View Full Version : Pan's Labyrinth 97% at Rottentomatoes
Here (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pans_labyrinth/)
This one is looking mighty impressive from the initial reviews. Unfortunately, it looks to be another amazing film being put into limited release, with no theaters anywhere near me.
Holy crap. The trailer looks amazing!
cyberbri
12-27-06, 02:31 PM
Children of Men was another absolute GEM. Just watched it last night at the theater, after watching Babel (amazing - picked up the soundtrack at B&N while we waited an hour to see CoM) right before that. I believe Children of Men was at about 95% on the RT meter when I looked yesterday.
I'm very much looking forward to Pan's Labyrinth.
ChemEng
12-27-06, 02:57 PM
I was looking forward to seeing this in Louisville on Friday. It showed on movietickets on the schedule of movies available at the Stoneybrook theatre, but when I looked for the showtimes this morning at the same theatre on Friday--now its not listed. Anyone else notice this? I hope its just a mistake!
Hopefully it's another movie put initially into limited release then will go wide later on. I would like to see this and Children of Men in the theater, but right now it appears I will have to see them on DVD.
Airboss
12-27-06, 08:21 PM
Hopefully it's another movie put initially into limited release then will go wide later on. I would like to see this and Children of Men in the theater, but right now it appears I will have to see them on DVD.
Same for my location. I already have both of these on pre-order. 'Children of Men' R2 release is 15 Jan 2007 and 'Pan's Labyrinth' R2 is 12 March 2007 (althought I'm still trying to confirm that this will have English subtitles).
Airboss
01-03-07, 08:38 PM
Same for my location. I already have both of these on pre-order. 'Children of Men' R2 release is 15 Jan 2007 and 'Pan's Labyrinth' R2 is 12 March 2007 (althought I'm still trying to confirm that this will have English subtitles).
Confirmed English subs on the Pan's Labyrinth disc I have on pre-order (http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7001000130452). I was lucky enough to get to see this over the weekend and it is very good!
FredProgGH
01-03-07, 09:05 PM
PL does not appear to be playing in Chattanooga. I hope it does well enough that it goes into a more general release, ala Borat.
99% now. WOW! The only films that I've see rate higher are "The Terminator", "The Evil Dead" and "The Evil Dead 2" which are all at 100%. I need to check this out. I haven't even seen a trailer for it yet.
99% now. WOW! The only films that I've see rate higher are "The Terminator", "The Evil Dead" and "The Evil Dead 2" which are all at 100%. I need to check this out. I haven't even seen a trailer for it yet.
There's a link to a teaser trailer right on the RottenTomatoes page for this film. Linky (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pans_labyrinth/trailers_player.php?IGNMediaID=1657771&playerType=videolarge).
Was sort of limited release at first here ireland, then more cinemas picked up on it
Great movie nice mix of reality/fantasy, don't know about 99% but definietely worth seeing
ChemEng
01-06-07, 11:27 PM
I read that wide release of this will be on 19JAN07 for those who arent near the limited locations... I cant wait!!!!
ChemEng
01-17-07, 08:56 AM
It hits wide release on Friday. Anyone else making the trip to see this? Its still holding strong at 97% on Rottentomatoes.
I saw it Saturday night and thought it was well worth it.
Beeswax
01-17-07, 02:17 PM
what is this movie about??
what is this movie about??
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430/
Here's a link to a 2 disc version w/ English subs. The site is in Spanish and I was able to translate most of it using babel fish. However, I can't find out if it can be pre ordered.
http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8093
Babel Fish translator:
http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/
Shaded Dogfood
01-20-07, 07:40 PM
what is this movie about??
Just got back from seeing it. OOOeee.
A little girl in 1944 is dragged with her pregnant mother to be near her psychotic father, an officer in Franco's Fascist army, who believes that "his son should be born near his father". She is drawn into a fantasy world existing nearby, populated with fauns, fairies, giant toads and a particularly hideous monster whose eyes are in his palms. It's a rich tapestry that has to be seen to be believed.
But it's dark, literally as well as figuratively, and, from the look of the subtitles, the print I saw looked as if it was struck from a positive, as if they took the easy way to get a bunch of prints out fast. I wish I had gone to see it at a theater that had been showing it since Christmas. Its cinematography is very contrasty, with sunlight and deep shadow, and it just didn't look as if it was as good looking as it should have been (and the theater may have been playing the old game of cutting down on the lamp intensity for afternoon shows). It's also very violent and gruesome, and though it shows a world through the eyes of a child, it is by no means a children's film, though brave teens might really enjoy it.
I think it's an instant classic, a fantasy for the ages, a fitting companion piece to director Guillermo del Toro's definitive ghost chiller The Devil's Backbone. It's interesting that del Toro's friiend Alfonso Cuaron at the same time came up with his own masterpiece, Children of Men, which is similarly dark and uncompromising, both pictures of hell on earth- each with a little ray of hope.
It's probably nothing like it, but the trailer reminds me very much of Narnia (CoN).
FredProgGH
01-20-07, 09:09 PM
Shame about the poor exhibition. I suppose at this point I shall consider myself lucky merely to see the film, whatever the conditions prevailing at the local multiplex, and I'll hope for a better experience in the HT down the road!!
Airboss
01-20-07, 09:47 PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430/
Here's a link to a 2 disc version w/ English subs. The site is in Spanish and I was able to translate most of it using babel fish. However, I can't find out if it can be pre ordered.
You can pre-order here (http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7001000130452) or from Amazon UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pans-Labyrinth-Doug-Jones/dp/B000L42MUQ/sr=8-1/qid=1169347450/ref=pd_ka_1/203-3506287-5422332?ie=UTF8&s=dvd). Release date is 12 March 07.
You can pre-order here (http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7001000130452) or from Amazon UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pans-Labyrinth-Doug-Jones/dp/B000L42MUQ/sr=8-1/qid=1169347450/ref=pd_ka_1/203-3506287-5422332?ie=UTF8&s=dvd). Release date is 12 March 07.
I saw your original link, thanks but I'm looking to get the 2 disc version. I'm brushing up on my Spanish and it looks like it has more extra material than the UK version.
Arutha_conDoin
01-22-07, 06:22 PM
Did anyone happen to catch this movie? I thought it was a pretty good movie subtitles and all. Not your typical fantasy movie, but one with an edge I thought. Acting was good all around with a good story line. Filming wise it had a lot of dark colors and seemed to have a blue tint throughout the film. I'll be picking this one up on HD DVD assuming it gets released.
check out the existing thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=775789&highlight=pan+s+labyrinth
Arutha_conDoin
01-22-07, 07:47 PM
Thanks. I spelled it wrong when I did the search so I never found that thread. :rolleyes:
Arutha_conDoin
01-22-07, 07:52 PM
This was a great film. I loved the story line and it was brutal in places. I would not take anyone less then 13 to see this movie. A little to dark for kids, but adults should like it. I'll be picking this one up when it comes out in HD. It took forever to get to a local theater for me, but at least it made it finally. Reading subtitles was not very bad at all. Although I wish the paper would say if it is subtitled since I was surprised that it had English subtitles.
PooperScooper
01-22-07, 08:05 PM
merged threads
larry
Arutha_conDoin
01-22-07, 08:06 PM
merged threads
larry
Thanks Larry sorry for the second thread I started.
saw it last night on the local Mega Screen, a movie theater with a screen about twice the size of a normal movie screen. it was a great movie; very original, and never dull.
highly recommend it.
hmurchison
01-22-07, 10:45 PM
I'll likely just buy this one on HD DVD as a blind buy. I think it's a solid movie and I'm sure I'll enjoy it.
Hesitant
01-23-07, 02:16 AM
Just seen it in the theater today.
Very smart, dark, well acted.
Not really a mainstream movie - too much 'real' Spanish civil war mb.
A little girl in 1944 is dragged with her pregnant mother to be near her psychotic father,
Quick correction: He's not her father. He's her step-father, who it's implied murdered her real father and raped her mother.
But it's dark, literally as well as figuratively, and, from the look of the subtitles, the print I saw looked as if it was struck from a positive, as if they took the easy way to get a bunch of prints out fast. I wish I had gone to see it at a theater that had been showing it since Christmas. Its cinematography is very contrasty, with sunlight and deep shadow, and it just didn't look as if it was as good looking as it should have been (and the theater may have been playing the old game of cutting down on the lamp intensity for afternoon shows).
The theatrical print I saw also looked like garbage. It was almost unwatchably dark. I should hope that the home video editions will look better.
Arutha_conDoin
01-23-07, 11:02 AM
The theatrical print I saw also looked like garbage. It was almost unwatchably dark. I should hope that the home video editions will look better.
I can not think of a time where I thought the movie looked worse at home then in the theater. I believe WB has the rights on this movie and so far their transfers to HD have been pretty good, but lets just hope they decide to put this out on HD it may not be a big enough movie for them to do so for a bit.
Saw it today,it didn't do anything for me, besides making me yawn and wonder why this movie is such a critics darling. I was just bored with the violence and the less then "spectacular" world of the faun, and by that I don't mean the SFX which was excellent. The goods are however was good acting from everybody, I guess the fact that none of them are really known here actually helps.
The theater I saw it had a good print, but the poor kid left the lights on after showtime, though they were dimmed it wasn't turned off completely. I just can't get a break with these movie theaters. And this was a THX certified one. :rolleyes:
An interesting "review" of Pan's Labyrinth from a Weblog I read regularly:
http://prochoros.blogspot.com/2007/01/salvation-storytelling-in-pans.html
I'd have to agree with thehun. This movie was(is) way to over-hyped. I got the fact that the step dad was cruel in his first few scenes, didnt need to keep being reminded of it every other.
Hesitant
01-30-07, 01:59 AM
Mb it was to show a junta is more than just loyal crowds, flags, guards, victory parades ect.
jackhulton242
01-30-07, 08:44 PM
thats the movie my friends were talking about, not my style
thats the movie my friends were talking about, not my style
Do you listen to others opinions and judging something w/o seeing it for yourself? :rolleyes: I myself hate fairy tale/fantasy films. I never made it through any of the Harry Potter films even though I own them. My kids can't get enough of them, though. LOTR was just okay IMHO.
