Scientists vote 'Blade Runner' best sci-fi film.

[MrDisco]

personally i think 2001 is the best sci-fi film

[scand]

OMG, I can see the firestorm aproaching! *ducks for cover*

That's cool. I've always liked BladeRunner and the other films listed there, cept solaris which I havn't seen and War of the Worlds, which I consider a piss poor adaptation. Though I find it hard to believe the Fritz Lang "Metropolis" didn't make the list considering that Blade Runner owes alot of its visual style to that film.

Completely agree. How the Hell can TWO Star Wars films be on the list and not a classic like Metropolis. That list seems little gay to me. Matrix?! Come on!

I think Dark City should have been on that list.

[Solscud007]

Um Im curious as to what criteria these scientists gauge and rank these movies by? Entertainment value, scientific realism, etc.

[EXO]

Wait a minute? You actually want the cheesey narration & cheesey happy ending version? That's like wanting the studio edit of Brazil.

Well now that you put the word cheesy before each of those words, maybe I'll change my mind...

Oh wait, that was done to sway my opinion... let me try it too...

Anyone ever seen that Cheesey Macross 7?

A bit touchy eh? Though I'd like to know what you call "studio required" narration & a "happy ending" added. All the DC version did was trim the unnecessary studio fluff. I personally enjoyed the "fluffless" version better. It's not like we're talking about Star Wars where the director wend back & tried to re-write the whole film.

This is more akin to what happened with Brazil. Studio wants one version of the film, Director wants another. In both cases, the director eventually one out, leaving a superior version of the film available.

Yeah, I get touchy when people try so hard to force their useless opinion on other people. There's a different version out there that I want to see. It was made, Harrison Ford did the voice, Ridley Scott did the direction. While I don't really care for the ending , I still want to see the movie the way I remember seeing it the first time. What I don't need is some jackass telling me that I shouldn't because of some studio decisions and and Ridley Scott not having enough clout back then to release the movie he intended. And then comparing it to some other movie that doesn't have anything to do with it - to prove a point. It's really obvious that you're a slave to other people's opinion and have none of your own... you read some insider interviews about how some director meant it to be, and you get upset because it was changed. All of a sudden it becomes some sort of bible and everything else is heresy. You do it with Kawamori and now you're doing it with Ridley Scott. What I need is for you not to point your purist stick at anyone else for the small amount of time you take it out of your ass.

[Gui]

/me posts before the thread is locked by an admin who'll think it's another M7 topic...

personally i think 2001 is the best sci-fi film

My personal favorite aswell. I also agree with scand concerning Dark City : the Watchowsky (sp?) brothers obviously didn't invent anything with their Matrix 'saga'

[fulcy]

I personally would have voted for Flesh Gordon...

[ewilen]

I'm sure that's what most of the scientists wanted to vote for, but they wouldn't admit it.

Very funny movie, although it might help to have lived through the 70's.

Anyway, I'm a huge fan of Stanislaw Lem, who wrote the novel Solaris, and the film by Tarkovsky is an interesting, meditative film, but a little slow for my tastes. (Essentially the same reaction I had to his historical film Andrei Rublev.) (I haven't seen the Clooney version of Solaris yet.)

Edited August 27, 2004 by ewilen

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

Anyway, I'm a huge fan of Stanislaw Lem, who wrote the novel Solaris, and the film by Tarkovsky is an interesting, meditative film, but a little slow for my tastes. (Essentially the same reaction I had to his historical film Andrei Rublev.) (I haven't seen the Clooney version of Solaris yet.)

The US version tries to "fix" the slow-meditative part. Let's not forget that Solaris is a russian author film and it wasn't intended for wester audiences that need an explotion every five seconds to stay awake (I blame the Hollywood studios for this). Even darker motivations led director Steven Soderbergh think that George Cloonie's naked ass would also make he's a better version.

Edit: Change my mind. I just rememberd that scene of the car in the tunnel. That was SSSLLLOOOOOWWW

I agree with BR being the best Sci-Fi movie of all times. Despite it's age it's still ahead of us in many ways. I love 2001, but I know some scientists and most of them aren't thrilled by the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Edited August 27, 2004 by Lonely Soldier Boy

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

As for wich version of BR I like the most, when I heard of the director's cut, I was affraid I might hate it because I loved the original version so much. I thought that Dekard's narration was fundamental to better understand the context, and that taking it out would be a mistake, but when I finally saw it I liked it even more. Now I think the narration is not nesessary.

