XPost: alt.movies.monster
From: mrdirector@nyc.rr.com
"Fungusamungus" wrote in message
news:L356b.96$KX6.69@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
> "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.
It was wrong for him to blame the editing on the film crew when he saw an
incomplete version on TV. His comments would hold more weight if he did not
critisize the director's skill. Saying you didn't like the film based on a
tv print is one thing, but when you critisize the crew based on an
incomplete tv print, you are only doing so based on part of the material.
>
>
> > 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
Which wasn't an insult. It was merely my opinion that he was close minded in
his comments and a few people here agree to that sentiment.
(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?]
What YOU fail to see is that when you critisze something based on part of
the material and fault the film's crew for it when they had nothing to do
with the presentation, and you hide behind the "it's my opinion and you can
go to hell if you don't like it" when someone tries to get you to see your
side of the spectrum, than it becomes a matter of being close minded.
tated my opinion of your opinion without the name calling.
>
> No, you called him close minded for no reason. You were wrong.
No I wasn't. I explained why, and he didn't like the reason That's not my
fault. Some people should grow a backbone and not turn discussions into
fights.
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?
>
because his opinion is wrong IF--big IF now- he cites the silly dialogue and
poor editing to a film that wasn't presented in its original form and blames
the film's crew for those faults. He didn't blame the Sci Fi Channel for
those faults, he specifically blamed Kaneko and his crew, which, based on
the version HE SAW, is innacurate.
>
> > > > 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?
Apparently you are.
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).
Or buying the region 3 DVD, which isn't.
He has EVERY RIGHT to judge a film that he
> has seen.
But he has no right to blast the crew for an incomplete film.
>He has seen a complete film, as SFC has chosen to show it.
No, he saw an INCOMPLETE film that the SFC chose to present.
Period.
> So stop pointing fingers at him.
No one is pointing fingers at anyone. If you post your opinion on a public
forum, you're gonna get people who disagree with it. Deal with it.
Otherwise, don't post.
>
> 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.
uhh, no, how about answering the question.
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, s
Actually, the constant references to "lizard" was not present in its
original version. That alone is a major difference as far as dialogue goes.
And by the way, the film;'s original dialogue wasn't the greatest, either,
but it was nowhere near as silly as the dubbed version on Sci Fi.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
