XPost: alt.movies.monster   
   From: mrdirector@nyc.rr.com   
      
   "Rhindle The Red"  wrote in message   
   news:JkU5b.10179$Lk5.7599@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   > "Twozbar"  wrote in message   
   > news:c5796807.0309041513.207654b6@posting.google.com...   
   > > "Fungusamungus"  wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > > We're "merely stating our opinions," too.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > - Jim C.   
   > > >   
   > > > No, you're not Jim.   
   > >   
   > > Yes, I am.  You just don't see it that way and that's your "opinion."   
   > >   
   > > > You and Norman chose to criticize Rhindle personally.   
   > >   
   > > So what was my personal criticsm of Rhindle exactly?  If the first   
   > > time he saw GMK was on the Sci-Fi Channel, then I maintain that he   
   > > really hasn't see the film.  It's apparent from his post that it's not   
   > > going to make a difference if he views the complete version at this   
   > > point.  His mind is already made up, but his opinion is based on   
   > > ignorance.   
   >   
   > My opinion is based on the film I saw on the Sci-Fi channel.  It's not   
   > "ignorance".   
      
      
   Actually it is. If you had stated that you never saw the original version,   
   than your opinion wouldn't be so close minded. Stating that the film looked   
   like it was "edited by a first year student" when you base that assumption   
   on an edited, dubbed print of a japanese film is pure ignorance.   
      
      
   If you think the Japanese version of the film is substantially   
   > different, then say that.  My opinion of *that* film might be different.   
      
   You should take it upon yourself to see the original version before you make   
   your final analysis of the movie.   
      
      
    If   
   > you say that the only difference is the dialogue and the missing scenes,   
   > then you've got absolutley no justification in saying I'm "ignorant."   
      
   He does. Much of what was edited was vital to the message the film was   
   conveying. Taking out key shots like the mushroom cloud scene and the   
   removal of the footage of Yuri getting drunk brings a little depth to a film   
   that might otherwise be a standard kaiju film. And the dubbing was   
   atrocious, not indicative of what was actually said and how it was said in   
   the Japanese version.   
      
      
      
      
    The   
   > editing in that film was awful.  (This is my opinion, btw.  That should be   
   > obvious, but with you I can't be sure you'll get that point.)   
      
      
   Again, you're basing that on an edited tv print.   
      
      
      
   No changes in   
   > dialogue will fix the fact that the cutting does not flow very well.   
      
   Edited tv print, my friend.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > He was either trolling for a fight, or just too stupid to see that his   
   > > post would be interpreted that way.   
   >   
   > Or perhaps I assumed people who would read it would be intelligent enough   
   to   
   > know it's just my opinion and not get their noses bent out of shape.  I   
   > forgot this was a newsgroup, where intelligence is not required.   
   >   
   > > I don't care if you and the rest   
   > > of the world agree with his opinion, it's still ignorant to say, for   
   > > example, that GMK looks like it was edited by a "first-year film   
   > > student."   
   >   
   > How exactly is that "ignorant"?  Perhaps I'm too ignorant to understand   
   the   
   > meaning of the word.  My opinion is based on the first-year student films   
   I   
   > have seen, where they just don't seem to know when to cut away.   
      
      
   As a student of filmmaking myself, I ca ntell you there was nothing wrong   
   with the editing of GMK, save for one or two bits.   
      
      
      
    They either   
   > do it too soon or too late.  They linger on shots that do nothing.  Now,   
   if   
   > that's the way the director wants it to look, bully for him.  It still   
   > doesn't work (for me) and looks like something an untrained filmmaker   
   would   
   > do.  Please identify the "ignorance".   
   >   
   > > It's fine if you don't care for the movie, but that's just   
   > > plain argumentative and tantamount to name calling.   
   > >   
   > > The problem is that when anyone disagrees with ignorant opinions   
   > > regarding GMK, it's deemed as a "personal attack."  Good luck finding   
   > > the "personal attack" in my reply to Rhindle.   
   >   
   > How about only a few lines up, where the only possibilities are that I'm a   
   > troll or stupid?  You seem to have a real problem with people disagreeing   
   > with you.  In your world, they must either be trying to cause trouble or   
   are   
   > too stupid to see that you are right.  After all, you couldn't possibly be   
   > *wrong*, could you?   
   >   
   > > - Jim "I didn't even say anything aboot Ed Wood" C.   
   >   
   > What, do you want a medal for politeness?   
   >   
   > Say what you will.  I don't care.  My opinions are real and just as   
   > legitimate as yours.  I am not "ignorant" because I haven't seen a   
   different   
   > edit of the film.  I judged the film I saw.  It's all I can do.   
      
   The problem with that is you took the flaws of a network and attributed it   
   to the film itself, plus the dubbed dialogue which also is not indicative of   
   the original film (even though the original japanese dialogue is stuff you   
   heard before but not silly.)   
      
      
   >   
   > I was certainly not trolling for a fight.  I've been away from this ng for   
   > quite a while (I used to frequent it when I first got back into Godzilla   
   > films).  What made me return was the utter shock I received at watching   
   GMK.   
   > I was truly stunned that such a bad film could still be made with such a   
   > venerable character.  My harsh tone is a reflection of just how amazed I   
   was   
   > at the film's badness.   
   >   
   > I don't care if the film was rushed.  I don't care if the director had his   
   > ideas squashed.  I don't care what he *wanted* to do. I don't even care   
   that   
   > it was dubbed and had bits cut out.  All I care about is the film I saw.   
   > And the film I saw stunk to high heaven.   
      
      
   What you saw was an edited tv print. If you see the original version and   
   still feel the same, you're entitled to your opinion, but you got to see it   
   in its intended form, and as a filmmaker myself, I can tell you that is all   
   a director wants, to be judged by HIS version of the film.   
      
      
   >   
   > And for the record, until the last few comments, I didn't feel "jumped on"   
   > at all.   
   >   
   > Of course, I could have missed some messages.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)