My two cents.

[treatment]

Space Balls is better.

But alas . No Space Balls, no Last Starfighter and no Gataca means them scientists should watch more sci-fi movies.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

But alas . No Space Balls, no Last Starfighter and no Gataca means them scientists should watch more sci-fi movies.

They're just people with rigid ideas and no imagination to me. They're trying to find a petrified bacteria on Mars when the rest of us already meet advanced civilizations in other galaxies.

[neptunesurvey]

I concider Blade Runner as one of the worst scifi films every made. Its not as bad as 2001, but close.

[bsu legato]

I concider Blade Runner as one of the worst scifi films every made. Its not as bad as 2001, but close.

Guh?

[Golden Arms]

I think the scientist polled should get out more and see more scifi films. Star wars as Scifi ??? Are you kidding me. Sci fantasy yes, science fiction no. Where's Metroplis( Should be #1), and Frankenstein? The Day the earth stood Still was good and the original Godzilla (Don't laugh) deserves some merit. I can't argue too much against Blade Runner though. Great film.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think a lot of people dislike Blade Runner because it is not the typical shoot 'em up, flame throwing killer robots and spaceships shooting laser beams Science fiction movie... As Ewilen said it has more in common with Solaris, Outland and other low-key sci-fi movies.

I myself love sci-fi like Blade Runner and Outland, movies that take a normal cops and robbers or detective story and take it into space... but do it in such a way that it does not focus on the specticle of space and science but on the story and the human interaction. That IMHO is why so many science fiction movies fail nowadays, they try too hard to be "flashy" and cool and totally ignore the basics of character development and story just to blow up another robot or try to wow the audience with another pointless CGI sequence.

[Hoptimus]

http://www.brmovie.com/

You can read all about the newer DC Ridley made that cant be released. Such BS.

[JsARCLIGHT]

That is Hollywood for you though... a situation that we macross fans can identify with, a bastard who holds the rights to something wonderful by almost trickery of a old original contract who is sitting on the rights refusing to allow the property to breathe just because of their own personal feelings.

Wow.

This guy qualifies for the Douche Bag of the year award hands down. "No, I refuse to give people pleasure and make money... I want this thing I hate to die!"

Edited August 28, 2004 by JsARCLIGHT

[JELEINEN]

I think the scientist polled should get out more and see more scifi films. Star wars as Scifi ??? Are you kidding me. Sci fantasy yes, science fiction no. Where's Metroplis( Should be #1), and Frankenstein? The Day the earth stood Still was good and the original Godzilla (Don't laugh) deserves some merit. I can't argue too much against Blade Runner though. Great film.

To paraphrase Damon Knight, Science Fiction is what I point to when I say it.

[Keith]

Yeah, I get touchy when people try so hard to force their useless opinion on other people.[/qoute]

And yet you have no qualms about doing so yourself.

There's a different version out there that I want to see. It was made, Harrison Ford did the voice, Ridley Scott did the direction. While I don't really care for the ending , I still want to see the movie the way I remember seeing it the first time. What I don't need is some jackass telling me that I shouldn't because of some studio decisions and and Ridley Scott not having enough clout back then to release the movie he intended. And then comparing it to some other movie that doesn't have anything to do with it

Read: You either have no idea what the actual situation was behind the making of the film, or you have no sense of artistic integrity. I can understand your not understanding the similar circumstances Brazil went through, but not understanding that situation doesn't make it any less relivent.

- to prove a point. It's really obvious that you're a slave to other people's opinion and have none of your own...

Have you never read one of my posts before or what? I'm a slave to "no ones" opinion, let alone yours. Your the one whining because you can't get the studio fluff version, i.e. the version created because people thought you weren't intelligent enough to watch a movie without your hand being held through it.

you read some insider interviews about how some director meant it to be, and you get upset because it was changed.

Are you under the impression that this is recent news? This has been a well known situation for almost 2 decades. Watching both versions proves its validity.

All of a sudden it becomes some sort of bible and everything else is heresy. You do it with Kawamori and now you're doing it with Ridley Scott. What I need is for you not to point your purist stick at anyone else for the small amount of time you take it out of your ass.

