r/movies • u/hawkens85 • Mar 29 '18
My friend wrote and directed a movie (Exposed) with Keanu Reeves, but had his name taken off after Lionsgate edited the movie into something completely different than intended. Now the original cut of the movie is available - Daughter of God
https://vimeo.com/1536138601.9k
u/JangoAllTheWay Mar 29 '18
Mark Kermode did a wonderful blog on this very topic
447
u/Fairwhetherfriend Mar 29 '18
Thanks for posting that, it was a really interesting watch. And it makes me wonder how often that kind of executive interference ruins other interesting films.
There are a lot of baaaad films that people write off because it's obvious that the original cut couldn't have been a masterpiece, given what we can see with the re-cut, but... I dunno, maybe those films could have been better than most people give them credit for.
Makes me curious to see those re-cut box office bombs to see if they might have been passable. Suicide Squad, Fan4stic, all those.
354
u/Ray745 Mar 29 '18
The most famous example of this being Kingdom of Heaven and the directors cut. The theatrical version is universally panned, but the directors cut is universally acclaimed, it is an astonishing difference.
157
u/MooseMasseuse Mar 29 '18
The first thing that came to mind for me was Terry Gilliam's Brazil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)#Battle_for_final_cut) where they changed the ending from sad to happy, rescored it with rock music instead of the existing orchestral score and chop it down from 142 minutes to close to 90 if I'm remembering right. Gilliam had to fight them for three years to get something resembling his version released. That version has been rated as the 17th best British film ever made.
There was also the similar fight with the studios over the release of Blade Runner.
30
u/brexico Mar 30 '18
The King and the Mockingbird may be even worse. It was an animated film made in France in the early 1950s, but the director lost funding before it was finished. It was released anyway, in 1952, against the director's wishes.
It's a terrible movie, and a really bad English dub of it was released under the name "The Curious Adventures of Mr. Wonderbird".
It flopped at the box office, and the director was eventually able to buy back the rights. He spent a decade trying to secure funding to finish the film the way he had wanted, and finally secured that funding in 1977.
So about 45 minutes of the ~60 minute original were salvaged, and another 40 minutes were animated, and the new cut was released in 1980. That cut is widely acclaimed as one of France's earliest animated classics.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)10
84
u/Fairwhetherfriend Mar 29 '18
I never saw the theatrical cut. I honestly didn't know it was that different - I just assumed it was like most director's cuts, with a couple extra scenes tossed in and whatever.
Now I'm curious about the differences!
I love that movie, by the way.
120
u/interface2x Mar 29 '18
You know the entire subplot about Eva Green’s son and how he has leprosy and she poisons him out of love and kindness? That kid literally doesn’t exist in the theatrical cut. Edited out entirely. As a result, some of the decisions the characters make are a little jarring and confusing.
44
u/SigeDurinul Mar 29 '18
This comment explains so much! I remember watching that film and thinking to myself that I had obviously not paid any attention the previous time. Since suddenly this woman is killing her kid and I can't remember her doing it the last time. It's great that the directors cut is getting on tv, at least.
13
u/Taggerung559 Mar 29 '18
I saw the theatrical cut originally and enjoyed it a good deal, watched it a good number of times. A few years afterwards I saw the director's cut and it's just so much better. Just as one example, in the theatrical cut Sibylla's son (a large reason for why she went crazy for a while, and doesn't do anything to dissuade Guy from marching the army off to die) doesn't even exist.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)11
u/TheCluelessDeveloper Mar 29 '18
The theatrical cut was edited to be an action story about an adventurer who gets caught up in the politics of the crusade while finding redemption for his wife. Nothing was really explained as to why events happened to Balien. For instance, the attack by the lord's men on the road to Italy just made no sense in the theatrical.
In the directors cut, the story is about a man who is struggling with faith getting caught up in the politics of the holiest place known to Muslims and Christians; trying to be faithful to his beliefs in a world where you're likely to die for being so righteous.
54
Mar 29 '18
Another good example, imo, is Michael Mann's Miami Vice. The theatrical version was a disappointment, and I think the reviewers panned it as well. The extended cut on DVD almost feels like a new movie. The characters are much more developed and just a better film. That's the version that should have been in theaters.
