Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Sylvester Stallone would like you to know - that he is absolutely not editing BULLET TO THE HEAD!!!

Hey folks, Harry here...  a bullshit rumor has begun being spread about the internet that Stallone is editing BULLET TO THE HEAD...   Sly called me today to ask if I'd set the record straight - that WALTER HILL is calling the shots on this film, 100%.   Sly calls this rumor, "an egregious lie, I have nothing to do with the editing to BULLET TO THE HEAD.  Walter is doing a FANTASTIC job!  I think it is a FANTASTIC job and he's editing it!"  Sly is currently getting ready to star with Arnold in THE TOMB and said he's busy gearing up for that.   SO - bullshit rumor.   Walter "the master" Hill is calling the shots.  The world is right!

And here is the official statement from Warner Brothers:

Contrary to recent inaccurate and unfounded reports that Sylvester Stallone had taken over the editing of BULLET TO THE HEAD, director Walter Hill continues his editing of the movie.  Walter Hill said today, “I'm currently finishing up and locking reels on the movie -- as to the content and style of the film, Sly and I are in perfect sync.   I’m delighted with the way the film is turning out and hopefully so will the audience.”

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 5, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    FIRST!

    by Jackson

    nuff said

  • March 5, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Fantastic.

    by vanchimera

    I can sleep tonight.

  • March 5, 2012, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Expendables 2 still PG-13 so......

    by otm shank

    who cares.

  • March 5, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Good news

    by Denty420

    I love Walter Hill's work and I'm stoked for this. But will Sly be wearing his 'Wicked Witch of the West' expression all the way through the film?

  • March 5, 2012, 5:07 p.m. CST

    *phew*

    by moorE12

  • Save that Puritanical bullshit for the next Walker Texas Pig Fucker reunion. All these men do dumb, VIOLENT action movies, so why do they have to put on some facade to appease a walking meme whose movies were all shitty to begin with?

  • March 5, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Any insight into the delay or when we'll see a trailer?

    by torontoxic

    Or do I need to start a rumour to get an answer?

  • March 5, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    So it won't be rated PG10?

    by happybunni

    Because hey, what does the rating matter right?

  • March 5, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Ram-bo?

    by CrotchTartar

    What mean egregious?

  • March 5, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    This is FANTASTIC, everyone is

    by Tikidonkeypunch

  • Shocker...

  • March 5, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    proman1984

    by Zakari Paolon

    Of course there's editing going on. There's editing on every movie. I don't get your point..

  • March 5, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    "Its like....

    by CrotchTartar

    ..when you get invited to a party....and you don't show up?.....doesn't really matter....."

  • March 5, 2012, 5:25 p.m. CST

    @zakari paolon

    by Wyrdy the Gerbil

    proman point was to be sarcastic

  • Fist-bump.

  • March 5, 2012, 5:48 p.m. CST

    And why is Mr. "PG-13 is good enough for Expendables 2"

    by kobain

    any important? sell out.

  • Imagine the travels he went on before ending up on the doorstep of Bob Uecker.

  • March 5, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    This is news we care about!!!

    by Kefka

    Hey ATTENTION, you dumbasses saying this is news no one cares about! As a lifetime fan of Walter Hill, I can assure you not only do I care about this, but anyone who likes old-school action films cares about this. So if you don't care SHADDUP! And thanks Harry for chiming in, because unlike these lame, bitter, nerds, I was upset about the rumor of anyone but Walter Hill editing his movie.

  • March 5, 2012, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Maybe he learned his lesson...

    by JOEUMAN

    ...after completely butchering whatever crap story they gave 'Judge Dredd' to begin with.

  • March 5, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Stallone actually used the word "egregious"...WOW

    by DementedCaver

  • March 5, 2012, 6:23 p.m. CST

    What is this? Where is the love for Sly?

    by tradeskilz

    The guy is an icon and really seem to care about his fans. Don't know why anybody would hate on the guy.