No, what you need to do is to stop being so insecure in your opinion that you have to wildy lash out at others for dissagreeing with your ignorance. I "do it" (as you so put it) whenver someone elses work is screwed with in the name of pleasing masses who wouldn't care irregardless. Not counting the nostalgia zealots such as yourself who apparently don't care what you watch just as long as you see whatever spoon fed version you remember.

[EXO]

And yet you have no qualms about doing so yourself.

Where am I doing it myself? I said I wanted to see it, not that everyone else should also... Or even worse, I never said that people shouldn't see such versions. That's when you're implying your opinion on everyone else.

Read: You either have no idea what the actual situation was behind the making of the film, or you have no sense of artistic integrity. I can understand your not understanding the similar circumstances Brazil went through, but not understanding that situation doesn't make it any less relivent.

I've read everything there is about the film. Artistic integrity is for the artist himself, not for the zombies that follows after them. Have you seen the version of Legend that they released? (now there's a comparison that matters...) It has both versions that was made. One that he intended, and the one the studio preferred at the time. WITH RIDLEY SCOTT'S SIGNATURE ON THE BOX. Now the article that Milkman X said that he intended to release the box set with ALL versions of Bladerunner on it. So what happened to his integrity based on your unsolicited opinion?

Have you never read one of my posts before or what? I'm a slave to "no ones" opinion, let alone yours. Your the one whining because you can't get the studio fluff version, i.e. the version created because people thought you weren't intelligent enough to watch a movie without your hand being held through it.

I've read enough of your posts to know that your an over imposing ass that won't stop until you think that your point is taken as valid, even though it's just people getting sick of arguing with you stubborn repetitiveness. You can label it as "whining" all you want, when really you are the one that is obviously so bent out of shape about everything that it's hard to get yourself shaped back to reason.

Are you under the impression that this is recent news? This has been a well known situation for almost 2 decades. Watching both versions proves its validity.

Uh... yeah. Watching both versions... that was my point... and I want to see the intended true cut also. So now you're saying I should watch both versions, when at first you got bent out of shape for me wanting to? Make up your tilted mind.

No, what you need to do is to stop being so insecure in your opinion that you have to wildy lash out at others for dissagreeing with your ignorance. I "do it" (as you so put it) whenver someone elses work is screwed with in the name of pleasing masses who wouldn't care irregardless. Not counting the nostalgia zealots such as yourself who apparently don't care what you watch just as long as you see whatever spoon fed version you remember.

Dude, have you heard of this place called Hollywood? A place where people's vision get's screwed all the time by producers who hold the budget for said projects? You watch these movies all the time you think they all get out without a hitch and Ridley Scott and Terry Gilliam are the only victims? Classics and flops gets made with said arguments all the time. Whether it be because of budgets or time constraints. What reality do you live in?

And yes, I am spoonfed by the movies. I just sit there and watch it. I don't start to argue with the screen and act like a lunatic when I disagree with the production results. It's a movie... If they come out with another version, I'll pick it up if I liked the original. And I'll decide for myself which I prefer. Not some interview or insider information that I happen to find about on the net. You just don't see how much of a zombie you are. Even though you think you formulated an opinion, it really was made up for you and you don't even know it.

Have you seen Cinema Paradiso? It was the best foreign made movie of all time. It stood as a classic for many years based on the movie that was released. Recently a director's cut was made, does that negate the fact that the original was a classic all that time? In fact the newer cut was a travesty to the film that stood as the beloved form it was in. The mystery was taken away, yet this was what the director originally intended.

I'm not even going to bother what your opinion was on that film, IF you have seen it. I'm sure I already read some article that expresses the exact same thoughts that you think you made up for yourself. Get a clue Keith. You're word is not final, but if you're happy thinking that way then keep doing what your doing. I'm sure we'll be just as happy laughing at you while you're blind to the fact...

[fulcy]

No, what you need to do is to stop being so insecure in your opinion that you have to wildy lash out at others for dissagreeing with your ignorance. I "do it" (as you so put it) whenver someone elses work is screwed with in the name of pleasing masses who wouldn't care irregardless. Not counting the nostalgia zealots such as yourself who apparently don't care what you watch just as long as you see whatever spoon fed version you remember.

