XPost: alt.movies.monster   
   From: mrdirector@nyc.rr.com   
      
   "Rhindle The Red"  wrote in message   
   news:EXU5b.10244$Lk5.7283@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   > "Mr Director"  wrote in message   
   > news:7tU5b.5361$x_5.2068@twister.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:   
   >   
   > > > 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.   
   >   
   > How exactly would my stating I hadn't seen the original version make my   
   > opinion less "close minded"?   
      
      
   Because you make your opinion of an edited, incomplete film and critisize   
   who make the film as if the flaws and errors in the film were their fault   
   (which, based on the Sci FI channel airing, it wasn't.)   
      
      
      
   That makes no sense at all.  Perhaps you meant   
   > it would make my opinion *seem* less close minded.   
      
      
   My point was if you stated in the begining your are judging your review of   
   the film based solely on the edited, incomplete version shown on TV and not   
   the original version and went about your review without making comments like   
   "first year editing" then your review would make more sense.   
      
      
      
    Of course, that's still   
   > wrong, because it's not close minded to hold an opinion, regardless of my   
   > extended knowledge of alternate cuts.   
      
      
   It's not close minded to hold an opinion, but that doesn't mean the opinion   
   itself isn't close minded.   
      
      
   ng 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.   
   >   
   > What, *again* am I ignorant of?  As I last stated, I based my opinion on   
   the   
   > film I saw.   
      
   And I'm telling you that it is basically wrong to judge a film in its   
   incomplete form without seeing its original version. If you cut the Mona   
   Lisa in half, are you going to blame its presentation on the original   
   painter?   
      
      
      
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > Do I need to see "Apocalypse Now - Redux" before I can comment on   
   > "Apocalypse Now"?   
      
      
   Apocalypse Now in its original version was the director's original version   
   of the film. There was no REDUX to compare the original version to, and   
   redux is the director's cut, so that's hindsight. That is not comparable to   
   an edited tv print.   
      
      
   Do I need to see "The Godfather Saga" before I comment on   
   > "The Godfather Part II"?   
      
   AGain, it is not comparable to watching an incomoplete film. Your best   
   argument would be "if you saw Godfather 2 on tv for the first time, edited   
   for time and content, would you be able to judge it fairly?" The answer   
   would be no because much of what the networks deem unsuitable would be   
   censored.   
      
      
      
     Do I need to see every episode of "Maitei Jyakku"   
   > before I can comment on "Mighty Jack"?   
      
      
   Nobody in their right mind will critisize "Mighty Jack" and compare its   
   flaws with "Maitei Jyakku" seeing as how you can't fit the best elements of   
   a tv series into a feature film.   
      
      
   .  Neither do I need to see the   
   > Japanese version to comment on the one I saw on the Sci-Fi channel.   
      
   Uh, yes you do. You see a film as the director intended before you judge the   
   director's skill. Otherwise, you enage in ignorance.   
      
      
   >   
   > >  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.   
   >   
   > And that, again, is entirely irrelevant.   
      
   How do you know? You didn't see it.   
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >  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.   
      
   How about removal of scenes that ruined pacing of the film, or cutting to a   
   commercial break during an action scene?   
      
      
   > >   
   > > Edited tv print, my friend.   
   >   
   > You're telling me they didn't just lift scenes whole from the film, but   
   > actually re-cut it?   
      
   If they remove key scenes from a movie, it DOES ruin its pacing, whether you   
   choose to believe it or not.   
      
    I find that difficult to believe.  But if it's true it   
   > only reinforces what I've *already* said; that I would judge a   
   substantially   
   > different cut on it's own merit.   
      
      
   Than your whole argument is based solely on the tv version, and therefore   
   your gripes should also be with the Sci Fi Channel for editing the film the   
   way they did.   
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > So things like editing are absolute, are they?  They aren't open to   
   opinion?   
   > You can just run some numbers and they come up "OK" or "Not OK"?   
   > Fascinating.   
      
   It's funny. I wasn;t necessarily trying to flame you, but it seems like Jim   
   C was right about you trying to pick a fight with your hostile tone and   
   condenscending attitude. As an editor myself, the only rules to editing are   
   those applied to the film itself. You ca njudge a film;s editing based on   
   the complete, unceonsored version, not a tv edited incomplete version.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > > > 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.)   
   >   
   > Which part of "I judged the film I saw." didn't you get?   
      
      
   Sorry, what part of "based on an edited, incomplete version" did you not   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)