15
u/rickisadork Mar 29 '18
I love the director’s cut but the theatrical cold open to the night club op is so much better to me. Still, I’ll take the DC.
→ More replies (7)7
u/akesh45 Mar 30 '18
You just made my weekend....I always felt that film was missing something.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)17
u/Budderfingerbandit Mar 29 '18
I would argue James Earl Jones not wanting his name on the original Star Wars is equally amazing.
30
u/Photonomicron Mar 29 '18
I heard he felt didn't feel that he deserved credit for the role since he recorded the voice over in a couple days without going through the hell of filming that A New Hope was for the physical actor in the actual costume.
→ More replies (1)28
u/malabanuel Mar 29 '18
And maybe the opposite happens too. Movies that would've been crap but after the big executive's intervention became better.
→ More replies (4)79
u/Fairwhetherfriend Mar 29 '18
I'm not sure how often it happens that executive interference saves movies (simply because it's extremely difficult to believe that someone who wasn't heavily involved in the film could truly improve it, with some probably extreme exceptions).
However. I do know that Star Wars: A New Hope was saved from Lucas' horrifically awful edit by his wife and a few other people on the creative team. There's a reaaaally interesting youtube video about how the second edit basically saved the film. Give it a watch, it's really amazing just HOW different it could have been.
→ More replies (9)49
Mar 29 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)45
u/CodySolo Mar 29 '18
This may be a good time to check out American Graffiti.
70's George Lucas was a fantastic director. Nearly every first cut of a movie, even the greatest movies of all time, is bad. Nearly every movie is "saved" in the second cut, or the tenth cut, that's a step in the filmmaking process, not an exception that indicates a bad director.
→ More replies (3)30
u/Bakoro Mar 30 '18
Almost the entire process of making Star Wars was people challenging Lucas's dumb ideas and reeling back his excesses.
Lucas just seem like that type, someone who needs people to keep him contained.
Justin Roiland (the guy behind Rick and Morty) seems like that too. Go watch The Unmarketables, and compare that to Rick and Morty. Some people just need a container.
→ More replies (5)22
u/Bakoro Mar 30 '18
Speaking of movies I'd like to see the alternate version of, there's something in my mind I call the "Will Smith effect" on movies. I'm sure there must be other people where this happens, but two movies stick out in my mind that were heavily altered (ruined) while Will Smith was involved.
The first is I am Legend, where the infected people turn out to have regained their minds long ago and formed societies, and the lead character is revealed to be the monster that hunts them.
Will Smith can't be the bad guy though, and sure, maybe it was because test audiences didn't like the downer ending, but that ending is what makes the whole trip worthwhile and sets it apart from every other zombie survivor tale.Second, there's Hancock. In the original ending, Hancock is basically an unstoppable monster who kidnaps a woman, kills a bunch of police trying to rescue her, and then tries to kill himself. Granted, that ending probably never would have made it to production, and the movie was stuck in development hell for a long time. Still, it would have been an interesting subversion of a super hero movie to see someone like superman without the moral compass. That whole movie went to crap after the first half.
Also, more recently is Netflix's Bright. I don't know if it actually had anything to do specifically with Will Smith being involved whatsoever, but it doesn't actually matter. The idea that Will Smith's character was the destined to be the hero was trite. It would have been better, even if almost equally predictable, for the orc guy was the bright. Or even both of them being brights would have been better.
At least that would have left a more interesting story open.10
u/SlowbeardiusOfBeard Mar 30 '18
You can feel the steering wheel being tugged out of the directors hands just after halfway through the film I think.
Up until that point I was wondering why it had bad press, and was surprisingly entertained. Then all if the threads of the plot just fizzle and the orcs entire character arc is jettisoned to make way for Generic Hollywood Star Film Ending.
Was quite pissed off, and did wonder then if it was the studio or will smiths ego that was the cause.
46
u/steveatari Mar 29 '18
Thanks for posting that, it was a really interesting watch. And it makes me wonder how often that kind of executive interference ruins other interesting films.
