Indiana Jones Trilogy - Page 8 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 01:31 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post


The line is drawn before Greedo can pull out his gun.

Going somewhere fanboyz?
dvdmike007 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 01:51 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Where do you draw the line?

Which line?

Sure, I wish people wouldn't go back and make changes to old movies without making the original unedited version available as an option, but that's actually really commonplace at the level we're talking about with Raiders, which is essentially effects cleanup. So sure, that's over the line of "gee I wish they wouldn't" but I still buy the movies.

Then there's a step beyond effects cleanup, where scenes are actually changed, but not in any terribly meaningful way. Here I'm thinking Blood Simple. Again, gee I wish they wouldn't but I still buy the movies.

Then there's seven or eight other steps until you reach a completely batshit level of revisionism, where important plot points and characters are changed, long musical numbers are inserted, and perhaps the movie ends up featuring an actor who wasn't yet alive when the film was made. At that point it's not even the same movie anymore so of course I don't buy them. Raiders isn't even close to this level.
CatBus is offline  
post #213 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 40
I am of the mind that digital tweaking should follow judicial discretion in execution and scope.

Things that were clearly never intended to be seen, in particular for home release, should be candidates, of at least consideration, of being improved but unadjusted archival masters must be kept.

An example being the visible presence of wires, are things I feel, are artifacts that can be digitally removed without much fanfare most of the time. Exceptions always exists but generally wires were never intended to be seen by the audience, hence the usage of wires in the first place.

I hope the BR of Raiders retains the fix for the reflections but do away with rubbish digital matte that was done for Nazis falling off the cliff.

Now if Spielberg and Lucas decided they want Indy to be less violent and use a Super Soaker instead of his revolver or remove frames from bullet/blood squibs then that would be abhorrent revisionism.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #214 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 02:03 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
None nothing nada no changes ever for me, if it was shot that way then that's the way it should be forever
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #215 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,373
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I'm a bit more flexible. I can do without Lance Henriksen's midriff poking up through the floor in Aliens, and JC duly obliged. Did you know that they even removed the markings on the plexiglass window (from a previous take) that Ripley hits with the chair in the medlab facehugger scene? http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=294598
Geoff D is offline  
post #216 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Where do you draw the line?

Production errors. Wires. Matte lines for optical effects. That's about it really. Anything more than that brings out my "Why are they ****ing with the movie?!" reflex.
Deviation is offline  
post #217 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 02:26 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

I'm a bit more flexible. I can do without Lance Henriksen's midriff poking up through the floor in Aliens, and JC duly obliged. Did you know that they even removed the markings on the plexiglass window (from a previous take) that Ripley hits with the chair in the medlab facehugger scene? http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=294598

Yep, one of the many things i didn't like about that remaster
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #218 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 02:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

I'm a bit more flexible. I can do without Lance Henriksen's midriff poking up through the floor in Aliens, and JC duly obliged. Did you know that they even removed the markings on the plexiglass window (from a previous take) that Ripley hits with the chair in the medlab facehugger scene? http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=294598

And this is another example of things I'm fine with them fixing - just like the reflection for Indy. I undertsand the purist standpoint, but as long as it's not a fundamental change, fixing things that are inarguably *errors* won't ever get me worked up.
Deviation is offline  
post #219 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

None nothing nada no changes ever for me, if it was shot that way then that's the way it should be forever

Absolutes tend to be three sided blades of trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Yep, one of the many things i didn't like about that remaster

Those changes are rather innocuous and complimentary to the intent of creating a suspension of disbelief by correcting errors that again were never intended to be there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

I still prefer the blu, and it was cinematographer supervised

This was your response to technical issues found on the Ghostbusters BR in regards to revised contrast that deteriorates visual information that was originaly shot and intended to be visible in the final release.

Seems rather incongruent with your staunch absolute of no changes. Even if the cinematographer was involved I feel a 'French Connection' might deflate that argument just a wee bit.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #220 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 02:52 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Absolutes tend to be three sided blades of trouble.

Those changes are rather innocuous and complimentary to the intent of creating a suspension of disbelief by correcting errors that again were never intended to be there.

