I'd like to open a discussion about credits, specifically related to film editing. Should a film that has been heavily re-cut be credited to the original editor or to the re-editor, or both? I only suggest this discussion should open since film historians are apt to connect to IMDB for their information, much of which could be incorrect. There are many cases in which films have been re-cut by other (uncredited) editors. I have been a film 'doctor' and there must be hundreds of films that have been heavily re-edited by uncredited editors. This also may apply to other grades.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro - Monday, Aug. 04, 2008 @ 10:30:02
-
-
jimmycl
- Monday, Aug. 04, 2008 @ 12:01:37
Whilst not totally disagreeing with SeasideMan, in my experience re-editors do much more than "simply move around scenes" and I have changed films utterly, giving them new structures, new music etc...in my view this should be credited as "additional editing". As I said previously, I am more interested in keeping the record straight for future film historians.
-
-
-
- Tuesday, Aug. 05, 2008 @ 09:24:41
i think it depends on each film and the circumstances. If a re-edit merely touches the film up a bit, then there's little need for drawing attention to it but if it's significantly different in tone, like say The Magnificent Ambersons or Touch Of Evil or more recently the Redux cut of Apocalypse Now i think the editors should get their due for the hard work they have to put in. Too often the director seems to steal the limelight from the cutting room.
-
- http://dealership
- Tuesday, Aug. 05, 2008 @ 09:43:19
I was not talking about 'touching up the film a bit' - I was really referring to wholesale re-cutting of the material, such as Walter Murch did on both Touch of Evil and Apocalypse Now Redux, and was properly credited on those films. I'm really referring to films that have been heavily re-edited by others who don't get a credit. It is no secret that I recut Robert Benton's TWILIGHT from start to finish whilst Carol Littleton's name is up there as Editor. I don't personally care, but I'm concerned that future film historians could be misled (not about TWILIGHT since it was a flop and quickly forgotten!).
-
- Tuesday, Aug. 05, 2008 @ 10:53:57
of course it's not just editors who get a hard deal, do you believe all the writing credits you see? The person who wrote most of the script often gets only a small mention in the final credits.
-
- http://dealership
- Tuesday, Aug. 05, 2008 @ 16:44:32
I quite agree with you - writers also get a raw deal - perhaps the WGA should enter this discussion?
The re-editor should be acknowledged, but I would say that the credit should stay with the original editor. After all, they did the bulk of the work and re-editors tend to just move around scenes rather than the individual shots that make up those scenes, which were put in place by the original editor.
If huge amounts of new material was added, then perhaps a co-credit would be appropriate.
Tom.