Irregardless isn't a word...

[Zentrandude]

hehe fulcy very funny post. not about its not a word just the part after reading exo's long post to to counters keiths, just saying something so little is so comical.

[fulcy]

Just trying to lighten the mood in here...

[bsu legato]

What's funny is that, for all of Keith's rantings about "artistic integrity," the version he's promoting isn't even a "real" director's cut of Blade Runner. If he had bothered to actually read anything about BR, he'd have known that the 1992 "Directors Cut" was merely a rerelease that was teaked with some suggestions made by Ridley Scott. The real director's cut was to be based off of the infamous Workprint that resurfaced about the same time, but due to a number of factors that project never made it very far. This same workprint was to be the basis of the uber box set, but again that project is stillborn. If anybody (and we all know who I'm referring to) choses not to believe me, then I suggest picking up a copy of "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner" which explains this whole story in much greater detail.

[DARTHTODD]

Does anyone here have a copy of the original version with narration on dvd (pretty sure it's a bootleg)? There's a bunch floating around on ebay and I was just wondering if the quality of these are good or not. I don't wanna buy something is the transfer wasn't good.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I have the original tenth aniversary VHS and a transfer to DVD I made of it at work so I can watch it (I no longer have a VCR). Some of the bootlegs I have seen are either rips of this tape, rips of the original VHS release or someone once told me their was a japanese laserdisc of the original cut that got booted onto DVD... have not seen any of them so I have no clue about quality but as a rule of thumb VHS to DVD transfers are usually very bad with low resolution and poor sound transfer.

Edit: I think it should also be noted that from the time it was released in 1982 up until the "Director's Cut" made it's debut in the mid to late '90s (the date seems to vary on some boxes) it was the "bad" narrated version that received all the press and critical praise. Everyone loved the original "not the director's vision" movie. Sure it had a lot of flaws but to those of us who saw it in the theaters when it came out it was a stupendous movie... it was not until the '90s and the release of the so called "director's cut" that the whole argument over which is better started up. As for the people claiming Ridley Scott did not have the pull to get a movie made the way he wanted you only have to look 5 years earlier to Alien. If you have the newest release of Alien on DVD and you watch the introduction by Ridley himself he says that the original cut of Alien was exactly the way he wanted it and that the new "director's cut" that was released recently and on the DVD was more or less a "because I could go back and change things, not because the movie was flawed or incomplete". In Ridley Scott's eyes, the original release of BR was flawed due to pressure from outside... but on the flipside of the coin he was rushed in editing the DC of the movie so that version too is flawed. Now comes the true question? How does a viewer know it is flawed unless he is sitting in Ridley's backseat listening to him tell you that? We don't. Sure we know it now but back in 1982 BR was a specticle, it was great. Those of us who grew up watching the original non DC movie seem to have more of a "meh" feeling for the DC more out of nostalgia than actual preference of that cut. I myself would love to see the "real version" that Ridley claims he has assembled but the same studio infighting that produced the flawed original is keeping the "real" cut from the fans. If anything, the person to be angry at in this whole mess is the hair pile that is holding the rights over Ridley's head and preventing the "true" movie from being released as the two we have now are both "flawed" and not the "true" movie... so arguing over which of the two "lame duck" edits we have now is like arguing over which car is better, the one that finished last or the one that finished second to last.

Edited August 28, 2004 by JsARCLIGHT

[ewilen]

I don't want to get between Exo and Keith, but--ugh--Cinema Paradiso a great foreign movie?

If you haven't seen it, I suggest you check out Ran, or Delicatessen, or Diva, or...well, pretty much anything.

Sorry, I know you've probably seen a bunch of foreign films but I detested that one so much, I can't let the name pass the boards without adding a personal raspberry. Pthththth!

[EXO]

I don't want to get between Exo and Keith, but--ugh--Cinema Paradiso a great foreign movie?

If you haven't seen it, I suggest you check out Ran, or Delicatessen, or Diva, or...well, pretty much anything.

Sorry, I know you've probably seen a bunch of foreign films but I detested that one so much, I can't let the name pass the boards without adding a personal raspberry. Pthththth!

