XPost: alt.movies.monster   
   From: fungusized@hotmail.com   
      
   "Mr Director"  wrote in   
   > 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Remember: he said he was basing it on the MOVIE HE SAW. He can ONLY comment   
   on the MOVIE HE SAW. The MOVIE HE SAW had piss poor, third rate editing   
   that, because of previous lack of respect, SciFi probably DID throw a first   
   year student on to edit it.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   No, he only got defensive *after* you called him close minded (and you   
   weren't, and still aren't, using the term in proper context. Rhindle is not   
   being close minded, he is merely commenting on the MOVIE HE SAW. [notice a   
   trend here?]   
      
      
   > And I've stated my opinion of your opinion without the name calling.   
      
   No, you called him close minded for no reason. You were wrong. Admit it (or   
   at least move on)   
      
      
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   You didn't challenge his opinion. You called him close minded because of his   
   review, which was again, based on the MOV... you get the idea. Yet you   
   continually chide him siting the movie he DIDN'T see. I think you are the   
   one being close minded here. Why can't you accept that his opinion is based   
   SOLELY on the scifi channel showing, and that aside from the suit, et al.   
   that SFC isn't responsible for, that they ARE responsible for the editing of   
   the movie that he DID see?   
      
      
   > > > And I'm telling you that it is basically wrong to judge a film in its   
   > > > incomplete form without seeing its original version.   
      
   So now you are the all-sayer of right and wrong? He can *only* judge the   
   film he's seen. If SFC won't show what you consider the "complete" version,   
   then you can't blame him, nor can you challenge him to do something illegal   
   (like say... buying a bootleg). He has EVERY RIGHT to judge a film that he   
   has seen. He has seen a complete film, as SFC has chosen to show it. Period.   
   So stop pointing fingers at him.   
      
    If you cut the Mona   
   > > > Lisa in half, are you going to blame its presentation on the original   
   > > > painter?   
      
   First off, your analogy is off because the original painter is long gone,   
   plus the painting itself is a classic. Now let's assume Leonardo is alive,   
   is doing well enough that he can sell rights to the painting and still have   
   some control over how it's presented. Then say:   
      
   Hell yes, blame the original painter! They could very well have told SFC to   
   show it in it's entirety, only dubbed, not edited. SFC may have had to bump   
   it up to a 2.5 hour presentation, that's it. Keep in mind: little if any of   
   the dialogue was edited/cut/changed, so aside from a couple of decent scenes   
   (that basically 'pushed a few points', like the mushroom cloud showing how   
   powerful Godzilla really is, there were no story altering edits. G85 had   
   worse cuts, like the Russian ship in the harbor scene, edited to make it   
   look like they were trying to launch the missile, just because the Cold War   
   was still going on).   
      
      
   > > 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.   
   >   
      
   Well there ya go! Rhindle was only judging *the film* shown on SFC on the   
   basis of what was SHOWN. Not what WASN'T SHOWN.   
      
   > 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 properly presented the analogy as I stated above, then YES, you blame   
   the painter (as well as the people who cut it in half. They all had   
   something to do with the desecration of the film).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)