MovieChat Forums > Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) Discussion > Director's vision vs Studio interference

Director's vision vs Studio interference

posted 13 years ago by stevewyzard
7 replies | jump to latest

I am absolutely fanatical about this movie, but I was disappointed with Kerry Conran's commentary on the DVD. He seems very thankful for being given the opportunity to make the movie in the first place, but most of his comments seem like thinly-veiled complaints. While every movie must deal with the production issues of "not enough time" and "not enough in the budget", Conran seems to be saying in a number of places (and I paraphrase): "The studio blocked my ideas and wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do". I'd like to address a number of these:

1) Black-and-white vs Color. Conran at first wanted to do the movie in black-and-white, just like the old-time serials he's paying tribute to. This would have been effective in some scenes and would have been an attention-drawing gimmick, but for the most part, this would have been a grave mistake. The Radio City Music Hall scenes, the Nepal snow scenes, the underwater scenes, the Manta Station scenes, and the glorious final scene would all have suffered for being in black-and-white.

2) Totenkopf's death. Totenkopf was originally going to be revealed as a living, breathing, threat-uttering villain. The final battle with a dead villain's machines (rather than a typical James Bond-type villain) was downright refreshing and helped to make SCatWoT so different from every other sci-fi/action/adventure movie being made.

3) Less monsters. With CGI, everyone wants to fill their movies with grotesque monsters and aliens. So did Conran, but thankfully he was reined in, and the movie doesn't degenerate into an animatronic spectacle. The monsters that do appear in SCatWoT are not overdone and are not overused.

4) The deleted scenes. The one with Totenkopf's lab added nothing to the story but more CGI effects. The other one with a "planned death" for Joe and Polly (until Dex pops up) was absurd and very rightfully did not reach the completion stage. The actual rescue scene used in the movie, with Dex arriving in the hovercraft, was both simple and brilliant.

What I'm trying to say with all this is that SCatWoT is an almost perfect marriage between a visionary writer/director and a profit-oriented major movie studio. Had Conran been given free license to do anything he wanted, the movie would have overreached its grasp, alienated many fantasy film-lovers, and just not been as good. At the same time, Paramount Pictures would never have come up with something as uniquely different as SCatWoT without Conran's fanboy enthusiasm and passion. I think they were hoping to start on the ground floor with a "next George Lucas", but as we all know, it didn't work out that way. What I wouldn't do for a sequel/prequel/anything with these characters in the same universe. Thoughts?

[–] hbenthow 13 years ago

1) Black-and-white vs Color. Conran at first wanted to do the movie in black-and-white, just like the old-time serials he's paying tribute to. This would have been effective in some scenes and would have been an attention-drawing gimmick, but for the most part, this would have been a grave mistake. The Radio City Music Hall scenes, the Nepal snow scenes, the underwater scenes, the Manta Station scenes, and the glorious final scene would all have suffered for being in black-and-white.

I do like the color of this movie a lot (especially when I turn the color saturation on my television up a little), but I think it looks great in black and white as well. Much of the cinematography was clearly made with black and white in mind, and it does look very good in black and white.

2) Totenkopf's death. Totenkopf was originally going to be revealed as a living, breathing, threat-uttering villain. The final battle with a dead villain's machines (rather than a typical James Bond-type villain) was downright refreshing and helped to make SCatWoT so different from every other sci-fi/action/adventure movie being made.

While a live Totenkopf possibly could have worked very well, I agree. The way he was finally portrayed in the movie is very well-done and pretty original. It also makes his name make all the more sense.

4) The deleted scenes. The one with Totenkopf's lab added nothing to the story but more CGI effects. The other one with a "planned death" for Joe and Polly (until Dex pops up) was absurd and very rightfully did not reach the completion stage. The actual rescue scene used in the movie, with Dex arriving in the hovercraft, was both simple and brilliant.

I disagree about the scene with Totenkopf's lab. Without that scene, exactly what Totenkopf did in Shambhala is a little vague. The scene explains a few things and helps it make more sense. It also helps provide a contrast with the beautiful countryside, giving a strong sense of Totenkopf having brought desolation to a paradise.