Ahahaha... I can respect personal opinions, Ewilen. Especially if you state it as such. I for one won't impose on you what a great movie I think it is. I've seen Delicatessen and Ran. Not Diva. I'll look for that one. The other two are exceptional movies, IMO.

[Keith]

First & foremost, from Merriem Websters:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Despite its uncommon use, it is still a word.

Where am I doing it myself? I said I wanted to see it, not that everyone else should also... Or even worse, I never said that people shouldn't see such versions. That's when you're implying your opinion on everyone else.

Your implication being that I told you "not" to see it? I merely asked "why" you would want to see it considering the circumstances of its inception, as well as the director's feelings about it.

I've read everything there is about the film. Artistic integrity is for the artist himself, not for the zombies that follows after them. Have you seen the version of Legend that they released? (now there's a comparison that matters...) It has both versions that was made. One that he intended, and the one the studio preferred at the time. WITH RIDLEY SCOTT'S SIGNATURE ON THE BOX. Now the article that Milkman X said that he intended to release the box set with ALL versions of Bladerunner on it. So what happened to his integrity based on your unsolicited opinion?

Artistic integrity is specifically in reference to the material itself (as dictated by the artists intent, not in reference to the artist). You accuse others of being zombie followers of artists, when you by such an example portray the role of a zombie follower of the studio. Considering that the "narrative" studio version has dissapeared off the face of the earth for over 10 years, that in itself says a lot about the director's view on it. Should he choose to include it as an extra now is another matter entirely. The fact that he feels the desire to further restore the film to his original intent instead of releasing the studio version by itself deflates whatever skewed argument you were attempting to make. Perhaps much like Terry Gilliam (see the Brazil Criterion set), he wished its inclusion as little more than a reminder of just what happens when the studio's try to take too much control over the artistic side.

QUOTE

Have you never read one of my posts before or what? I'm a slave to "no ones" opinion, let alone yours. Your the one whining because you can't get the studio fluff version, i.e. the version created because people thought you weren't intelligent enough to watch a movie without your hand being held through it.

I've read enough of your posts to know that your an over imposing ass that won't stop until you think that your point is taken as valid, even though it's just people getting sick of arguing with you stubborn repetitiveness. You can label it as "whining" all you want, when really you are the one that is obviously so bent out of shape about everything that it's hard to get yourself shaped back to reason.

Sounds more like your just one of the mindless few who chooses to jump on the bandwagon of those who choose to believe that just because someone dissagree's with your opinion, you have to take it as a personal attack on yourself, and retaliate with cheap insults.

I could care less that you dissagree with me, I have my opinion, and I'll stick with it. I'm secure enough in it not to through a hissy fit such as you're doing.

Uh... yeah. Watching both versions... that was my point... and I want to see the intended true cut also. So now you're saying I should watch both versions, when at first you got bent out of shape for me wanting to? Make up your tilted mind.

I got bent out of shape when now? I just asked you why you'd want to see the outdated studio fluff version when there's a better version available. You're the one who took it on as a personal challange.

Dude, have you heard of this place called Hollywood? A place where people's vision get's screwed all the time by producers who hold the budget for said projects? You watch these movies all the time you think they all get out without a hitch and Ridley Scott and Terry Gilliam are the only victims? Classics and flops gets made with said arguments all the time. Whether it be because of budgets or time constraints. What reality do you live in?

When did I say they were the only victims? Hell, when did I say I agreed with money influenced studio policies? By your logic (or attempt there of) the fact that crimes "do" occur everyday validates them. Problems don't solve themselves, nor does ignoring them as common place make any thing better.

And yes, I am spoonfed by the movies. I just sit there and watch it. I don't start to argue with the screen and act like a lunatic when I disagree with the production results. It's a movie...

Ah. So then you're not complaining right now that you can't see the old studio edit of the movie?

If they come out with another version, I'll pick it up if I liked the original. And I'll decide for myself which I prefer. Not some interview or insider information that I happen to find about on the net. You just don't see how much of a zombie you are. Even though you think you formulated an opinion, it really was made up for you and you don't even know it.

It's the right of an artist, whether you agree with it or not, to change something of their own creation. In this instance, its my choice to prefer a version of a film that isn't drowning in unnecessary exposition. You're the one with the rigid attitude of simply wanting something the way you first saw it, "irregardless" of its quality in comparision with another version. You're sticking with what you were initiall told to like assumedly just because that's what you were first told. You've no right to accuse anyone else of not "thinking."