This was your response to technical issues found on the Ghostbusters BR in regards to revised contrast that deteriorates visual information that was originaly shot and intended to be visible in the final release.

Seems rather incongruent with your staunch absolute of no changes. Even if the cinematographer was involved I feel a 'French Connection' might deflate that argument just a wee bit.

Best Regards
KvE

Leaving this alone
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #221 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Yep, one of the many things i didn't like about that remaster

Really?

I'm still waiting for Universal to fix/remove the tech guy in jeans from Gladiator btw.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

Production errors. Wires. Matte lines for optical effects.

+1
Morpheo is online now  
post #222 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 06:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I wish every single movie on blu-ray was completely unaltered. Upgrade the quality of the presentation, but don't change a single thing about the content.

It's annoying to me that Evil freakin' Dead, of all movies, got digitally fixed for the blu-ray. The fact that the producer is randomly standing in the background kinda adds to the charm of the movie. But, oh well, this was Sam Raimi's intention, right?

Aliens is even more annoying of an example because that is literally being passed off as the "theatrical cut." It can't even be called the theatrical cut from an editing standpoint since they rearranged the rifle / flamethrower shots. This is the same James Cameron who called Lucas' addition of cgi creatures to Star Wars "disturbing" because it's a "revision of history." So it's okay to delete but not okay to add???

Like I said, just leave it alone!!!!
Fang Zei is offline  
post #223 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 06:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Partyslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

Production errors. Wires. Matte lines for optical effects. That's about it really. Anything more than that brings out my "Why are they ****ing with the movie?!" reflex.

Where's the fun in watching an old Godzilla movie if you can't see the wires holding up Godzilla's tail or Ghidorah's three heads?
Partyslammer is offline  
post #224 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 07:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
If things were originally not meant to be there and they destract from the intended effect, I'm happy if they are removed, so wires, reflections, I'm good with those being removed.

I probably saw Bladerunner 40 times in the theaters and it was ALWAYS a bummer seeing the wires lifting the spinner. That world had been so meticulously, beautifully and realistically rendered and all of a sudden you see the wires lifting the spinner, so obvious it was impossible to ignore and clearly not something intended to be seen, and it produced a "cringe" moment that took me out of the movie every time. It's a total relief when I spin the Blu-Ray to have that issue removed.

When the Indy movies were announced I wondered if they'd take out the snake reflection, and figured they would (except, Spielberg said he wasn't going to alter his films anymore, so it may be surprising if it's gone). That was another "take me out of the film" moment that I wouldn't mind seeing gone.

Where I guess I draw the line is where revisionism is just as bad: where it takes me "out" of the movie, and changes the feel and spirit of the movie that I'd originally loved, and Star-Wars level revisionism is the golden standard for going to far in that respect.
R Harkness is online now  
post #225 of 1202 Old 03-02-2012, 07:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Giles37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
jeesh, who knew that the removal of the glass barrier between Indy and the snake would get all of you in a tizzy. Personally the blooper I find the funniest is the block from the wall of the Well of Souls that bounces when Indy pushes it out to escape (you don't see the block but its shadow).

In terms of wire removal - I'm all for it - I find the wires on the DVD edition of the 1953 version of 'War of the Worlds' to be a major distraction.
Giles37 is offline  
post #226 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 12:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles37 View Post

jeesh, who knew that the removal of the glass barrier between Indy and the snake would get all of you in a tizzy. Personally the blooper I find the funniest is the block from the wall of the Well of Souls that bounces when Indy pushes it out to escape (you don't see the block but its shadow).

In terms of wire removal - I'm all for it - I find the wires on the DVD edition of the 1953 version of 'War of the Worlds' to be a major distraction.

They mentioned in the recent restoration of 20,000 League Under The Sea they digitally erased the wires during the giant squid sequence because of the new clarity the wires were quite obvious. Disney even altered the original intent of the sequence to a stormy night scene to hide the wires in the first place, so erasing them was fully within "original filmmaker intent" and not revisionism.