As for the other deleted scene, I'm sort of divided over that one. I like both it and the more simple hoverboard rescue. I think I like the hoverboard rescue a bit more, mainly because I consider the part where Joe hits the switch, causing the grate to close, then salutes the defeated robots one of the most iconic action scenes I've ever seen.

Overall, you do bring up an interesting point. I think Kerry Conran could probably do a great job with more creative control, especially now that he's had more experience. But at the same time, I think some of the changes that he was forced to make worked quite well.

By the way, have you ever seen the Coca-Cola commercial that Kerry Conran directed? His brother Kevin also worked on it as a production designer. It's very well-done. The name of the commercial is "The Greatest Gift": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_YcMv_Yl7c

Also, before he left the project, he made a presentation reel for his version of "John Carter of Mars": http://web.me.com/adkins.dop/DoP_Reel/Features/Entries/2010/1/8_John_C arter_from_Mars_(presentation___test).html

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] stevewyzard 13 years ago

Thank you for your response and your links. The Coca-Cola commercial is a classic and is "recognizable" as the work of the Conran brothers, even if they hadn't put in the "Sullivan & Sons" shop window.

I probably should have mentioned that I'm not a fan of black-and-white films in general. Sometimes they "work" for me, sometimes they don't, so that probably impacted my original statement. One black-and-white tribute-to-old-Hollywood film (but VERY different from SCatWoT) that will always have a place in my heart is Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. The film editors should have won a lifetime achievement award for that one.

I was reminded after reading some of your other posts that another aspect of Totenkopf that makes him so different was the "forgive me" note found in his hand. How often do you see a movie villain come to repentance when faced with his own mortality?

[–] warren-1976 13 years ago

I agree with most of your points. Oddly enough, Studio interference CAN occasionally (very rarely) make films that work well. Not often, but sometimes. Casablanca is a good example. That worked by the sheer luck of so many perfect elements happening to collide on the same project. It could have easily been a forgettable wartime romance.

I really enjoyed Sky Captain. Is it perfect? No. Is it a helluva lot better and more fun on a medium budget than a lot of expensive blockbusters? Definitely!! I'm actually rather surprised Conran hasn't been given the chance to do any other films. Plenty of directors who are thought to be 'visionary' make expensive flops but are given multiple chances. (And Sky Captain wasn't even that big a flop, really. It nearly made its budget back with Box Office, and after DVD sales it probably made its money back and even some profit). Just look at Zack Snyder after the relative flops of Watchmen and Sucker Punch?

Id love to know what happened to Kerry Conran. Maybe he was just put off the whole industry after his experiences?

On Conran's commentary... I have to admit, I was disappointed with that, expecting it to be full of interesting anecdotes. Intead it ended up one of those "This was green screen, that was an effect, that was a prop..." type commentaries. The one that should have been boring but wasn't, was surprisingly the producer's commentary.

http://duncansguide.blogspot.com - My Reviews

[–] stevewyzard (1669) 3 years ago

Looking back over some of my VERY old posts, this still holds up today!

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

It actually does....

Thanks for posting it. I originally went into this thread thinking it was going to be another "Big studio interferes and ruins visionary director's creative flow!" but instead it points out that the studio interference actually helped make it a better film overall.

These kind of posts are quite useful in bringing back a little perspective to the collaborative process that is movie making (well, back when Hollywood was actually making movies for the sake of profit instead of as an anchor for off-the-wall propaganda).

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8822) 3 years ago

I remember seeing the film in theaters and thinking it was an interesting movie. Its uniqueness at least is undeniable.

It's strange to me that Kerry Conran never made another movie. You would think that even with the film's lack of financial success producers would've recognized his talent.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8822) 3 years ago

I clicked because I saw that the movie was on the trending board and I NEVER hear anyone talk about this film. It's a solid post.

The movie is also a solid movie. I don't LOVE it, but I do like it, and I think it's a unique and original film (even though it pays homage to many stories that came before it).

I still don't feel like I have a strong grasp on Kerry Conran's exceedingly brief career. The dude made one movie--and it was a pretty good one--and then he was out of the industry. It's all very weird.