FUTURE GODZILLA CRITICS
Richard Johnson
If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG favor and
don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla. Then the rest of
us who like Godzilla can have a cool discussion about it without
arrogant horses ass sons of bitches trying to spoil the fun. I KNOW
you guys are looking forward to saying how it's a stupid movie for the
unwashed masses and it's not hard core science fiction and bla bla bla
bla. We've heard it all before. We know you think you're fucking
geniuses who know everything about movies and the rest of us are
retards with bad taste. So just shut the fuck up please.
--- Delete "nospam." to e-mail ---
Russell Watson
RCWar...@nospam.hotmail.com (Richard Johnson) wrote:
Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
you are liking it. Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
that comes out so that they can come back and display their
intellectual superiority to us common slugs. You can always spot them
in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking fucks in horn rims who are
either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
that part out for yourself. But they're there, shelling out the bucks
all the same.
Do the math on that one and see who really gets the last laugh.
And if you can't find the humor in them, ignore them. That hurts them
most of all.
David Nusair
Richard Johnson (RCWar...@nospam.hotmail.com) wrote:
> If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG favor and
> don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla. Then the rest of
> us who like Godzilla can have a cool discussion about it without
> arrogant horses ass sons of bitches trying to spoil the fun. I KNOW
> you guys are looking forward to saying how it's a stupid movie for the
> unwashed masses and it's not hard core science fiction and bla bla bla
> bla. We've heard it all before. We know you think you're fucking
> geniuses who know everything about movies and the rest of us are
> retards with bad taste. So just shut the fuck up please.
Instead of telling them not to see the film, why don't you just ignore
their posts? Elitism will *never* go away on this newsgroup.
Dave "Loopy" Nusair dnu...@chat.carleton.ca
,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.
; "In Washington State, elementary school teacher Mary Kay LeTourneau ;
: pleaded guilty to having sex with a sixth-grade student. Miss :
; LeTourneau has been branded a sex offender, or as the kids refer to ;
: her, 'the greatest teacher of all time.'" -Norm MacDonald :
:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,:
Dept. of Good Vibes, Come visit my Reel Film Reviews site
Carleton University at "http://chat.carleton.ca/~dnusair"
*{Michael}*
I smell a soiled diaper here!
Nice vocab, Richard.
Ian McDowell
In article <6e2hqb$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
russell...@worldnet.att.net (Russell Watson) wrote:
>Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
>bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
>HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
>them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
>see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
>that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
>how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
>you are liking it.
Oh, sure, all of the people who claim to actually like different kinds of
movies from the ones you're fond of are faking it. Damned clever of you
to see through their ruse like that.
> You can always spot them in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking
fucks in horn rims
> who are either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
>in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
>this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
>because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
>but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
>on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
>that part out for yourself.
And I take it the time you've spent online composing this screed was a
mere moment's respite from your exciting, romance-filled social life.
Okay. Seriously, to fire off flame bait in a newsgroup while accusing
other people of not having lives seems to be an act so rife with
unintended irony that further comment would be redundant. Or maybe it's
not unintended -- perhaps this is all a really clever parody of the kind
of thing a spotty seventeen-year-old (probably with sagging mantits and
oily pimples between his shoulder blades that erupt into milky little
volcanoes every time he settles back into his computer chair) might
write. Is that a gross stereotype? Of course it is, but certainly no
worse than the above nonsense.
>And if you can't find the humor in them, ignore them. That hurts them
>most of all.
Yes, it probably does, but we'll never know, since those who are
threatened by them can't seem to be able to stop whining about it in
screeds like this one.
Ian McDowell
(Who just saw THE BIG LEBOWSKI in the company of several "chicks," and
who intends go to see GODZILLA with at least one of them)
--
Author of MORDRED'S CURSE and MERLIN'S GIFT (Avon, $5.99). Buy copies for yourself, your friends, and that sweet little old lady down the hall who loves Arthurian novels (and whose soft tissues will be devoured by her starving dachshund after she expires from a coronary upon reading mine).
Ian McDowell
Franknseus
>>If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG favor and
>don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla. Then the rest of
>us who like Godzilla can have a cool discussion about it without
>arrogant horses ass sons of bitches
(blah blah blah blah blah)
I know you're into broad generalizations, but maybe you could take a look at
my unique circumstances and give me a personalized recommendation for Godzilla
viewing.
I like big event movies as well as tiny obscure movies, expensive flops,
no-budget slashers, artless crap and crapless art. I like all kinds of stuff
and wouldn't like or dislike a movie based on its budget, popularity, box
office status, studio of origin or many of the other bizarre criteria that
sometimes affects the opinions of both you and your arch-rival horse's ass sons
of bitches.
But the thing is, I love Godzilla and giant monster movies in general.
Godzilla vs. Megalon, Gamera Super Monster and Infra-Man were three movies
constantly running on my VCR to help me get through college, where I wrote a
screenplay and did some animation and video involving giant monsters, but
otherwise did not study film with the horse's ass sons of bitches. I also very
much enjoyed the modern Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla and, slightly less so,
Godzilla vs. King Ghidora.
I have been excitedly following the saga of the American Godzilla since it
was first announced in various magazines that Tri-Star was going to do it and
was mentioning directors like Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam and Sam Raimi. I
remained excited about the project even when the standards were lowered to Jan
De Bont. I was looking forward to seeing a state of the art CGI rendition of
Godzilla (since I expected them to at least make it look sort of like Godzilla)
and see how it would compare to the classic suits or the excellent modern ones.
My expectations only turned sour when they hired Emerich and Devlin who are
responsible for one of the worst films I have seen outside of the Schumacher
ouvre and the Garbage Pail Kids Movie.
Still, as is the case with Batman films, I feel an investment in the
character of Godzilla and his world, and I feel like it is my noble duty as a
Godzillateer to watch the movie and see what they have done to the poor guy.
Who knows, maybe it won't be as bad as Emerich's previous films and all of
those trailers.
So tell me, am I allowed to watch the movie, and if so, am I allowed to take
advantage of my constitutional right to state my opinion on it? I wouldn't want
to hurt your feelings or anything, so please get back to me on this so I can
fill out my calendar without worries.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss, Super Monster
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center - http://www.bucketheadland.com
Dave Pittman
Instead of writing childish insults why don't you simple explain why you
enjoy movies such as Godzilla, ID4, Stargate, etc? What I mean is,
explain the principle underlying your evaluation of the movies as being
good. Then the critics of such films would have to you evaluation rather
than simple saying that such movies are stupid.
Dave Pittman
Dave Platt
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
: RCWar...@nospam.hotmail.com (Richard Johnson) wrote:
:
:
: >If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG favor and
: >don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla. Then the rest of
: >us who like Godzilla can have a cool discussion about it without
: >arrogant horses ass sons of bitches trying to spoil the fun. I KNOW
: >you guys are looking forward to saying how it's a stupid movie for the
: >unwashed masses and it's not hard core science fiction and bla bla bla
; >bla. We've heard it all before. We know you think you're fucking
: >geniuses who know everything about movies and the rest of us are
: >retards with bad taste. So just shut the fuck up please.
:
:
: Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
: bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
: HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
: them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
: see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
: that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
: how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
: you are liking it. Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
: film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
: that comes out so that they can come back and display their
: intellectual superiority to us common slugs. You can always spot them
: in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking fucks in horn rims who are
: either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
*sigh*. I'm sorry, but I can't let this bullshit pass without comment. I
might fall into the "film geek" category, but part of is because I LIKE
MOVIES. A LOT. I even like "mainstream" movies. What I don't like are
poorly made movies, and ID4 was definitely one of those. I'm reserving
judgement on Godzilla, but with Emmerich and Devlin's track record, I'm
not holding out much hope for a good movie.
:in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
:this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
: because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
: but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
: on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
: that part out for yourself. But they're there, shelling out the bucks
: all the same.
: Do the math on that one and see who really gets the last laugh.
: And if you can't find the humor in them, ignore them. That hurts them
: most of all.
I can't understand this venom towards people who actually like quality in
their movies. There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out what's
wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
And let's say Godzilla really does suck. Are you saying that people
should ignore all critical opinion and just go with the crowds? Sure
thing. Baa.
Dave Platt
On 10 Mar 1998, Franknseus wrote:
: I have been excitedly following the saga of the American Godzilla
since it
: was first announced in various magazines that Tri-Star was going to do
it and
: was mentioning directors like Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam and Sam Raimi. I
I'm trying to picture a Gilliam Godzilla. It would be a chance to
recreate the infamous foot from Monty Python.
Speaking of Gilliam and comic book/sci fi characters, whatever happened
to his adaptation of the Watchmen? I assume that it died, but does anyone
have details?
name...@usa.net
In article <6e2b4l$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
RCWar...@nospam.hotmail.com (Richard Johnson) wrote:
>
>
> If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG favor and
> don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla. Then the rest of
> us who like Godzilla can have a cool discussion about it without
> arrogant horses ass sons of bitches trying to spoil the fun. I KNOW
> you guys are looking forward to saying how it's a stupid movie for the
> unwashed masses and it's not hard core science fiction and bla bla bla
> bla. We've heard it all before. We know you think you're fucking
> geniuses who know everything about movies and the rest of us are
> retards with bad taste. So just shut the fuck up please.
>
>
No fucking way. I paid 8 bucks for that sucker Lost World and I ain't letting
it go that easy. I'm going to trash any movie that fall into the same genre
which doesn't respect moviegoers' intelligent.
Don't you understand, most of them are not trashing Godzilla the movie, they
are trashing the overrated ID4. Actually I don't think there are many people
on the NG hate Godzilla, do a search first.
By the way, why don't you go to anit-it-cool-news and check out those pics.
The one involves armies firing looks AWFUL. I havn't heard a single good
Godzilla buzz since I started to go to those sites.
CY
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
The ScriptPro 2000 System
Richard Johnson wrote:
If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG
favor and don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla.
Then the rest of us who like Godzilla can have a cool discussion
about it without arrogant horses ass sons of bitches trying to
spoil the fun. I KNOW you guys are looking forward to saying how
it's a stupid movie for the unwashed masses and it's not hard
core science fiction and bla bla bla bla. We've heard it all
before. We know you think you're fucking geniuses who know
everything about movies and the rest of us are retards with bad
taste. So just shut the fuck up please.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure you're just a
retard with bad taste. And I'll feel free to discuss any film I want on
this or any other newsgroup, whether it makes you happy or not.
I've read the GODZILLA script, mainly because I grew up on the original
Toho films, and I have to say it's the worst thing Emmerich and Devlin
have ever touched (and that includes UNIVERSAL SOLDIER). Godzilla dies
almost forty-five minutes before the end of the fucking movie so we get
to sit through an interminable sequence of humans creeping around
Madison Square Gardens avoiding the "Babyzillas" that are being hatched.
This is, of course, a chance to further rip off JP by including
raptor-sized beasties. It's also a chance to rip off ALIEN and its
sequels by using the "trying to get through a cluster of hatching eggs"
sequence.
This script blows. This cast is a joke. This creature is a mess (I
have friends on the FX team, and they are horribly embarrassed to have
their names on this abortion). If you want to defend it sight unseen,
go right ahead. I at least am armed with the knowledge that this thing
sucks balls, and can rest easy knowing that goons like you will eat it
up anyway.
MOOOO! MOOOOO! MOOOOO!
Drew
POISONVILLE, LTD.
http://www.pacificnet.net/~noname/Roundup.html
Want to write me? Remove NOSPAM and feel free -- if it's not SPAM.
"Warner Bros., in a naked attempt to recapture the success of FREE
WILLY, is about to release a new film called FREE CHIMPY. It's the
story of a young boy who kidnaps a chimp from the zoo and releases him
into the ocean." -- Dennis Miller
Mylene Smith
spoiler
The ScriptPro 2000 System wrote:
<snipped> Godzilla dies
> almost forty-five minutes before the end of the fucking movie so we get
> to sit through an interminable sequence of humans creeping around
> Madison Square Gardens avoiding the
<snipped>
This is called a spoiler. WARN PEOPLE THAT YOU WILL BE TELLING THEM
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT TIME!!!!!!
Dave Pittman
Instead of writing childish insults why don't you simple explain why you
enjoy movies such as Godzilla, ID4, Stargate, etc? What I mean is,
explain the principle underlying your evaluation of the movies as being
MuseMalade
Franknseus wrote:
[reply to an idiotic post snipped]
: My expectations only turned sour when they hired Emerich and Devlin who are
: responsible for one of the worst films I have seen outside of the Schumacher
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie? How come I've never heard of this? I remember
the cards coming out in the mid to late 80's so the movie must've been released
around that time, right? Is this one of those things, like the Salinger
Captain America and the haphazardly made FANTASTIC FOUR flick that only you
have had the privilege to view?