  • ..consisting of marionettes found in paedophiles shoe boxes..he is how ever calling harry on a regular basis due to the fact he has a slight mental retardation...oohh

  • March 5, 2012, 6:30 p.m. CST

    What rumour?

    by chuffsterUK

    Anyone heard this rumour?Nope,thought not..

  • March 5, 2012, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Also...

    by chuffsterUK

    ...did he really shout FANTASTIC down the phone a couple of times??

  • ...to the big screen. No sorry folks, were you thinking I meant something else?

  • Stallone will never make a film as good as any of the examples above. I'm delighted this turned out to be a bullshit rumour. Walter Hill is a fucking GOD to me.

  • March 5, 2012, 7:20 p.m. CST

    This Good News

    by milesdyson

    I've been waiting years for Walter Hill to direct another movie. I'm glad someone isn't fucking with him. Now let's see a trailer.

  • March 5, 2012, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Good to hear.

    by MaxTheSilent

    I know Sly has gone over the heads of directors in the past. I hated to think he would do it to a master like Walter Hill.

  • March 5, 2012, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Walter Hill's 2000 film Supernova was tampered with too!

    by Powers Boothe

    Hill's name was removed from the final film after being heavily re-cut by the studio.

  • AND IT IS AMAZING

  • Why, those fucking rumour-mongering cunts!

  • I don't care how old they are...and I'm not even gay. So that's how awesome this is.

  • March 5, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Well, considering Sly is an Academy Award winning storysmith

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    maybe he OUGHT to be in the editing room! My admirating for Walter Hill is on the slight side to be honest. It exist and it's true, but it's around the same modicum of trust I put in John Milius or Justin Lin. I have much more faith in Stallone. I took this rumor of him being forced to pull a "Francis Ford" as a positive.

  • March 5, 2012, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Will Stallone next deny ghost directing "Rambo 1-3" and "Over The Top"?

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Seems like Stallone dabbles a lot in things that he insist aren't to his credit.

  • March 5, 2012, 9:01 p.m. CST

    THANK GOD.THE LAST THING I WANT IS TO GET MIGRAINES

    by KilliK

    thanks to Sly's atroicous ADD editing.

  • March 5, 2012, 9:43 p.m. CST

    **SIGH** Neither Sly nor Walter are "editing" Bullet to the Head.

    by Michael Sheehan

    Timothy Alverson is the editor. He's an editor. Walter Hill is a director. Not the editor. Tim's credits seem to be mostly b-fare. Let's give him credit where credit is due all the same. Lest this sound like pedantry, a lot of people (even folks "in the business") have no clue what an editor does. Not members of this august body, to be sure; but even so, many hardcore film enthusiasts are clueless. They assume the director shoots just the bits he wants and the editor sticks it all together according to plan. This is (very) occasionally the case, but it is rare. The nearest simile I can offer is this: the director has provided a detailed sketch (the script as shot) which has necessarily evolved from when it is written; has (ideally) had discussions with the editor regarding the tone, pacing and direction in which he wants the work to proceed; and has shot as many options as possible for the editor to choose from as he attempts to fulfill the director's vision. Depending on the relationship, this can be wholly collaborative endeavor, full of inspirations and surprises for both parties; or in some cases, the editor can be left more or less on his own, screening and getting notes, revising, etc.; or in worst-case scenarios (which are rare) the director micro-manages the editing process (the editorial shorthand for this is "frame-fucking"). An editor can make or break a film, as he is essentially doing the final rewrite, and his team hand off the final deliveries for mix, DI, etc. etc. I write this as an editor -- perhaps a little sensitized by Oscar-time references to editing, sound editing, mixing etc as "technical" disciplines by people who ought to know better. Even the New York Times' A.O. Scott marvelled that there was a split between the editing and sound editing Oscars, when they are all but 100% separate disciplines. In reality each of the roles above are as distinct from each other as the roles of quarterback, lineman, wide receiver, and though they involve technology (what doesn't?) they are creative and not "technical" roles. They are no more or less "technical" than cinematography, which Oscar I never hear being poo-pooed as a "technical" award. I know you cats are all film lovers, so let's just get the nomenclature right. Yes, even when we're talking about "Bullet to the Head."