However, this film is really different from your average fantasy film. It really is made for adults and it is worth seeing just to form your own opinion. :)
For anyone interested the R3 NTSC DTS release is 2/28/2007:
http://www.dvdfromkorea.com/shop/p_detail.asp?idx=5070&genre=SF/Fantasy
http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/code-c/section-videos/pid-1004627935/
You can get $5 at yesasia with either coupon. Their for first time customers but they work if you ordered from them before if you use a different email address.
SA5OFF
QUIDCO5
I watched this one without knowing anything about it (not even knowing it was Spanish-language with English subs). I enjoyed it, and thought it represented excellent storytelling. It was a successful mature fairy tale, where "Lady in the Water" failed.
I was disappointed that the director decided to include some horrific violence and crude language to make certain points. I thought the same points could have been communicated effectively with a more subtle approach, and in such a case, the movie would be excellent for teens.
tonybradley
02-02-07, 12:32 PM
...I myself hate fairy tale/fantasy films. I never made it through any of the Harry Potter films even though I own them. My kids can't get enough of them, though. LOTR was just okay IMHO.
I'm glad you said that. All my friends LOVE LOTR. To me, it was just okay as you stated. I liked all three, but have no desire to ever watch them again. I thought I was the only person on the planet that felt that way about LOTR. It's not so much Fantasy films that bore me, it's the Epic themes that bore me. So, I'm interested in Pan's.
flyersfan
02-05-07, 04:15 PM
I just saw PL this afternoon and can't stop thinking about it. Here in America, we can't really fathom a regime taking control ala Franco. Obviously that time period is something the director is quite passionate about. With such a brutal and sadistic step-father, it's no wonder the girl had to retreat to her fantasy world. So much of it sounds cliché (the step-father, the 'quests' she must complete, etc.) but it's wonderfully told and visualized.
This and Children of Men were two of the best movies I've seen in years. Both will weigh heavily in my decision to go with an optical HD format.
hitchfan
02-05-07, 05:46 PM
I thought it was just ok, too. They made the all-too-common mistake (imo) of making the villian so cartoonishly villainous at every moment, sneering at everyone and everything even at himself in the mirror when he is alone, that he appears to be an INhuman monster.
Such a convenient dramatic route makes it very easy for an audience to feel complacently above it all with regard to the cruelties they witness. And that's an odd, strangely comforting message to send in this kind of movie. As though the atrocities in war are only perpetrated by "monsters", who, thank goodness, are nothing like us. Hmmm.
Hesitant
02-05-07, 06:20 PM
cartoonishly villainous vs Zeitgeist.
You have a problem in the hills?
You solve it permanently, no leakage into the next generations.
Society is happy or just happy to get food.
PhillyOTA
02-12-07, 12:30 PM
Probably the best movie I have seen at the theater in years.
The cruelty was extreme. It is an old-school fairy tale.
I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. Absolutely amazing.
Eddie
Saw this yesterday.
A terrific and brave adult (nightmare) movie.
Excellent acting all around (the child actor most especially...LMS's little girl couldn't hold this girl's...).
I wonder if G. del Toro tried to get this made thru Hollywood studios?
Considering the ending, I would be surprised if any of the major U.S. studios would have jumped at it.
Hollywood would have changed the ending thusly:
the little girl would not have died, nor even given the appearance of doing so.
Although nominated for, but not winning the AA for Best Foreign Language Movie, I don't know how this could have been passed on by the Academy. :rolleyes:
Airboss
03-06-07, 06:51 PM
Although nominated for, but not winning the AA for Best Foreign Language Movie, I don't know how this could have been passed on by the Academy. :rolleyes:
It wasn't completely passed on, it won three Oscars;
Best Achievement in Art Direction
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Best Achievement in Makeup
Although I'm a hugh "El Laberinto del Fauno" fan, "The Lives of Others", which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film is a great movie!
Although I'm a hugh "El Laberinto del Fauno" fan, "The Lives of Others", which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film is a great movie!
In your opinion, do you think the German film deserved to win?
Airboss
03-07-07, 06:19 AM
In your opinion, do you think the German film deserved to win?
oink, of the five films nominated I've only seen the following three;
“Das Leben der Anderen (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/)" (The Lives of Others) Germany
“El Laberinto del Fauno (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430/)" (Pan’s Labyrinth) Mexico
“Water (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240200/)” Canada
I have not had the opportunity to view the other two;
“Efter brylluppet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457655/)" (After the Wedding) Denmark
“Indigènes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444182/)" (Days of Glory) Algeria.
Of the films I've seen, IMHO, all were worthy of an Oscar as Best Foreign Film. My favorite and the one I wanted to win was 'El Laberinto del Fauno'. That being said, I am not disappointed that 'Das Leben der Anderen' won nor would I have been disappointed if 'Water' had won since all three were excellent. Unlike the 'Best motion picture of the year' award which I felt was not the most deserving of the nominees.
I'm glad you said that. All my friends LOVE LOTR. To me, it was just okay as you stated. I liked all three, but have no desire to ever watch them again. I thought I was the only person on the planet that felt that way about LOTR. It's not so much Fantasy films that bore me, it's the Epic themes that bore me. So, I'm interested in Pan's.
count me in. LOTR - all three were TOO LONG and boring! Nearly fell asleep in each one. not sure why I bothered to see #2 or #3.........all the hype I suppose.
As for Potter - #1 was pretty good (alot better than LOTR).........#2 and #3 were not so great, but ok. is there a #4 now?...........too many to keep track of.
Sci Fi for me - as for fantasy, one and only one is King - EXCALIBER!! ;-). sweet movie!
Lasersnuser
03-12-07, 10:52 AM
Just watched the Korean Ltd. Ed. DVD last night.
The packaging is beautiful and the DTS sounded great. Picture quality, however, was a let down. Poor black level, ghosting (seemingly), and very poor background detail. Movement tended to cause smearing, especially in dark sequences. I suspect this might be a PAL transfer converted to NTSC. I suppose the running time might verify this but haven't checked.
I've read the UK edition has good PQ but no DTS. Here's hoping the R1-edition gets it right!
Mitch
The UK edition has good PQ/SQ.
Bought mine thru Amazon.
wallijonn
05-24-07, 02:04 PM
Children of Men was another absolute GEM. Just watched it last night at the theater, after watching Babel (amazing - picked up the soundtrack at B&N while we waited an hour to see CoM) right before that. I believe Children of Men was at about 95% on the RT meter when I looked yesterday.
I'm very much looking forward to Pan's Labyrinth.
What does the film look like? I abhor the "Cache" style of film, where the film stock is grainy, the dark backgrounds are nosiy, there is little contrast, the colours are washed out. I hated "Babel" and "Children of Men" and all the other "Cache" style films - "Long Journey into Night," "Hostel," etc. I want perfect DVD masters of great film stock films, like the last "Star Wars" film, I want them colourful, like "What Dreams May Come" and "To Catch A Thief."
Dark, unfocused, contrasty, no colour films reminds me of the 1970's Vietnam War era film stock.
Tip: pick up the latest releases of the James Bond films. They are frame-by-frame restorations.
MrBerwell
05-28-07, 03:54 AM
Excellent movie.... there is some brutal violence though. I don't have anything against violence in movies (I love a little ultraviolence), but I think it marred this movie. A little less violence, and it would've been great for kids or young teenagers. As it is, it's a great fantasy/fairy tale for adults.
I watched this one without knowing anything about it (not even knowing it was Spanish-language with English subs). I enjoyed it, and thought it represented excellent storytelling. It was a successful mature fairy tale, where "Lady in the Water" failed.
I was disappointed that the director decided to include some horrific violence and crude language to make certain points. I thought the same points could have been communicated effectively with a more subtle approach, and in such a case, the movie would be excellent for teens.
Saw it last night by myself. I agree completely with these statements. While the extent of the violence did make a strong point it was too much for me to recommend for my wife to watch. Ashame because she would have liked it.
cyberbri
05-28-07, 02:44 PM
My wife just pulled the blanket over her eyes.
JohnR_IN_LA
05-29-07, 08:21 PM
I agree the violence was overboard and unnecessary.
Also, I had trouble telling what was the main plot... was it the war, or was it the little girl fairy tale?
Often what these foriegn filmmakers seem to do is tie two or more weak plots together. in an attempt to make one good movie. Didn't "Brotherhood of the Wolf" attempt the same thing - multiple mediocre plots?
Then theres the briliant foriegn film, "Amelie", which deftly ties together several little storylines to one strong central plot. Now thats a great movie.
These directors need to focus on making one strong, compelling story. They can introduce subplots if they don't distract you from the central story ..... but In this case, I think the subplot of the war was more interesting than the "Fairy tale". Neither plot was "great" though.
I agree the violence was overboard and unnecessary.
Personally, I did not like the violence. But I think the strong dichotomy (of fantasy and reality) is the point of the film. It is an adult fable.
It is not a weak film (or story), quite the contrary, IMO. It is not entertaining for me. It is more like a "Schindler's List". A film that will raise important issues, but not one I can visit very often. I admire it and the power of its images.
Wytchone
05-30-07, 12:10 PM
One thing to remember this is a Euro base film about a fairy tales. Most fairy tales in Europe are violent (Think Brother's Grimm).
Maybe something is lost in translation from there to the US?
JohnR_IN_LA
05-30-07, 06:17 PM
Personally, I did not like the violence. But I think the strong dichotomy (of fantasy and reality) is the point of the film. It is an adult fable.
It is not a weak film (or story), quite the contrary, IMO. It is not entertaining for me. It is more like a "Schindler's List". A film that will raise important issues, but not one I can visit very often. I admire it and the power of its images.
The cinematography was rather good, I will give you that.
I saw "Pan's" the day after viewing "Apocalypto", and Mel Gibson did have a bit larger of a budget for imagery, so it was hard to get too excited.
One thing to remember this is a Euro base film about a fairy tales. Most fairy tales in Europe are violent (Think Brother's Grimm).
Maybe something is lost in translation from there to the US?
When I was a kid I read all of the Bros. Grimm stories. This was very similar in tone and I think that is why I liked it so much.
logicalnoise
05-31-07, 12:19 AM
I watched this one without knowing anything about it (not even knowing it was Spanish-language with English subs). I enjoyed it, and thought it represented excellent storytelling. It was a successful mature fairy tale, where "Lady in the Water" failed.
I was disappointed that the director decided to include some horrific violence and crude language to make certain points. I thought the same points could have been communicated effectively with a more subtle approach, and in such a case, the movie would be excellent for teens.