MuseMalade
Derek Janssen
...So they can be there to thank you, Script! : D
(Whew--I was ALMOST going to see it out of curiosity...Thanks for
helping me dodge the bullet.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Derek Janssen
MuseMalade wrote:
>
> The Garbage Pail Kids Movie? How come I've never heard of this? I remember
> the cards coming out in the mid to late 80's so the movie must've been released
> around that time, right? Is this one of those things, like the Salinger
> Captain America and the haphazardly made FANTASTIC FOUR flick that only you
> have had the privilege to view?
Both "Captain" and "GPK:TM" went straight to commercial video and are
currently on rental shelves...For all the good that it will do anyone to
know. : /
"Fantastic Four" is still floating around the convention-table bootleg
trade (but if you're not willing to seek those out, can you truly call
yourself a movie buff?)...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
David Nusair
MuseMalade (musem...@aol.com) wrote:
> The Garbage Pail Kids Movie? How come I've never heard of this? I remember
> the cards coming out in the mid to late 80's so the movie must've been released
> around that time, right? Is this one of those things, like the Salinger
> Captain America and the haphazardly made FANTASTIC FOUR flick that only you
> have had the privilege to view?
Nope, this film does indeed exist. It starred Mackenzie Astin (of "Facts
of Life" fame). I remember enjoying it, but I was 9 or something at the
time.
Ian McDowell
In article <19980310183...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
musem...@aol.com (MuseMalade) wrote:
>Franknseus wrote:
>[reply to an idiotic post snipped]
>: My expectations only turned sour when they hired Emerich and Devlin who are
>: responsible for one of the worst films I have seen outside of the Schumacher
>: oeuvre and the Garbage Pail Kids Movie. [...]
>
>The Garbage Pail Kids Movie? How come I've never heard of this? I remember
>the cards coming out in the mid to late 80's so the movie must've been released
>around that time, right? Is this one of those things, like the Salinger
>Captain America and the haphazardly made FANTASTIC FOUR flick that only you
>have had the privilege to view?
Bryan's not quite the only one who's had the dubious "privilege" of
viewing most of these. Bootlegs of the made-to-be-shelved FANTASTIC FOUR
film sell pretty briskly at comics and sf conventions, the Matt Salinger
CAPTAIN AMERICA has played on cable tv (I don't remember whether it was a
premium channel like HBO or a basic cable service like USA) and The
Garbage Pail Kids Movie used to be available on home video (not sure if it
still is).
I've seen the last half of CAPTAIN AMERICA and maybe twenty minutes of THE
FANTASTIC FOUR, fwiw. The former, which was actually released, is
considerably worse than the latter, judging by what I've seen.
Ian McDowell
Teo Ee Ming
Russell Watson wrote in message <6e2hqb$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>RCWar...@nospam.hotmail.com (Richard Johnson) wrote:
>
>
>
>Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
>bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
>HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
>them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
>see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
>that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
>how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
>you are liking it.
Pulp Fiction is independent. So is The English Patient, Full Monty and Easy
Rider. These films are low budget by industry standards. Easy Rider cost
less than a million. Yet these indie films made shitloads of money.
Come to think about it, anyone who likens ID4 or the upcoming Godzilla as a
film not an FX demo reel, should have their tastes reconsidered and their
brains lobotomized.
>Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
>film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
>that comes out so that they can come back and display their
>intellectual superiority to us common slugs.
If you're talking about the mainstream in the 70s, it's okay. The 90's
maninstream is really dumbed down to the toilet level. In other words, you
do not need a single brain cell to watch these action-packed disaster
"epics". Take note: how lame can one get when the summer's supposedly
biggest movie is a classic B-grade man-in-monster-suit pic. Hell, I'd rather
take Ultraman any time of the old fucking day.
>You can always spot them
>in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking fucks in horn rims who are
>either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
>in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
>this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
>because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
>but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
>on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
>that part out for yourself. But they're there, shelling out the bucks
>all the same.
Actually these are the people who like Harry Knowles drool at any mention of
Godzilla or the latest superhero movie news. If college boys go to see
independent flicks, I bet you that these indie films will gross more than
100 million each.
Teo Ee Ming
The ScriptPro 2000 System
Derek Janssen wrote:
MuseMalade wrote:
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie? How come I've never heard
of this? I remember the cards coming out in the mid to
late 80's so the movie must've been released around that
time, right? Is this one of those things, like the
Salinger Captain America and the haphazardly made
FANTASTIC FOUR flick that only you have had the
privilege to view?
and are currently on rental shelves...For all the good that it will
do anyone to know. : /
"Fantastic Four" is still floating around the convention-table
bootleg trade (but if you're not willing to seek those out, can
you truly call yourself a movie buff?)...
Actually, both CAPTAIN AMERICA and GARBAGE PAIL KIDS had limited
theatrical releases. I remember both of them playing at the theater I
managed in Florida -- I think our booker must have lost a bet or
something. They're both of the "so bad you have to see them" category,
but GPK is a whole special level of horrible. Until you've heard these
repulsive puppets croak Anthony Newley tunes, you haven't seen how bad
films can get.
Norman Wilner
Dave Platt wrote in message ...
>
>Speaking of Gilliam and comic book/sci fi characters, whatever happened
>to his adaptation of the Watchmen? I assume that it died, but does anyone
>have details?
I had a chance to ask him about it on the "Twelve Monkeys" press junket - he
said the production team spent years trying to condense the 12-issue comic
into a workable script, and finally just lost the momentum. He hopes someone
will crack it someday, but it's no longer a go project for him.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Thurston
> <snipped> Godzilla dies
> > almost forty-five minutes before the end of the fucking movie so we get
> > to sit through an interminable sequence of humans creeping around
> > Madison Square Gardens avoiding the
> <snipped>
> This is called a spoiler. WARN PEOPLE THAT YOU WILL BE TELLING THEM
> WHAT HAPPENS NEXT TIME!!!!!!
>>>>
The Titanic sinks, Lincoln gets shot, WWII is won by the Allies, and a bloated
fictional monster dies in a special effects movie? Whoopie! What trivial, little
life you must lead...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Watson
"Teo Ee Ming" <cybe...@cyberway.com.sg> wrote:
>Russell Watson wrote in message <6e2hqb$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>RCWar...@nospam.hotmail.com (Richard Johnson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
>>bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
>>HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
>>them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
>>see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
>>that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
>>how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
>>you are liking it.
>Pulp Fiction is independent. So is The English Patient, Full Monty and Easy
>Rider. These films are low budget by industry standards. Easy Rider cost
>less than a million. Yet these indie films made shitloads of money.
One of the ongoing mantras among the regulars in this group is that
there is no such thing as an independent film anymore. Even the ones
that are marketed as such have the money of some big studio behind
them.
EASY RIDER doesn't count, being 30 years old. Belongs to different
era.
>Come to think about it, anyone who likens ID4 or the upcoming Godzilla as a
>film not an FX demo reel, should have their tastes reconsidered and their
>brains lobotomized.
That is the numero uno conceit that pisses me off about the set of
folks that I was venting on in my original post: the inability to
differentiate between "film as art" and "movies as entertainment". I
deliberately made my post as caustic as possible to draw this kind of
fire. You don't like ID, so it's "an FX demo reel", rather than a
"film". Unless you have a magic movie box, you haven't even seen
GODZILLA yet, but you're already lumping it into the same category.
Thanks for underling my point.
>>Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
>>film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
>>that comes out so that they can come back and display their
>>intellectual superiority to us common slugs.
>If you're talking about the mainstream in the 70s, it's okay. The 90's
>maninstream is really dumbed down to the toilet level. In other words, you
>do not need a single brain cell to watch these action-packed disaster
>"epics". Take note: how lame can one get when the summer's supposedly
>biggest movie is a classic B-grade man-in-monster-suit pic. Hell, I'd rather
>take Ultraman any time of the old fucking day.
Are we talking about the same mainstream '70s that spawned EARTHQUAKE,
THE TOWERING INFERNO, etc. What about JAWS and STAR WARS, two of the
biggest grossers of all time? Are they really "GREAT" films? How are
they better than what's being made today?
>>You can always spot them
>>in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking fucks in horn rims who are
>>either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
>>in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
>>this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
>>because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
>>but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
>>on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
>>that part out for yourself. But they're there, shelling out the bucks
>>all the same.
>Actually these are the people who like Harry Knowles drool at any mention of
>Godzilla or the latest superhero movie news. If college boys go to see
>independent flicks, I bet you that these indie films will gross more than
>100 million each.
The guys I'm talking about ain't the party hearty where can I get my
next beer and let's go get laid types (the ones who like GODZILLA and
superhero movies). The ones I meant take themselves far too seriously
for ANY of that nonsense.
Russell Watson
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
<snip original post>
>:
>:
>: Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
>: bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
>: HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
>: them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
>: see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
>: that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
>: how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
>: you are liking it. Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
>: film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
>: that comes out so that they can come back and display their
>: intellectual superiority to us common slugs. You can always spot them
>: in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking fucks in horn rims who are
>: either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
>*sigh*. I'm sorry, but I can't let this bullshit pass without comment. I
>might fall into the "film geek" category, but part of is because I LIKE
>MOVIES. A LOT. I even like "mainstream" movies. What I don't like are
>poorly made movies, and ID4 was definitely one of those. I'm reserving
>judgement on Godzilla, but with Emmerich and Devlin's track record, I'm
>not holding out much hope for a good movie.
How was INDEPENDENCE DAY "poorly made"? Please define this
terminology. Was it simply because you didn't like it, or are there
concrete, purely objective reasons why it was bad? Did it meet the
objectives of those who made it, i.e., presumably to make a
cartoonish, thinly plotted, broadly drawn, "Us vs. THEM" roller
coaster ride of a movie which would thrill millions of Summer movie
goers for a couple of hours and make the studio millions of $??? If
that was what they wanted, it succeded wildly. Did it hurt anyone, in
any sense other than that some people are just subjectively not going
to like it? If you as an individual are not turned on by this type of
movie does that make it bad, or just not your kind of movie? And could
you not glean enough about it in advance to think that this might be
so, but you went anyway?
> :in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
>:this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
>: because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
>: but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
>: on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
>: that part out for yourself. But they're there, shelling out the bucks
>: all the same.
>: Do the math on that one and see who really gets the last laugh.
>: And if you can't find the humor in them, ignore them. That hurts them
>: most of all.
>I can't understand this venom towards people who actually like quality in
>their movies.
Please define "quality" in the sense in which you use it. What makes a
really good movie to you? Name some that you thought were really good
and what made them that way, specifically as opposed to other movies
that you thought were "bad".
I'm not trying to bait you. I really want to know.
>There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
>real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out what's
>wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
If you acknowledge this as a stereotype, I take it that my post isn't
the first place that you've seen or heard these criticisms aired.
Remember that among any stereotyped group there are going to be those
who taken apart from the balance will appear to prove it true.
Your post sounds like you might not really be one of these. If not,
great. But they DO exist. I personally know or have in the past known
many of their ilk, and many of the people who frequent this group show
the earmarks of being of the same breed. It was they who were the
targets of my diatribe.
>And let's say Godzilla really does suck. Are you saying that people
>should ignore all critical opinion and just go with the crowds? Sure
>thing. Baa.
Hardly. If it is of say, BATMAN & ROBIN or THE LOST WORLD caliber,
y'all bring the matches, I'll bring the gasoline, and we'll roast that
sucker good.
Having said this, I realize that there will be people who will read it
who will say, "What in the hell does this asshole think was wrong with
B&R or TLW? That fucker ROCKED!".
So be it.
Russell Watson
ian...@mindspring.com (Ian McDowell) wrote:
>In article <6e2hqb$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>russell...@worldnet.att.net (Russell Watson) wrote:
>>Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
>>bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
>>HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
>>them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
>>see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
>>that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
>>how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
>>you are liking it.
>Oh, sure, all of the people who claim to actually like different kinds of
>movies from the ones you're fond of are faking it. Damned clever of you
>to see through their ruse like that.
I never said that anyone was faking anything. I'm sure that in their
own way these people like their little "films". But I have personally
known plenty who can't help but name-drop the titles of the "films"
and their most elucidated reasons for having "adored" them for the
express purpose impressing others.
Where the difference comes in is that most of the people I know who
like "mainstream" movies (that IS MOVIES, not "films") don't go to the
so-called "indie" pics at the local "art house" just so that they can
run home to their computers and poor piss and vinegar all over those
on the group who actually like them.
THIS trait is the primary aspect of the people in question which
pisses off people like the guy who originated this thread and myself.
