XPost: alt.movies.monster   
   From: mrdirector@nyc.rr.com   
      
   "Rhindle The Red"  wrote in message   
   news:dxW5b.38$PE6.30@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   > "Mr Director"  wrote in message   
   > news:YiV5b.5575$x_5.335@twister.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.)   
   >   
   > Some of the flaws clearly *are* their fault.  You've narrowed this down to   
   > only one of my criticisms.  There are plenty of things wrong with that   
   film   
   > that are unrelated to the editing.  In fact, I just double checked.  I   
   made   
   > seven distinct negative points about this film.  (The characters, the   
   suit,   
   > the continuity, the ending, the editing, the fights, and the historical   
   > placement.)  The only thing a different version would affect is the   
   editing.   
   > How could Sci-Fi be responsible for the rest?   
      
   You are correct in attributing the flaws of the suit, the characters and   
   perhaps the ending to the crew since they are responsible for those things,   
   but editing, whether or not it was flawed in its original version, still   
   cannot be judged based on an incomplete tv print.   
      
      
      
   o 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.   
   >   
   > I really don't understand your use of the phrase "close minded".  "Close   
   > minded" means unwilling to look at other views.   
      
   Considering how defensive you got, esepcially with me, just because I dared   
   to challenge your view (without being insulting I might add), one can   
   rightfully say you were big close minded.   
      
      
      
   *I've* never attacked   
   > anyone for their opinions.  *I've* never called anyone stupid (except in   
   > retaliation) or even "close minded".  *I've* stated my opinion.   
      
   And I've stated my opinion of your opinion without the name calling.   
      
      
   >   
   > *You* on the other hand are unwilling to accept that someone might hold a   
   > different opinion, not of a single film, but at a way of viewing film.   
      
      
   I think it is you that can't handle a differing opinion. All I did was   
   challenge yours and your tactic was not only hide behind the "it's my   
   opinion and you all can go to hell if you don't like it" frame of mind but   
   you got defensive and ultimately a bit condenscending.   
      
      
    I   
   > view each edit, version, edition, etc. as a separate entity, especially if   
   > the differences are substantial.  *You* want me to judge something I saw   
   > based on something I didn't see.   
      
   No, I want you to fully judge something on its own merit, not based on an   
   incomplete version. You cannot call yourself a fam of film if you're going   
   ot judge a film based on an incomplete version. You wanan say the incomplete   
   version sucked? I thought it sucked, too, but I would be very reluctant to   
   judge the crew entirely until I saw the original version before I made my   
   final critique.   
      
      
   >   
   > > 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?   
   >   
   > But if someone uses half the Mona Lisa as the basis for a stamp, book   
   cover,   
   > etc., I can judge *that* work on the basis of what it used, not what the   
   > original painting was.   
      
   Right, but my point is if you didn't like the cut in half mona lisa, are you   
   going to blame the 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.   
   >   
   > Fundamentally wrong.  You've fallen for the commonly held belief that the   
   > director has some sort of guaranteed final say in what a film looks like.   
   > "Redux" is closer to Coppola's true vision than the original movie.  The   
   > original final edit was not in his hands.  Therefore it is *not* his   
   > "original version."   
      
   At the time, it was THE original version, and it was to the director's own   
   vision. It wasn't cut by anyone EXCEPT Coppola. As for me falling for this   
   commonly held belief about director's say, it's not a new thing. It's   
   practically common knowledge that filmmakers in the industry are victim to   
   the studios. Not many people like Coppola get a chance to cut the film their   
   way.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > In my mind, it is.  Two cuts of the same film.  I judge whichever one I   
   > watch.  See how that works?   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)