You've obviously never watched any of Guillermo del Toro's other films.
I don't think GdT had a teen audience in mind (adult all the way).
And is one of the reasons I enjoyed this movie so much. ;)
logicalnoise
05-31-07, 05:13 PM
I don't think GdT had a teen audience in mind (adult all the way).
And is one of the reasons I enjoyed this movie so much. ;)
Inddeed it's GDT's disregard for the viewers expectations that always grabbed me. Ever since I watch mimic which he actully had little control over. There were two kids early in the movie looking bugs and then one of the creatuires not only killed them the camera made us watch most of it. Brutal butshocking as well. It was the most thrilling moment of that movie.
BTW, GdT is currently filming Hellboy 2....can't wait. :)
HB1 is one of the few comic-book-gone-movies that I like.
Ron Perlman was a riot.
craig134
06-01-07, 11:02 AM
I thought the lives of others was easily superior to Pan's Labyrinth, which is not to imply Pan's is a poor, or even mediocre movie. Both films were superb; but "Lives" has a transcendent genius that few films in a decade, or even generation, reach.
After seeing all the comments about violence I watched this movie with a Clearplay DVD player that allowed me to screen out the most graphic parts - so my comments aren't colored by the violence (although I still know what happened).
For some reason, attributes that are universally seen as negative, when applied to foreign films (and submitted to Cannes) create a strong initial impression of something with gravitas. One man's dark, depressing, weak-plotted, ultra violent nightmare is another man's textured, thought provoking, challenging, adult fairy tale. Maybe it's our desire to be viewed as independent thinkers or separate ourselves from the masses by being able to discern subtle meaning from within chaos.
While I know this puts me in the minority, all I saw was a movie (intentionally didn't use the word "film") that had nothing for me to like. Rather than repeat others comments, an easy way to see how I felt about the movie is go to IMDB user comments and sort them by "Hated It". After listening to the Dir's comments though, I had a better insight as to why I didn't like it - I didn't like him. Creative - yes. A guy with anything positive to offer - NO!
P.S. I think I'll skip HellBoy 2,3,4.......
logicalnoise
06-01-07, 11:51 AM
After seeing all the comments about violence I watched this movie with a Clearplay DVD player that allowed me to screen out the most graphic parts - so my comments aren't colored by the violence (although I still know what happened).
For some reason, attributes that are universally seen as negative, when applied to foreign films (and submitted to Cannes) create a strong initial impression of something with gravitas. One man's dark, depressing, weak-plotted, ultra violent nightmare is another man's textured, thought provoking, challenging, adult fairy tale. Maybe it's our desire to be viewed as independent thinkers or separate ourselves from the masses by being able to discern subtle meaning from within chaos.
While I know this puts me in the minority, all I saw was a movie (intentionally didn't use the word "film") that had nothing for me to like. Rather than repeat others comments, an easy way to see how I felt about the movie is go to IMDB user comments and sort them by "Hated It". After listening to the Dir's comments though, I had a better insight as to why I didn't like it - I didn't like him. Creative - yes. A guy with anything positive to offer - NO!
P.S. I think I'll skip HellBoy 2,3,4.......
As I said with other people who stop watching a movie halfway through. you didn't watch the entire movie and really have no valid opinion to me. There are exceptions like this where you are forced to watch a Non premium cable cut of film but then your still missing key points in the movie. You have your opinion of a crippled cut of a foreign movie. Can't wait to hear your take on the actual cut of the movie.... BTW the violence is very much a part of any fairy tale current or older.
adpayne
06-01-07, 01:11 PM
After seeing all the comments about violence I watched this movie with a Clearplay DVD player that allowed me to screen out the most graphic parts - so my comments aren't colored by the violence (although I still know what happened).
For some reason, attributes that are universally seen as negative, when applied to foreign films (and submitted to Cannes) create a strong initial impression of something with gravitas. One man's dark, depressing, weak-plotted, ultra violent nightmare is another man's textured, thought provoking, challenging, adult fairy tale. Maybe it's our desire to be viewed as independent thinkers or separate ourselves from the masses by being able to discern subtle meaning from within chaos.
While I know this puts me in the minority, all I saw was a movie (intentionally didn't use the word "film") that had nothing for me to like. Rather than repeat others comments, an easy way to see how I felt about the movie is go to IMDB user comments and sort them by "Hated It". After listening to the Dir's comments though, I had a better insight as to why I didn't like it - I didn't like him. Creative - yes. A guy with anything positive to offer - NO!
P.S. I think I'll skip HellBoy 2,3,4.......
Some people obviously find harsh portrayals of violence and hardship offensive.
I'm not one of them. Life can be tough, is often not fair, but we can't hide from those realities.
Sure, I like upbeat, feel good movies. But sometimes I need to be reminded how good my life really is, and how badly others have been treated.
Art
eganov,
Thank you for the funniest post at the Forum in a very long while.
As I said with other people who stop watching a movie halfway through. you didn't watch the entire movie and really have no valid opinion to me. There are exceptions like this where you are forced to watch a Non premium cable cut of film but then your still missing key points in the movie. You have your opinion of a crippled cut of a foreign movie. Can't wait to hear your take on the actual cut of the movie.... BTW the violence is very much a part of any fairy tale current or older.
Your characterization of how I watched the movie is not accurate. You stated this was like watching half a movie, I missed key points and was a crippled cut. I can assure you I watched the whole movie and trimmed out only the most graphic violence. I may have missed key points when I first watched it but it had nothing to do with how I watched the movie. As I stated, I rewatched it with Director's comments and as he stated it would be impossible for one to understand many elements with only a few viewings or without his explanations.
I'm quite old enough to understand that "Life can be tough, is often not fair, but we can't hide from those realities" but this movie was pretty far removed from many of the realities of life - it is after all a "fairy tale". In fact, maybe that's my problem with the movie, I didn't see where all the allegories, fantasy, metaphors and portrayals (and yes, violence) actually translated into a statement about life. Maybe individual scenes made a point but I didn't get much plot.
The Director is surely talented and creative but it doesn't change my opinion that despite the opportunity to contrast the fantasy, violence and darkness with reality, that was not accomplished.
What amazes me is someone actually bought one of those players. :D
logicalnoise
06-01-07, 04:28 PM
Your characterization of how I watched the movie is not accurate. You stated this was like watching half a movie, I missed key points and was a crippled cut. I can assure you I watched the whole movie and trimmed out only the most graphic violence. I may have missed key points when I first watched it but it had nothing to do with how I watched the movie. As I stated, I rewatched it with Director's comments and as he stated it would be impossible for one to understand many elements with only a few viewings or without his explanations.
I'm quite old enough to understand that "Life can be tough, is often not fair, but we can't hide from those realities" but this movie was pretty far removed from many of the realities of life - it is after all a "fairy tale". In fact, maybe that's my problem with the movie, I didn't see where all the allegories, fantasy, metaphors and portrayals (and yes, violence) actually translated into a statement about life. Maybe individual scenes made a point but I didn't get much plot.
The Director is surely talented and creative but it doesn't change my opinion that despite the opportunity to contrast the fantasy, violence and darkness with reality, that was not accomplished.
IC missed the part about watching it later in it's entirety. Sorry it's just this entire website is pretty much made to get the most out of your media and get the most complete experience that movies, music and TV can provide. and then there's someone who edits down their movies on purpose. Just a bit odd to most of us.
eddy_winds
06-01-07, 05:20 PM
Hope to see it soon
On Blu-Ray
:)
What amazes me is someone actually bought one of those players. :D
Why would that amaze you or strike one as "odd"? If you are limiting yourself to buying only players that allow movies to be shown unedited than you are limiting yourself to a very small selection, as all players that I know of allow you to restrict the viewing of whole movies based on its MPAA rating - certainly that's much more draconian than a player that allows one to skip a couple of scenes.
Than again maybe your gripe isn't with the actual player (because in the end it does the same thing as an Oppo, Denon, Panasonic, etc.) but it's with people like me, for choosing to watch a movie how I want to. Honestly though, is it that difficult to understand that people who use our theater may prefer to customize their entertainment? Is it any different than using FF, SKIP, shutting off a bad movie part way through, falling asleep out of boredom, watching on an airplane, heeding the MPAA rating or choosing to not watch a movie because you don't think you would like it?. In each case you made a decision about how you were going to watch (or not) a movie.
As to the comment that most people on these forums are after the most "complete" movie experience - well, I have a confession. I placed my plasma above the fireplace, used in-ceiling surrounds, have light colored walls in the theater, am not THX certified and have no idea if my center is timbre matched with my front mains. Of course, all these are compromises to a "complete experience" too. But they're done for some pretty good reasons and many, many people on this website have used it to make similar decisions. So, in essence, I'm not buying the purity argument.
Back to the original point, regardless of how I watched the movie, I still didn't like it. Many did, that's cool. But I think this forum is far more constructive w/o the personal stuff.
Oh yea, thanks for bringing Blu-ray into the discussion. That'll bring sanity to any discussion ;) .
Lou Sytsma
06-02-07, 08:21 PM
eganov sorry to hear you did not like the movie. Personally I think its brilliant. "Man is often at his best when things are at their worst." The contrast between the violence of the real world and the beauty of the fantasy world was stunning. What both shared was how dangerous each could be.
Than again maybe your gripe isn't with the actual player (because in the end it does the same thing as an Oppo, Denon, Panasonic, etc.) but it's with people like me, for choosing to watch a movie how I want to. Honestly though, is it that difficult to understand that people who use our theater may prefer to customize their entertainment? Is it any different than using FF, SKIP, shutting off a bad movie part way through, falling asleep out of boredom, watching on an airplane, heeding the MPAA rating or choosing to not watch a movie because you don't think you would like it?. In each case you made a decision about how you were going to watch (or not) a movie.
Man, your reading too much out of my post. :rolleyes:
I couldn't care less what others buy. To each his own. I just find it funny some need a machine that can censor things when ultimately you should be the judge of what is or not appropriate for you or your children; not some silly machine. Just because a machine cuts out whatever you deem too adult would you still let your kids watch something like Pulp Fiction just because a machine could censor parts. Too me it just seems like a passive way to censor material. :)
After seeing all the comments about violence I watched this movie with a Clearplay DVD player that allowed me to screen out the most graphic parts - so my comments aren't colored by the violence (although I still know what happened).