Most of the movies that these people launch against on here are so
obvious as to their content in advance that nobody who isn't walking
around with their head up their ass could help but know what they are
getting into before they ever plunk down their dough, but yet they are
drawn as moths to the flame, only to turn up here later venting their
spleens about how "ripped-of" they feel.
Kind of reminds me of a guy I used to work with (exactly one of the
types in question, actually) who c. 1985 was bitching about how
sickened he was about "being made a voyeur" by the movie RISKY
BUSINESS. To which I asked him that prior to paying his money at the
box office did he not see at least the poster of a scantily-clad,
supine Rebecca DeMornay draped over the hood of a Porsche and
therefore not have at least some inkling of what the movie might
contain?
Sort of pissed him off, but he shut up, too.
>> You can always spot them in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking
>fucks in horn rims
>> who are either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
>>in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
>>this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
>>because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
>>but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
>>on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
>>that part out for yourself.
>And I take it the time you've spent online composing this screed was a
>mere moment's respite from your exciting, romance-filled social life.
>Okay. Seriously, to fire off flame bait in a newsgroup while accusing
>other people of not having lives seems to be an act so rife with
>unintended irony that further comment would be redundant. Or maybe it's
>not unintended -- perhaps this is all a really clever parody of the kind
>of thing a spotty seventeen-year-old (probably with sagging mantits and
>oily pimples between his shoulder blades that erupt into milky little
>volcanoes every time he settles back into his computer chair) might
>write. Is that a gross stereotype? Of course it is, but certainly no
>worse than the above nonsense.
>>And if you can't find the humor in them, ignore them. That hurts them
>>most of all.
>Yes, it probably does, but we'll never know, since those who are
>threatened by them can't seem to be able to stop whining about it in
>screeds like this one.
Love the "threatened" remark. Funny how you folks always accuse anyone
who is in any way critical of you of being "threatened" by you. Real
empowering, isn't it. And of course when the shoe is on the other foot
and you are slinging mud at some poor bastard, it's merely because you
recognize your intellectual superiority, not because YOU'RE the one
who's "threatened".
> (Who just saw THE BIG LEBOWSKI in the company of several "chicks,"
So did you score or are they just "friends" who go home together later
and leave you alone?
Boyd Campbell
I think one of the reasons the entertainment industry works
is that for some reason, people seem to need to let some
works in and really love them while keeping others out and
bashing the hell out of them. The same is true of sports
teams, religion and race, not that it makes the phenominon
any clearer.
Perhaps it's some sort of genetic memory of a time when our
proto-human ancestors lived in small troupes and anything
different represented a threat.
Whatever the reason is, it does work though, which is movies
are sold to us as sci-fi or comedies or love stories instead
of just "movies."
Two predictions I feel pretty comfortable with is that Godzilla
will make a lot of money BUT people are going to just looove
bashing it.
--
/----------- Email:Cam...@netdoor.com ----------\
| |
| King Kong |
| http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/kong.html |
| Willis O'Brien |
| http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/Obie.html |
| |
\------------------------------------------------/
Teo Ee Ming
Russell Watson wrote in message <6e56tq$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>One of the ongoing mantras among the regulars in this group is that
>there is no such thing as an independent film anymore. Even the ones
>that are marketed as such have the money of some big studio behind
>them.
>EASY RIDER doesn't count, being 30 years old. Belongs to different
>era.
>
>>Come to think about it, anyone who likens ID4 or the upcoming Godzilla as
a
>>film not an FX demo reel, should have their tastes reconsidered and their
>>brains lobotomized.
>
>That is the numero uno conceit that pisses me off about the set of
>folks that I was venting on in my original post: the inability to
>differentiate between "film as art" and "movies as entertainment". I
>deliberately made my post as caustic as possible to draw this kind of
>fire. You don't like ID, so it's "an FX demo reel", rather than a
>"film". Unless you have a magic movie box, you haven't even seen
>GODZILLA yet, but you're already lumping it into the same category.
>Thanks for underling my point.
As the others in the newsgroup have pointed out, judging by Emmerich's track
record, it is severely doubted that Godzilla will be pulled off as the best
movie of the year. If fantasy Sci-fi is your forte, fine, go see a Terry
Gilliam movie. At least his fantasy aburdist flicks are far much better
brain-killers than these 2 uber-Furhrer of Sci-fi disaster.
>
>>>Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
>>>film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
>>>that comes out so that they can come back and display their
>>>intellectual superiority to us common slugs.
>
>>If you're talking about the mainstream in the 70s, it's okay. The 90's
>>maninstream is really dumbed down to the toilet level. In other words, you
>>do not need a single brain cell to watch these action-packed disaster
>>"epics". Take note: how lame can one get when the summer's supposedly
>>biggest movie is a classic B-grade man-in-monster-suit pic. Hell, I'd
rather
>>take Ultraman any time of the old fucking day.
>
>Are we talking about the same mainstream '70s that spawned EARTHQUAKE,
>THE TOWERING INFERNO, etc. What about JAWS and STAR WARS, two of the
>biggest grossers of all time? Are they really "GREAT" films? How are
>they better than what's being made today?
I'm talking about The Exorcist, The Godfather, Love Story, A Clockwork
Orange to name a few. These films made shitloads of money and still remains
"artful" and masterful. Granted A Clockwork Orange only made 30 million that
time, but still it's such wonderful piece of art and it costs under 2
million to make. JAWS is a great film. Star Wars is just a figment of a
child's imagination. It ain't great at all.
The 70's movies are really revolutionary. So are the late 60's when the
ratings are introduced. The 90's now is just a rehash of the 50's where
every schlock studios try to make monster-teen pics to rip off lots of
people.
Emmerich and Devlin are the German versions of Roger Corman. They make
entertaining, but absolutely cheesy and corny movies which only pleases
adolescants. These 2 nincompoops could'nt get their asses out of the Sci-fi
genre even if their lives depended on it. Completely devoid of any story
sense, they will rip off anything they deem as original. These 2 thieves
shall never be allowed to write again.
Teo Ee Ming
P.S. How much can you remember from Corman's Attack of the Monster Crab???
Dave Platt
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
: Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
:
: >On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
:
: <snip original post>
: >:
: >:
: >: Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with the lot you're
: >: bashing: the "I've had a semester of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know
: >: HOW to watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin' group belongs to
: >: them and that the rest of us are just squatters. The only reason they
: >: see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"), "independent" shit
:>: that no regular person would like, which they heap praise upon to show
: >: how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how fucking stupid
: >: you are liking it. Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
: >: film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
: >: that comes out so that they can come back and display their
: >: intellectual superiority to us common slugs. You can always spot them
: >: in the theaters. The hostile, geeky-looking fucks in horn rims who are
: >: either always alone or in the company of others like themselves. When
:
: >*sigh*. I'm sorry, but I can't let this bullshit pass without comment. I
: >might fall into the "film geek" category, but part of is because I LIKE
: >MOVIES. A LOT. I even like "mainstream" movies. What I don't like are
: >poorly made movies, and ID4 was definitely one of those. I'm reserving
: >judgement on Godzilla, but with Emmerich and Devlin's track record, I'm
: >not holding out much hope for a good movie.
:
: How was INDEPENDENCE DAY "poorly made"? Please define this
: terminology. Was it simply because you didn't like it, or are there
: concrete, purely objective reasons why it was bad? Did it meet the
: objectives of those who made it, i.e., presumably to make a
: cartoonish, thinly plotted, broadly drawn, "Us vs. THEM" roller
: coaster ride of a movie which would thrill millions of Summer movie
: goers for a couple of hours and make the studio millions of $??? If
: that was what they wanted, it succeded wildly. Did it hurt anyone, in
: any sense other than that some people are just subjectively not going
: to like it? If you as an individual are not turned on by this type of
: movie does that make it bad, or just not your kind of movie? And could
:you not glean enough about it in advance to think that this might be
: so, but you went anyway?
It used to be, when you saw a huge blockbuster "event" movie, you could
expect at least a coherent plot (Raiders, the first Batman, the Star Wars
movies, etc). However, ID4 simply *made no sense*. For example, are we
really supposed to believe that they could upload a virus onto the
alien's computers? Are we supposed to buy that the President of the
United States would get up in an F-14 and kick ass? Are we supposed to
cheer the demise of the aliens at the end, even though 3/4 of the Earth's
population has been wiped out?
I'm sorry, but even an "event movie" has to follow logic and integrity of
plot, unless it's explicitly a cartoon. ID4 tried for something close to
realism, and it dropped th ball. It's not even good for the type of movie
it was meant to be.
: > :in numbers they stand in the ticket line and discuss the "merits" of
: >:this or that director's work, or how they only saw such-and-such
: >: because so-and-so was in it, or because some shitty band that nobody
: >: but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual college fucks listens to has a song
: >: on the soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let you figure
: >: that part out for yourself. But they're there, shelling out the bucks
: >: all the same.
: >: Do the math on that one and see who really gets the last laugh.
: >: And if you can't find the humor in them, ignore them. That hurts them
: >: most of all.
:
: >I can't understand this venom towards people who actually like quality in
: >their movies.
:
: Please define "quality" in the sense in which you use it. What makes a
: really good movie to you? Name some that you thought were really good
: and what made them that way, specifically as opposed to other movies
: that you thought were "bad".
: I'm not trying to bait you. I really want to know.
Last few good movies I've seen: Big Lebowksi, Kundun, Jackie Brown,
Titanic (yes), Boogie Nights, Shoot The Piano Player (saw it on video
last night). Every one of them, despite being in very different genres,
showed a degree of care towards the integrity of the plot and characters.
In very few cases did they act in ways that seemed false.
: >There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
:>real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out what's
:>wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
:
: If you acknowledge this as a stereotype, I take it that my post isn't
: the first place that you've seen or heard these criticisms aired.:>
Remember that among any stereotyped group there are going to be those
: who taken apart from the balance will appear to prove it true.
: Your post sounds like you might not really be one of these. If not,
: great. But they DO exist. I personally know or have in the past known
: many of their ilk, and many of the people who frequent this group show
: the earmarks of being of the same breed. It was they who were the
: targets of my diatribe.
:
I defend these guys, because in spite of an appearance of negativity, for
the most part their dismay comes from a genuine love of movies, and a
knowledge that movies can be better. It's heartbreaking the way a movie
like ID4 is shoved down people's throats and other movies are left
behind. If I could, I'd ask for my $8 back.
:And let's say Godzilla really does suck. Are you saying that people
: >should ignore all critical opinion and just go with the crowds? Sure
: >thing. Baa.
:
: Hardly. If it is of say, BATMAN & ROBIN or THE LOST WORLD caliber,
; y'all bring the matches, I'll bring the gasoline, and we'll roast that
: sucker good.
: Having said this, I realize that there will be people who will read it
: who will say, "What in the hell does this asshole think was wrong with
: B&R or TLW? That fucker ROCKED!".
: So be it.
I thought Lost World was about the same as the original, which I thought
was kind of overrated. But I liked the actors in the second one more.
(Pete Postethwaite was great)
Dave Platt
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
: >There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
: >real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out what's
: >wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
:
: If you acknowledge this as a stereotype, I take it that my post isn't
: the first place that you've seen or heard these criticisms aired.
: Remember that among any stereotyped group there are going to be those
: who taken apart from the balance will appear to prove it true.
"Some blacks don't eat watermelon and fried chicken. Some Jews aren't
stingy about money."
I realize these are extreme examples, but that's basically what you're
saying about "film geeks." You're saying that there are exceptions to the
rule, but your stereotype is still basically true.
Stereotypes can exist without being true *at all*. I would admit that
some film geeks have a negative attitude towards popular movies. However,
so do non-film geeks. My mother sees maybe two movies a year and thinks
that the rest are probably trash. But she's obviously not a "film geek".
Meanwhile, a friend of mine who tries to see as many movies as he can
loves almost all of them. So there's no point in stereotyping film geeks.
(BTW, my friend thought ID4 was "not bad.")
Sure there's a question of taste, but there were so many things wrong
that a lot of people found wrong with ID4, that I think it's
understandable to be leery about Godzilla.
The ScriptPro 2000 System
Russell Watson wrote:
Sorry, lad. Pre-emptive strikes don't work with
the lot you're bashing: the "I've had a semester
of "Film Appreciation 101" so I know HOW to
watch a "film" crowd. They think this freakin'
group belongs to them and that the rest of us
are just squatters. The only reason they
see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"),
"independent" shit that no regular person would
like, which they heap praise upon to show how
"with it" they are) is to be able to tell you
how fucking stupid you are liking it.
Pulp Fiction is independent. So is The English Patient,
Full Monty and Easy Rider. These films are low budget by
industry standards. Easy Rider cost less than a million.
