XPost: alt.movies.monster   
   From: tor222@hotmail.com   
      
   "Fungusamungus" wrote in   
   news:GQK5b.25222$NC2.2287@nwrdny01.gnilink.net:   
      
   > No, you're not Jim. You and Norman chose to criticize Rhindle   
   > personally. He wasn't trolling for a fight, and I even agreed with his   
   > assessment. Why do you see it as trolling? Because he didn't like the   
   > film and stated it as such? It seems more like the ones who thought he   
   > was trolling, were actually themselves looking for a fight.   
      
   Look, you're wrong. I wasn't criticizing Rhindle personally, I don't even   
   know who he is. If you take the time to look again you'll see that my   
   intent is to point out that one man's garbage may be another's treasure.   
      
   I've seen negative reviews of GMK. Sure, why not? No one likes   
   everything. It's how you handle a review, especially a negative one, that   
   counts. For one thing, GMK does not look like it was edited by a first   
   year film student. It was, in fact, edited by Isao Tomita, a very   
   competent and respected film editor with over 24 features to his name. He   
   was even given an event in his honor in Fukuoka just two weeks ago (he   
   died of cancer last year). So, this does little to establish the   
   credibility of the review.   
      
   Speaking of credibility, I find it silly that the editor and self-   
   proclaimed leader of western Godzilla fandom continues with his tirade   
   against GMK. By constantly employing a double standard he not only puts   
   his stance on all other Godzilla films into question, but completely   
   destroys any momentum to unify the genre. It's obvious to all but the   
   most dense that there is more at work here than just the dislike of a   
   single Godzilla entry, which is fine. No one's going to change that. So   
   why not just keep it to yourself. Or grow up. Whichever is easier.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|