have respected Cimino for standing by his vision. Most important of all, the movie would at least have had a little more box office. True, it would probably not have broken even given its large budget, but even if it was still a flop, it would not have been such an overwhelming flop.

The worst-case scenario is that it would probably have been shortly forgotten by the public, as most flops are.

But withdrawing the movie from distribution turned the movie from a simple flop into a media sensation of bad publicity. It gave the impression that the movie was so bad that Cimino/UA were embarrassed by it, or that Cimino was so much of a prima donna that getting bad reviews made him cry. By not allowing audiences to actually see the movie, they deprived themselves of the one thing that could possibly have still saved its reputation. Now there was no movie to see, only bad press to take its place.

When they released the shorter version of the movie a few months later, it doesn’t sound like they made any real effort. I’ve never seen that version so I don’t know what parts they changed, but it sounds like all they did was shorten it as opposed to actually attempting to re-edit and improve it. Basically, it seems like UA’s attitude during that second release was “Alright, we just don’t care anymore. We know we're screwed and we’ll never overcome the bad publicity. Let’s just release this turkey and get it over with.”

People often complain that Heaven’s Gate is reviewed more for its bad press than for the film itself, but I honestly think this was Cimino/UA’s own fault. What they did compounded the bad press and overshadowed the film itself when it could not even be seen.

Hey, wanna see a good movie? Go here: www.FightingNirvana.weebly.com

[–] iluvcards 13 years ago

Yeah. Critics are fartbags, anyway!

And now, Anna Kournikova being spanked. (Whack) Bad Anna (whack) Bad Anna.

[–] shempXIV 13 years ago

I've seen parts of it on TV -- it's bad. UA was right to cut its losses.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] J_J_Gittes 13 years ago

So true. What were they thinking? That by cutting it down suddenly people would begin to storm the theaters? Even bad publicity is insofar good publicity that it makes a film visible and people interested to watch it. Withdrawing a film on the other hand...

Anyways, who cares? It may still be the best film of the 80s and Cimino continued to make films. So everything's alright with me. :-D

www.eskalierende-traeume.de

[–] HijodelCid 13 years ago

The best film of the 80s?
Here is the mathematically correct way to count the decades of the 20th century:
1901-1910
1911-1920
1921-1930
1931-1940
1941-1950
1951-1960
1961-1970
1971-1980
1981-1990
1991-2000
As for the 21st century, it started on
1 January 2001,
and it will end on
31 December 2100
The good sisters of Santos Angeles Custodios parochial primary school taught me to count from 1 to 10, not from 0 to 9.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] bstephens21 13 years ago

Yes, it was released 1980, so his proclamation still stands.

[–] HijodelCid 13 years ago

Were you taught to count from 0 to 9?
Did the Christian Era start with the year 0?
Zero is exactly that= ---- ; 'tis ONE that is the beginning of all numbers.

God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] bstephens21 13 years ago

He didn't say decade... he said 80s, which is accurate. I'm sure you were a blast to be around during 1999.

Anyways, this all ignores the purely theoretical property of the Gregorian calendar and any calendar, not to mention that anyone can place a decade in any arbitrary space of 10 years as they wish. If we can allow for leap years, we can allow for a phantom year zero. And believers in the Kali Yuga would like to have a word with you.

In the name of the one true Republican Calendar, I stand before the Committee of Public Safety, declaring Heaven's Gate as the best film of the CLXXXs, and denouncing you as a monarchist and enemy to the revolution. Off with your head!

[–] HijodelCid 13 years ago

I have asked this question to many math teachers, and all have agreed with me: 1 to 10, 11 to 20, 21 to 30, and so forth. Do like me and ask math teachers, too; they will remind you of the fact that the Roman numeration system in use at the beginning of the Christian Era did not have 0.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)

[–] bstephens21 13 years ago

Well, here's a decade that might interest you then.

http://tinyurl.com/7qdcw68

[–] 807 13 years ago

There were many mistakes made that hurt this movie. So many.

1. Bad timing. In 1979, the western was pretty much in its demise: actually, from the whole 1970s there were a total of four good movies - Jeremiah Johnson, Pat Garrett And Billy The Kid, The Missouri Breaks (although this one was mired by its excessive eccentricity) and Tom Horn. And how many good Westerns were there in the 1960s? At the time, the audience simply wanted something else: the so-called New Adventure - Spielberg, Lucas etc. No matter how good, a Western just had no chance of matching, say, The Empire Strikes Back commercially (William Friedkin's Sorcerer - a very good movie, maybe not better than the original Wages Of Fear, but still very good - was blown off screens by Star Wars.)

2. Budgetary excesses. When you are going to make a movie in an unpopular or difficult-to-make genre, cut the expenses as much as reasonably possible. This is what downed Cutthroat Island: making a pirate movie (well, how many caper movies were there in the 1970s or 1980s? Not to mention the fact that filming on water is an absolute nightmare - Roman Polanski almost completely broke down while filming his "Pirates" due to countless technical problems on set, "Waterworld" was also a quagmire. Even now, after the POTC's massive success, the POTC franchise are virtually the only pirate movies in production) on a $110M in the 1990s and then, releasing in in late 1995 against Jumanji or GoldenEye was outright suicidal, just like making "Heaven's Gate" for $44M and then making it face The Empire Strikes Back.

3. Withdrawing the movie from cinematic run after the disastrous reviews was another nail in the coffin - basically, it was perceived as if Cimino openly admitted his movie is bad. Keeping it in its theatrical run would actually generate some income - after all, many people were curious to see if the reviews are accurate.

4. Cimino was a spendthrift - but then, someone was giving him the money with little control. When the producers finally managed to keep Cimino under control, he not only started working on budget and on schedule, but also delivered some of the best scenes in the movie. Had they kept him under control from the very beginning, it's possible he could have made it on $15M-$20M budget.

5. "Heaven's Gate" unfortunately has its share of flaws. I've watched the 219-minutes version and... well - there are many scenes that are like this: okay, well, but -- we already know everything we needed to get from this scene, so why it keeps going on and on? The 149-minutes version was probably overly-concise, but trimming it to 180-185 minutes would give a great movie. The same goes with the sound - it was a good idea to keep it as realistic as possible, but it seems they've overdone it - sometimes, a closed captioning is necessary. Correcting those flaws would give us a better picture.

This is not a signature.

[–] MisterWhiplash 12 years ago

Very good points. I might also add that Cimino really shot himself in the foot for not letting anyone see his 'final cut' until that opening week in New York - he showed a 5 1/2 hour cut to executives that went very badly, but he went back to try to make it work - and so that was its first exposure. A film like this is one of those cases were notes, or just preview screenings, might have helped.

And interestingly enough, I'm sure Cimino was thinking like 'You know, I'm a perfectionist, I'm *beep* Kubrick over here, I'll just do what he did on 2001 and the Shining and re-edit the film since I'm not satisfied/want it to do well' without remembering that Kubrick took the film out for a *WEEK* and gave it a proper trim and then released the finished version. Cimino took five months to re-edit the film, while the onslaught ensued. If he had, say, taken it out for a week without putting that signed memo to the press and then put it back in theaters with very minor trims (i.e. three hours instead of 3 1/2), maybe no one would really be the wiser and it could have been a not-quite success but not flop.

But, such is the way of Icarus. And in this case a *beep* fruitcake at that. But it's a fascinating story and fascinating movie all the same. I feel the same way about The Dark Knight Rises now, only that film is a big box-office success so naturally who cares about its BIG flaws. But I digress.

My official blog: http://cinetarium.blogspot.com/