In all the years I have been reading this forum that is a first.
After listening to the Dir's comments though, I had a better insight as to why I didn't like it - I didn't like him. Creative - yes. A guy with anything positive to offer - NO!
Dude, I believe you are on the wrong forum...IMDB crowd is much more suited to your tastes.
At AVS, the mods don't allow so-called "political" debates to even get started...
And I speak from experience. ;)
Finally saw this last night, TWICE! No wonder it's rated R. Very violent! But I like violent. :rolleyes:
I like how they incorporated reality with fantasy. Sad ending though. Wish they had English dialog without sub titles. Still, very good movie.
Tnilsson
07-09-07, 12:13 PM
I generally don't like violence in movies. I don't mind it when it is necessary to the plot, such as when conveying how horrible war is, but I think far too many directors--such as Guillermo del Toro--revel in gratuitous violence for its own sake.
Knowing that del Toro directed Pan's Labyrinth gave me pause when deciding whether to rent it. Not just because of his love of excessive violence, but because most of his movies have struck me as pretty vapid. They mostly seem like eye-candy to me, with weak or very incomplete plots. Pan's Labyrinth left me feeling pretty much the same about his movies. It was very nice to look at, contained more violence than necessary, and was ultimately a pretty vapid movie. Though it contained the violence of the old Germanic fairytales, it did not contain anything near their depth of meaning. And as far as the magic of fairytales goes, I thought the kids' movie "Fairytale" was a much better movie (even for adults).
In the end, I can see why some people liked Pan's Labyrinth and some did not. And I can understand why some people may not want to watch the movie at all. But I simply can't understand why anyone would proudly state on this thread that they not only watched an edited version of the movie but care so little about the movie going experience in general that they could not be bothered to try to timbre-match their speakers (or presumably calibrate them). Since this site is dedicated to movie appreciation and getting as close to the director's vision as possible in your own home, that's like joining a Christian site and then stating that you read an edited version of the bible and can't be bothered to to go church. :confused:
Dean Roddey
07-09-07, 01:50 PM
It didn't quit work for me. I couldn't stick with it. I, too, am squeamish about violence and there was a little too much for me. The ending, however, really whacked me hard for whatever reason. The ambiguity of whether the whole thing was just her fantasy to escape from the horrible reality of her life, or not, and whether her final scene was just the end of that fantasy or a real event, I felt that it was just a hugely emotional ending for me.
Without the violence, the origin of the little girl's fantasy is dubious.
Think about it...
Dean Roddey
07-09-07, 05:32 PM
But it doesn't have to be as explicitly portrayed of course for it to work.
just watched it last night and it didn't really win me over. usually i can enjoy movies that don't spell everything out and leave things to be interpreted but i found this particular mix of reality/fantasy to be a bit unsatisfying.
the story in the real world wasn't nuanced enough to be satisfying and sadly the fantasy part wasn't fleshed out enough because most of the time was played out showing how evil the real world villian was.
i believe this kind of storytelling was done way better in "heavenly creatures" starring kate winslet.
just my opinion
maybe a case of overhype and waiting too long to see.
also the trailer kinda misrepresents the ratio of fantasy/reality of this film.
to be fair the fantasy elements in this film is exquisite. the sound mix a bit heavy handed though.
... But I simply can't understand why anyone would proudly state on this thread that they not only watched an edited version of the movie but care so little about the movie going experience in general that they could not be bothered to try to timbre-match their speakers (or presumably calibrate them). Since this site is dedicated to movie appreciation and getting as close to the director's vision as possible in your own home, that's like joining a Christian site and then stating that you read an edited version of the bible and can't be bothered to to go church. :confused:
I simply can't understand why anyone would believe that whatever version of the movie they saw, that it was NOT edited -- there are ALWAYS different cuts, different versions, different progress stages of formulating a vision. NONE IS SACRED.
And who proclaimed that this site or this pursuit even, was dedicated to getting as close to the director's vision as possible in your own home? Nonsense.
Filmmakers provide some basic elements for ME to manipulate to realize MY best movie-watching visual/auditory experience. If the filmmaker gets it wrong and doesn't give me enough LFE, what do I do? -- sit there dissatisfied, or turn up the sub volume? -- thereby fulfilling the REAL REASON we build home theaters -- so we can see movies the way WE WANT TO SEE THEM.
Not really that interested in what the director had in mind -- he gives me his film, I do with it what I will and gain the impressions that suit MY EXPERIENCE -- he has already had his experience with it, and though this is of some interest to me as an after-the-fact curiosity, such as with listening to a commentary, I try not to let that affect my judgment of the film itself.
I guess it might even be fair to say that I sometimes fail at keeping the director's intention (once I've learned it from something like a commentary), from tainting my impression of the film, which is why it can be an unfortunate thing to know what the director had in mind.
Tnilsson
07-10-07, 10:50 AM
Obviously every movie is edited. But I don't think I've ever seen a post that expresses so much disdain for a director's vision (and that of the movie's editor), for the work of sound editors, for accurate sound reproduction, or for the movie-going experience as a whole. I am actually astonished that anyone on this site would have such a viewpoint.
Be that as it may, this thread is about the movie, not about how people choose to watch (or listen to) it. I agree that, before seeing the movie, I thought it would be much more abou the fantasy elements than about the real world elements. And I agree that del Toro did not have to show so much violence, or concentrate on the real world so much, in order to explain the fantasy elements. The movie did leave me longing for more as far as its fantasy elements went, especially as the elements it did show were not explained nearly as well as in most fantasies.
Mac The Knife
07-10-07, 01:52 PM
...
i believe this kind of storytelling was done way better in "heavenly creatures" starring kate winslet.
just my opinion
....
Well... "Heavenly Creatures" was based on a real-life incident. So the fantasies were the "real" fantasies [does that quallify as an oxymoron] of the two girls rather than something made up by the writer/director...
I also prefered "Heavenly Creatures", but it is such a different movie than PL that I'm having a hard time comparing them.
jwebb1970
07-10-07, 02:01 PM
Rented this the other day @ Blockbuster but haven't watched yet. Looking forward to seeing it.
Thought it was funny/lame that the BB clerk made sure to inform me before ringing me up that "this movie is in Spanish with subtitles. Did you know that?" Guessing many customers have "complained" about having to read during a movie.
Dumb, stupid sheeple! :rolleyes:
Obviously every movie is edited. But I don't think I've ever seen a post that expresses so much disdain for a director's vision (and that of the movie's editor), for the work of sound editors, for accurate sound reproduction, or for the movie-going experience as a whole. I am actually astonished that anyone on this site would have such a viewpoint.
Be that as it may, this thread is about the movie, not about how people choose to watch (or listen to) it. I agree that, before seeing the movie, I thought it would be much more abou the fantasy elements than about the real world elements. And I agree that del Toro did not have to show so much violence, or concentrate on the real world so much, in order to explain the fantasy elements. The movie did leave me longing for more as far as its fantasy elements went, especially as the elements it did show were not explained nearly as well as in most fantasies.
On the contrary, I have the highest respect and appreciation for what those types do. They have had their shot at it, given me the best they had in them, now it's my turn to form my impressions and modify at will.
To hear what the director had in mind should not alter what he has given us, the movie should stand on its own. If I don't like some of the choices he made, I'll do what I can to modify his mistakes.
You say you didn't respond favorably to the violence -- hey, fast-forward through all that jazz! -- are you some kind of prisoner to HIS VISION even in your own home with the theater YOU BUILT to give YOU pleasure?
What could be more silly than that? If I can't abide the moronic humor of WHITE GIRLS, but want to gain a sense of the flavor of the proceedings, I won't hesitate to sample a line or two, but fast forward through the most of it, stopping in every once and awhile to reassure myself that here is one I can mostly bypass. Is that some sort of sacrilege to high art? Please......
Dean Roddey
07-10-07, 03:13 PM
Why would I go through all the trouble to build a system to allow me to immerse myself in an illusion, but then sit there with the FF button and skip over parts? That defeats the purpose. The movie is either worth watching or it's not, IMO.
Rented this the other day @ Blockbuster but haven't watched yet. Looking forward to seeing it.
Thought it was funny/lame that the BB clerk made sure to inform me before ringing me up that "this movie is in Spanish with subtitles. Did you know that?" Guessing many customers have "complained" about having to read during a movie.
Dumb, stupid sheeple! :rolleyes:
I hate sub titles but this one I tolerated. I guess when a movie is good....
Why would I go through all the trouble to build a system to allow me to immerse myself in an illusion, but then sit there with the FF button and skip over parts? That defeats the purpose. The movie is either worth watching or it's not, IMO.
So let me try to gain a sense of this -- you are so constituted as to never listen to a single cut on a CD or record without having to hear the whole album? Would never think to glance at photos showing the detail of a painting depicted in an art book? That is very interesting to me. I would call that approach unusual.
In the context of del Toro, I have seen certain parts of BLADE II maybe hundreds of times, other parts fewer than ten. That movie is probably my number one reference film, so when I get a new amp, I throw on chapter two, watch however much of the movie I want to see that day, take it off.
Likewise put on a single track by Victor Wooten of solo bass guitar and vocal accompaniment, skip the rest -- I've even forgotten if I like the rest of the CD, have no idea what is on it.
That is what my system is for.
Listen, movies are so well-documented, I'm sure you can determine what speakers were used in the mastering process, do you have to go out and buy new speakers every time you want something close to what the director heard?
Let's get real, we never even get close to the director's vision -- chances are you ask the director and he will tell you he didn't get close to filming it, but made compromises along the way.
I would disagree most strongly with the assertion that every part of a worthwhile film is perfect or must be sat through, apparently just to remain part of some purist tradition -- some parts I may never feel the urge to revisit, why waste my time rewatching something I don't need to or want to see again?
Silliness.
Just pondering the implications of this...some of you must have been outraged at what the AFI did to some of the most revered films in history during their recent revised 100 best presentation -- THEY SHOWED CLIPS!!!
Can you imagine?!!! Snippets out of context? Maybe with the most famous line, whose very quoting out of context is heresy?
And why stop at listening to the whole CD for completeness? Why not, if you have an urge to hear I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND, why not obligate yourself to hear the whole BEATLE catalog?
Where does this stop?