  • March 5, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST

    ^ and as Tarantino said: you make three movies:

    by KilliK

    the one you write,the one you shoot and the one you edit.

  • you mean that sound and movie editing are completely different disciples and they should be viewed only as such.And that the Academy has correctly separated into two different award categories.is that what you say?

  • March 5, 2012, 11 p.m. CST

    FANTASTIC.

    by Yelsaeb

    Did it require all caps and a reiteration?

  • March 5, 2012, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Killik

    by Michael Sheehan

    My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on to a screen, come to life again like flowers in water.

  • March 5, 2012, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Killik (again)

    by Michael Sheehan

    Sorry, I see how poorly I worded my original comment. Re: AO Scott, the sound editing and picture editing Oscars went to two different films, and this is the "split" he found odd. Hope that clarifies what I meant. (If my epic spew above doesn't! :)

  • Seriously? They debunked that but STILL didn't explain pulling the film from the schedule?

  • March 5, 2012, 11:53 p.m. CST

    Killik (once again)

    by Michael Sheehan

    Well, I typed a whole bunch of lovely stuff to you, but all that appears is the Bresson quote. I am new to the AICN talkbacks, so perhaps this is normal.... Anyway, I think Tarantino was paraphrasing the quote I shared above by Robert Bresson.

  • March 6, 2012, 1:14 a.m. CST

    Stallone said "egregious"? Really?

    by Mischa van Dinter

    Find that hard to believe. Did he say it in one go?

  • March 6, 2012, 3:37 a.m. CST

    PG-13 Sly

    by Volllllume3

    Fucking sellout.

  • March 6, 2012, 3:38 a.m. CST

    Actually, Chuck Norris will be editing all of Sly's movies from now on.

    by highfunctioningsociopath

    And will also hold his hand when he crosses the road.

  • and thanx for your reply.

  • March 6, 2012, 6:27 a.m. CST

    I hope this movie turns out to be good

    by Spandau Belly

    I was looking forward to it.

  • March 6, 2012, 8:54 a.m. CST

    SPIN SPIN SPIN

    by Rob

    I KNEW THIS FILM WAS GOING TO BE SHIT WHEN THEY RECAST THOMAS JANE BECAUSE THEY WANTED SOMEONE 'ETHNIC'

  • March 6, 2012, 9:17 a.m. CST

    is this the movie Tom Jane was fired on?

    by chien_sale

    idiiots

  • March 6, 2012, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Streets of Fire = High on the Guilty Pleasure List

    by I_Snake_Plissken

    If anybody disagrees with me, grab a sledgehammer and meet me on the bridge, it's go time!

  • March 6, 2012, 10:31 a.m. CST

    lmao @ the_cellarrat...

    by 3774

    Enjoy your birthday!

  • March 6, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    chien_sale

    by jj9126

    Jane is (unsurprisingly) full of shit. He was never hired to begin with.

  • March 6, 2012, 11:39 a.m. CST

    wait whose not doing what now?

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    stallone isn't editing a movie i never heard of and for some reason that was important to someone i guess okay um yeaaahh

  • March 6, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    We need a new Chuck...

    by Darth Macchio

    ..although if we got WalterB's assurances that this would indeed blow us "out the back of the theater" then I'd feel much better about the entire day's proceedings. Chuck Norris was going to slam a revolving door but someone said the word "fuck" out loud and he started to cry instead.

  • March 6, 2012, 2:10 p.m. CST

    But where's today's John Carter Disney sponsored story?

    by Ricardo

    I wonder what Bill Hicks would think of AICN.

  • March 6, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    tH

    by jellypop

  • March 6, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST

    It happened again..

    by jellypop

    apologies my netbook wents nuts and posted the letters tH. Hmm. 'nuff then....

