The Wall brung that quality of his to the fore in a good way, it just went a little too far in The Final Cut imho.

Upvote for the peace sign making the final cut. So self aware it made me lol.

What about the poor acting? ;}

Check out 1:13 - two different/distinct shades of blue.

- You can hear the fan blowing the leaves of the fake trees

- The trees in the background only blow around right before his reporting, or during the reporting. During the bloopers they are more-or-less still.

- 4:05 "We can't show you anything else than what you're seeing right now, because of military regulations"

Yeah, okay buddy.

I could go on, but I'll just post a bit from the video description:

The first part of this video shows the stage set he was on, and he was clowning around with fellow CNN staff. The Saudi Arabian "hotel" in the background were fake palm trees and a blue wall in a studio. This clip was leaked by CNN staff.

The second part of this video was a live CNN satellite feed recorded onto VHS showing the final cut. Charles Jaco was wearing a different jacket, but he had the same act. The acting was terrible as Charles Jaco wore a gas mask, and his fellow correspondent Carl Rochelle wore a helmet. The sirens and missile sound effects are part of the stage set. The camera never pans out or shows the sky.

^ Pay no attention to him. I think you should keep all those effects in the final cut, motion-tracked unicorns and all.

I love Pink Floyd, but they were never the same after Roger Waters left the band after the Final Cut.

Nice! Any update on film festivals and such?

And I know what you mean about the quality difference in the footage... I have a friend who just shot a feature on the Red, and as we were shooting we were looking at the full resolution footage on a nice big HD monitor, and it looked absolutely stunning. But now I'm working with crappy little proxies in Final Cut (the director had the misfortune to select me as his editor , and it barely looks better than DV. Well, okay, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the quality difference is pretty huge.

I am not a hipster (I grew up in/live in echo park, and I hate their parking spot taking/beard growing ways), but I have to say that most of the time, a mac is a good deal.

It just works.

Another reason is the bundled and subsidized software. iMovie and Final Cut Express are unmatched on PC. I LOL when I see the MS PC commercial that shows some woman buying a computer for video editing for less that 2 grand. What is she going to use to capture and edit video? Adobe's Premiere costs almost 2k.. iMovie is free, and is more than enough for 95% of home users. Need more features? Final Cut Express is subsidized, $99. Want to spend a shit load of money? get the full final cut package, it will cost the same amount as Premiere Pro.

I have never bought a mac. I have a retail license for windows xp pro that cost $150. I did this because, at the time, there was more open source video encoding software availible on Win32.

However, I will never upgrade to Vista, and will likely never upgrade to Windows 7. Linux desktops are mature enough for everyday use, especially since 95% of poeple ONLY use their web browsers (my sister-in-law has used her computer for 12 months and has not created a single document).

Need a document? Open Office is okay (not great), and works on Win32, Mac, and Linux. Open Office Base works very well.

Summary: most users would be better off with the closed hardware and subsidized software that comes with mac. Nerds should be using Linux 100% of the time. Microsoft should be severely punished for their OS blunders (home users chose them only because it is the de facto standard in busness, but the majority of businesses are still using XP, two years after Vista's introduction, so there is NO reason for home users to use Vista.)

One of my very favorite scenes from the book, I'm bummed it didn't make it into the final cut of the movie.

Very impressive, Sarzy. I especially liked the long handheld (steadicam) fluid master shot down the hall. I do like it when movies take their time to tell a story like that. Hopefully it won't be the last film you make. In this industry, even calling cards aren't enough. I have friends who are doing some big shit right now, but that's not helping me out at all. It's a tough industry, but to enjoy it is to need to pursue it doggedly.

I think the biggest gripe I'd have with it is the length. It may behoove you to consider using an editor outside of yourself. I cut a rough assembly of my movie, then handed it off to an editor. My rough assembly was just at two hours and ten minutes. The final cut is now just under 90 mintues.

I think all heist movies should have actors with Canadian accents. I think you did an excellent job, hombre. Keep at it!

By the way, what did you shoot this with?

Maybe a trial of Final Cut Pro would work? Not 100% sure, but I think it works like the full version but just expires after 30 days...

Edit: Or this maybe? http://rotatevideo.com/

I love this movie. I bought the big huge Blu-ray collection the day I got my big LCD. Then I snapped the Final Cut disc in half pulling it out of the case.... fortunately the set includes another disc with the other three versions of the film, assembled from the same re-master as Final Cut.

So be careful with your blu-ray discs kids... from what I've seen they're a bit more fragile than DVDs.

Sifted this because I just got the Final Cut of Blade Runner in glorious HD. Will be watching it as soon as I get my MKV Media Player.

The song is now available on the re-issued "Final Cut" cd. It is strange on that disk because it really matches in terms of the topic of the song, however, it just seems out of place on the disk (especially where they edited it in). I think I would have preferred it on a Wall re-issue.

Great post. It's great to see Waters and Gilmour on the same stage. Hopefully they'll release an album; the first all together since The Final Cut!

American cinema always treats its audience like idiots, I believe much of this is done to make the film readily accessible to the rest of the world and thus increase revenues.

It takes a filmmaker with final cut and independence to really create something that is unique and intellectually engaging, Kubrick did this with 2001. That movie was like nothing before or since, no dialog for the start and end, no standardized narrative structure, the entire film was essentially carried by images and sound.

The problem lies with the cost of production, no one wants to spend millions of dollars on something that is smart but doesn't guarantee box office sales, that's why they hit a intellectual mid mark, an example of this I would say is the Matrix. It could have been far more abstract or far more action packed. But it tried to stick to a middle.

I have yet to see a comic book film that really satisfies besides Tim Burtons take on Batman, the story lines always seem so contrived, trying to make everything realistic instead of being really just a superhero movie. I remember watching Spiderman and noting just how shit the whole plot was, how hard they tried to beat down on Peter Parker, how little of that enormous power he gains when he is Spiderman is displayed. How shit the CGI was.

The transformation was missing there for me, Peter Parker is a ordinary person yes, but he ain't a bitch. And they made him a bitch in the films, from the scenes were he is being pushed around campus, to his bubbling ways, to that horrible emo transformation. It was just wrong. It wasn't the spider man I remember reading about. I kept remember how much better the characters and plot line were better in the mid 90s Spiderman cartoon series, I watched them again worried that maybe my memories were rose tainted over time. But no. They weren't the cartoon series understood the character better then the film, they ran with it, they transported the comic book to its own universe and played with it. And it was awesome.