Yet these indie films made shitloads of money.
One of the ongoing mantras among the regulars in this group is
that there is no such thing as an independent film anymore. Even
the ones that are marketed as such have the money of some big
studio behind them.
EASY RIDER doesn't count, being 30 years old. Belongs to
different era.
Okay... let's try this year's Oscar nominee ULEE'S GOLD. If you're
going to try to tell me that this film is ANYTHING but an independent
film, save it. Try IN THE COMPANY OF MEN. Or how about the new John
Sayles picture, MEN WITH GUNS? None of those films were associated with
a studio in any way until release. They were made without anyone's
interference, the complete realization of the filmmaker's vision. That,
to me, is the definition of independence. To that end, several of the
filmmakers who work for "studios" still manage to sneak indie films
through the machinery. They're independent in nature, and someone
manages to retain control somehow.
Come to think about it, anyone who likens ID4 or the
upcoming Godzilla as a film not an FX demo reel, should
have their tastes reconsidered and their brains
lobotomized.
That is the numero uno conceit that pisses me off about the set
of folks that I was venting on in my original post: the
inability to differentiate between "film as art" and "movies as
entertainment". I deliberately made my post as caustic as
possible to draw this kind of fire. You don't like ID, so it's
"an FX demo reel", rather than a "film". Unless you have a magic
movie box, you haven't even seen GODZILLA yet, but you're
already lumping it into the same category. Thanks for underling
my point.
I don't differentiate between "film as art" and "movies as
entertainment" because I think that's the bullshit, lazy, copout
distinction. I am not entertained by bad films. Period. I don't have
the ability to just sit there and be insulted by half-assed, submoronic
garbage and say, "But it looked good, so I must have been entertained!"
I was picky even as a kid. I simply respond to a film as a whole. I
don't walk into movies with an agenda. I try to go see films that I
will enjoy. When I get suckered, it's my fault. I'm smart enough to
see through the Hollywood publicity machine, and I normally smell shit
like GODZILLA coming. If I decide not to go see it, then that doesn't
imply elitism on my part. It's simply an indicator that I am willing to
discern between a film experience I want to have and one I don't want to
have. For me, an event film is something like the Coens' BIG LEBOWSKI,
Sayles' MEN WITH GUNS, or Linklater's THE NEWTON BOYS -- films by
filmmakers who have already proven themselves to be talented and who are
constantly stretching to give me, the viewer, something new.
What I resent most is someone like you telling me that I'm a snob or
insulting me because I choose to show a little discretion in what I'm
willing to sit through. You want to go see CON AIR? Knock yourself
out. Thank god I don't have to go with you. You're well within your
rights to see that film, love that film, and champion the film on this
newsgroup. I'm well within my rights not to see it, and if for some
reason I do and I end up hating it, then I'm well within my rights to
disagree with you. What I won't do is say that you're wrong to enjoy
it. You and I have different aesthetic requirements (OBVIOUSLY) when we
go see a film. You're more easily satisfied, it sounds like. Believe
me... I'm not being sarcastic when I say it must be nice.
Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their
money on every damn one that comes out so that
they can come back and display their
intellectual superiority to us common slugs.
If you're talking about the mainstream in the 70s, it's
okay. The 90's maninstream is really dumbed down to the
toilet level. In other words, you do not need a single
brain cell to watch these action-packed disaster
"epics". Take note: how lame can one get when the
summer's supposedly biggest movie is a classic B-grade
man-in-monster-suit pic. Hell, I'd rather take Ultraman
any time of the old fucking day.
Are we talking about the same mainstream '70s that spawned
EARTHQUAKE, THE TOWERING INFERNO, etc. What about JAWS and STAR
WARS, two of the biggest grossers of all time? Are they really
"GREAT" films? How are they better than what's being made today?
You can't compare JAWS or STAR WARS to the Irwin Allen films you
mentioned. You can very rightly compare the Irwin Allen films to stuff
like DANTE'S PEAK or DAYLIGHT or VOLCANO.
And, yes... JAWS and STAR WARS are both great films. Great, great films
that still reward the new and the repeat viewer today. JAWS is a
wonderful character picture, with some phenomenal performances. The
best scene in the film is Quint (the brilliant Robert Shaw) telling the
story of the INDIANA's sinking and the attack of the sharks afterwards.
It's astounding how much power Spielberg gets out of the sequence, which
is nothing but quiet dialogue. If you want an example of directing that
never lets up, in which every choice is right, you look at Spielberg
here or in RAIDERS. Perfect, economical, and visceral filmmaking.
STAR WARS is still one of the best fairy tales ever told on film. The
characters are alien yet familiar, the world that Lucas creates is
persuasive and consistent, and the adventure is tempered with real
emotion. This film doesn't just push buttons arbitrarily. It might
feel like that to you now, but that's mainly because the film has been
ripped off so many times that the original now feels diluted. You can't
even seriously consider comparing this film (or it's first sequel,
EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) to the crap that people like Emmerich/Devlin crank
out now.
You can always spot them in the theaters. The
hostile, geeky-looking fucks in horn rims who
are either always alone or in the company of
others like themselves. When in numbers they
stand in the ticket line and discuss the
"merits" of this or that director's work, or how
they only saw such-and-such because so-and-so
was in it, or because some shitty band that
nobody but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual
college fucks listens to has a song on the
soundtrack. They are NEVER with chicks. I'll let
you figure that part out for yourself. But
they're there, shelling out the bucks all the
same.
Tell me, dipshit... who doesn't go to the movies either by themselves or
with others like them? No matter what broad, overly generalized "group"
you belong to, that's how people go to movies. They're social events.
Everyone goes to the movies. Sometimes you get the urge to go alone.
Typically it's a way for friends to get together and have something to
do.
Based on your incredibly pathetic sterotype, I bet you wouldn't be able
to pick me out a crowd, especially not if I'm with one of the women I'm
dating currently. I'm afraid that I throw your generalization out of
whack, as do all of my friends. Well... okay, maybe not all of them...
Actually these are the people who like Harry Knowles
drool at any mention of Godzilla or the latest superhero
movie news. If college boys go to see independent
flicks, I bet you that these indie films will gross more
than 100 million each.
I'll be quite honest -- I have no idea what the fuck you're talking
about here.
The guys I'm talking about ain't the party hearty where can I
get my next beer and let's go get laid types (the ones who like
GODZILLA and superhero movies). The ones I meant take themselves
far too seriously for ANY of that nonsense.
Again... I can't tell who you're making fun of and who you're aligning
yourself with here. Are you a "party hearty where can I get my next
beer and let's go date rape someone" type? If so, what a sad
description. You've got some serious self-loathing issues to deal with.
Rick Blade
>Most of the movies that these people launch against on here are so
>obvious as to their content in advance that nobody who isn't walking
>around with their head up their ass could help but know what they are
>getting into before they ever plunk down their dough, but yet they are
>drawn as moths to the flame, only to turn up here later venting their
>spleens about how "ripped-of" they feel.
This is so true. I knew a guy at work who always acted arrogant and
conceited. He went and saw Batman & Robin. Then he told everybody at
work that it was the worst movie he ever saw and he wanted those two
hours of his life back that were stolen from him. Now if this guy is
half as smart as he thinks he is then why couldn't he have the
slightest clue what the movie would be like from watching commercials
and trailers? I personally end up enjoying a movie almost every time
if I like the trailers & commercials.
Rick Blade
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:19:16 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:
>I can't understand this venom towards people who actually like quality in
>their movies. There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
You are defining quality as being what YOU like and then you expect
everyone to agree that what YOU like is what quality is. That is
bullshit.
>wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
Then why did you see ID4 and why will you see Godzilla when you
thoroughly disrespect these movies? If it makes you suffer to see
them, then don't go see movies of this type. If you deep inside like
these movies, then why don't you be honest and admit it?!
Rick Blade
On 10 Mar 1998 09:30:31 GMT, frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
>De Bont. I was looking forward to seeing a state of the art CGI rendition of
>Godzilla (since I expected them to at least make it look sort of like Godzilla)
>and see how it would compare to the classic suits or the excellent modern ones.
>My expectations only turned sour when they hired Emerich and Devlin who are
>responsible for one of the worst films I have seen outside of the Schumacher
>ouvre and the Garbage Pail Kids Movie.
Oh that is just so damn funny. You're calling Emerich and Devlin crap
film makers when all the Japanese monster movies I've seen have the
worst special effects and the worst acting by far and have stories
that are just a little more sophisticated than the Power Rangers.
These films are often the targets of stand up comedians, who often
poke fun at Japanese monster movies and get plenty of laughs.
> So tell me, am I allowed to watch the movie, and if so, am I allowed to take
>advantage of my constitutional right to state my opinion on it? I wouldn't want
>to hurt your feelings or anything, so please get back to me on this so I can
>fill out my calendar without worries.
You're being dishonest, because you say Emerich and Devlin are
horrible and yet you're going to see their Godzilla movie anyway. So
no you are not allowed to see the movie until you admit you like
Emerich and Devlin. Being a film student, it seems you have to cover
your ass by putting down Emerich and Devlin, because you feel you have
to do that to maintain a self-image as a sophisticated film maven.
I don't like Meryl Streep and therefore I will never pay to see a
movie with her in it. You see I'm honest that way and you're not.
Dave Platt
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Rick Blade wrote:
: On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:19:16 GMT, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
: wrote:
:
: >I can't understand this venom towards people who actually like quality in
:>their movies. There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
:
: You are defining quality as being what YOU like and then you expect
: everyone to agree that what YOU like is what quality is. That is
: bullshit.
:
Relativitism only goes so far. There were incredible flaws in ID4's plot,
and please don't tell me they were "intentional." It wasn't even good at
the genre it was trying for.
: >wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
:
: Then why did you see ID4 and why will you see Godzilla when you
: thoroughly disrespect these movies? If it makes you suffer to see
: them, then don't go see movies of this type. If you deep inside like
: these movies, then why don't you be honest and admit it?!
I went to ID4 because it looked like a decent movie. Believe it or not,
trailers can lie. I thought Batman Forever looked good from the trailer
and saw it first day, and was incredibly disappointed. I learned my
lesson and vowed that I will never, ever see Batman & Robin. I don't know
if I'll do the same with Godzilla, but I'm not convinced it will be a
good movie.
As well, the idea that because I may not like it I shouldn't even go see
Godzilla is ludicrous. I can see whatever I want.
This "don't listen to the critics" garbage is just playing into the hands
of hype-heavy filmmakers like Emmerich and Devlin, not to mention the
whims of the studios. Have a free will, people! It's not "inevitable"
that something like Godzilla will be a hit.
I was heartened, for example, by the failure of Speed 2. The massive
success of Titanic shows to me that people are still swayed by hype and
mania, but it's good to know that we haven't gotten to the point where
they can sell us the worst swill.
Dave Platt
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Rick Blade wrote:
: On 10 Mar 1998 09:30:31 GMT, frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
:
: >De Bont. I was looking forward to seeing a state of the art CGI endition of
: >Godzilla (since I expected them to at least make it look sort of like Godzilla)
: >and see how it would compare to the classic suits or the excellent modern ones.
: >My expectations only turned sour when they hired Emerich and Devlin who are
: >responsible for one of the worst films I have seen outside of the Schumacher > >ouvre and the Garbage Pail Kids Movie.
:
: Oh that is just so damn funny. You're calling Emerich and Devlin crap
: film makers when all the Japanese monster movies I've seen have the
: worst special effects and the worst acting by far and have stories
: that are just a little more sophisticated than the Power Rangers.
: These films are often the targets of stand up comedians, who often
: poke fun at Japanese monster movies and get plenty of laughs.
Look up "irony" in a dictionary. People like the Japanese monster movies
because they don't take themselves so seriously. From all indications,
Godzilla is yet another attempt to recreate this stuff *earnestly*, and
I'm guessing it will fail.
What's next? A serious "Lost In Space" movie?
: > So tell me, am I allowed to watch the movie, and if so, am I allowed o take
: >advantage of my constitutional right to state my opinion on it? I
wouldn't want
: >to hurt your feelings or anything, so please get back to me on this so
: can > >fill out my calendar without worries.
:
: You're being dishonest, because you say Emerich and Devlin are
: horrible and yet you're going to see their Godzilla movie anyway. So
: no you are not allowed to see the movie until you admit you like
: Emerich and Devlin. Being a film student, it seems you have to cover
: your ass by putting down Emerich and Devlin, because you feel you have
: to do that to maintain a self-image as a sophisticated film maven.
Um, no, I put down Emmerich and Devlin because they make lousy movies.
