Actors, filmmakers or authors seeing themes/scenes/characters differently?

For example: In interviews, Alexandra Daddario has talked about her nudity on True Detective being essential for the story and Marty's character. However, Nic Pizzolatto has stated he would be happy with no nudity and alluded that it was pretty much fan service.

Let me get this straight. Are you asking for different interpretations of a finished product by collaborators who worked together on the same finished product?

As opposed to, say, a book author complaining about the way his or her book was adapted by a filmmaker?

Stanley Kubrick/Stephen King

Gore Vidal/Bob Guccione

Isn't the story that Slim Pickens didn't realize Dr. Strangelove was a comedy?

Nudity is evidently a requirement on HBO .

William Peter Blatty and William Friedkin did not place the same level of importance on the scenes deleted from The Exorcist.

Stuart Gordon to screenwriter Joe Haldeman on the set of Robot Jox: "The problem is, Joe, you're trying to write a grown-up movie that children can enjoy. I'm trying to make a children's movie that grown-ups can enjoy."

Interesting.

And thank Jesus for that. What a pair of swingers.

Andrei Tarkovsky / Stanislaw Lem

Or Kubrick and King.

Post #3

I never did get this question answered.

fixed

I think either one works.

This what I would have said - I think King is still pissed off at Kubrick's take on the Shining.

Didn't we have a similar thread where someone mentioned a movie that was shot as a musical that the director subsequently removed all the songs and it was released as a straight up drama?

Then they remade The Shining for TV--to be true to King's "vision."

Guess which version we're all still talking about, Mr. King...

I'll Do Anything

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I'm also mildly curious to know the name of the film.

Van Damne to John Woo on Hard Target: "It's me they're paying to see. Not Lance Henriksen."

Something similar happened is said to have happened between Edward Norton and Tony Kaye on American History X, but I've heard conflicting reports about what actually happened there.

I thought I heard King in an interview making nice. Kind of like this:

Well, Mr. Kubrick was a great filmmaker, and he had his own vision, and conflicts are inevitable when there are highly creative people involved . . .

But there was only one highly creative person involved--Kubrick!

King's novel is primarily interested in alcoholism, addiction, and familiar disintegration, but primarily uses the central "haunted hotel" idea in the way of a more basic horror trope of a place where evil things happened is therefore basically malevolent itself. While I find many of the theories about the Kubrick film a little far fetched, I do think what he was attempting was clearly something more sociopolitical, Kubrick linking the evils of the hotel into acts of racism and genocide and man's deliberate way of forgetting and repeating the evils of the past. In a broader sense, Kubrick is less interested in the central smaller familial disintegration that King is than in what the whole thing means in a much broader sense about the nature of man's repetitive acts of evil and genocide in the name of conquest. Some people have also read the film in tons of other ways, and I haven't seen it in years, but that's basically what I've taken away from it as I've gotten older over the years.

'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' - Dahl later disowned the film, saying he was "disappointed" because "he thought it placed too much emphasis on Willy Wonka and not enough on Charlie"

Studio Ghibli's "Tales of Earthsea" - Ursula La Guin response to director Gorō Miyazaki: "It is not my book. It is your movie. It is a good movie", although she later expressed her disappointment with the end result