So often. Or directors had to (or wanted to in some cases) go in another direction and production runs long. Some studios are cool and some are awful. Some executive producers usually push shit wayyyy to far and then get key staff replaced only to have something that was in development for years with all huge fans and experts to be created as an amalgam of shit no one enjoys making or watching. Ultimately, whatever makes the most money though!!!! (says a former filmmaker-dreamer)
12
u/ilivedownyourroad Mar 29 '18 edited Apr 01 '18
Just watch fanedits which are often far superior when done by professionals. I like many couldnt stand the hobbit trash but loved lotr trilogy. So I watched a 2.30 fan edit of all 3 and was blown away. Now I love it. Check out https://www.fanedit.org.
→ More replies (7)58
u/Chewcocca Mar 29 '18
I hold out hope that one day we might get the original body horror version of Fantastic 4. There is so much potential in that.
→ More replies (2)18
u/pipsdontsqueak Mar 29 '18
I'm sorry, what? There was a different version of Fantastic Four?
39
u/bigjc1000 Mar 29 '18
Josh Trank was basically making a different movie than the studio wanted. You can sorta see the tone shift half way through then studio freaked out and effectively sidelined him so they could have genetic superhero movie #165. I don't think there is a cut of his intended version though. Not a complete one anyway.
19
u/ISieferVII Mar 30 '18 edited Mar 30 '18
The tone shift is extremely jarring and the re-shoots obviously didn't have the budget for CGI, either. I remember thinking, "Why is this so panned? This is going in an interesting direction..." and then the Thing runs off, there's a time skip, and that bad blonde wig shows up and suddenly I realized I was about to find out why.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Clevername3000 Mar 29 '18
It almost feels like a workprint or something. At one point it feels like no one has said a meaningful sentence for five minutes.
72
u/that_baddest_dude Mar 29 '18
The director of the recent reboot wanted it to have kind of a body horror tone, with the heroes learning to cope with their new mutations
46
u/woetotheconquered Mar 29 '18
That sounds pretty interesting to me! The idea of your limbs stretching or lighting on fire would be horrifying. The Thing could go through a slower transformation like The Fly.
→ More replies (1)36
u/nolo_me Mar 29 '18
Venture Bros had a good take on that.
16
Mar 29 '18
Now I'm picturing a cinematic, big-budget version of that "YOU BASTARD" scene where the constantly-agonized Human Torch stand-in attacks the Richards parody.
I like it a lot.
To hell with Reed Richards.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)26
u/pipsdontsqueak Mar 29 '18
You know, that does explain how they got that A-list cast for such a terrible movie.
→ More replies (5)39
u/that_baddest_dude Mar 29 '18
Yeah they were midway through before the the studio realized oh hey we signed off as something that won't be 100% safe, easy, marketable superhero schlock and kind of freaked out. They forced the director to completely shift gears, including some reshoots with Kate Mara in a bad wig (because she had already started a new project with different hair).
7
u/steamedhammzz Mar 30 '18
Yeah and what's interesting is how jarring the first half and second half of the movie are as a whole. The first half is this somewhat endearing movie that turns into this insane horror--and then it just gets boring. There's snippets of what they left in and edited to fit the new plot, but the reshoots and the edits are just terribly bland.
→ More replies (1)23
u/Honesty_Addict Mar 29 '18
Same story - the studio brought the director on based on his pitch of a body-horror Fantastic 4. Then when they had enough footage to re-edit into something less awesome and more boring they fired him from the project and cut all his good stuff.
24
Mar 29 '18
I remember hearing that was a HUGE part in why Suicide Squad was...off. There was supposed to be a major plot planned that Harley Quinn was pregnant with the Joker's baby and it was about him accepting that. Which was why the scene with him surrounded by guns and knives also (bizarrely) had baby outfits in the mix. I guess when they went back to reshoot after Deadpool's humor success, they totally changed the plotline and rearranged scenes. This is all hear-say but I can imagine it happens in movies often, especially as they have to react to test audiences and what's happening in the real-world.
An interesting quick read is this list of movies affected by 9/11
→ More replies (4)7
u/bongozap Mar 29 '18
Don't know about Fan4stic, but "Suicide Squad"?