: I don't like Meryl Streep and therefore I will never pay to see a
: movie with her in it. You see I'm honest that way and you're not.
Bully for you. At least we're open to the possiblity that Emmerich and
Devlin may, through some miracle, make a movie that doesn't suck. You, on
the other hand, are denying yourself some movies you might like.
Derek Janssen
Dave Platt wrote:
>
> Look up "irony" in a dictionary. People like the Japanese monster movies
> because they don't take themselves so seriously. From all indications,
> Godzilla is yet another attempt to recreate this stuff *earnestly*, and
> I'm guessing it will fail.
Actually, the reverse:
Japan pop-culture nuts like us loved the vintage 'Zillas because they
*did* take themselves with ponderous seriousness (unlike the
commercialized next-generation "Biollante", "1984", etc.)...and only the
Japanese WOULD-- ; )
Gaijin US producers who thought we Toho-philes wanted a campy
giggle-fest are in for an expensive shock--Unfortunately, that's not the
audience E&D were aiming for...
> What's next? A serious "Lost In Space" movie?
Hopefully they'll DO a serious LiS for the already-planned sequel:
From what I've already read, the first could've used a few more rewrites
and a little less kid-audience pandering...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Trav 1138
>
>I've read the GODZILLA script, mainly because I grew up on the original
>Toho films, and I have to say it's the worst thing Emmerich and Devlin
>have ever touched (and that includes UNIVERSAL SOLDIER)
I have to agree. The script is unbeliably stupid. No imagination, no sense of
awe or wonderment. The way Godzilla dies is dumb and the whole
baby-Godzillas-hatching thing is dumb too. Next please.
Ronald J. Whalen
The ScriptPro 2000 System wrote:
>
>
> Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure you're just a
> retard with bad taste. And I'll feel free to discuss any film I want on
> this or any other newsgroup, whether it makes you happy or not.
>
> I've read the GODZILLA script, mainly because I grew up on the original
Are you talking about the script that's on the Internet ? Because if so,
that's not the film they're making-that's the original version of the
script which was planned for the film when Jan De Bont was set to direct
it. Or are you talking about the "real" movie script for the film,
the one written by Emmerich and Devlin for the movie they're making ?
> their names on this abortion). If you want to defend it sight unseen,
> go right ahead. I at least am armed with the knowledge that this thing
> sucks balls, and can rest easy knowing that goons like you will eat it
> up anyway.
>
I sure ain't going to see this movie and if I am I am going to see it
with somebody who is paying for it and not me. I plan to see none of
the new movies coming out this summer because most of them look plain
bad-the only movie I might see this year is Eyes Wide Shut, that is if
Kubrick releases the movie in time for summer/winter 1998.
Ronie J Whalen
Ronald J. Whalen
Mylene Smith wrote:
>
> spoiler
>
> The ScriptPro 2000 System wrote:
> > almost forty-five minutes before the end of the fucking movie so we get
> > to sit through an interminable sequence of humans creeping around
> > Madison Square Gardens avoiding the
> <snipped>
>
> This is called a spoiler. WARN PEOPLE THAT YOU WILL BE TELLING THEM
> WHAT HAPPENS NEXT TIME!!!!!!
Why should they ? Movie critics reveal most information about the movie,
sometimes they even reveal the ending of the movie and they don't say in
their review that there are spoilers for the movie, if you haven't seen
it or in this case read it.
Ronald J. Whalen
Boyd Campbell wrote:
>
> I think one of the reasons the entertainment industry works
> is that for some reason, people seem to need to let some
> works in and really love them while keeping others out and
> bashing the hell out of them. The same is true of sports
> teams, religion and race, not that it makes the phenominon
> any clearer.
>
> Perhaps it's some sort of genetic memory of a time when our
> proto-human ancestors lived in small troupes and anything
> different represented a threat.
>
> Whatever the reason is, it does work though, which is movies
> are sold to us as sci-fi or comedies or love stories instead
> of just "movies."
>
> Two predictions I feel pretty comfortable with is that Godzilla
> will make a lot of money BUT people are going to just looove
> bashing it.
>
You're absolutely right. People will just love bashing and hating
Godzilla just as people loved it hate ID4. ID4 wasn't a bad movie,
on the level it was fun cinema junk-food but considering the hype
the movie got (it was even on the cover of TIME magazine!) it just
wasn't worth it-it was good movie, I liked it but it didn't meet
my expectations of it. I prefered Mars Attacks! which got no
hype and few people had anti-websites about it but I found
it a more entertaining clever version of the alien vs. us premise
than the way ID4 handeled it.
Ronie J Whalen
Daniel R. Baker
Boyd Campbell wrote:
> Two predictions I feel pretty comfortable with is that Godzilla
> will make a lot of money BUT people are going to just looove
> bashing it.
>
The reason I get upset at moviews like ID4 is that there is no reason
that they have to be stupid and mindless. With a little effort, they
could have cleaned up the stupidities and inconsistencies, (you know,
like Bethesda Naval Hospital not having enough crystalloid to save the
President's wife, mega-advanced aliens who are too dumb to protect their
computers or use biological warfare to exterminate humanity, aliens who
keel over at one punch from Will Smith but survive surgical dissection
completely unharmed, etc.). I'm the first to admit that ID4 had some
good points: fine special effects, good acting from Pullman, Hirsch and
Smith, and a pretty fair score. Why couldn't just 5% of the budget have
been spent on a script that made sense?
Blockbuster movies can be done non-stupidly. They have been done
non-stupidly in the recent past: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and STAR WARS
are examples. The only reason movies like ID4 end up being stupid is
because guys like Emmerich don't give a damn about cleaning them up and
having them make sense, and they count on the American public not giving
a damn either. And I'm ashamed that a lot of the American public is
proving them right.
Respectfully,
Daniel R. Baker.
(Disclaimers ad nauseam).
Paul J. Adams
Rick Blade <RCWar...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in article
<6e6fdc$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> This is so true. I knew a guy at work who always acted arrogant and
> conceited. He went and saw Batman & Robin. Then he told everybody at
> work that it was the worst movie he ever saw and he wanted those two
> hours of his life back that were stolen from him. Now if this guy is
> half as smart as he thinks he is then why couldn't he have the
> slightest clue what the movie would be like from watching commercials
> and trailers? I personally end up enjoying a movie almost every time
> if I like the trailers & commercials.
Questions: Have you ever not liked a movie? Have you ever not liked a
movie to the extent that you declared it was a waste of your time? Have
you ever stood up to someone who loved a movie you hated and told them why
you hated it? If your answer to each of these questions is yes, then what
makes you any less of a prick than the guy you mentioned? Did you consider
the possibility that some people attempt to be open minded, and give a
movie a chance, only to discover that they legitimately dislike a movie,
and regret having paid to see it?
If someone goes to see a movie like Batman & Robin hoping in advance that
they'll hate it, I can understand your contempt. But huge numbers of
people went in with the hope that they would love this movie, and came away
disgusted with it. Their opinions may not agree with yours, but hey,
that's life! You could attempt to defend your opinions like any other
USENET poster with a thick skin, or you can bash those who disagree with
you on a personal level, which is the common response of those more
sensitive persons who can't handle a difference in opinion.
Have you ever made a comment directed at the "type" of person who might
like or not like a particular movie? I'll give you an example from Russell
Watson:
"The only reason they see ANY movie (except cheap, weird ("quirky!"),
"independent" shit that no regular person would like, which they heap
praise upon to show how "with it" they are) is to be able to tell you how
fucking stupid you are liking it."
If you have made such a comment, then don't be surprised when people dump
all over you and whatever "type" they think you belong to that day.
The funny thing about this whole "intellectual/artsy" vs. "common
sense/unpretentious" battle is that there's such a close affinity between
the people on both sides of the fence. People will often scurry across
from one side to the other depending on what movie is being contested, but
they will keep up the interpersonal combat approach. Fortunately, most of
us fall somewhere inbetween the extremes, and we discuss movies based on
their ideas, plots, etcetera. But those who like to turn it into a caveman
vs. robot war are certainly a very vocal minority. This time the war cry
has been issued by Richard Johnson with the following post:
"If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG favor and
don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla. Then the rest of us who
like Godzilla can have a cool discussion about it without arrogant horses
ass sons of bitches trying to spoil the fun. I KNOW you guys are looking
forward to saying how it's a stupid movie for the unwashed masses and it's
not hard core science fiction and bla bla bla bla. We've heard it all
before. We know you think you're fucking geniuses who know everything about
movies and the rest of us are retards with bad taste. So just shut the fuck
up please."
All I can say to this is that Richard had better come back praising this
film to high heaven, or else say nothing at all. What his plea amounts to
is "Stay away unless you're gonna like it. If you say you don't like it,
I'll accuse you of expressing an insincere opinion based on your own
prejudice and having nothing to do with the film itself!"
He's attempting to shore up a first line of defense against his perceived
enemies, without realizing how many of his future enemies reside within his
own camp. Even among those who dearly loved Stargate and ID4, some are
going to come back not liking Godzilla. If they're anywhere nearly as
belligerant as Richard and Russell, we're in for a serious bloodbath.
Paul J. Adams
> Oh that is just so damn funny. You're calling Emerich and Devlin crap
> film makers when all the Japanese monster movies I've seen have the
> worst special effects and the worst acting by far and have stories
> that are just a little more sophisticated than the Power Rangers.
> These films are often the targets of stand up comedians, who often
> poke fun at Japanese monster movies and get plenty of laughs.
Sorry. You're no longer allowed to look DOWN on other peoples tastes which
appear unsophisticated to you. You've already condemned this practice, and
I'm sure you don't want to appear hypocritical.
>
> > So tell me, am I allowed to watch the movie, and if so, am I allowed
to take
> >advantage of my constitutional right to state my opinion on it? I
wouldn't want
> >to hurt your feelings or anything, so please get back to me on this so I
can
> >fill out my calendar without worries.
>
> You're being dishonest, because you say Emerich and Devlin are
> horrible and yet you're going to see their Godzilla movie anyway. So
> no you are not allowed to see the movie until you admit you like
> Emerich and Devlin. Being a film student, it seems you have to cover
> your ass by putting down Emerich and Devlin, because you feel you have
> to do that to maintain a self-image as a sophisticated film maven.
> I don't like Meryl Streep and therefore I will never pay to see a
> movie with her in it. You see I'm honest that way and you're not.
You're trippin' dude! Not only do you appear to think you know the "real"
reasons for people's professed opinions, but you adamantly refuse to accept
that anyone on earth could have seen ID4 and honestly disliked it. Don't
ever call another person pretentious, because your own attitude is
shamefully pretentious.
What do you think is the reason for this big deception? If everyone in the
world is a secret ID4 fan, what's keeping them from coming out and
confessing to their admiration for this film? Who's there to impress with
one's cool disdain, if we're all just faking it? When will the dam finally
break so we can all come out and say:
"Oh, so you really liked it too? I was just pretending because I was
scared you wouldn't like me anymore if I was an ID4 fan. Oh, you felt the
same way too? What a coincidence!"
Paul J. Adams
Russell Watson <russell...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6e56tq$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Teo Ee Ming" <cybe...@cyberway.com.sg> wrote:
> >Come to think about it, anyone who likens ID4 or the upcoming Godzilla
as a
> >film not an FX demo reel, should have their tastes reconsidered and
their
> >brains lobotomized.
>
> That is the numero uno conceit that pisses me off about the set of
> folks that I was venting on in my original post: the inability to
> differentiate between "film as art" and "movies as entertainment". I
> fire. You don't like ID, so it's "an FX demo reel", rather than a
> "film". Unless you have a magic movie box, you haven't even seen
> GODZILLA yet, but you're already lumping it into the same category.
> Thanks for underling my point.
Yup... you hooked a fish. Boy, I'm getting depressed...
Paul J. Adams
My first impression of the _Lost In Space_ trailer:
"That would've looked a lot better if they didn't let any of the characters
talk."
Paul J. Adams
Teo Ee Ming <cybe...@cyberway.com.sg> wrote in article
<350510dd.0@cwaix>...
> Come to think about it, anyone who likens ID4 or the upcoming Godzilla as
a
> film not an FX demo reel, should have their tastes reconsidered and their
> brains lobotomized.
As well as:
> If you're talking about the mainstream in the 70s, it's okay. The 90's
> maninstream is really dumbed down to the toilet level. In other words,
you
> do not need a single brain cell to watch these action-packed disaster
> "epics". Take note: how lame can one get when the summer's supposedly
> biggest movie is a classic B-grade man-in-monster-suit pic. Hell, I'd
rather
> take Ultraman any time of the old fucking day.