Dean Roddey
07-10-07, 04:29 PM
So let me try to gain a sense of this -- you are so constituted as to never listen to a single cut on a CD or record without having to hear the whole album? Would never think to glance at photos showing the detail of a painting depicted in an art book? That is very interesting to me. I would call that approach unusual.
A CD (or most CDs) is purposefully broken up into standalone parts, so it's not a valid comparison. A movie is designed to be viewed as a whole. All of your arguments are the usual ad absudium counter points, and aren't really valid. You don't control what part of a clip of a movie might be shown, while you do control your own use of the FF button, etc...
kevinp8192
07-10-07, 06:38 PM
some of you must have been outraged at what the AFI did to some of the most revered films in history during their recent revised 100 best presentation -- THEY SHOWED CLIPS!!!
Can you imagine?!!! Snippets out of context? Maybe with the most famous line, whose very quoting out of context is heresy?Yes, but we're not evaluating the films in the AFI 100 based on the clips. If we're discussing the merits of a movie such as Pan's Labyrinth in a public forum, I would assume that we are all discussing a complete, studio-released version. and not one hacked by a third party.
Using your example above, I haven't seen White Girls. I'm sure it sucks. But I wouldn't evaluate it here on AVS based on 4 scenes I saw while casually fast-forwarding through it. You may have the right to watch and modify the film any way you want for your own enjoyment. But then it's no longer applicable to the discussion. Maybe we should find some re-cut comedy version of Pan's Labyrinth on Youtube, and talk about it as well while we're at it.
A CD (or most CDs) is purposefully broken up into standalone parts, so it's not a valid comparison. A movie is designed to be viewed as a whole. All of your arguments are the usual ad absudium counter points, and aren't really valid. You don't control what part of a clip of a movie might be shown, while you do control your own use of the FF button, etc...
Well now wait just a minute, are there not chapters and chapter titles for movies in DVD form? And many albums were concieved of as thematic -- To use the Beatles again or Yes or Jethro Tull.
Listen, who ever said ANYONE has to limit their enjoyment of art to these rules that you draw from thin air? If I want to hear a cut on a CD, that is what I put on. If it is to be five chapters from different movies in a row, that is what I put on.
And furthermore, if you own a working home theater, I'm sure it is your pride and joy -- I would be very very surprised if you had never played a movie snippet for the amusement of your guests, so let us please get beyond this "always must evaluate the totality" disingenuousness.
As to whether or not you can "properly" evaluate a movie based on an incomplete viewing -- of course you can. One might hope what was seen was disclosed in any written evaluation of it, but frequently even professional reviewers omit whether they saw a theatrical cut or the final cut or the added scenes cut, I think it is understood in those cases that the review substantially reflects the piece.
If you think you need much of White Girls to comment on it, then you are operating again by rules drawn from thin air. I probably watched a total of less than 45 minutes, quite enough to draw the conclusion it was a waste of my time. Now, should I waste some more time just to claim a "validated" opinion?
Give me a break.
A CD (or most CDs) is purposefully broken up into standalone parts, so it's not a valid comparison. A movie is designed to be viewed as a whole. All of your arguments are the usual ad absudium counter points, and aren't really valid. You don't control what part of a clip of a movie might be shown, while you do control your own use of the FF button, etc...
And another point, even in the context of the way a movie is shot and written, most frequently they are put together from scenes that cohere well enough unto themselves to be framed and fashioned that way.
I am just betting most directors quite readily accept that certain scenes will always stand outside the context of the film -- the shower sequence from PSYCHO for example -- even INTEND them to be appreciated that way, if you want to talk about directorial intention.
So again, I think your rules here are what is just a trifle silly and do not reflect viewing patterns that well, at least in this era of movie watching.
Oh no, here we go again....
Is it possible to evaluate a movie without watching it from the beginning until the credits roll?
Maybe not.
However, most of us are not fond of masochism neither.
Dean Roddey
07-10-07, 09:22 PM
Well now wait just a minute, are there not chapters and chapter titles for movies in DVD form? And many albums were concieved of as thematic -- To use the Beatles again or Yes or Jethro Tull.
You might want to read other people's posts. I said "MOST" CDs, not all. Would you be in a position to give much of an opinion on Sgt. Peppers if you only listened to two songs on it? I don't think you would, because it was intended to be heard as a unit. Movies are NEVER designed to be consumed by picking a couple random chapters. Most CDs are just a collection of songs.
You can pick nits all you want, but if you don't watch but parts of movie, don't be suprised if people don't care much what your opinion is, because it's designed to be watched as a whole.
You can pick nits all you want, but if you don't watch but parts of movie, don't be suprised if people don't care much what your opinion is, because it's designed to be watched as a whole.
I don't know how that is so hard to comprehend for the other poster. There are only chapter stops in a movie because you want to start where you left off or go back and review a favorite scene. It would be frustrating to have every disc be like Mulholland Falls.
The arguement that CD tracks are the same as Chapter stops on a DVD doesn't hold up.
I don't know how that is so hard to comprehend for the other poster. There are only chapter stops in a movie because you want to start where you left off or go back and review a favorite scene. It would be frustrating to have every disc be like Mulholland Falls.
The arguement that CD tracks are the same as Chapter stops on a DVD doesn't hold up.
I certainly do see the point you are making, but as you just wrote, "a favorite scene," implies that you recognize that movies can be appreciated in parts. They are not just random point stops, but the chapters are titled to convey a concept or theme presented in the chapter -- a summation, if you will, of a somewhat standalone concept.
The point at issue is whether it is "proper" to consume a movie piecemeal. To buttress the claim that this is NOT proper, Dean Roddey has said this: "Movies are NEVER designed to be consumed by picking a couple random chapters."
Of course that is not true. The production company and frequently directors themselves, organize, compose and edit trailers specifically that some sense of the movie can be consumed and gained WITHOUT SEEING THE WHOLE THING.
Also the stars are sent out with a clip or clips in tow to market the movie, with the very specific goal of hoping that the public appreciates that little snippet of filmmaking -- that just that little fragment represents what they have done well enough, at least to the extent you will want to see more.
What I am arguing here is whether we can do as we please with our systems in our own homes -- can I turn up the right channel and completely cut off the left rear and left main? Sure. Can I watch 3 seconds of a movie for the explosion, skip the rest? Sure.
Is a book designed to be appreciated as a whole? I suppose Dean Roddey will say that if his youngster asks to be read a chapter Of Harry Potter before bed, he would have to reply "Oh, my goodness no! We must never isolate one chapter from another, and I am not going to read you the whole book, so go bed and think no more of this absurd notion!"
Now isn't that silly? If I offer an opinion on a movie or some part of it, yes, I will usually feel obliged to say if I sat through the whole thing or not, but if you are going to try and tell me that if you go to the theater, take a bathroom break, miss two minutes of a film, then later your Aunt Bessie asks you what you thought of it -- if you are going to try and convince me that you will say "Sorry, Aunt Bessie, I can't offer any opinion, I didn't see the whole film," then I will tell you I do not believe you.
And it would be the person who would make that claim who is being absurd here.
I certainly do see the point you are making, but as you just wrote, "a favorite scene," implies that you recognize that movies can be appreciated in parts.
That's only after the fact that I've Watched the whole movie.
That's only after the fact that I've Watched the whole movie.
Not sure what difference that is supposed to make. Now you have an opinion of a whole movie that is altered by seeing one chapter over and possibly over again. Does that then invalidate your opinion because it might be unduly influenced by one segment seen repeatedly out of context?
How silly shall we be? If you drop something on the floor of the theater, take your eyes off the screen for 10 seconds, now you have no opinion on the film?
What about Academy voters? They are asked to ignore the film as a whole, only judge it in its parts. Do they have no right to this? Should they never give an award based on one element? Or do we subdivide categories -- "Best Sound Editing in a Sub-Par film"? "Best Sound in a Truly Awful Film That Nevertheless Had One Good Scene Toward The End"?
Pretty hard to maintain there is no design for a movie to be appreciated in its parts, whether you see the whole thing once, twice, only part of it, turned off the center channel, just listening to the music.
Each form of appreciation has its place -- to think no one ever accounted for that or expected it to be appreciated in those ways....I would even go to the extent of saying the largest body of appreciation -- maybe 90% of the way a movie is consumed is in its parts, if such a thing could be measured.
In any case, fairly rare that folks would insist upon never seeing part of a favorite movie without sitting through the whole thing again -- just don't think that happens anywhere near as often.
"You might want to read other people's posts. I said "MOST" CDs, not all. Would you be in a position to give much of an opinion on Sgt. Peppers if you only listened to two songs on it? I don't think you would, because it was intended to be heard as a unit."
Dean Roddey
So why is it then, I might ask, that there were singles released from that album?
I'll give you a hint as to my thinking on the subject: I think it was because the Beatles (and/or those to whom they ceded distribution control) INTENDED for a given song to be listened to, ISOLATED from the context of the album as a whole.
Sure sounds reasonable to me.
Oh, and if I listen to just two singles from Sgt Peppers, yeah, I think I can have, and am entitled to have, and am in a position to have, an opinion about the album as a whole. Here is an easy sample opinion: "I think this is a worthy album to buy, because I know it has at least two songs on it that I like alot."
Obviously, you could have a much more complicated opinion as well, but maybe you get the picture. (BTW, did you notice how they abbreviated the word "Sergeant" in the title of their album -- was that proper when we are referring to a word meant to be pronounced as if it were whole? Oh, and another BTW, did you realize that is not the whole title anway, it is actually "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," so really you took a fragment of something intended as a whole and represented it with just a fragment -- just thought you would like to know.)
Do we have a failure to communicate?
I don’t think anyone is saying they NEVER watch certain parts or favorite scenes in a movie. What I’m reading is that they do this AFTER watching the movie for the first time. I could be wrong, but I think that is what Dean is saying when you read his entire post.
Movies are NEVER designed to be consumed by picking a couple random chapters.
You can pick nits all you want, but if you don't watch but parts of movie, don't be suprised if people don't care much what your opinion is, because it's designed to be watched as a whole.
Point being; unless you watch the entire movie your opinion doesn’t carry as much weight as someone who did. Watching chapters 3, 11, 17, and finishing it up with 22, doesn’t give one a well-rounded viewpoint of the movie. There are times I turn on the TV and see a movie I really like already in progress and will jump right in, but it’s a very rare day I do that with a movie I’ve never watched. On those rare occasions if it looks interesting I’ll stop watching, make a note, and then rent it. I read a lot of books, and for me to read the last chapter before I start from the beginning is foolish, IMO. I’ve heard of people doing this and if that floats their boat, fine. But for me it would take the suspense, anticipation, and enjoyment out of reading.