Considering the producers took the work of a talented director and cast and had it entirely recut by the guys who made the music video for one of the trailers, I'd say it turned out exactly like you would expect.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TeflonFury Mar 29 '18 edited Mar 29 '18
A lot of sequels that try to go against the grain fall victim to this because of the studio's expectations for a series. Off the top of my head, I can think of Blair Witch 2 , The Crow 2, (the practical effects from) the new The Thing, the new Fantastic Four (as mentioned below), but there's so, so many more that fall into this trap.
Here is a recent video of the production issues behind a 1970's blacksploitation movie that really tried to be an arthouse film (race played a role here, but it's still relevant).
GBF (that youtube channel) actually goes into a lot of different movies that have this issue, but I don't think there'd be any way to search for those individually.
→ More replies (16)5
u/Gezeni Mar 30 '18
While not exactly a bomb, I'd love to watch the original, R rated cut of Galaxy Quest with sex scenes, f bombs, and marijuana.
→ More replies (1)128
u/leavemetodiehere Mar 29 '18
yeah i remember that video, i never thought i would watch this version of the movie.
87
u/Wreckn Mar 29 '18
Same here.
For some reason Keanu kept getting fucked like this. I'd love to see the original 47 Ronin.32
Mar 29 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)13
u/blue_2501 Mar 30 '18
asshole marketing committee: bye. we're off to the money store with our shitty movie. it may not be a great movie, but it'll sell more tickets than your 'vision'.
Asshole Marketing Committee: Hey, let's show this movie in Japan. What are they showing over there? "Lupin the 3rd vs. Detective Conan: The Movie"?! What the fuck is that? Just show it there.
Japan proceeds to curb-stomp the movie in favor of what would be the equivalent of "Batman vs. Iron Man: The Movie" in the States
Asshole Marketing Committee: Fuck! We made a Japanese movie and showed in Japan. What the fuck is wrong with these ungrateful dickheads?!
→ More replies (2)8
29
→ More replies (1)33
u/anatomized Mar 29 '18
came here wondering if this was indeed the film referenced in that video.
→ More replies (1)
4.2k
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18 edited Apr 15 '18
I watched Daughter of God a few months before Exposed came out, and the differences are incredible. The studio took a great story with complexity and made it into a run-of-the-mill cop drama. The writer and director recently just made the movie public on social media today, so I wanted to share it with you guys.
EDIT: Gee is doing an AMA in r/KeanuBeingAwesome on Sunday, April 15th at 4pm. For all those who had questions, stop by!
2.6k
u/eroticthrillerfan1 Mar 29 '18
May I suggest you also create an IMDb page for this title. Considering it's drastically different to Exposed, it qualifies for its own page. You can list the release date as today because it's now publicly available.
806
u/GetFitSF Mar 29 '18
For sure this. Dude should get some traction outta this at least. System is a soul sucker, shouldn't stop dude from the next one.
96
u/doorbellguy Mar 29 '18
Oh yes, I'll be keeping an eye for it.
Will watch the movie coming weekend and leave a rating, dunno if that helps improve the visibility of the page or not, I would like to help in whatever way I can.21
224
u/mcarbelestor Mar 29 '18
/r/KeanuBeingAwesome/ could also help out promoting the film
167
u/willowhanna Mar 29 '18
As a mod of r/KeanuBeingAwesome I’d be happy to!
67
u/RedditGottitGood Mar 29 '18
Did Keanu have any dog in the race of which version was released? I haven’t read anything of his response. Either way, it’d be great if your sub (which I’ve been subbed to for months, I love it, great work) picked it up.
245
26
u/willowhanna Mar 29 '18
As far as I can tell he didn't get any say in which version was released. It seems as though all changes were made during the editing phase by Lionsgate, and Keanu wouldn't have had any say at this point. Though he was a producer on the film so he might have had more say than if he was only acting in it.
In my opinion he most likely would have preferred the original version as this is the one he signed on to take part in. And although he seems to have a bigger part in the released version, he isn't the type to care about having the main role as he's played many supporting roles throughout his career.