Have you seen Cinema Paradiso? It was the best foreign made movie of all time. It stood as a classic for many years based on the movie that was released. Recently a director's cut was made, does that negate the fact that the original was a classic all that time? In fact the newer cut was a travesty to the film that stood as the beloved form it was in. The mystery was taken away, yet this was what the director originally intended.

Nope, haven't seen it, though I'm curious, was it the director who made the changes?

I'm not even going to bother what your opinion was on that film, IF you have seen it. I'm sure I already read some article that expresses the exact same thoughts that you think you made up for yourself.

My word may not be final, but neither is yours. I suggest you pull that stick you were talking about earlier out of "your" ass, and accept the fact that people aren't always going to agree with you, "regardless (sans ir)" of how many names you call. If you want to debate the topic, go right on ahead. But don't expect others to stop dissagreeing with you just because you want them to.

Get a clue Keith. You're word is not final, but if you're happy thinking that way then keep doing what your doing. I'm sure we'll be just as happy laughing at you while you're blind to the fact.

Nazi's used the same cheap tactics of trying to force others to their opinion by bludgening them with b.s. about a mass opinion too. You'll excuse me for not carring what your fictitious masses think of me or my opinions. I'm not an insecure drone who has to change myself to go with whatever supposed flow there is.

[EXO]

First & foremost, from Merriem Websters:

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Despite its uncommon use, it is still a word.

Irregardless maybe a word, but Merriem Websters is not a dictionary...

Your implication being that I told you "not" to see it? I merely asked "why" you would want to see it considering the circumstances of its inception, as well as the director's feelings about it.

You're question of "why" was never interested in an answer (as if it isn't obvious yet ) but rather it was a rhetorical query that suggests that the need to watch such version was an unecessary venture, thus you implicate yourself.

Artistic integrity is specifically in reference to the material itself (as dictated by the artists intent, not in reference to the artist). You accuse others of being zombie followers of artists, when you by such an example portray the role of a zombie follower of the studio. Considering that the "narrative" studio version has dissapeared off the face of the earth for over 10 years, that in itself says a lot about the director's view on it. Should he choose to include it as an extra now is another matter entirely. The fact that he feels the desire to further restore the film to his original intent instead of releasing the studio version by itself deflates whatever skewed argument you were attempting to make. Perhaps much like Terry Gilliam (see the Brazil Criterion set), he wished its inclusion as little more than a reminder of just what happens when the studio's try to take too much control over the artistic side.

I've seen your GIFs, sir... I'm pretty sure you know nothing about artistic integrity. If the original artists saw what you did to their artwork, they just as soon jump into their graves just so they can turn in it.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Terry Gilliam. I hope you know they're not the same person. But then again you only want to see what you want. Perhaps the fact that Ridley Scott wants to include the original cut in the definitive version, says something about his views on it, perhaps not. You're the one jumping to conclusions on what it all means.

Sounds more like your just one of the mindless few who chooses to jump on the bandwagon of those who choose to believe that just because someone dissagree's with your opinion, you have to take it as a personal attack on yourself, and retaliate with cheap insults.

I could care less that you dissagree with me, I have my opinion, and I'll stick with it. I'm secure enough in it not to through a hissy fit such as you're doing.

If you cared so little then why do you feel compelled to argue.

Cheap insults?... like if your not doing the same thing by adding little descriptions on my retorts, such as "hissy fits" and "whining". Belittling my repies does not make yor more valid. And talk about the pot caling the kettle black, like I said, I've read your posts before and you always take the first steps toward profanity, that's the only reason I'm not afraid to use insults. Were it was anyone else, I'd use more tact and restraint.

I got bent out of shape when now? I just asked you why you'd want to see the outdated studio fluff version when there's a better version available. You're the one who took it on as a personal challange.

See my first paragraph on this post.

And yeah... Bent. Out. Of. Shape... discombobulated... out of composure...

but hardly a challenge...

When did I say they were the only victims? Hell, when did I say I agreed with money influenced studio policies? By your logic (or attempt there of) the fact that crimes "do" occur everyday validates them. Problems don't solve themselves, nor does ignoring them as common place make any thing better.