They also did a digital optical fix to get rid of the early CinemaScope "mumps" stretch effect. I can hardly wait for the BD whenever Disney decides to release it.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #227 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 06:07 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Spielberg wants wires, I am with him on this
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #228 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 08:04 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mark Booth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Beautiful California
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

We'll see what happens when they're released but, in theory, I'd take four unmolested movies for $75 over six digitally-butchered movies for $80 every time.



Mark
Mark Booth is offline  
post #229 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,373
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles37 View Post

In terms of wire removal - I'm all for it - I find the wires on the DVD edition of the 1953 version of 'War of the Worlds' to be a major distraction.

Absolutely. They stuck out like the proverbial sore digit on the remastered DVD, and while they are a cute source of nostalgia on a film I've loved ever since I was a kid, as an adult they are indeed a major distraction to me. If Paramount had any sense, they'd do 2 versions for Blu-ray to keep everyone happy.

My personal take is that we're seeing things now with a clarity undreamed of by filmmakers of a certain vintage. The obfuscation of detail that was inherent to release prints is something that was usually planned for when visual effects were made, so to take that work, scan the living daylights out of it and present it 'unmolested' to reveal every last wire, matte line and reflection in razor-sharp detail is not staying true to the original intent.

Of course, when you mention those two words then a whole new pandora's box is opened. Certain filmmakers still continue to alter their work after the fact, claiming that it was always their 'intent' to have a certain Rodian bounty hunter shoot first, for example, but that's the absolute worst case scenario.

It's easy enough to say "don't touch a thing" because the speaker is then absolved of any responsibility for what the intended look of a film should be, but what's never really considered is how every photochemical feature we see on home video is usually extensively corrected for colour, contrast and whatnot because of the vast differences between the two mediums. Just to get something looking "as it should" can require a lot of effort, and if that much manipulation is already taking place then we shouldn't be afraid of touching up artefacts inherent to 'classic' effects work either.

Just my 2 cents, don't shoot the messenger, etc.
Geoff D is offline  
post #230 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 01:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That world had been so meticulously, beautifully and realistically rendered and all of a sudden you see the wires lifting the spinner, so obvious it was impossible to ignore and clearly not something intended to be seen, and it produced a "cringe" moment that took me out of the movie every time.

Same with me. Stuff like that really zaps you out the world and back to your own lame life.

It's also why I hate most special features. I don't wanna know how they pulled off some special effect, but when I do it totally ruins the fantasy element. For me, it's better to not know my favorite prop or costume is actually made out of recycled socks.
eric.exe is offline  
post #231 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post


Of course, when you mention those two words then a whole new pandora's box is opened. Certain filmmakers still continue to alter their work after the fact, claiming that it was always their 'intent' to have a certain Rodian bounty hunter shoot first, for example, but that's the absolute worst case scenario.

That's the difference between a purely technical correction and changing the way a character is portrayed (it's obvious that's what he did, no matter how much he claims otherwise). It also shows the difference between good judgement and poor judgement.
RobertR is online now  
post #232 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 02:59 PM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Will this ever end? The filmmaker's opinion is the only opinion that matters when it comes to how the film is presented. Wires vs no wires or any other issue...it's not up to the viewers. Leave it alone. Stop beating it to death. Make your own films of you want to dictate how they are made.
RedOctober205 is offline  
post #233 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

Will this ever end? The filmmaker's opinion is the only opinion that matters when it comes to how the film is presented.

That's extreme. The logical implication is that no one viewing the film can EVER express ANY opinion (namely, find fault with) any aspect of the film, including the cinematography, art direction, lighting, color scheme, etc. That's wrong. Anyone is free to critique any aspect of the presentation, including what William Friedkin did with the Blu Ray of The French Connection.
RobertR is online now  
post #234 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 03:25 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

That's extreme. The logical implication is that no one viewing the film can EVER express ANY opinion (namely, find fault with) any aspect of the film, including the cinematography, art direction, lighting, color scheme, etc. That's wrong. Anyone is free to critique any aspect of the presentation, including what William Friedkin did with the Blu Ray of The French Connection.

