Thank you and a clarification

Posted by Grace on September 22, 2000 at 12:08:03:

In Reply to: Re: LOTM scene(s) shot later? posted by Rich on September 22, 2000 at 10:30:29:

I realized I wasn't entirely clear about this, sorry. When I asked:
: >For bonus points: If primary filming was in the summer of '91 and the film was released in the fall of '92, how did that work?

You quite reasonably responded:
: Not sure what you mean by this ... If it's, "Why did it take so long?" the answer would be ... Michael Mann is a perfectionist. He meticulously worked on the film, a time consuming process. Having presented it to Fox, at least 15 minutes longer than the version eventually released, he was ordered to trim it. Hastily, that was done. It is my guess that that fact explains, at least partially, the "bloopers" that made their way on screen!

Which is a good response for my poorly worded question. What I really meant was, if the scene was shot a year after filming ended in October '91, how was there time to do it and get it into a film that was released in the fall of '92? I guess the answer might be, Well, they just did it. Or could it be that the "later" scene was shot in the spring of '92, so they had about half a year before release? I don't mean to quibble with loose terms like "a year later," I'm really just curious about the whole effort--whens and whys--of coming back together to hastily film that tiny scene. And then leaving it off the DVD after all that is an oddity, I agree. Thanks once more.
Grace

Follow Ups:

• Re: Thank you and a clarification Rich 16:08:46 9/22/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: I realized I wasn't entirely clear about this, sorry. When I asked:
: : >For bonus points: If primary filming was in the summer of '91 and the film was released in the fall of '92, how did that work?

: You quite reasonably responded:
: : Not sure what you mean by this ... If it's, "Why did it take so long?" the answer would be ... Michael Mann is a perfectionist. He meticulously worked on the film, a time consuming process. Having presented it to Fox, at least 15 minutes longer than the version eventually released, he was ordered to trim it. Hastily, that was done. It is my guess that that fact explains, at least partially, the "bloopers" that made their way on screen!

: Which is a good response for my poorly worded question. What I really meant was, if the scene was shot a year after filming ended in October '91, how was there time to do it and get it into a film that was released in the fall of '92? I guess the answer might be, Well, they just did it. Or could it be that the "later" scene was shot in the spring of '92, so they had about half a year before release? I don't mean to quibble with loose terms like "a year later," I'm really just curious about the whole effort--whens and whys--of coming back together to hastily film that tiny scene. And then leaving it off the DVD after all that is an oddity, I agree. Thanks once more.
: Grace


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: