Film directors' press statements

Anyway, something’s been on my mind. Today, I stumbled upon two different threads where people were quoting authors or the writers of the original source material just to prove a point in a discussion.

How much do you all actually care about these quotes from press junkets or interviews—statements that are often anything but authentic? Have you ever caught yourselves using them as a trump card in an argument, trying to flip the debate in your favor?

Because, if you ask me, those statements are total bullshit. Especially when it's some author from a completely different medium whose work was adapted, and they feel this desperate need to claim that every single change made during the adaptation was "exactly what was intended."

☕

It’s just like how Smith explained the whole point of his incredibly dull film "Days"—the only actual reason that movie exists is because its massive box office success gave him the idea to just recycle the exact same concept for "Two."

So, yeah. It's a series.

northerncrane4 said:Anyway, I'm curious about something. Today, I stumbled upon two different threads where people were throwing around quotes from directors or authors of the original source material just to try and win an argument.

How much weight do you guys actually give to those press junket soundbites or interviews about a finished film, which—let's be honest—are often about as authentic as a three-dollar bill? Have you ever caught yourselves using them in a debate like some kind of trump card to flip the script in your favor?

Because if you ask me, those statements are total bullshit. Especially when it's some author from another medium whose work got adapted, suddenly feeling this overwhelming, desperate need to claim that all the changes made during the adaptation were actually the right call.

☕

They aren't total bullshit; Palahniuk never once said "the changes made in the adaptation were the right thing to do."

Palahniuk: You know, I had the back and fourth but the ending was entirely David’s. But I knew that David had to bring up the romance at the end so I could understand why he did. In the same way I can remember why Clark left the scene out. Because there is only so much that can go in a movie before it becomes overload. Source

It only takes a few seconds to check if a statement is actually authorized (via The Cult).

But really, the whole thing is a potential gold mine when it comes to those classic press releases from American filmmakers. 🤣

northerncrane4 said:Anyway, something’s been on my mind. Today, I stumbled upon two different threads where people were citing statements from directors or authors of the original source material just to try and win an argument.

How much weight do you actually give to those press conference quotes or interviews about a film—statements that often aren't even authentic? Have you ever caught yourself using them as ammunition in a debate just to get the upper hand?

To me, those quotes are total bullshit. Especially when it’s some author from a different medium whose work was adapted, feeling this desperate need to claim that the changes made during the adaptation were actually the right call.

☕

Given how impossible it is to achieve a perfect hundred-percent adaptation from one medium to another, I highly doubt many authors would actually say something that stupid. Personally, I find any discussion regarding adaptations—even summer blockbusters, let alone more serious works—to be largely unnecessary.

As an aspiring writer who spends far too much time staring at a screen typing out various stories and scripts, I know exactly how much effort goes into every single line of dialogue, every detail, and every chapter just to get an idea down on paper. Even changing my own ideas leaves a bitter taste in my mouth because there's always that nagging thought that the first or second version was better. Even the final draft feels incomplete. Eventually, once everything settles, you make peace with it. But I seriously doubt a professional author would ever claim that changes to their work were "the right thing," especially when an amateur clearly isn't happy with them.

Movies are subjective experiences. Everyone has a right to their opinion, so arguing over these quotes is pointless. Some fool who forces an argument and insists they're right by leaning on quasi-authentic quotes or trivial details from IMDb is exactly the kind of person I wouldn't grab a coffee with.

Unlike those types, I don't waste my time obsessing over "what the author intended," and I certainly don't waste time shouting about how my dad is tougher than yours.

Christian Taylor3 said:They aren't total bullshit—Palahniuk never once claimed the changes made during adaptation were actually a good thing.

Fine, whatever. I could go digging through Google right now and maybe stumble upon some obscure site claiming he said something similar to those quotes—which still wouldn't prove he actually uttered them.

But I'm not just asking because of Palahniuk; I've read several of his essays where he was actually quite friendly toward the film. On the 2001: A Space Odyssey topic, someone brought up Clark's comment about how if anyone actually understood the ending, then Kubrick and he hadn't done their jobs properly.

It reminds me of how people constantly attribute things to Lynch—suggesting you shouldn't even try to understand his films. Yet, in Catching the Big Fish, he wrote something diametrically opposed to that (I think I even quoted it myself, though I can't recall if it was on the Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire topic).

Honestly, I just wanted to say that it gives me the creeps whenever I read or hear "well, even [so-and-so] said..."

John Peterson3 said:But I highly doubt any professional author would actually state what the "right thing" is regarding changes to their work—especially once an amateur decides they aren't a fan.

Something tells me we saw this exact thing happen recently with > and the comic creator Mark Millar—who apparently wasn't thrilled with how much they butchered his original material.

northerncrane4 said:Something tells me this happened recently with Kick-Ass and Mark Millar, who apparently thought the adaptation was a total joke compared to his comic.

The original material is a total joke when it comes to superheroes. All the movie really did was crank the mockery up a notch. I wouldn't exactly call that a departure from the source.

You're right. There are exceptions.

Honestly, I couldn't care less whether the director thinks they nailed it or missed the mark, let alone the author of the original book.

Bottom line: if I enjoyed it, I enjoyed it, period. Same goes if I didn't.

I also find it wild how many people have this deep-seated belief that a movie adaptation is doomed to fail just because it's based on a book. They argue that they've already built their own version of the world in their head and anything else won't work. What a ridiculous way to think!

John Peterson3 said:The original is just a mediocre take on the superhero genre—all the movie did was crank up the mockery. I wouldn't call that a departure from the source material.

Look, the original isn't exactly a masterpiece, but it had a vision. And that vision definitely didn't include the "hero gets the girl" trope, some jetpack finale, or a complete character overhaul for the kid's dad. To be clear—the author went out of his way to ensure the hero *doesn't* get the girl, the dad is no hero at all (just a guy lost in comic books), and there are no mail-order jetpacks involved. So, I find it hard to believe he’s actually thrilled that the very things he explicitly avoided in the comic were the exact things the movie didn't want to happen.

Mark Wood79 said:I’d also add how ridiculous it is that so many people hold this deep-seated belief that a film adaptation won't be good simply because they read the book first—as if we've all built some sacred little world in our heads or something. What a joke.

I agree—it's nonsense. But I also find it baffling why, in so many instances, the very details that made a novel, story, or comic great are the exact things filmmakers decide to toss in the trash.

Anyway, it doesn't matter—not the point here.

And honestly? It wouldn't surprise me if the original authors were such hacks that they'd claim their life's dream was to see their work turned into a travesty—all just to prove they're "team players" so they can sell the rights to their next project. The fact that anyone would cite statements like that as proof of a quality adaptation is laughable.

I saw it on IMDb and realized 🤷
I really shouldn't get myself caught up in the whole book versus movie debate since I haven't actually read it yet...

northerncrane4 said:Well, whatever, I guess I'll just keep Googling; I might even stumble upon some sketchy corner of the internet where a quote similar to that one exists, though that wouldn't actually prove Palahniuk ever said it.

I'm sure we'd find plenty of unauthorized fabrications too. I remember intentionally "provoking" our resident "someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes" with certain comments as conclusions on the The Social Network thread. 😬 And I got the only real answer:

Amanda Nguyen5 said:To truly grasp the cinematic relationship, you don't just need the film—it’s not merely sufficient, it's essential and the only legitimate way to understand it.

northerncrane4 said:But I wasn't just asking about Palahniuk; I've read several of his essays where he seemed quite friendly toward the film.

Friendly is an understatement: "Now that I see the movie, especially when I sat down with Jim Uhls and record a commentary track for the DVD, I was sort of embarrassed of the book, because the movie had streamlined the plot and made it so much more effective and made connections that I had never thought to make. There is a line about "fathers setting up franchises with other families," and I never thought about connecting that with the fact that Fight Club was being franchised and the movie made that connection. I was just beating myself in the head for not having made that connection myself." (also authorized via The Cult).

Still, that doesn't necessarily mean that all the changes made during the adaptation were definitely the right call. Especially regarding that Fincheresque ending: "But I knew that David had to bring up the romance at the end so I could understand why he did." To me, that sounds more like a lighthearted shrug. 😁 It's not like Palahniuk is some kind of damn Aralica who's going to admit the movie is better than the source material. Like I said, never happens, anywhere. 🙂

Over on the 2001: A Space Odyssey topic, someone brought up that Clarkian quote about how if anyone actually understands the ending, then Kubrick and he didn't really do their jobs properly, which is just... wow. Honestly, I just wanted to say that it gives me the chills whenever I read or hear someone go, "Well, even [insert famous person here] said..."

None of that really matters, though; you should probably stop listening to what the authors have to say the second their movie or book hits theaters.

northerncrane4 said:How much do you guys actually care about those press junkets or interviews they do once a movie hits theaters? Most of the time, those statements feel totally fake anyway.

Not really.

northerncrane4 said:Ever caught yourself pulling those specific points out of thin air just to flip an argument in your favor? You know exactly what I mean. It’s like a reflex. One minute you're talking, and the next, you're weaponizing a random fact just to win the point. Totally guilty.

I’ve caught myself doing all sorts of things, but I never saw this coming.
Honestly, I caught a lot of other people too. Even those folks I thought only knew a thing or two about movies up until that point.

northerncrane4 said:Honestly, if you ask me, statements like that are total bullshit.

Don't talk trash. 😁

Mark Wood79 said:Also, I have to say, it’s honestly wild how many people are stuck with this deep-seated idea that a movie adaptation is doomed to fail just because they already read the book. They get all hung up on the whole "well, I built this entire world in my head" thing. What a joke!

No, no, look—there’s definitely a group of people out there, and honestly, it’s a huge crowd, who swear by one rule: "A movie adaptation of a book? Fine, I'll give you that. But reading the book after seeing the movie? That's just impossible!" 🤣🤣

Just my two cents on the whole thing: once an artist finishes their work, they basically vanish. They cease to exist in relation to the piece. At that point, any comment the creator makes is just as relevant as a random person shouting from the sidewalk. Sure, there are times when someone—whether it’s a buddy, a critic, or some stranger—can clear things up for you or even flip your perspective (assuming they have better arguments than yours or it just "clicks"), but in my experience, it’s almost never the author themselves who does it.

northerncrane4 said:How much do you guys actually care about those quotes from press junkets or interviews after a movie comes out? You know, the ones that often feel totally fake. Have you ever caught yourselves using them in debates just to try and win an argument?

I guess ignoring those kinds of statements is a luxury most movie buffs don't even realize they have. Just imagine if people on the Religion subforum could do the same thing... 😁 man, there would be no end to it. 😁

But personally, I don't really mind those quotes. I sort of view them as heavy artillery for when you just can't prove a point any other way. And honestly, they're even better if they happen to support my side of things.

northerncrane4 said:Over on the 2001: A Space Odyssey thread, someone brought up that Clarkian quote where he basically said if anyone actually understood the ending, then Kubrick and he didn't do their jobs right.

Well, hasn't he said something pretty similar before? Like, roughly that if a movie is figured out on the first watch, it wasn't made well. Kubrick didn't quite agree with that.

quietdriver3 said:Didn't he say something similar? Basically, if you realize the movie isn't great on the first watch, then they didn't do their job. Kubrick didn't agree.

I'm glad you brought this up. Clark said something along those lines—in his own way. But you really have to consider the context behind it. Knowing Clark—and I grew up on his work—that statement was just him being a smart-ass. You also have to factor in the sheer amount of press these directors face during distribution. Some people can give parrot-like answers to parrot-like questions, but for others, it gets exhausting, so they start messing around. Then, forty years later, someone digs up one sarcastic comment and builds an entire "what the poet meant" theory around it.

Yeah, right.

Go f*** yourselves.😁Honestly, I don't really care either way, but I'm still curious to hear what you think. Jeffrey Wigand I've got a few thoughts.Watching *The Insider* again really hits different—especially that lecture by Jeffrey Wigand. It’s one of those moments where you just sit there, completely floored by the sheer weight of what’s being said.September 10, 2011, at 7:00 PM - Europa Cinema http://bit.ly/q0Cwa7).

By the way, you... 16:30 It’s a formal film screening. 🍿

I highly recommend this.

northerncrane4 said:Anyway, there’s something on my mind. Today, I stumbled upon two different threads where people were citing quotes from directors or authors of the original source material just to prove a point in an argument.

How much do you guys actually care about those quotes from press junkets or interviews—quotes that, let's be honest, aren't always even authentic? Have you ever caught yourselves using them as a trump card in a debate just to try and flip the script in your favor?

Whether we're talking about an adaptation or an original film, an author's comments don't mean a damn thing to me when it comes to evaluating or interpreting the work. If a movie didn't move me, a director's statement isn't going to suddenly manufacture that emotion. Honestly, I find it a bit rude when an author tries to narrow down all possible interpretations to fit their own specific vision after the fact. Just because Clarke said the film shouldn't be understood, does that mean I should abandon my own process of making sense of it? Fak!

Don't get me wrong, it’s always a pleasure to read an author talking passionately about their own work or someone else's. "Lynch about Lynch" was one of my favorite books on cinema, but I don't view it as an official guide to his films; I see it as a monologue from someone who simply loves movies. When it comes to interpreting a film, a director's quote carries about the same weight as a comment from quietdriver3 😁 — it might be smart, it might be beautiful, but at the end of the day, the most important thing is watching the movie and forming your own opinion.

northerncrane4 said:I'm glad you asked about that. Clark said something similar once, but I think the context matters a whole lot here. From what I know of Clark—and I basically grew up on his work—that statement was probably just him messing around. You also have to consider the sheer amount of press these directors go through during a release. Some people can give parrot-like answers to parrot-like questions, but for others, it just gets exhausting, so they start joking around. Then, forty years later, someone pulls a joke out of thin air and turns it into this massive "what the author really meant" theory.

To be fair, I can't actually find the original quote, just a paraphrase framed as a question. And besides, Kubrick says he was just kidding around. I guess context is everything when you're looking at things like this. 😳

Christian Taylor3 said:Who gives a j***** about them (😁), I'm just curious what Jeffrey Wigand has to say (‘The Insider’, lecture, Jeffrey Wigand, Europa Cinema, September 10, 2011, at 7:00 PM - http://bit.ly/q0Cwa7).

BTW, there's a special screening of the movie at 4:30 PM. 🍿

Highly recommended.

Reading this makes me want to set something on fire. But I really need to quit smoking. 🤦

ruggedjackal46 said:When you're trying to figure out a movie, I guess what the director thinks matters just as much as what quietdriver3 thinks 😁—it might be smart or pretty insightful, but at the end of the day, you really just have to watch the film and come to your own conclusions about it.

😁😁

That all sounds fine and fair, I suppose, but think about this; if you settle on one idea about a movie, and then the director steps up and says their intention was actually something else entirely, wouldn't your interpretation basically just be a psychoanalysis of the creator? 😁 The mind boggles.