Is A Director's Cut Really Needed?

It has been argued by many, including O'Barr, that a director's cut of "The Crow" is not only a viable venture financially, but something needed to fully tell the story. On the surface, this would seem to be the logical route to take. However, with further investigation and reflection, is this really something we need? Should we continue to revisit already ventured ground? It seems everyday there is a call for a director's cut of a classic movie. Recently, "Star Wars" was one of the more high profile movies to undergo a director's cut reincarnation. It was not enough that "Star Wars" became a huge success without digital enhancements and cut scenes. In all the fuss to make the movie "look" right, the purity of the story is being forgotten. The question is, did this make Star Wars a better movie? Did it satisfy some obsessed notion that we could make the perfect movie? I feel Lucas, much like O'Barr, has concentrated too much time on past projects and has not focused his creative energies on future endeavors. I think it can be said without argument that "The Crow" is one of this generations best-told tales of dark and tragic love. Did we not fall in love with the movie just the way it is? Did you come out of the theater thinking, "You know, if it just had this in it….."? A prime factor to be considered in making a director's cut of "The Crow" is the financial needs. Unlike the folks at Lucas Films, neither Pressman Films nor Alex Proyas have the substantial funds required to put into an already loved and acclaimed movie. O'Barr has been quoted that it would cost 500,000 dollars to get "The Crow" more in line with HIS vision of it. Actually, the cost was higher and that was over 5 years ago. With prices escalating, we would be looking at close to a million-dollars now. This price does not take into account promotion and other costs that would also be incurred by such a venture. So we are easily talking a million and a half, if not more, for a movie that is already regarded as a classic. Along with the cost, there is another element that many fans and O'Barr have missed. If scenes that were deleted in the first place for NC-17 content were re-added, the movie would have to be sent back to the ratings review board. This would add another cost. When a movie is sent to the MPAA for a rating, the film company pays a fee for the movie to be rated. They get three opportunities to meet the MPAA specifications for the rating they are pursuing. If they fail to get it in the three allotted chances, they must pay another fee for three more chances and so on. Not only this, but there is a waiting time of up to 90 days if you have to apply for another rating review. Rating standards have not been relaxed since the original movie was made. Thus, if scenes already rated higher than "R" are re-added, we are looking at an NC-17 rating for "The Crow". Why make an issue out of the movie being rated NC-17? Two reasons. It limits drastically the markets that will carry the VHS/DVD and also, the buying potential of the consumer. Both from an artistic and financial standpoint, the efforts behind a director's cut of "The Crow" would be better utilized on new stories and ideas. As much as I enjoy seeing the "deleted scenes" of movies, I think we, as viewers, are being allowed too much access behind the magic of movies. It is like a magician showing you the whole "trick". It takes the fun and wonder away from your initial love and amazement of the trick. By having access to deleted scenes, are we starting to focus on what might have been instead of remembering what was and moving on? We need to look for the Crow magic in new, fresh ideas. Not try to recreate the magic in the first movie. The magic is already there.

Take care,

LLcruize