Do we have a failure to communicate?
I don’t think anyone is saying they NEVER watch certain parts or favorite scenes in a movie. What I’m reading is that they do this AFTER watching the movie for the first time. I could be wrong, but I think that is what Dean is saying when you read his entire post.
Point being; unless you watch the entire movie your opinion doesn’t carry as much weight as someone who did. Watching chapters 3, 11, 17, and finishing it up with 22, doesn’t give one a well-rounded viewpoint of the movie. There are times I turn on the TV and see a movie I really like already in progress and will jump right in, but it’s a very rare day I do that with a movie I’ve never watched. On those rare occasions if it looks interesting I’ll stop watching, make a note, and then rent it. I read a lot of books, and for me to read the last chapter before I start from the beginning is foolish, IMO. I’ve heard of people doing this and if that floats their boat, fine. But for me it would take the suspense, anticipation, and enjoyment out of reading.
That is certainly a very reasonable point of view, well stated.
This particular avenue was launched because someone got up on a high horse of absolute OUTRAGE that Pan's Labyrinth would be viewed in edited form. That, furthermore, this was a site dedicated and devoted to the DIRECTOR's VISION!!! Blah blah blah...
Hey, if the torture bugs me, are you saying my opinion is invalidated because I FF through it? I can see what is going on in compressed form, don't have to hear it, know when it ends.
From this came all the discussion of seeing things out of context, etc.
But yes, Aliens, quite right, your opinion of my opinion will be tempered by what I saw of the movie.
That much is simple and clear.
I can see what is going on in compressed form, don't have to hear it, know when it ends.
From this came all the discussion of seeing things out of context, etc.
That much is simple and clear.
What if a key point happens in all the violence? Wouldn't that make you wonder why something is happening later on in the movie?
As for releasing singles off a CD; they do that to obviously have more sales if the track is a hit. It also makes one want to listen to the entire album to see if they like other tracks. It's a sellng tool for the whole package.
Also, I don't think anyone was outraged that you viewed skipping through the movie; they simply stated your opinion didn't really hold no value because you didn't see the whole thing. It's one person's observation and it's a fact which most posters here would agree with. Obviously, you disagree with it and anything we post to disagree with you will be dismissed even though the argument is valid.
Have you seen Pulp Fiction? That is one movie you cannot form an opinion on without seeing the whole thing. I'd really like to know what you thought of that movie.
Originally Posted by Tnilsson
"... But I simply can't understand why anyone would proudly state on this thread that they not only watched an edited version of the movie but care so little about the movie going experience in general that they could not be bothered to try to timbre-match their speakers (or presumably calibrate them). Since this site is dedicated to movie appreciation and getting as close to the director's vision as possible in your own home..."
That was the post I reacted to.
Very elitist if you ask me. I was reacting to the contentions in it -- as if we ever see the DIRECTOR'S VISION!
It seems to want to cast out those that don't watch in a certain way, with a certain orientation.
That was what I found objectionable.
JohnR_IN_LA
07-11-07, 01:51 PM
just watched it last night and it didn't really win me over. usually i can enjoy movies that don't spell everything out and leave things to be interpreted but i found this particular mix of reality/fantasy to be a bit unsatisfying.
the story in the real world wasn't nuanced enough to be satisfying and sadly the fantasy part wasn't fleshed out enough because most of the time was played out showing how evil the real world villian was.
i believe this kind of storytelling was done way better in "heavenly creatures" starring kate winslet.
just my opinion
maybe a case of overhype and waiting too long to see.
also the trailer kinda misrepresents the ratio of fantasy/reality of this film.
to be fair the fantasy elements in this film is exquisite. the sound mix a bit heavy handed though.
This is basically how I felt, although even the fantasy part seemed not even close to being in the league of LOTR and what I consider "exquisite".
logicalnoise
07-11-07, 01:52 PM
Take it like this what if movie critics started a new trend. Lets say the vets decieded they were tired of spending hours and hours just to be able to review every movie they are paid to review. SO they demand a DVD screener and just watch the parts that catch their eyes (maybe 15% spaced evenly throughout the running time). This way they've seen everything they eneded to see to write their 2 page review in the gazette. Anything they miss can just be filled in with what they saw in the trailer. See now everyone knows exactly what happened and no one has to worry about missing anything because out fo the 200 critics who saw it everyone combined watched the entire movie. [/logic rant]
Seriously my friend leaving a movie is one thing. Skipping through and just watching what's approiate in your eyes give you the rare entitlement to a partial opinion of some random schlock you hand edited on your state of the art censor system. Directors already cut films down by hours just to make sure audiences see everything they absolutley have to get the story.
Look at "the abyss" as long as it is in the theactrical cut even then you end up missing a key suy plot which explains a lot of the movie. With the drectors cut it's much longer the but the key sub plot adds quite a bit to the movie. So feel free to skip through your vast media collection. Just don't expect us to respect your opinion.
logicalnoise
07-11-07, 01:59 PM
Matter of fact here's what I'd imagine someone saying about a movie if they watched films they way you do.
Blair witch project: Their walking through the woods......more walking.....They found some sticks.....something about a map.......it's over.(yeah I know family guy reference)
Wrath of Kahn: Some guy named kirk is pissed about something....a russian guy and that guy from "touched by an angel" get bugs in their brain from the guy from Fantasy island. ...Something about a dead wife.......their in some fog......fatasy island guy is dead.....oh and teh guy who sings "bilbo baggins" dies.
Take it like this what if movie critics started a new trend. Lets say the vets decieded they were tired of spending hours and hours just to be able to review every movie they are paid to review.
Yeah, like when Joel Siegel pulled that crap at the screening of Clerks 2. What an idiot.
What if a key point happens in all the violence? Wouldn't that make you wonder why something is happening later on in the movie?
As for releasing singles off a CD; they do that to obviously have more sales if the track is a hit. It also makes one want to listen to the entire album to see if they like other tracks. It's a sellng tool for the whole package.
Also, I don't think anyone was outraged that you viewed skipping through the movie; they simply stated your opinion didn't really hold no value because you didn't see the whole thing. It's one person's observation and it's a fact which most posters here would agree with. Obviously, you disagree with it and anything we post to disagree with you will be dismissed even though the argument is valid.
Have you seen Pulp Fiction? That is one movie you cannot form an opinion on without seeing the whole thing. I'd really like to know what you thought of that movie.
Look, I generally watch whole movies throughout. I am bright enough to pick up something later if I missed it. Frequently I DO miss ALOT! -- because I am not even paying attention to the plot or dialog. I am focused on the sound or visuals.
To me, those are far more important than what happens in MANY MANY cases.
About the CD analogy, of course they are released for marketing purposes. The point I was arguing with was the contention that movies are not intended to be digested in parts. Trailers and sneak peeks and clips and movie chapters ALL BELIE THAT. Furthermore, who cares what anyone INTENDS?
I will appreciate a movie or CD as I SEE FIT!
That is why I have a home theater, don't know about the rest of you folks.
Hey, if the theaters INTEND for us to see all the concession ads, does that mean we're morally obligated to watch? How about by extension, the director wants us to see those because he did not demand that they eliminate them from being seen before his movie? So can't we assume the director intended for ads to be shown before his movie? How about the smell of popcorn? -- director must have intended that, if it's missing, we just lost sight of his vision.
See how silly that gets?
Take it like this what if movie critics started a new trend. Lets say the vets decieded they were tired of spending hours and hours just to be able to review every movie they are paid to review. SO they demand a DVD screener and just watch the parts that catch their eyes (maybe 15% spaced evenly throughout the running time). This way they've seen everything they eneded to see to write their 2 page review in the gazette. Anything they miss can just be filled in with what they saw in the trailer. See now everyone knows exactly what happened and no one has to worry about missing anything because out fo the 200 critics who saw it everyone combined watched the entire movie. [/logic rant]
Seriously my friend leaving a movie is one thing. Skipping through and just watching what's approiate in your eyes give you the rare entitlement to a partial opinion of some random schlock you hand edited on your state of the art censor system. Directors already cut films down by hours just to make sure audiences see everything they absolutley have to get the story.
Look at "the abyss" as long as it is in the theactrical cut even then you end up missing a key suy plot which explains a lot of the movie. With the drectors cut it's much longer the but the key sub plot adds quite a bit to the movie. So feel free to skip through your vast media collection. Just don't expect us to respect your opinion.
Goes back to my early point that there are ALWAYS many different cuts of the movie. Sometimes multiple, THAT THE DIRECTOR APPROVED!
To hold out some sacred cut in a sanctimonious way is absurd.
Furthermore, how do we know your concentration is all it should be? Ever miss how full a glass is in the edge of a scene? How would you test out on that? I'm sure I could ask quite a few questions about those movies you know so much about.
Point is, you and I see a different movie. Watch again, you just saw yet another movie.
Don't pretend that your way of watching is right, or that because you have 100% perfect concentration and know everything that happened, can whistle the score at precisely 43.5 minutes in, that you have a more valid opinion.
I just don't believe that.
Tnilsson
07-11-07, 02:37 PM
Give it a break Emaych. It should go without saying that you can watch any movie (or any part of it) anyway you like. All we are saying is that if you watch something other than what was released to the world as the finished product, then you can't with any honesty review the movie as a whole. The same holds true for any book or CD.
A couple of examples will hopefully illustrate my point. I thought that every other chapter of "Moby Dick" was great, but every other chapter bored me to tears. If I had only read the good parts, I would have had a very skewed view of the book as a whole and any review I might give it would be wrong. The same is true with "Pan's Labyrinth". If I had watched a version that edited out some of the violence or gave the fantasy and real world elements more equal time, I would probably have liked the movie better, but my impression of the movie (as released) would be wrong
There are movies in which one scene is pivotal. And there are movies that only make sense as a whole. If you skip a part you may not like at first blush, it may turn out to make a very big difference to your experience of the movie as a whole. The original "Solaris" is one such movie. It has some very, very boring parts that most people are probably very tempted to fast forward through. But those parts make perfect sense by the end of the movie and are, in my opinion, necessary to your appreciation of the whole.