By any definition, if a studio does not force some artists to finish their product by a certain limit, the artist may never even finsh the film ever.... see George Lucas and Stanley Kubrick.

And who do you think funds the director's cut?

And yes, I am spoonfed by the movies. I just sit there and watch it. I don't start to argue with the screen and act like a lunatic when I disagree with the production results. It's a movie...

Ah. So then you're not complaining right now that you can't see the old studio edit of the movie?

What are you retarded? I'm complaining about a movie that was released. Completed and canned... Not about some whim.

It's the right of an artist, whether you agree with it or not, to change something of their own creation. In this instance, its my choice to prefer a version of a film that isn't drowning in unnecessary exposition. You're the one with the rigid attitude of simply wanting something the way you first saw it, "irregardless" of its quality in comparision with another version. You're sticking with what you were initiall told to like assumedly just because that's what you were first told. You've no right to accuse anyone else of not "thinking."

Oh... so who's doing the implying now? I have nothing against an artist's version of a film. I've said it so many times. But blind as always, you skip that part, or maybe it's just not convenient for your argument...

Have you seen Cinema Paradiso? It was the best foreign made movie of all time. It stood as a classic for many years based on the movie that was released. Recently a director's cut was made, does that negate the fact that the original was a classic all that time? In fact the newer cut was a travesty to the film that stood as the beloved form it was in. The mystery was taken away, yet this was what the director originally intended.

Nope, haven't seen it, though I'm curious, was it the director who made the changes?

Yes... you should really check it out... despite what Ewilen says...

Actually, it was released as a 155 min. film, but due to a poor run it was cut to 120, the version that got critical acclaim... then the intended 170 min version was released in 2002.

Anyway!!!

My word may not be final, but neither is yours. I suggest you pull that stick you were talking about earlier out of "your" ass, and accept the fact that people aren't always going to agree with you, "regardless (sans ir)" of how many names you call. If you want to debate the topic, go right on ahead. But don't expect others to stop dissagreeing with you just because you want them to.

Dude... there's no stick up my ass... and even if I enjoyed such deviance (which I don't) it would really be unsanitary, knowing where it's been...

Nazi's used the same cheap tactics of trying to force others to their opinion by bludgening them with b.s. about a mass opinion too. You'll excuse me for not carring what your fictitious masses think of me or my opinions. I'm not an insecure drone who has to change myself to go with whatever supposed flow there is.

I know there's a "we"...

You know there's a "we"...

But if you ignore it, you're gonna get burned...

Nazis??? Oh yeah they're the ones that implicated another group as an evil culture... how ironic... you implicating me by comparing me to them... don'tcha think?

[EXO]

Wow... Now I know why Hurin does it...

It's kinda fun...

ANYWAY...

[Keith]

Irregardless maybe a word, but Merriem Websters is not a dictionary...

Wow, are you that desperate to sink to the cheapest of tactics as to focus on typo's? If this were something that I even remotely cared to publish, that'd be one thing, but it's just an internet forum, get a life.

You're question of "why" was never interested in an answer (as if it isn't obvious yet ) but rather it was a rhetorical query that suggests that the need to watch such version was an unecessary venture, thus you implicate yourself.

Which you automatically take as an opportunity to flaunt your own insecurities in people dissagreeing with your choice in watching an exposition filled version of a movie.

I've seen your GIFs, sir... I'm pretty sure you know nothing about artistic integrity. If the original artists saw what you did to their artwork, they just as soon jump into their graves just so they can turn in it.

Doubtful, but then I'm also not trying to whipe out every other existing copy of those images in the name of calling them definative versions. Hell, I'm not even calling myself an artist for making them.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Terry Gilliam. I hope you know they're not the same person. But then again you only want to see what you want. Perhaps the fact that Ridley Scott wants to include the original cut in the definitive version, says something about his views on it, perhaps not. You're the one jumping to conclusions on what it all means.

You accuse me of only wanting to see what I want, I accuse you of only wanting to see what you want, and in the end, you're the one who is continually ignoring the purpose of the analogy made just for the sake of dissagreeing. Hell, you even missed the point about Gililam including the studio edit of Brazil in the Criterion collection.

If you cared so little then why do you feel compelled to argue.