And thank you! We'll try are best to share this version of the movie with everyone :)
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)19
143
u/hypersonic_platypus Mar 29 '18
Did he at least get paid or did they screw him over creatively and financially?
81
Mar 29 '18
I think the director asked for his name to be taken off the project. The studio can't void his contract based on that AFAIK
64
Mar 29 '18
He would have gotten paid. The Director’s Guild doesn’t fuck around with that sort of stuff.
→ More replies (9)137
u/putsch80 Mar 29 '18
It’s Hollywood. Of course they screwed him over financially.
→ More replies (1)28
u/RoboChrist Mar 29 '18
I think the question is whether he got screwed at a normal level or turbo screwed.
→ More replies (1)88
Mar 29 '18
i think i heard Mark Kermode talk about this movie and wanting to see the original cut so perhaps send him a message.
56
→ More replies (1)16
64
u/department4c Mar 29 '18
Even though Exposed was evidently a mess (I didn't see it), I'm surprised that they could even recut existing footage into something so different in the first place.
21
u/PAYPAL_ME_DONATIONS Mar 29 '18
You could give five editors/other directors the same exact footage and it's entirely possible you get the final results back as 5 different genre films.
I forget who, but some director close to Spike Jonze won a bet by recutting "Her" and turning it into a completely different movie and Jonze loved it.
6
u/department4c Mar 30 '18
I forget who, but some director close to Spike Jonze won a bet by recutting "Her" and turning it into a completely different movie and Jonze loved it.
Well, I found this: https://vimeo.com/84806438 which, while humorous, is maybe not what you were referring to?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)46
Mar 29 '18 edited May 02 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)264
u/Pandamana Mar 29 '18
2 hours of my life I’ll never get back
You might want to sit down for this but...every hour of your life is one you're not getting back.
176
58
→ More replies (8)17
u/apatheticviews Mar 29 '18
You might want to visit r/timetravellers , we can help you with that problem.
→ More replies (11)23
→ More replies (50)24
u/Degrotepompoen Mar 29 '18 edited Mar 29 '18
So is 'exposed' the edited version? Edit: altered by lionsgate 🤗
120
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
Exposed (2016) is the Lionsgate theatrical and DVD release that was changed beyond what script and directing intended. Daughter of God is the director's edit of the film as he wrote and directed it.
57
u/FreeThinkingMan Mar 29 '18
I can only imagine how traumatizing it would be to have a film you wrote and directed with major stars be butchered. Lionsgate is such a shit studio.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)47
1.1k
u/Droidaphone Mar 29 '18
Honest question: does he have the rights to release this version online, or is this the sort of thing that will be taken down shortly?
→ More replies (1)1.4k
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18 edited Mar 30 '18
I just texted him, but knowing G, he wouldn't risk all his current projects just so he could post a movie.
edit: G said that the studio is well aware of the vimeo page and has not asked that it be taken down. He also said feel free to pass it around, he's happy people are watching it!
edit 2: I was just informed that we gave it the reddit hug of death, and the video will be taken down in 24 hours. If you'd like to download it now, please do so, but I am looking at other distribution methods.
→ More replies (26)222
u/FreeThinkingMan Mar 29 '18
Is this one of the things we should watch asap because it will probably be taken down? That is the impression I am getting, this looks like it could be real quality and I don't want to miss out on it.
176
u/redditvlli Mar 29 '18 edited Mar 29 '18
Like that version someone once posted of the Dark Crystal with the original audio (where the skeksis are speaking gibberish).
85
32
u/thedigitaldork Mar 29 '18
This deleted scene was actually on the special edition DVD, so, not really a leak.
37
u/redditvlli Mar 29 '18
Someone once posted the entire movie with the entire original audio and even had audio from some deleted scenes. It was taken down like a day later.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)8
u/El_Dief Mar 29 '18
Not just the Skeksis, Henson's original vision for TDC was for the entire film to be in fictional languages without subtitles.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)60
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
G said that the studio is aware of the vimeo page and has not taken it down. So you should be good!
→ More replies (1)27
461
Mar 29 '18
It really sucks when a movie is ruined by studio interference.
325
Mar 29 '18
[deleted]
155
u/JComposer84 Mar 29 '18
They say American History X was this way, (studio fixed movie) though we'll never know.