  • March 6, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Glad to hear they didn't recast Jennifer Lawrence!

    by Jake Pantlin

    I can't believe they were going to recast her on this film with Gina Carano (although she would have been great, for sure). I guess Stallone came to his senses with all the attention 'The Hunger Games' is getting. I have a feeling that film will be the sleeper hit of the summer.

  • March 6, 2012, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Stallone is not editing this because he is not an editor.

    by v3d

    In other news, he's not writing or performing the theme song, making all the costumes or putting on the show in his uncle's barn.

  • March 8, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    C3PO proves my point.

    by Michael Sheehan

    C3PO, I guess you missed the part where I defined what an editor does as understanding and serving the director's vision. Never mentioned hurt feelings or anything else. It's a good thing you're not a film director looking for an editor because your conception of how an editor and director work together is pretty poorly formed. And, I suspect, your ideas about what an editor does (or indeed, how an editor gets hired) are not informed by much actual experience. (And just to be a deliberate pedant, a director does not supervise post production in any way. Unsurprisingly, the post production supervisor does that.) As I said before, there is a spectrum of scenarios one encounters as an editor: on one end, a highly collaborative relationship, wherein the editor and director work pretty closely and intensely, trying different approaches in pursuit of the common aim, i.e. the director's original (or evolved) vision; in the middle, a more laissez-faire approach where the director views cuts, gives notes, comes back and reviews again, and so on until final lock; and on the far end, a scenario wherein the editor is basically a high-functioning robot pushing buttons for the director, who would run the Avid himself and dispense with an editor if he could. In some cases (James Cameron is an example) the director is also a member of the Editor's Guild (or it's a non-union show) and can and will cut and re-cut stuff on his own, but when this is the case it will still fall somewhere on the spectrum I describe. Editors get into the business to collaborate with directors and help them find their vision. With exceptions of course, they have creative and interpersonal talents beyond the technical abilities, and these are what make or break them as editors. There is a great deal more counselling, guidance, problem-solving involved than most people outside the editing room have any notion of. More times than you might believe the director comes back with a scene he's slaved over only to find that it does not work as originally intended; coverage is off, performances don't match, expensive and time-consuming camera moves are not as satisfying to him as he imagined they would be on the set. I've seen grown men with years of experience put their heads in their hands with tears in their eyes looking at dailies. In these situations the editor has to talk the director through the emotional content of what he's tried to deliver and find a way to make that happen with the footage that's there. When you can do that, it's a great feeling. Sometimes the editor saves the picture. Sometimes he ruins it. Again, I know a lot of people in this business, bright, sharp folks, who nonetheless have the misconception you seem to have, that an editor just sort of does what the director tells him to do. When that's the basis of the working relationship, that's what you do, but it ain't fun for anyone. Fortunately, that is not usually the case. That's why the director hired you -- to help him shape the material, to have someone else who's a little more distant from the tribulations of the shooting and who is sympathetic to his vision give him input and alternatives. I would challenge you to find even one editor who finds the button-pushing-robot scenario fulfilling in any way other than a paycheck. Don't know where in anything I wrote you're getting this highly strung control freak bit. Ease off on the personal attacks. And regardless of what was or was not meant by editing in this article, this is a site for people that love films, and a great many who know a lot about the process. I don't think it's even a little out of line to ask that we be more specific in our use of terminology. Specifically, my beef is not with Harry or even this particular headline -- it's with the lumping of post work into one big pile marked TECHNICAL. Like, Hugo wins five Oscars but every press report poo-poos it with the note that they were just technical awards. Editing, sound editing, sound mixing, VFX, these are all extremely creative, iterative, collaborative processes, and all of us are working with the director to deliver the director's vision -- REGARDLESS of whether he's given us the raw materials to do so. So kindly lose the attitude, unless you have some experiences in the editing room you'd like to share that put the lie to what I've said here. I'd point you to Walter Murch's Behind the Seen and The Conversations with Walter and Michael Ondattje or Sam O'Steen's Cut to the Chase if you'd like to be a little bit better informed about how and why editors and directors work together.