EXACTLY! that's why you leave it the hell alone! it should look like a perfect version of that release day master and nothing else, no matter the tech they invent in the meantime
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #235 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 03:26 PM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

That's extreme. The logical implication is that no one viewing the film can EVER express ANY opinion (namely, find fault with) any aspect of the film, including the cinematography, art direction, lighting, color scheme, etc. That's wrong. Anyone is free to critique any aspect of the presentation, including what William Friedkin did with the Blu Ray of The French Connection.

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and making demands. It shouldn't have any effect on the decisions made by the filmmaker.
RedOctober205 is offline  
post #236 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

That's the difference between a purely technical correction and changing the way a character is portrayed...

I agree with RobertR, I think what is causing the most derision and creating a quagmire for discussion is the prevalence of false equivalency.

Technical corrections being associated with incongruent revisionist changes; even though superficially they appear similar are in fact not equal nor the same.

Fixing an editing error such as in Aliens with the inconsistent order of weapons being pulled off the rack and placed down or removal of unintended reflections of a safety barrier in Raiders is significantly different from the, lightening rod topic of great debate is, arbitrary revisionist changes inflicted by Lucas on Star Wars.

Following an extreme absolute edict is shortsighted, self-defeating, and frankly foolish.

We should stop making false associations and perhaps the polarized posturing will ebb away and permit more compelling discussion.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #237 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 04:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,373
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Christ, I'm sorry I even mentioned a certain Rodian bounty hunter. My post has been rendered useless by one careless reference to Star Wars. Let that be a lesson to you, kids!
Geoff D is offline  
post #238 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 05:34 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Technical corrections being associated with incongruent revisionist changes; even though superficially they appear similar are in fact not equal nor the same.

They ARE the same in kind, they differ only in degree. A film is more than just a story told visually. It is also a historical document, a snapshot in time of public opinions and technical capabilities. The fact that reflections could not be edited out is a technical fact of some historical value, and the fact that the presence of the reflections failed to detract from the suspension of disbelief is documented in the popularity of the film. Black and white is in no way a realistic visual effect and (at first) a mere technical limitation of the time that the original filmmaker would have avoided if they could have, and the colorization of those films would certainly be equivalent to other effects cleanups. I truly don't think removing the reflection is different from colorization in any way except the number of frames changed (assuming the B&W film was made at a time color film was not a feasible option).

EDIT: It occurred to me that some people may only object to colorization of classic films if it's done without the director's approval. For the record, I would object to it even with the director's approval (unless the original were available too). It totally changes the aesthetic of the film--the unrealistic, dated aesthetic people loved to begin with.
CatBus is offline  
post #239 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 06:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOctober205 View Post

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and making demands. It shouldn't have any effect on the decisions made by the filmmaker.

Uhm...no.

It's the same thing: expressing an opinion about seeing wires and reflections is not qualitatively different from expressing an opinion about any other facet of a film that rubs you the wrong way. And if you bring in the director's decisions, that doesn't alter the equation either. If Ridley Scott had decided instead to leave the spinner wires visible when he otherwise could have easily removed them, I'd be critical of that decision in the same way one can be critique the work in any film. As critical as I am of Lucas' decision to put new CGI beasties in the original Star Wars, and his decision to foist the character of Jar Jar Binks on the world.

Here we are discussing OUR opinions and desires. That's the point. To say they don't matter, only the film-maker's opinions matter, is to misunderstand the very nature of the discussion.
R Harkness is online now  
post #240 of 1202 Old 03-03-2012, 07:58 PM
 
RedOctober205's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


Uhm...no.

It's the same thing: expressing an opinion about seeing wires and reflections is not qualitatively different from expressing an opinion about any other facet of a film that rubs you the wrong way. And if you bring in the director's decisions, that doesn't alter the equation either. If Ridley Scott had decided instead to leave the spinner wires visible when he otherwise could have easily removed them, I'd be critical of that decision in the same way one can be critique the work in any film. As critical as I am of Lucas' decision to put new CGI beasties in the original Star Wars, and his decision to foist the character of Jar Jar Binks on the world.

Here we are discussing OUR opinions and desires. That's the point. To say they don't matter, only the film-maker's opinions matter, is to misunderstand the very nature of the discussion.

Do I really need to explain the difference between opinion and statement of fact?
RedOctober205 is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off