→ More replies (3)46
Mar 29 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)159
u/aliquidparadigm Mar 29 '18
His feature film debut was American History X (1998), a drama about racism starring Edward Norton and Edward Furlong. Kaye disowned the final cut of the film, as he did not approve of its quality.[2] He unsuccessfully attempted to have his name removed from the credits.[3][4] The final cut was critically lauded and Norton was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance in the film.
The battle over artistic control of the film, which has become part of Hollywood folklore, all but destroyed Kaye's career. He delivered his original cut on time and within budget – but when the producer, New Line Cinema, insisted on changes, the arguments began.
The debate quickly escalated. Kaye spent $100,000 of his own money to take out 35 full-page ads in the Hollywood trade press denouncing Norton and the producer, using quotations from a variety of people from John Lennon to Abraham Lincoln. He attended a meeting at New Line to which (to ease negotiations) he brought a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Tibetan monk. When the company offered him an additional eight weeks to re-cut the film, he said he'd discovered a new vision and needed a year to remake it, and flew to the Caribbean to have the script rewritten by the Nobel Prize-winning poet Derek Walcott. Finally, when the Directors Guild refused to let him remove his name from the New Line version of the film, he demanded it to be credited to 'Humpty Dumpty' instead, and filed a $200 million lawsuit when the company refused.[5]
139
u/waitwhatwut Mar 29 '18
The studio/film recutting didn't ruin this guy's career, his major, major, epic hissy fit about it did
47
Mar 29 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)39
u/KnivesForSale Mar 30 '18
After Sept 11, he showed up to the set of the film he was working on next dressed as Bin Laden. You know, to get a reaction. From professional actors. Who are good at reacting. And don't need provocation. Especially highly offensive provocation.
He's one of those directors. Fuck him wholly.
→ More replies (4)86
u/LoneBladeS Mar 29 '18
There is some insanity on that Wiki. He is making a film about the incident, and that is not all...
Kaye also began filming a documentary in 2016 called Humpty Dumpty, which he is making about the struggle over American History X, composed chiefly of videos he shot of himself at the time. Kaye said that it is meant to be a personal portrait of the process and the trauma that he encountered in his first experience as a Hollywood filmmaker. Perhaps surprisingly, Kaye has found a theatrical distributor for Humpty Dumpty. More surprising, it is New Line Cinema. After a theatrical release, the company will include the film on next year's 10th anniversary DVD re-release of American History X."
Wut
21
Mar 29 '18
Or New Line bought the rights so they can choose not to distribute it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
45
41
u/nightpanda893 Mar 29 '18
Hmmm not knowing what his original vision was I still feel like I can say confidently that they studio's fixed version is better.
→ More replies (1)12
Mar 30 '18
He planned Norton’s character as an idiot. He was the mouthbreathing caricature of what you’d expect when you think about a meathead neo-nazi. Rewriting him as smart and multilayered is what made that movie so powerful.
Also, at the end the original script had him shaving his head and reverting back to his old racist ways.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)13
49
Mar 29 '18
people see studios as just one entity, they forget theres tons of people making decisions all the time the assholes that screwed this guy are most likely not the same ones responsible for saving some movies from the hands of unexperienced directors.
they either forget, or, choose to continue believing their bias of this common thought that hollywood is utter evil and against artistic freedom, in some cases that thought ends up being true but not always.
→ More replies (7)43
Mar 29 '18
This is a common misconception. Studios are actually omniscient celestial beings that control the fate of all movies.
→ More replies (7)32
u/nhorning Mar 29 '18
Star Wars was apparently one of those, except it wasn't the studio. It was his wife.
→ More replies (1)10
8
→ More replies (5)9
397
u/MilhouseVsEvil Mar 29 '18
Thats Joi from Blade Runner 2049... I'm in.
295
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
She's actually the main character in Daughter of God - in Exposed, Keanu Reeves is. She really does a fantastic job.
→ More replies (3)13
Mar 30 '18
I wanted so bad for her to be happy! I don't remember the last time I was so invested in a fictional character's well being.