Oh No!!! You're helping him prove his point!!! Don't bite!!! Don't give
him a pretentious, snobby answer to his challenge!!! You're walking into
an ambush!!! Turn back!!!
MuseMalade
Paul J. Adams wrote:
[...]
> This time the war cry
> has been issued by Richard Johnson with the following post:
>
> "If you thought Stargate and ID4 were stupid, do us all a BIG favor and
> don't see Godzilla and just shut up about Godzilla. Then the rest of us who
> like Godzilla can have a cool discussion about it without arrogant horses
> ass sons of bitches trying to spoil the fun. I KNOW you guys are looking
> forward to saying how it's a stupid movie for the unwashed masses and it's
> not hard core science fiction and bla bla bla bla. We've heard it all
> before. We know you think you're fucking geniuses who know everything about
> movies and the rest of us are retards with bad taste. So just shut the fuck
> up please."
>
> All I can say to this is that Richard had better come back praising this
> film to high heaven, or else say nothing at all. What his plea amounts to
> is "Stay away unless you're gonna like it. If you say you don't like it,
> I'll accuse you of expressing an insincere opinion based on your own
> prejudice and having nothing to do with the film itself!"
I always find it bizarre that a war would be waged on a movie that no
one has seen, though I'll take The ScriptPro's word that the script
bites. But I would bet that this Richard Johnson guy would come back
raving about GODZILLA. People so zealous to defend an unreleased film
will love the movie no matter what (latin phrase about this kind of
logic fallacy deleted as to not add to my "Caveman" credentials).
Witness an unnamed poster raving about AMISTAD and relentless bashing
KUNDUN, a full two months before they came out. Is it a surprise to
find AMISTAD #2 on his constantly reposted top 20 list, and see puerile
declarations of how much he "hated" KUNDUN scattered throughout his
posts? Or the folks who declare EYES WIDE SHUT the "best film of the
year"? Let's see what they say when they've actually watched the
movie. The results would not be surprising.
MuseMalade
Derek Janssen
Dave Platt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
> to sink this movie's chances of making money, I propose a campaign to
> spoil the entire plot of Godzilla. If you know anything about it, please
> tell the newsgroup and any other movie-related ones! If you have the
> script, PLEASE POST IT! I want to see this movie make negative cash.
It's not sabotage OR revenge, it's freedom of information:
If someone knows, it's his duty and more often pleasure to spill it to
several hundred like-minded strangers with the same interest--That's why
the Usenet was invented, after all--
With surprises out in the open, that puts the burden of originality on
the *producers*, not the cash-paying audience--What's wrong with using
technology to raise the stakes a little?... ; )
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Dave Platt
: Dave Platt wrote:
: >
: > Look up "irony" in a dictionary. People like the Japanese monster movies
: > because they don't take themselves so seriously. From all indications,
: > Godzilla is yet another attempt to recreate this stuff *earnestly*, and
: > I'm guessing it will fail.
:
: Actually, the reverse:
: Japan pop-culture nuts like us loved the vintage 'Zillas because they
: *did* take themselves with ponderous seriousness (unlike the
: commercialized next-generation "Biollante", "1984", etc.)...and only the
: Japanese WOULD-- ; )
: Gaijin US producers who thought we Toho-philes wanted a campy
: giggle-fest are in for an expensive shock--Unfortunately, that's not the
: audience E&D were aiming for...
I stand corrected. However, I still say there's a difference between the
"seriousness" of the Toho Godzilla (which were, after all, aimed at kids,
weren't they?) and the dour earnestness of the new one. The idea seems to
be that Emmerich and Devlin are trying to "do it right," with "doing it
right" meaning laying on the bloated, grim FX and neo-Wagnerian music.
Dave Platt
Russell Watson
The ScriptPro 2000 System <mcs...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip a bunch of rehashed shit>
If you had been paying even a lick of attention you would see that the
point being made here is about assholes who go see movies that they
expect in advance to hate, apparently solely for the purpose of being
critical later of people who liked them. If you avoid movies that you
know that you aren't going to like then this isn't about you so get
the fuck off.
<snip a bunch more shit where this guy first talks about what "great"
movies the rehashed serials of the '30s and '40s (STAR WARS and
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK) are, before going on to brag about what a
stud he is>
Russell Watson
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
>: >There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
>: >real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out what's
>: >wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
>:
>: If you acknowledge this as a stereotype, I take it that my post isn't
>: the first place that you've seen or heard these criticisms aired.
>: Remember that among any stereotyped group there are going to be those
>: who taken apart from the balance will appear to prove it true.
>"Some blacks don't eat watermelon and fried chicken. Some Jews aren't
>stingy about money."
>I realize these are extreme examples, but that's basically what you're
>saying about "film geeks." You're saying that there are exceptions to the
>rule, but your stereotype is still basically true.
I'm glad you love movies because you sure as hell apparently never
learned to read. What I wrote is 180 degrees removed from that
statement.
Russell Watson
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
>: Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>:
<snip some old stuff>
>: How was INDEPENDENCE DAY "poorly made"? Please define this
>: terminology. Was it simply because you didn't like it, or are there
>: concrete, purely objective reasons why it was bad? Did it meet the
>: objectives of those who made it, i.e., presumably to make a
>: cartoonish, thinly plotted, broadly drawn, "Us vs. THEM" roller
>: coaster ride of a movie which would thrill millions of Summer movie
>: goers for a couple of hours and make the studio millions of $??? If
>: that was what they wanted, it succeded wildly. Did it hurt anyone, in
>: any sense other than that some people are just subjectively not going
>: to like it? If you as an individual are not turned on by this type of
>: movie does that make it bad, or just not your kind of movie? And could
>:you not glean enough about it in advance to think that this might be
>: so, but you went anyway?
>It used to be, when you saw a huge blockbuster "event" movie, you could
>expect at least a coherent plot (Raiders, the first Batman, the Star Wars
>movies, etc). However, ID4 simply *made no sense*. For example, are we
>really supposed to believe that they could upload a virus onto the
>alien's computers? Are we supposed to buy that the President of the
>United States would get up in an F-14 and kick ass? Are we supposed to
>cheer the demise of the aliens at the end, even though 3/4 of the Earth's
>population has been wiped out?
It was not scientifically astute, and it is not atypical of movies to
time compress events , such as the obvious period of malaise that
would follow such an event, but otherwise, how did it make no sense?
Aliens arrive, appear friendly, one guy figures out they're not but
nobody listens, aliens show their true colors and it looks bad for a
while, good guys figure out the one weakness in the alien armor and
kick their asses and everybody celebrates. What's not to make sense.
Simplistic as hell? Definately. Senseless? Hardly.
Not to nitpick, but it was an F-18 (also a military aviation buff).
>I'm sorry, but even an "event movie" has to follow logic and integrity of
>plot, unless it's explicitly a cartoon. ID4 tried for something close to
>realism, and it dropped th ball. It's not even good for the type of movie
>it was meant to be.
This is where we have to disagree. I think that your description of
this movie is EXACTLY what it was meant to be. You just stated that
all the major points of the movie depart from realism, but then say
that the guys who made it were trying to make it realistic. How many
of the millions of people who saw that movie do you REALLY think sat
and pondered all that shit? There were quite a few for sure, myself
included, but I went into the theater not really expecting much more
than I got. It was BIFF! BANG! WHOOSH! HA-HA! WAVE THE FLAG and the
good guys win and lets go home and Goddamn it's hot out here that damn
movie could've been 2 hours longer so I could stay in the AC a while
longer.
It ain't rocket science, friend. We are but a few of a very tiny
percentage of the population who would think that a civilization that
could swallow solar systems whole could be taken down by a computer
virus. Of course it was simply a "modernized" version of WAR OF THE
WORLDS where a biological virus does the same thing to a supposedly
"advanced" race, but yet that is a "classic". These movies are made
for the untold numbers of others who never let that sort of thing
cross their minds, including the militia morons who are too stupid to
know anything about science except how to make a fertilizer bomb, yet
saw the movie as part of a UN conspiracy forwarding the agenda of the
New World Order (NOT a wrestling organization) because the final
sloution required global cooperation to work.
How does anyone get a movie "shoved down their throats"? Again this is
a perfect example of the point I have been trying to make. Some people
will go to a movie that they are biased against from the first just
because of the hype. I personally have no problem simply ignoring the
existence of movies that I don't expect to like, and for the life of
me can't see why so many other people can't do the same. I have
skipped dozens of "blockbusters" simply because they didn't look like
something that I would be interested in. How can that be so hard to
do?
>:And let's say Godzilla really does suck. Are you saying that people
>: >should ignore all critical opinion and just go with the crowds? Sure
>: >thing. Baa.
>:
>: Hardly. If it is of say, BATMAN & ROBIN or THE LOST WORLD caliber,
>; y'all bring the matches, I'll bring the gasoline, and we'll roast that
>: sucker good.
>: Having said this, I realize that there will be people who will read it
>: who will say, "What in the hell does this asshole think was wrong with
>: B&R or TLW? That fucker ROCKED!".
>: So be it.
>I thought Lost World was about the same as the original, which I thought
>was kind of overrated. But I liked the actors in the second one more.
>(Pete Postethwaite was great)
The problem with TLW:JP WAS that it was basically a rehash of the
original. I admire a lot of what Crichton has done as an author, and
ER is one of the best dramatic shows in the history of TV, but when it
comes to film projects he is a total fucking sellout.
Russell Watson
"Teo Ee Ming" <cybe...@cyberway.com.sg> wrote:
>Russell Watson wrote in message <6e56tq$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>One of the ongoing mantras among the regulars in this group is that
>>there is no such thing as an independent film anymore. Even the ones
>>that are marketed as such have the money of some big studio behind
>>them.
>>EASY RIDER doesn't count, being 30 years old. Belongs to different
>>era.
>>
>>>Come to think about it, anyone who likens ID4 or the upcoming Godzilla as
>a
>>>film not an FX demo reel, should have their tastes reconsidered and their
>>>brains lobotomized.
>>
>>That is the numero uno conceit that pisses me off about the set of
>>folks that I was venting on in my original post: the inability to
>>differentiate between "film as art" and "movies as entertainment". I
>>deliberately made my post as caustic as possible to draw this kind of
>>fire. You don't like ID, so it's "an FX demo reel", rather than a
>>"film". Unless you have a magic movie box, you haven't even seen
>>GODZILLA yet, but you're already lumping it into the same category.
>>Thanks for underling my point.
>As the others in the newsgroup have pointed out, judging by Emmerich's track
>record, it is severely doubted that Godzilla will be pulled off as the best
>movie of the year. If fantasy Sci-fi is your forte, fine, go see a Terry
>Gilliam movie. At least his fantasy aburdist flicks are far much better
>brain-killers than these 2 uber-Furhrer of Sci-fi disaster.
This still comes down to a matter of individual taste. Some folks (a
majority, actually) simply don't see going to the movies as a cerebral
exercise. Something like BRAZIL or 12 MONKEYS drives them crazy. They
can't even stand PULP FICTION because they don't won't to do the
mental work required to resequence the movie into its actual
chronological order. You call movies like ID and GODZILLA
"brain-killers", and to you perhaps they are exactly that. But another
common catch phrase associated with movies that unfold like A Little
Golden Book is "brain candy", and that's exactly what it is to the
people who enjoy them. It's chocolate ice cream on celluloid. And the
ultimate question is: "Who does it hurt?" Don' t tell the person who
likes it that he's stupid just because your poison of choice is
something a little more complicated like butter pecan.
The tone of intellectual superiority adopted by people who dislike
these movies is what pisses the people who do like them off. Other
than a few snot-nosed teeny-boppers, it's seldom that you will see a
person who likes the ID-type of film accuse someone who doesn't like
it of being stupid, but the converse of this is unfortunately almost
always true.
>>
>>>>Their punch in the eye to every mainstream
>>>>film-maker in Hollywood is to go spend their money on every damn one
>>>>that comes out so that they can come back and display their
>>>>intellectual superiority to us common slugs.
>>
>>>If you're talking about the mainstream in the 70s, it's okay. The 90's
>>>maninstream is really dumbed down to the toilet level. In other words, you
>>>do not need a single brain cell to watch these action-packed disaster
>>>"epics". Take note: how lame can one get when the summer's supposedly
>>>biggest movie is a classic B-grade man-in-monster-suit pic. Hell, I'd
>rather
>>>take Ultraman any time of the old fucking day.
>>
>>Are we talking about the same mainstream '70s that spawned EARTHQUAKE,
>>THE TOWERING INFERNO, etc. What about JAWS and STAR WARS, two of the
>>biggest grossers of all time? Are they really "GREAT" films? How are
>>they better than what's being made today?
