MovieChat Forums > MovieMadness > Replies
MovieMadness's Replies
In real life, sex murders often involve mutilation of the female sex organs. The killer, in his fear and hatred of women, tries to "de-sex" or neuter his victim by destroying her sexual organs. If the victim's gender identity is destroyed, she is no longer a woman in the killer's mind, thus no longer to be feared. American films usually don't show this, of course, due to the threat of the NC-17 rating and public outcry. Interestingly we see plenty of such depiction in Italian giallo films of the 70s.
The reverse (female killer mutilating male sex organs) could happen too. There was a famous American case in recent times in which an abused wife cut off his husband's penis. And there has been depiction of such acts in films too.
I remember S&E were interviewed by Bob Costas in the 90s and they admitted that what they did was "not high-level film criticism." But they said their reviews did delve into aspects of film art such as visual styles, themes, etc. My guess was and is that they were fairly erudite in film knowledge but had to review in a manner accessible to general readers and viewers.
Sadly, the best-written reviews from Ebert were the ones he did a few years before his death.
If you are not embarrassed that's because you are too STOOPID to realize you are getting OWNED in epic fashion by someone who knows waaay more than you.
Whether or not a film is released to the public, it STILL needs to be preserved and restored. There are TONS of films being restored without getting released on DVD, BD, streaming, etc. The purpose is to rescue damaged films as SOON as we can. If you wait till release for the public it will probably be too late.
A film as important as the original SW deserves the best restoration it can get. It isn't just about images. The prints may need repair, like any physical item does. Any furniture in your home needs periodic maintenance and repair, so you think a fragile reel of film is any different??
And you will die a total moron too busy getting owned like you are now if you keep up this attitude.
The transfer process is not perfect because the technology is always improving so you always need the original film prints and negatives. Look at the DVD/Youtube videos from 10 years ago; they look like CRAP now. That's why you always need the original film. See the tremendous ease with which I destroy your arguments and school you? This is what happens someone who actually knows the subject meets someone who only THINKS he knows. Instead of educating yourself in private, you clearly prefer getting educated by way of get EMBARRASSED on the Internet for all to see.
You are killing me with comments like "there are copies on laserdisc and DVD and therefore we don't need preservation." LOL. You don't have a clue what preservation and restoration are and what they do, do you? Again, a copy at LOC doesn't mean anything if no one restores it. Preservation is only the first step. A film also needs to be repaired and restored, and occasionally we need to look for additional copies. If there isn't a good restored copy to use, you don't even get to see it on laserdisc, DVD, BD, Youtube, anywhere. AFAIK, the last official restoration for the original SW films was done DECADES ago.
Just because you don't like the film doesn't make it any less deserving for restorations. There are cheesy old B-grade horror movies that got beautiful restorations. It's about the history of film which all films have a part in writing.
My schooling can only do so much. Before trying to sound knowledgeable on the Internet, try studying up on the subjects first.
What many copies?? I'm really talking to MORON here. The ONLY copies that exist are the original negatives and "video masters" for home videos, all of which have only ONE copy. Without that original copy, there would be no Youtube clips, dummy. These early films were shot on PHYSICAL films, not like today's digital video stored on hard drives where you can make copies. So there is only ONE physical copy of each, and that makes film restoration very important. Again, you don't seem to have the very basic expertise about anything except the penchant of giving me the pleasure of schooling you over and over.
That is a FAN-MADE project which just proves my point that Lucas arrogantly doesn't get involved in its restoration and leaves it to others. YOU are the one who comes off as moronic and don't know a thing about the importance of film restoration.
And who knows what deteriorated state the film is currently in. "Preserved" doesn't mean just "having a copy." It needs to be RESTORED, and regularly too. And you can bet Lucas with all his money isn't likely to do that, and leave it to some independent company with much less resource to do it, if ever. Can you at least try to get informed first instead of getting schooled the hard way?
P.S. I bought that DVD you mentioned it looked awful and unrestored, as expected.
The original versions are films that made history and set the standards and without which you wouldn't even have today's movies. Therefore we should preserve them in their original forms for their historical significance, and it's sad their own creator can't even bother to do so. You seem like the kind of run-of-the-mill movie "fan" that treats movie-watching as some second-rate activity. Rest assured that there are much more devoted fans, scholars even, that consider this a very serious issue.
"Their real reason", as I said earlier, was more about ABC's bottom line (mainly advertisers) than the "political" reasons you alluded to. You can offend people and get yourself fired with behavior that has nothing to do with politics, such as ruining the national anthem in public, etc.
Please don't pile conspiracy theories on top of an already ugly situation. Looking for a pretext?? Did ABC ask Roseanne to send that tweet? It was no fault of anyone but Roseanne.
P.S.
Btw, I worked for a garment manufacturer back in the early 90s that was making a line of clothing for the "Roseanne Arnold" brand, until we dumped her because of her crazy behavior (national anthem incident, etc.) that was ruining our brand. The point is people get fired for a lot less! Conspiracy theories are nothing compared to a company's bottom line.
Cosby was not "found innocent." His first trial was hung, hence the retrial.
Some filmmakers create two versions for theaters and TV: the theatrical version would show a wider screen and less screen at the top and bottom, while the TV 4:3 version would show less picture left and right but more picture top and bottom. "Terminator 2" was done this way.
Also want to add that all these goofs we see on IMDb's trivia (or goofs) section may not be goofs at all for reasons I stated earlier: that the filmmakers intended those portions of the screen to be cropped. But sometimes there were true goofs, especially in low budget films, understandably.
Her acting could always improve as she is still young. And it's always better for actors to start young, as they will have that much more time and chances to succeed.
The movie was shot in "open matte" format and was supposed to have the top and bottom portions cropped off for theatrical release. That was why Kubrick left the helicopter shadow there, since he knew it would be cropped. It was uncropped later mainly because of TV broadcast and VHS tape releases, which showed the film in 4:3 full screen. In the old days when we watched full-screen movies on 4:3 TV sets, we saw goofs like that pretty often because of this reason. Most of the goofs were microphones hanging at the top of the actors and such.
That is another indication that Jack can "shine," just like his son and the chef. Danny can see past events (the Grady twin girls), just as Jack can see the past and communicate with people in the past (bartender, Grady, the woman in the bathtub, etc.). His picture on the wall is perhaps just a coincidence: that someone in the past looked like him. The film may even be implying that his lookalike could shine as well, and that there may have been many "shiners" throughout history. When Wendy sees ghosts in the hotel, she may be shining too. The whole story is obviously a metaphor about the mental distress suffered by this family that manifests itself as ghostly visions and such. It has been done before in films, notably in Roman Polanski's "Repulsion," where a depressed woman sees all kinds of repulsive hallucinations.