Sorry if you feel that my view is elitist. But I think it is much more intellectually sound than your view. You can't go on a book chat site and chat about a book that you only read half of. Nor can you go on a music site and chat about a CD that you only listened to some of. The same is true of movies. Each CD, movie, and book stands on its own. And if you want to discuss it, you should have listened, watched, or read the whole thing rather than the Cliffs Notes version.
I am focused on the sound or visuals.
To me, those are far more important than what happens in MANY MANY cases.
Seriously, then you should just watch Sunrise Earth on Discovery HD. That would probably satisfy you more.
BTW, what is your take on a movie with just one cut such as Pulp Fiction which you can't form an opinion on without watching the whole thing? You keep saying there are mulitple cuts of movies but this movie doesn't.
logicalnoise
07-11-07, 02:46 PM
Goes back to my early point that there are ALWAYS many different cuts of the movie. Sometimes multiple, THAT THE DIRECTOR APPROVED!
To hold out some sacred cut in a sanctimonious way is absurd.
Furthermore, how do we know your concentration is all it should be? Ever miss how full a glass is in the edge of a scene? How would you test out on that? I'm sure I could ask quite a few questions about those movies you know so much about.
Point is, you and I see a different movie. Watch again, you just saw yet another movie.
Don't pretend that your way of watching is right, or that because you have 100% perfect concentration and know everything that happened, can whistle the score at precisely 43.5 minutes in, that you have a more valid opinion.
I just don't believe that.
speed reading is not the same as speed watching. From what I can tell that's your argument. A specific pace, modd and theme is intended by the director. Messing with the time invariably changes any experience. I do personally give movies my full attention in my first viewing. and your analogy with catching details in ascene like a glass half empty and fuill is BS because Fast forwarding eliminates the glass completly. My way of watch is right because movies are a linear medium. While the plot or story can be told non-linear the medium is always intended to be linear.
Also on yoru examples of clips of films being blasphemy that's BS because those clips have a whole new ramification for their existence. For example. I love the Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights". I had a friend over and I reccomended it to him. he admitted ot never watching a silent film. So I showed him the "boxing" sequence. Not as medium to let him have an opinion but as a way for him to preview the film and styling of charlie chaplin. In the end he watched the entire film and thanked me for introducing him to chaplins work.
When you skip plot because of it's violent content you usually miss more than just the violence. How is teh main charectar reacting to the situation what about any secondary charectars? If they are scared it may explain actions later on the movie. You miss key details which flesh out the picture and make it complete. Obviously not eveyr movie will be a complete experience and reward you for watching it. In the end it shouldn't matter how YOU watched it it matters hwo it was shown to by the director.
TV edits are the bain of the industry and no director enjoys editing their own films for TV(which is why the majority are done by third party houses). Directors approve them because people get to see some of the movie and hopefully buy the dvd to get the full experience. I rarely watch movies on regulated cable because I know I'm missing valuable content.
It's been stimulating, have to go. More later.
Mrhan:
Please do not presume to tell me what to watch, or where to post, or how to have an opinion as valid as yours. BTW, you never saw all the footage of PULP FICTION, rest assured of that -- parts the director wanted in, but later did not, were all removed, so you missed his original intention, you just saw the tortured, overthought, second-guessed version. That is, so sorry, not the valid version, therefore your opinion does not count.
Tnilsson:
Well stated. Will have to get back to you later.
speed reading is not the same as speed watching. From what I can tell that's your argument. A specific pace, modd and theme is intended by the director. Messing with the time invariably changes any experience. I do personally give movies my full attention in my first viewing. and your analogy with catching details in ascene like a glass half empty and fuill is BS because Fast forwarding eliminates the glass completly. My way of watch is right because movies are a linear medium. While the plot or story can be told non-linear the medium is always intended to be linear.
Also on yoru examples of clips of films being blasphemy that's BS because those clips have a whole new ramification for their existence. For example. I love the Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights". I had a friend over and I reccomended it to him. he admitted ot never watching a silent film. So I showed him the "boxing" sequence. Not as medium to let him have an opinion but as a way for him to preview the film and styling of charlie chaplin. In the end he watched the entire film and thanked me for introducing him to chaplins work.
When you skip plot because of it's violent content you usually miss more than just the violence. How is teh main charectar reacting to the situation what about any secondary charectars? If they are scared it may explain actions later on the movie. You miss key details which flesh out the picture and make it complete. Obviously not eveyr movie will be a complete experience and reward you for watching it. In the end it shouldn't matter how YOU watched it it matters hwo it was shown to by the director.
TV edits are the bain of the industry and no director enjoys editing their own films for TV(which is why the majority are done by third party houses). Directors approve them because people get to see some of the movie and hopefully buy the dvd to get the full experience. I rarely watch movies on regulated cable because I know I'm missing valuable content.
Can hardly wait to dig into this one, which is why I saved it here, in spite of what you do to edit it from hereon in -- I will accept that this first edit represents your POV fairly well....
It's been stimulating, have to go. More later.
Mrhan:
Please do not presume to tell me what to watch, or where to post, or how to have an opinion as valid as yours. BTW, you never saw all the footage of PULP FICTION, rest assured of that -- parts the director wanted in, but later did not, were all removed, so you missed his original intention, you just saw the tortured, overthought, second-guessed version. That is, so sorry, not the valid version, therefore your opinion does not count.
I gave you a suggestion from what you stated. So, take that into consideration.
You obviously not heard QT say this is the ONLY version of the film and it is the way he intended it to be. You obviously know more than him regarding his movie and his statements don't count since you rightfully know it is a "second-guessed version". :rolleyes:
The DVD even shows all the deleted scenes that he filmed and not put in. Maybe not alternate shots of every scene but every scene in the screenplay. So, there isn't anything that's missing that you think he didn't put in.
logicalnoise
07-11-07, 03:26 PM
Can hardly wait to dig into this one, which is why I saved it here, in spite of what you do to edit it from hereon in -- I will accept that this first edit represents your POV fairly well....
the funny thing is you never dig into anything you pick one statemnt argue against it by stating what you said earlier and then introduce another stiff necked, hardly appropriate example of how not watching a movie means watching a movie. and I never edit my posts except for grammar.
What an interesting read. I offer no opinion because I didn't read all the postings.
;)
What an interesting read. I offer no opinion because I didn't read all the postings.
;)
:D
I gave you a suggestion from what you stated. So, take that into consideration.
You obviously not heard QT say this is the ONLY version of the film and it is the way he intended it to be. You obviously know more than him regarding his movie and his statements don't count since you rightfully know it is a "second-guessed version". :rolleyes:
The DVD even shows all the deleted scenes that he filmed and not put in. Maybe not alternate shots of every scene but every scene in the screenplay. So, there isn't anything that's missing that you think he didn't put in.
Alright. To begin with, I said I often find the sound and visuals much more important than plot or dialogue in a film in answer to your question about what if I miss something important to the story, whereupon you made a suggestion about what I should watch. I will watch what I want, but thanks for the input.
Maybe you are the opposite, like the plot and dialogue more, then you may have the visually impaired description of the movie with dialogue to go along with it, I will take the soundtrack and visuals every time. If the public had to choose which theater to go into, which do you think they might pick? No right answer here -- just that I go in the theater where there is no talking or explanation.
The point here -- now pay attention carefully -- is that AT EACH MOMENT are attention can be drawn to any element more so than another. Because we each perceive differently, no one is even seeing the same film. Is that understood? We can share impressions, but is yours more valid than mine?
To then set yourself up on some high horse because you think your viewing experience gave you the more valid read of the content, is not only insulting, but I think suggests there is but one way to view a movie. I disagree.
As to QT showing all the deleted scenes of PULP FICTION in his DVD, just how naive are you? There are always incomplete scenes, readings, scrap odd footage, multiple takes, etc., etc. There were any number of drafts of the screenplay which represented his vision, so when you speak of the director's vision, you really only mean the last one before he called the project done?
THE POINT HERE BEING: THE DIRECTOR HAD MANY VISIONS FOR HIS FILM! Probably many versions of the screenplay. Some he scrapped, some he trimmed off a bit. THERE IS NO HOLY VERSION OF THE FILM! And chances are the director will admit he never got close to what he saw in his head, so no matter what we see onscreen, it is NOT HIS ULTIMATE VISION! So to say we are recreating the vision of the director is just....hope you get the point.
So.....I would not agree with the assertion that there is some "right" way to see the "right" version of a film, which then imparts moral authority to the one person in the world who has seen it just this way, to have an opinion which matters.
I dare say you could watch a whole film and have much less understanding of it than someone who might have seen only one third of it, but someone who claims to have seen the right version the right way is benighted as THE ONE!??? The one with the unassailable opinion that matters most!
Or maybe you think that person is the director. I disagree. My opinion matters the most, always. I am here to suit me. The director's opinion of what he gave us might have some curiosity appeal, but I try and not let that get in the way of what I think the movie means or how it affects me.
All for now....it's been sublime....
Alright. To begin with, I said I often find the sound and visuals much more important than plot or dialogue in a film in answer to your question about what if I miss something important to the story, whereupon you made a suggestion about what I should watch. I will watch what I want, but thanks for the input.
Maybe you are the opposite, like the plot and dialogue more, then you may have the visually impaired description of the movie with dialogue to go along with it, I will take the soundtrack and visuals every time. If the public had to choose which theater to go into, which do you think they might pick? No right answer here -- just that I go in the theater where there is no talking or explanation.
The point here -- now pay attention carefully -- is that AT EACH MOMENT are attention can be drawn to any element more so than another. Because we each perceive differently, no one is even seeing the same film. Is that understood? We can share impressions, but is yours more valid than mine?
To then set yourself up on some high horse because you think your viewing experience gave you the more valid read of the content, is not only insulting, but I think suggests there is but one way to view a movie. I disagree.
As to QT showing all the deleted scenes of PULP FICTION in his DVD, just how naive are you? There are always incomplete scenes, readings, scrap odd footage, multiple takes, etc., etc. There were any number of drafts of the screenplay which represented his vision, so when you speak of the director's vision, you really only mean the last one before he called the project done?
THE POINT HERE BEING: THE DIRECTOR HAD MANY VISIONS FOR HIS FILM! Probably many versions of the screenplay. Some he scrapped, some he trimmed off a bit. THERE IS NO HOLY VERSION OF THE FILM! And chances are the director will admit he never got close to what he saw in his head, so no matter what we see onscreen, it is NOT HIS ULTIMATE VISION! So to say we are recreating the vision of the director is just....hope you get the point.