>I'm talking about The Exorcist, The Godfather, Love Story, A Clockwork
>Orange to name a few.
I doubt you could name many more. That's pretty much the cream of a
decade's crop. Four movies. Shit, five. You missed TAXI DRIVER.
> These films made shitloads of money and still remains
>"artful" and masterful. Granted A Clockwork Orange only made 30 million that
>time, but still it's such wonderful piece of art and it costs under 2
>million to make. JAWS is a great film. Star Wars is just a figment of a
>child's imagination. It ain't great at all.
>The 70's movies are really revolutionary. So are the late 60's when the
>ratings are introduced. The 90's now is just a rehash of the 50's where
>every schlock studios try to make monster-teen pics to rip off lots of
>people.
>Emmerich and Devlin are the German versions of Roger Corman. They make
>entertaining, but absolutely cheesy and corny movies which only pleases
>adolescants. These 2 nincompoops could'nt get their asses out of the Sci-fi
>genre even if their lives depended on it. Completely devoid of any story
>sense, they will rip off anything they deem as original. These 2 thieves
>shall never be allowed to write again.
The social climate of today is much like that of the '50s and early
'60s. People like the same type of movies today as back then because
they have similar value systems. The studios aren't ripping people
off. They are giving them what they want. The movie industry isn't a
big charity that exists on donations. It creates a product, sometimes
on a trial basis, that is designed to hopefully appeal to a market. If
the market proves not to be there, the product is pulled and replaced
with something else. When the right product is finally arrived at, the
manufacturer pushes the hell out of until people's taste changes and
they quit buying. The public taste in movies has changed over the
years, albeit somewhat cyclicly, unlike Coke which has been the same
since it was introduced except for one ill-founded attempt to make it
into another version of Pepsi. Will the curent film vogue become the
Coke of the movie world? Might happen, because action and FX seem to
be what draw folks to the theater, and there is a certain type of
movie which lends itself to these attributes more than some other
formats. I remember a time when S-F/Fantasy only came in B-grade
movies due to the inabilty to cost-effectively make a good one. The FX
pioneered on STAR WARS (the fact which makes it landmark, whether a
"great" movie or not) and more or less perfected over the course of
its sequels changed that forever.
The only reason that nearly every Corman flick ever made was not a
"blockbuster" is that Corman is such a skinflint that he does cheesy
movies of a sort that the less sophisticated audiences of the '40s and
'50s would stand for but that people from the '60s on just couldn't
stomach. I mean there was a time when a flying saucer was expected to
be seen hanging by a thread, but no more. 2001 changed all that.
Remake Corman's movies with today's FX and you've got some hits there.
The problem that a lot of you folks have is that because you don't
like these movies you convince yourselves that the majority of the
millions who flock to them have been tricked somehow, and that if they
could only see the movies that you like their lives would be magically
altered and that would become the primary type of film being made
because everyone would be willing to spend their money to see it..
WRONG. These movies are hits because they are what the masses want to
see.
Russell Watson
Trav 1138
Great idea. I've got the Godzilla script, I'll be leakin parts up until the
release.
Trav 1138
>
>Are you talking about the script that's on the Internet ? Because if so,
>that's not the film they're making-that's the original version of the
>script which was planned for the film when Jan De Bont was set to direct
I've read both scripts. The De Bont script was pretty weak. The Emmerich-Devlin
script is a piece of garbage.
Dave Platt
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
: Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
:
Um, yes. There's still the computer thing, and there's the fact the
President couldn't risk his life like that.
:
: >I'm sorry, but even an "event movie" has to follow logic and integrity of
: >plot, unless it's explicitly a cartoon. ID4 tried for something close to
: >realism, and it dropped th ball. It's not even good for the type of movie
: >it was meant to be.
:
:
: This is where we have to disagree. I think that your description of
: this movie is EXACTLY what it was meant to be. You just stated that
: all the major points of the movie depart from realism, but then say
: that the guys who made it were trying to make it realistic. How many
That's why it wasn't good. They *were* trying to make it realistic, and
then they did some inexecusably unrealistic things with the plot.
: of the millions of people who saw that movie do you REALLY think sat
: and pondered all that shit? There were quite a few for sure, myself
: included, but I went into the theater not really expecting much more
: than I got. It was BIFF! BANG! WHOOSH! HA-HA! WAVE THE FLAG and the
: good guys win and lets go home and Goddamn it's hot out here that damn
: movie could've been 2 hours longer so I could stay in the AC a while
; longer.
Now who's the one condescending to the audience?
: It ain't rocket science, friend. We are but a few of a very tiny
: percentage of the population who would think that a civilization that
: could swallow solar systems whole could be taken down by a computer
: virus. Of course it was simply a "modernized" version of WAR OF THE
: WORLDS where a biological virus does the same thing to a supposedly
: "advanced" race, but yet that is a "classic". These movies are made
There's no comparison. War of The Worlds handles the same material
intelligently, and explains itself quite well. the idea that the aliens
would have the same computer systems as we do is insane; the idea that
they would respond to the same biological diseases as us isn't.
<snip>
: >I defend these guys, because in spite of an appearance of negativity, for
: >the most part their dismay comes from a genuine love of movies, and a
: >knowledge that movies can be better. It's heartbreaking the way a movie
: >like ID4 is shoved down people's throats and other movies are left
: >behind. If I could, I'd ask for my $8 back.
:
: How does anyone get a movie "shoved down their throats"? Again this is
> a perfect example of the point I have been trying to make. Some people
:will go to a movie that they are biased against from the first just
: because of the hype. I personally have no problem simply ignoring the
: existence of movies that I don't expect to like, and for the life of
: me can't see why so many other people can't do the same. I have
: skipped dozens of "blockbusters" simply because they didn't look like
: something that I would be interested in. How can that be so hard to
: do?
The thing is, I *didn't* think that about ID4. I went in thinking it
might be decent. However, I was just a sucker for the hype, like millions
of other people (are you saying that everyone who paid to see the movie
liked it?)
Franknseus
>The Garbage Pail Kids Movie? How come I've never heard of this? I remember
>the cards coming out in the mid to late 80's so the movie must've been
>released
>around that time, right? Is this one of those things, like the Salinger
>Captain America and the haphazardly made FANTASTIC FOUR flick that only you
>have had the privilege to view?
>
>
>MuseMalade
I haven't seen the Captain America flick, which I believe actually received a
tiny theatrical release. Fantastic Four, of course, was not released at all and
is circulated as a bootleg at many a comic book convention. I've seen it twice
and it's a lot of fun if you're in the right mood. (That's one thing about
Independence Day. If it has to be so god damned inept it should be done so in a
crazily entertaining way like, say, Double Team. But I found myself constantly
wondering "When will this thing end?" which I very rarely do. How long is that
movie anyway? It seemed like at least four hours.)
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie was released in 1987, produced by Topps Trading
Cards. (It is the first film based on a series of trading cards, with Mars
Attacks! being the second and best entry in the genre.) It is directed by Rod
Amateau, whose previous credits mostly include Dukes of Hazzard episodes. It
stars Mackenzie Astin, who was George Clooney's little arrogant pal on The
Facts of Life. The plot, as far as I remember, involves a bunch of midgets in
rather un-Cabbage Patch Kid looking masks who pee and fart.
It's not very good.
I saw it when it was new on video, and I doubt there is a single living
person who saw it in a theater. (Actually, someone on Usenet once told me he
saw a double feature of Garbage Pail Kids and Masters of the Universe. He may
be the last one.) I've noticed that it's very difficult to find a video store
that still has a copy. There may be a reason for this. We'll just have to wait
for the DVD.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss, Super Monster
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center - http://www.bucketheadland.com
Franknseus
>Oh that is just so damn funny. You're calling Emerich and Devlin crap
>film makers when all the Japanese monster movies I've seen have the
>worst special effects and the worst acting by far and have stories
>that are just a little more sophisticated than the Power Rangers.
>These films are often the targets of stand up comedians, who often
>poke fun at Japanese monster movies and get plenty of laughs.
See, that's what I'm talking about. I love giant monster movies. I don't care
if bad comedians make bad jokes based on cliches about these movies that they
have never seen and never will see. I mentioned three giant monster movies that
I dearly love: Godzilla vs. Megalon, Gamera Super Monster and Infra-Man. Yes,
these are silly movies. But imaginative and berserk and fun. I wish I could
expect that from this Godzilla movie, but I can't.
Just as someone who is a fan of the TV series Lost In Space will probably
feel a duty to go see the new movie and be disappointed by the way it neglects
the spirit of the source material, I must go see what they are doing to my pal
Godzilla. I hope it's not what I expect, but hey, I'm an interested party.
As for special effects, the magic of classic giant monster movies has to do
with stylization and not realism. The modern Toho Godzilla films have a good
balance of stylization and realism created with very detailed suits with
articulated tails and faces. I will be incredibly surprised if the CGI Godzilla
either a) looks as real as the modern Toho Godzilla or b) looks as cool as the
modern Toho Godzilla. But you never know.
>You're being dishonest, because you say Emerich and Devlin are
>horrible and yet you're going to see their Godzilla movie anyway. So
>no you are not allowed to see the movie until you admit you like
>Emerich and Devlin.
That's funny. The only film I've seen by them is Independence Day. I saw it
once the day before it came out. I hadn't heard anything about the film and
thought the trailer made it look pretty good. During the early portion of the
film I was annoyed by the constant barrage of bad jokes and the various walking
stereotypes passing for characters. I kept telling myself "It'll get better as
soon as the aliens attack!" But by the time the dog was running slo-mo away
from the fiery explosion, I knew there was no turning back. I don't remember a
single scene that thrilled me, a single joke that made me laugh. I remember a
lot of things that were absolutely ludicrous, but not in a way that I liked.
And I wasn't even impressed by the later much ballyhooed special effects, other
than the flying cars shot that I had liked from the trailer.
No, I'm pretty sure I don't like those guys. But hey, you would know better
than I would I guess.
>Being a film student, it seems you have to cover
>your ass by putting down Emerich and Devlin, because you feel you have
>to do that to maintain a self-image as a sophisticated film maven.
Uh, yeah? Okay, I guess. But like I said, I'm not a film student.
>I don't like Meryl Streep and therefore I will never pay to see a
>movie with her in it. You see I'm honest that way and you're not.
Well, I guess I go to more movies than you. There are plenty of actors I
don't like and although I might worry if they appear in a movie I'm going to
see, I'll still give it a chance. And sometimes I'm surprised.
Paul J. Adams
> >: >real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out
what's
> >: >wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
> >:
> >: If you acknowledge this as a stereotype, I take it that my post isn't
> >: the first place that you've seen or heard these criticisms aired.
> >: Remember that among any stereotyped group there are going to be those
> >: who taken apart from the balance will appear to prove it true.
>
> >stingy about money."
>
> >I realize these are extreme examples, but that's basically what you're
> >saying about "film geeks." You're saying that there are exceptions to
the
> >rule, but your stereotype is still basically true.
>
> I'm glad you love movies because you sure as hell apparently never
> learned to read. What I wrote is 180 degrees removed from that
> statement.
Actually, what you wrote seems more like 360 degrees removed, which in our
hyperspherical universe comes around to meaning the same thing. You're
saying that all stereotypes have legitimacy because they apply to some
members, but they don't apply to others. This is the same philosophy which
Dave has thrown back at you in its more common form.
Mark P Vitale
Six. You also missed Superman I.
Dragan Antulov
Dave Platt wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>: Why should they ? Movie critics reveal most information about the movie,
>: sometimes they even reveal the ending of the movie and they don't say in
>: their review that there are spoilers for the movie, if you haven't seen
>: it or in this case read it.
>This gives me an idea. As an act of civil disobedience, and in an attempt
>to sink this movie's chances of making money, I propose a campaign to
>spoil the entire plot of Godzilla. If you know anything about it, please
>tell the newsgroup and any other movie-related ones! If you have the
>script, PLEASE POST IT! I want to see this movie make negative cash.
In July of 1996 most popular Croatian magazine, GLOBUS, published a detailed
plot outline of ID4. Four months later, people were flocking to theaters.
The movie was commercial success, although being #2 on Croatian box-office.
Top spot was taken by Croatian comedy KAKO JE POCEO RAT NA MOM OTOKU, movie
whose entire plot was also revealed in the form of photo-novel, published in
another popular newspaper.
So, I don't think that spoiling campaign would make a lot of difference.
Drax
Fido: 2:381/100
E-Mail: dragan....@st.tel.hr
dragan....@altbbs.fido.hr
Russell Watson
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
What is the big deal with "the computer thing"? Computers work on
mathematical principles, and the fact that math is the closest thing
to a literally "universal" language has not only fueled many a S-F
film in recent years, but also actual science. I say that it would be
easier to decipher an alien race's computer code than to ever figure
out what their spoken language might mean.