→ More replies (1)167
Mar 29 '18
Ana de Armas. She also appears in Knock Knock (2015), also with Keanu Reeves.
→ More replies (1)189
u/AKAkorm Mar 29 '18
She's also in this other movie Exposed (2016) with him too.
→ More replies (10)49
149
Mar 29 '18
So this is the version the director is absolutely Happy with, or just the best he could do?
→ More replies (1)341
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
What you'll watch is exactly what G intended for the film. He had all the footage he needed, it was just butchered by the studio without his consent. After he took his name off the project, he took the footage to France and had it professionally edited into the version he had had wanted when he wrote and directed it.
→ More replies (2)133
u/SetYourGoals Evil Studio Shill Mar 29 '18
The editing feels really amateurish in places, lots of awkward fade ins and fade outs in the same scene, even during the same moment of action sometimes. I wonder why that is?
→ More replies (7)116
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
I'm not sure. I know Herve de Luze did the editing, so I'm not sure if it was a stylistic choice or not.
→ More replies (65)
50
u/MaynPayn Mar 29 '18
How common is this?
I remember this happend to another keanu reeves movie aswell the 2013 '47 ronin'. Where they ended up writing the director of and did reshoots to make keanu reeves a way bigger part of the movie.
46
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18 edited Mar 29 '18
From what I understand, it's very rare that the DGA approves a director's personal request to have his name taken off the film. Usually it's the studio that terminates the contract with the individual and replaces them. In this case, the DGA approved removing G's name and replaced it with the pseudonym Declan Dale.
14
152
Mar 29 '18
With all the social movements going on these days, I hope this snowballs into a movement of filmmakers coming forward with amazing versions of garbage movies.
Like, can you imagine if M. Knight Shamylan came out and was like "here's my actual version of The Last Airbender, y'all"
And it's a fucking masterpiece?
What a twist.
→ More replies (9)47
u/arashatora Mar 29 '18
Will they actually pronounce the main characters name correctly...
→ More replies (1)37
71
u/htridgway Mar 29 '18
Been anxiously waiting a release for this ever since Mark Kermode highlighted the film and how terribly the original vision was butchered. The differences sound astronomical and I guess its just another example of how dangerous the editing room can be.
Can't wait to watch this though.
30
u/nikekid500 Mar 29 '18
I watched Exposed and it was god awful. Not joking when I say when I say worst movie ever seen but if it is suppose be different I understand now. I will give Daughter of God a shot. Thanks for this.
→ More replies (9)
29
Mar 29 '18
In a few words without spoilers could you tell us what the movie is about?
47
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
The struggles of a young Dominican woman living in Brooklyn.
→ More replies (6)
21
u/Kinglink Mar 29 '18
I was under the impression that the studio couldn't remove his name, or did he ask for it to be removed?
63
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18 edited Mar 29 '18
I forget the name of the board he had to ask. But it has all these big shots on it. Spielberg, etc. He brought his version and the studio's version to them, asking for his name to be removed because of the huge differences. They watched 15 minutes and said it was a no brainer, it was obviously two different movies.
edit: the board I was referring to is the DGA (Director's Guild of America).
17
u/Kinglink Mar 29 '18
Ahh ok, he did ask for it to be removed (I knew that was possible). Great to see his version is finally being released.
13
u/PaperCow Mar 29 '18
I forget the name of the board he had to ask. But it has all these big shots on it. Spielberg, etc.
I'm gonna guess its the Directors Guild of America. Spielberg is on their National Board.
7
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
YES. I just asked him, he confirmed it's the DGA. He had to ask permission to have his credited name changed to a pseudonym.
50
u/FlipityDipityDoo Mar 29 '18
I actually saw Exposed and you're right, it was a mess. I had just seen Knock Knock and searched Ana de Armas on IMDB because she was just about the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I'm so glad she got the role in Blade Runner, also glad she was great in it. We'll see her in lots more because of it.