I argue because I'm interested in the topic, and stand by my opinion. The difference between you & I being that I'm arguing in reference to the subject matter, while you continually try to make this a personal, usually ignoring the actual subject in the process.

Cheap insults?... like if your not doing the same thing by adding little descriptions on my retorts, such as "hissy fits" and "whining". Belittling my repies does not make yor more valid. And talk about the pot caling the kettle black, like I said, I've read your posts before and you always take the first steps toward profanity, that's the only reason I'm not afraid to use insults. Were it was anyone else, I'd use more tact and restraint.

I'm making observations about your arguments, you're calling me names. There's a large difference. Making an attack on your opinion regarding something is not the same as making a personal attack against you. Your belief, and who you are as a person are two entirely different things.

See my first paragraph on this post.

And see my reply, etc.

And yeah... Bent. Out. Of. Shape... discombobulated... out of composure...

but hardly a challenge...

You're the one taking all the offense resorting to personal attacks. I have no ire against you whatsoever, nor have I displayed any. Though if it makes you feel better to think so, go right on ahead.

By any definition, if a studio does not force some artists to finish their product by a certain limit, the artist may never even finsh the film ever.... see George Lucas and Stanley Kubrick.

And by definition, if an artist does not put effort into creating their art, then the studio has little or nothing to sell.

And who do you think funds the director's cut?

Who do you think defines the content of it??

What are you retarded? I'm complaining about a movie that was released. Completed and canned... Not about some whim.

And I'm pointing out that there's a superior version out there that doesn't speak down to its audience, also not some whim. (note the reply without unnecessary personal attack).

Oh... so who's doing the implying now? I have nothing against an artist's version of a film. I've said it so many times. But blind as always, you skip that part, or maybe it's just not convenient for your argument...

So you're not complaining that the exposition narrative version isn't available?

Nope, haven't seen it, though I'm curious, was it the director who made the changes?

Yes... you should really check it out... despite what Ewilen says...

Eventually.

Actually, it was released as a 155 min. film, but due to a poor run it was cut to 120, the version that got critical acclaim... then the intended 170 min version was released in 2002.

Anyway!!!

And you also said (if I recall correctly) that the longer version also had a lot of unnecessary content that spoiled the mystery of the movie? Kinda like unnecessary narration in Blade Runner?

Dude... there's no stick up my ass... and even if I enjoyed such deviance (which I don't) it would really be unsanitary, knowing where it's been...

Yadda yadda.

I know there's a "we"...

You know there's a "we"...

But if you ignore it, you're gonna get burned...

I know there's a you, and I know there's a me. And I also know it's extremely presumpuous for you to claim to speak for everyone else here in your opinion of me.

Nazis??? Oh yeah they're the ones that implicated another group as an evil culture... how ironic... you implicating me by comparing me to them... don'tcha think?

No, they're the ones who implied another group to be an evil culture by blaming whatever masses of problems on them, and perpetuating hatred against them by implying it was the "popular opinion" to think in such a way. This thing I have not even remotely done to you.

[EXO]

Yadda yadda.

yup... agreed...

[nhyone]

Yeah, I get touchy when people try so hard to force their useless opinion on other people.[/qoute]

Please quote properly. "QUOTE", not "QOUTE". This will make your quoting work properly.

[Gui]

/me posts before the thread is locked...

I don't want to get between Exo and Keith, but--ugh--Cinema Paradiso a great foreign movie?

If you haven't seen it, I suggest you check out Ran, or Delicatessen, or Diva, or...well, pretty much anything.

Sorry, I know you've probably seen a bunch of foreign films but I detested that one so much, I can't let the name pass the boards without adding a personal raspberry. Pthththth! 

Ahahaha... I can respect personal opinions, Ewilen. Especially if you state it as such. I for one won't impose on you what a great movie I think it is. I've seen Delicatessen and Ran. Not Diva. I'll look for that one. The other two are exceptional movies, IMO.

Same sentiment here. I've always been very fond of Kurosawa's movies and particularly his earlier productions but his latests are also very good IMO. As for Delicatessen, and without any sort of chauvinism, it's really one of the greatest Jeunet movies: if you didn't see it, I strongly recommend you take a look at it, this is really what I consider as the real 'french touch'...