So.....I would not agree with the assertion that there is some "right" way to see the "right" version of a film, which then imparts moral authority to the one person in the world who has seen it just this way, to have an opinion which matters.
I dare say you could watch a whole film and have much less understanding of it than someone who might have seen only one third of it, but someone who claims to have seen the right version the right way is benighted as THE ONE!??? The one with the unassailable opinion that matters most!
Or maybe you think that person is the director. I disagree. My opinion matters the most, always. I am here to suit me. The director's opinion of what he gave us might have some curiosity appeal, but I try and not let that get in the way of what I think the movie means or how it affects me.
All for now....it's been sublime....
Umm. Okay. :rolleyes:
The bottom line is everyone here disagrees with you. A movie should be watched as a whole not in parts. I guess were going around in circles. ---and no I'm not naive about film making since I work in the film industry. So, there. :p
Umm. Okay. :rolleyes:
The bottom line is everyone here disagrees with you. A movie should be watched as a whole not in parts. I guess were going around in circles. ---and no I'm not naive about film making since I work in the film industry. So, there. :p
So the bottom line for you is where you determine numbers do not favor your position? What then? Is that where you cave and concede how wrong you have been? Is that what I should do?
You know, the funny part to me is that I don't think people disagree with me. I think people have watched many more hours of movie fragments than whole movies. All the trips to the kitchen while the commercials were on -- that missed ten seconds when the movie starts again means that all those movie watching minutes -- almost two hours worth -- go into the fragment category, etc.
And whether it is watched whole or in part is not really what I am reacting to -- it is this contention that someone, anyone, or a group of people have seen a movie the RIGHT way and the RIGHT version of it, so they can now ascend uncontested into the pantheon of critical piousness and proclaim from on high their mighty and unassailable opinion.
And this apparently merely for having sat through some dreadful dreck that most might have the common sense to bail from. You might even call into question the soundness of someone's critical acumen who sat though the whole of WHITE GIRLS, rather than anoint them as deity.
Even logicalnoise, who thinks he does not agree with me, has gone on at length about the destruction of the mood intended by the director, through derailing of the linear continuity of a movie, AND THEN!, as illustration, no less, of the proposition, provides the anecdote of how he showed a movie fragment out of context to represent said movie to entice someone to watch the whole thing! HEY! What happened to the mood there? Where did the linear continuity go on that one?
And that is from someone who thinks he thinks he is not in perfect alignment with my point of view!
So no, I don't think people disagree with me in the main. They are just debating, and not very effectively.
Now you take someone who doesn't even seem to know what they actually think, set them in front of a whole movie, and they automatically have a more valid opinion than one who had the sense to bail out for cause after an hour? -- I don't really see that, and I really don't see people disagreeing with that either -- a friend tells you, "I walked out of that movie -- nothing but the most heinous slashing torture of kids -- very gruesome." -- I don't see you dismissing that because your friend did not wait it out, see the whole thing. I think you probably avoid that film.
So people are really just pretending to be purists I think -- put on elitism for the pomp and circumstance of it all -- guess that beats actually BEING that kind of a supercilious parvenu.
Dean Roddey
07-12-07, 01:38 AM
You're really stretching there, guy. Everyone disagrees with you, but you argue that they don't really disagree with you, because they might have to take a whiz during a movie? There is a pause button, ya know? Some people pause the movie while they answer nature's call, or go grab some chips. But, maybe with all the time they have to devote to being supercilious pavenues they just haven't had the time to figure out how to use it. Who knows...
You know, the funny part to me is that I don't think people disagree with me.
Show me where they say they agree with you? Was there something between the lines I missed?---some hidden meaning I overlooked? I don't know how else to decipher the plain and simple; easy to understand English that everyone else is writing. :confused:
PainterPaul
07-12-07, 02:21 AM
Emaych,
Your opinion, my opinion, others opinions, in-and-of-themselves, are just that... an opinion.
But their are better opinions, well informed opinions, and stupid opinions.
One who has read the book from beginning to end (maybe not all at once)... one who has seen the movie from beginning to end (maybe not all at once but in its lineal order), is going to have a better informed opinion in the same way a reporter or investigator "gets all the facts" before writing a report or making a recommendation.
You are off on some other plane.
To say, "I like the film", or not, having only flipped through portions of it will certainly yield you that opinion,... but it will not be an informed opinion compared to those who have taken in the whole experience. Like it or not, without having taken it all in, you simply do not have the wherewithal to stay on plane with those who have had a fuller, more robust (whole) experience from the book or movie.
Other than, "I liked it", or, "I didn't like it", or, "It had too much violence", what else are you going to have an opinion about?
Rather than say your opinion is lesser than another's... I'd say that your opinion is less informed due to your having missed parts of the movie, and that others opinions are better informed than yours because the others have the entire experience from which to draw.
Im not a purist. If a film offends me, I will not finish it. Sometimes I cut them up after seeing it all. Some I can tell several minutes into the film that I had made a mistake and pull it and watch something else. In each case I have formed an opinion about the film... and uninformed opinion such as, I Hate this movie, or, it's way too violent, etc. These are my opinions, and as opinions they have the same emotional force and by gum that have validity... but they are poor opinions and uninformed opinions... and I know this so I don't usually discuss with others who are my superiors insofar as they are fully informed and I am not.
Maybe the bits and pieces give you a feel for the whole, and if your feeling is "This is gong to be a crap movie", maybe you should pull it, slice it up and can it. I've done that a few times, unfortunately. But I wont step on the same stage with those who had the whole experience, and discuss it!
"But their are better opinions, well informed opinions, and stupid opinions.
One who has read the book from beginning to end (maybe not all at once)... one who has seen the movie from beginning to end (maybe not all at once but in its lineal order), is going to have a better informed opinion in the same way a reporter or investigator "gets all the facts" before writing a report or making a recommendation."
Painter Paul
Certainly "better informed" is a vastly tempered perspective over "not entitled to offer opinion," which would seem the approach of some. But in your analogy, allow me to point out that a reporter NEVER EVER even acquires all the facts of a story before reporting it, let alone attempt to report on all those facts. Their perspective is always a snapshot of information known and/or deemed relevant at any one time, just as here.
But another thing, this grants undue weight to merely sitting in front of a screen. We do not know each other here. Through personal interaction, you might find me the last person you would ever consult about a film recommendation -- or even from what I write here, you may have concluded that my interpretation of the simplest things is so far afield as to preclude applying any of my judgments meaningfully, but you are going to contend that just because I sat in front of a movie screen for the duration, my opinion is "better" "more informed" than ANYONE else who has missed part of it?
I don't believe that. I think I take the opinion of the guy whose appraisals I generally respect, who saw one third of the movie, over some loon off the street who didn't have the sense to shut WHITE GIRLS down. But maybe that is just me. So be it.
"You're really stretching there, guy. Everyone disagrees with you, but you argue that they don't really disagree with you, because they might have to take a whiz during a movie? There is a pause button, ya know? Some people pause the movie while they answer nature's call, or go grab some chips. But, maybe with all the time they have to devote to being supercilious pavenues they just haven't had the time to figure out how to use it. Who knows... "
Dean Roddey
OK, so they use the pause button to unilaterally interrupt the linear flow of the movie, how is that different than watching it in segments? Logicalnoise has suggested you need to see it all in one continuous flow for the emotional impact the director intended, but I agree with you -- use the pause button -- watch it any way you please. This is why I say we are not in disagreement, because people keep claiming they disagree, then say that in reality, they watch exactly as I do.
And you yourself have said that movies were meant to be seen as a whole, yet confess just here to watching them in segments. Now I would also agree with some who have claimed that your experiencing of the film will be altered to watch it that way versus seeing it as a continuous flow. In fact I have been saying all along that we watch different movies anyway, and this is in perfect alignment with that assertion.
So yes, when folks want to shout from the hilltops that they disagree, but when they get down to explaining themselves show that they do agree, I tend to think their explanation or anecdotal accounts carry the greater weight. This leads me to conclude that folks are conditioned to feel they should think a certain way, so say that is the way the think, but they actually do the exact opposite.
So I try to take opinions for what they are, and again I think I am in agreement with many here on that point.
logicalnoise
07-12-07, 07:49 AM
go watch from the earth to the moon and give me a complete synopsis in two paragraphs. I plan on watching all 6 hours but by your standards I only need maybe 2.
"But their are better opinions, well informed opinions, and stupid opinions.
One who has read the book from beginning to end (maybe not all at once)... one who has seen the movie from beginning to end (maybe not all at once but in its lineal order), is going to have a better informed opinion in the same way a reporter or investigator "gets all the facts" before writing a report or making a recommendation."
Painter Paul
Certainly "better informed" is a vastly tempered perspective over "not entitled to offer opinion," which would seem the approach of some. But in your analogy, allow me to point out that a reporter NEVER EVER even acquires all the facts of a story before reporting it, let alone attempt to report on all those facts. Their perspective is always a snapshot of information known and/or deemed relevant at any one time, just as here.
But another thing, this grants undue weight to merely sitting in front of a screen. We do not know each other here. Through personal interaction, you might find me the last person you would ever consult about a film recommendation -- or even from what I write here, you may have concluded that my interpretation of the simplest things is so far afield as to preclude applying any of my judgments meaningfully, but you are going to contend that just because I sat in front of a movie screen for the duration, my opinion is "better" "more informed" than ANYONE else who has missed part of it?
I don't believe that. I think I take the opinion of the guy whose appraisals I generally respect, who saw one third of the movie, over some loon off the street who didn't have the sense to shut WHITE GIRLS down. But maybe that is just me. So be it.
"You're really stretching there, guy. Everyone disagrees with you, but you argue that they don't really disagree with you, because they might have to take a whiz during a movie? There is a pause button, ya know? Some people pause the movie while they answer nature's call, or go grab some chips. But, maybe with all the time they have to devote to being supercilious pavenues they just haven't had the time to figure out how to use it. Who knows... "
Dean Roddey
OK, so they use the pause button to unilaterally interrupt the linear flow of the movie, how is that different than watching it in segments? Logicalnoise has suggested you need to see it all in one continuous flow for the emotional impact the director intended, but I agree with you -- use the pause button -- watch it any way you please. This is why I say we