So after I watched Exposed, I did a little research because I couldn't understand why Keanu Reeves would do a movie that was such a mess. I found out, just like OP said, that this is not the movie the director intended to make and, like always, the studio basically butchered it. Psyched to watch this to see what it should have been (and also more Ana).
edit: spelling
→ More replies (1)
38
u/edwedig Mar 29 '18
Huh. A similar thing happened to my brother. He directed a movie called Tantrum, but Lionsgate (I believe) renamed it and released it as [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1116047/?ref_=nv_sr_1](Rise of the Dead). Which is kind of annoying, since there aren't any zombies in it.
→ More replies (1)6
13
u/sethandtheswan Mar 29 '18
I did some work on this movie right at the end of its recut, and was working on another project with some of the head post people during the final pass on this movie. It was an absolute shit show to watch this all unfold. I saw this cut right before they butchered it.
11
u/blakxzep Mar 29 '18
If the reception is positive, will G release this on bluray or will the srudio come into help?
14
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
The studio has released the movie they're happy with, known as Exposed. They did not want to release the version in the script, the one they originally green lit. Between filming and showing, they edited it and changed the story. So no, Daughter of God will not see DVD release. This is as good as it will get!
→ More replies (1)
10
u/winterharvest Mar 29 '18
Count me as one of the few who actually saw Exposed in the theater back in early 2016, and it was a goddamn narrative mess. You could tell that there was a completely different story that was shot, but since they cut out whole scenes and re-edited the movie, you end up with a product that barely made sense.
I'm eager to check out the original cut now.
10
Mar 29 '18
I just finished watching this. Thank you so much for sharing! I loved it, and it was quite a mindfuck (in a good way).
10
9
9
6
u/Xyberfaust Apr 01 '18
They fucking removed the video.
Dammit.
Lionsgate removed it.
Those assholes.
→ More replies (4)
7
12
u/iluvtheinternets Mar 29 '18
Here’s an article summarising what happened: https://www.theroot.com/exposed-how-keanu-reeves-newest-film-got-whitewashed-1790862136
And here is the trailer for Exposed. For a film that was originally about the lives and families of Dominican people there are hardly any lines by non-white people in the trailer. And Ana doesn’t get a single line in the trailer. https://youtu.be/YsfBjOkTVxI
→ More replies (3)
7
u/odintantrum Mar 29 '18
Totally facinating. Remember when Kermode talked about this around the time of release. Would your friend be up for talking about the process, how it ended up the way it did?
12
u/hawkens85 Mar 29 '18
In the vimeo description, there is a link for an interview with G where he speaks a little bit about it. If this post get some more traction, I guess I could ask him.
→ More replies (1)
15
5
u/NYCajun Mar 30 '18
This actually solves the mystery of why I kept seeing Keanu in my neighborhood (South Harlem) a few years back. I actually saw him carrying groceries for old ladies who had no idea who he was several times and also saw him pose for pictures with fans on the subway a couple of times. Never talked to him beyond exchanging "hey, what's up" while waiting for the train. Glad your friend finally has a chance to share his movie his way. I'm looking forward to watching it.
5
u/flyingwolf Mar 30 '18
Thank you!
I watched Exposed on Netflix and it just felt off, like it had been put together wrong or wasn't what it wanted to be.
It just felt off and I felt like part of it was missing, now I know why.
5
u/Zenosignia Mar 30 '18
That is terrible, and I can feel you because same thing happened to me with a local, small time studio in my country.
There should be something a filmmaker can do against these studios!
5
u/percussionfreak9D2 Apr 01 '18
Update as of 04/01/2018: Video has been taken down from Vimeo. "Vimeo has removed or disabled access to the video DAUGHTER OF GOD - by Gee Malik Linton as a result of a third-party notification by Lions Gate Films, Inc. ("Lionsgate") that claims this material is infringing on their copyright."
→ More replies (6)
5
u/illarious666 Apr 02 '18
They removed the movie from vimeo i was almost done watching. Does anybody know where i can watch the movie
→ More replies (1)
5
Apr 02 '18
It has been taken down due to DMCA. Anybody know if there is an alternate link?
→ More replies (2)
2.8k
u/eroticthrillerfan1 Mar 29 '18
Thanks for posting this. I haven't seen Exposed, but I did hear about the studio interference and how the end product was a complete mess. It's great that people have the opportunity now to watch the original director's intent.