As for the President, 2 factors to consider:
1. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
2. People want to see a so-called leader LEAD. From the front, like in
the old days when kings went into battle ahead of their troops and
took the consequences, including death, in stride. Alexander
didn't conquer the world by sitting in Macedomia on his ass, the
way Johnson ran the cluster-fuck that was Vietnam.
We're talking about a President who was a war hero fighter
pilot who has just issued a call for any pilot who can fly staying
home to watch it on TV. No way. We can NEVER have a real
President like this again, so movies like ID and AFO are the
closest we'll ever get and you damned "realists" (in a S-F
flick?!) want to piss all over that, too.
>:
>: >I'm sorry, but even an "event movie" has to follow logic and integrity of
>: >plot, unless it's explicitly a cartoon. ID4 tried for something close to
>: >realism, and it dropped th ball. It's not even good for the type of movie
>: >it was meant to be.
>:
>:
>: This is where we have to disagree. I think that your description of
>: this movie is EXACTLY what it was meant to be. You just stated that
>: all the major points of the movie depart from realism, but then say
>: that the guys who made it were trying to make it realistic. How many
>That's why it wasn't good. They *were* trying to make it realistic, and
>then they did some inexecusably unrealistic things with the plot.
You haven't validated this point YET! You keep saying it, but you
haven't backed it up with anything but accusations that certain things
would NEVER happen in the real world. NO SHIT! Let's all keep this in
mind so we'll know how to act when "they" arrive. Wouldn't want to do
anything unrealistic.
>: of the millions of people who saw that movie do you REALLY think sat
>: and pondered all that shit? There were quite a few for sure, myself
>: included, but I went into the theater not really expecting much more
>: than I got. It was BIFF! BANG! WHOOSH! HA-HA! WAVE THE FLAG and the
>: good guys win and lets go home and Goddamn it's hot out here that damn
>: movie could've been 2 hours longer so I could stay in the AC a while
>; longer.
>Now who's the one condescending to the audience?
I was talking about ME!
>: It ain't rocket science, friend. We are but a few of a very tiny
>: percentage of the population who would think that a civilization that
>: could swallow solar systems whole could be taken down by a computer
>: virus. Of course it was simply a "modernized" version of WAR OF THE
>: WORLDS where a biological virus does the same thing to a supposedly
>: "advanced" race, but yet that is a "classic". These movies are made
>There's no comparison. War of The Worlds handles the same material
>intelligently, and explains itself quite well. the idea that the aliens
>would have the same computer systems as we do is insane; the idea that
>they would respond to the same biological diseases as us isn't.
You have talked realism until you are blue in the face and now you
want to defend the theory that a race that has conquered galaxies, and
has even been scouting our own planet for years would not know about
the possibility of microbial organisms on other worlds being hostile
to their physionomy? That shit might have worked on 14th- and
15th-century Earth explorers who didn't even know what a germ is, but
it ain't a viable argument for the space age. WOTW played to a very
'50s conceit that if anyone else was "out there", and could somehow
manage to get here (specifically the US), they'd be too stupid to know
how to act. If we were smart enough to quarantine Armstrong and Aldrin
until NASA was sure that they hadn't brought any bugs back after their
relatively paltry trip to the moon in 1969, you would have to surmise
that interplanetary travelers would have it figured out, too.
><snip>
>: >I defend these guys, because in spite of an appearance of negativity, for
>: >the most part their dismay comes from a genuine love of movies, and a
>: >knowledge that movies can be better. It's heartbreaking the way a movie
>: >like ID4 is shoved down people's throats and other movies are left
>: >behind. If I could, I'd ask for my $8 back.
>:
>: How does anyone get a movie "shoved down their throats"? Again this is
>> a perfect example of the point I have been trying to make. Some people
>:will go to a movie that they are biased against from the first just
>: because of the hype. I personally have no problem simply ignoring the
>: existence of movies that I don't expect to like, and for the life of
>: me can't see why so many other people can't do the same. I have
>: skipped dozens of "blockbusters" simply because they didn't look like
>: something that I would be interested in. How can that be so hard to
>: do?
>The thing is, I *didn't* think that about ID4. I went in thinking it
>might be decent. However, I was just a sucker for the hype, like millions
>of other people (are you saying that everyone who paid to see the movie
>liked it?)
Again, this thread is (was) about people going to movies that they
KNOW they are probably not going to like and then bitching about it.
If you were genuinely taken in, so be it. It has happened to all of
us.
Russell Watson
"Paul J. Adams" <ada...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Russell Watson <russell...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><6e7p49$g...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>> Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
>> >: >There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
>> >: >real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out
>what's
>> >: >wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
>> >:
>> >: If you acknowledge this as a stereotype, I take it that my post isn't
>> >: the first place that you've seen or heard these criticisms aired.
>> >: Remember that among any stereotyped group there are going to be those
>> >: who taken apart from the balance will appear to prove it true.
>>
>> >"Some blacks don't eat watermelon and fried chicken. Some Jews aren't
>> >stingy about money."
>>
>> >I realize these are extreme examples, but that's basically what you're
>> >saying about "film geeks." You're saying that there are exceptions to
>the
>> >rule, but your stereotype is still basically true.
>>
>> I'm glad you love movies because you sure as hell apparently never
>> learned to read. What I wrote is 180 degrees removed from that
>> statement.
>Actually, what you wrote seems more like 360 degrees removed, which in our
>hyperspherical universe comes around to meaning the same thing. You're
>saying that all stereotypes have legitimacy because they apply to some
>members, but they don't apply to others. This is the same philosophy which
>Dave has thrown back at you in its more common form.
I'll thank you not to tell me what I meant.
Your buddy there started using black folks as an analogy, so let's run
with it.
Let's say that your view is that blacks are ignorant, unclean, lazy,
and will steal you blind if you turn your backs on them.
Anyone with any sense knows that as a global view of the black race,
this is bullshit.
However, there are many blacks who fall right into that description.
By the same token, there are people grouped into the given "film geek"
stereotype who live it right down the line, and it is at they whom all
of the shit that has been slung here from my side of the aisle so far
has been aimed, though it obviously struck home with a few more people
who adamantly deny that they are them, but who don't seem to be able
to let go of it.
Sounds like we got some SERIOUS denial issues working out there.
The closet door is open. walk on out and BE PROUD!
Russell Watson
robin.m...@adante.spoon.com (Robin Mitchell) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:53:38 GMT, russell...@worldnet.att.net
>(Russell Watson) wrote:
>>Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>There's the stereotype that "film geeks" don't derive any
>>>real joy from movies, but instead merely watch them to figure out what's
>>>wrong with them. BULLSHIT. I watch movies because I like them.
>>
>>If you acknowledge this as a stereotype, I take it that my post isn't
>>the first place that you've seen or heard these criticisms aired.
>Oh dear, no; this is hardly the first time we've heard this garbage. It
>crops up like mushrooms whenever the latest overhyped blockbuster comes
>out and a few people here timidly suggest that perhaps it wasn't the
>best movie they'd ever seen. The reaction is a wave of
>profanity-riddled tirades about how we're all a bunch of elite snobs who
>hate all movies and only watch them so that we'll have something to
>bitch about. You're right in the mainstream with your variation on the
>theme (though with better writing than most); point your DejaNews
>browser back to the summer of ID4 and you'll see what I mean.
If there is any timidity shown in the aforementioned airing of these
views, it is most likely only on your own part.
This is by far not the first poke that I have taken at the elitist
"film geeks" in these spaces over the past couple of years, and I
think that I could amaze you with the volumes of postive e-mail that
my posts have generated which is never posted to the group for public
consumption. A few of the souls who send it have admitted that "I
agree with you but I'm only saying so here because I would get
shreaded on the group", or words to that effect.
So who's really timid here? The people at whom my original screed was
aimed do their damndest to make anyone who likes any really popular
movie feel like an uneducated moron. Is that a lot of the people on
here? Not necessarily, but they are among the most vicious critics to
be found here.
I thank you for your compliments on my writing. I try very hard to be
literate, and believe it or not, considerate. My original post to this
thread was flame bait of the lowest order, but I can't apologize as it
was done very deliberately, and I should add with the desired result.
Due to your civilty, I'm moved to cop to a mea culpa here:
A lot of the venom that I have spewed here about elitists did not
originate with or reside wholly in this group. I live near Tallahassee
and when I was younger I played in a band that operated on the fringes
of the college community, and in truth most of the attitude that I
have vented on here was encountered up close and personal in my
travels among the "student artist" community in the late- '70s, early-
'80s. This is where I developed my ideas on how these people actually
think. Several of them managed in succession to land jobs as movie and
music critics at the "Tallhassee Democrat", where they used to their
positions to denigrate the locals, who are basically a rural agrarian,
relatively simple folk, despite the existence of two universities and
the state gov't right in the middle of town.
These were people who would go see a good movie, such as THE GREY FOX,
an excellent western that marked the first starring role for aging
charcater actor Richard Farnsworth, and then blow off about how they
only went to see it because the soundtrack was by The Chieftans. It
was considered hip to be into into Irish music at the time. Of course
they knew that ol' Joe Sixpack who made up the lion's share of the
readership didn't know or care about the Chieftans, so all this was to
impress their buddies, who sat around and talked about how stupid and
inbred the natives were. I had verbal arguments with them that sounded
much like what has been written here over the past several days, and
the best argument against me was that as a local who had never
actually attended FSU how could I deign to argue with the likes of
them? Their conceit made me sick, and I grew to hate all people whose
thought processes appeared to resemble theirs, and unfortunately there
a few people who remind me of them on this group.
Franknseus
>Let's say that your view is that blacks are ignorant, unclean, lazy,
>and will steal you blind if you turn your backs on them.
>Anyone with any sense knows that as a global view of the black race,
>this is bullshit.
> However, there are many blacks who fall right into that description.
How many, would you say?
(And how many lumps would you like with your coffee?)
Dave Platt
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
: Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
:
: >On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
:
: >: Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
: >:
: >: >On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
: >:
: >: >: Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
: >: >:
: >: <snip some old stuff>
: >:
: >: >: How was INDEPENDENCE DAY "poorly made"? Please define this
: >: >: terminology. Was it simply because you didn't like it, or are there
: >: >: concrete, purely objective reasons why it was bad? Did it meet the
: >: >: objectives of those who made it, i.e., presumably to make a
: >: >: cartoonish, thinly plotted, broadly drawn, "Us vs. THEM" roller
: >: >: coaster ride of a movie which would thrill millions of Summer movie
: >: >: goers for a couple of hours and make the studio millions of $??? If
: >: >: that was what they wanted, it succeded wildly. Did it hurt anyone, in
: >: >: any sense other than that some people are just subjectively not going
: >: >: to like it? If you as an individual are not turned on by this type of
: >: >: movie does that make it bad, or just not your kind of movie? And ould
: >: >:you not glean enough about it in advance to think that this might be
: >: >: so, but you went anyway?
: >:
: >: >It used to be, when you saw a huge blockbuster "event" movie, you
could
: >: >expect at least a coherent plot (Raiders, the first Batman, the
tar Wars
: >: >movies, etc). However, ID4 simply *made no sense*. For example, are we
: >: >really supposed to believe that they could upload a virus onto the
: >: >alien's computers? Are we supposed to buy that the President of the
: >: >United States would get up in an F-14 and kick ass? Are we supposed to
: >: >cheer the demise of the aliens at the end, even though 3/4 of the
:arth's > >: >population has been wiped out?
: >:
: >: It was not scientifically astute, and it is not atypical of movies to
: >: time compress events , such as the obvious period of malaise that
: >: would follow such an event, but otherwise, how did it make no sense?
: >: Aliens arrive, appear friendly, one guy figures out they're not but
: >: nobody listens, aliens show their true colors and it looks bad for a
: >: while, good guys figure out the one weakness in the alien armor and
: >: kick their asses and everybody celebrates. What's not to make sense.
: >: Simplistic as hell? Definately. Senseless? Hardly.
:
: >Um, yes. There's still the computer thing, and there's the fact the
: >President couldn't risk his life like that.
:
: What is the big deal with "the computer thing"? Computers work on
: mathematical principles, and the fact that math is the closest thing
: to a literally "universal" language has not only fueled many a S-F
: film in recent years, but also actual science. I say that it would be
: easier to decipher an alien race's computer code than to ever figure
: out what their spoken language might mean.
Still, that would take years, maybe decades, not hours. And as several
reviewers pointed out, wouldn't the aliens have virus protection?
: As for the President, 2 factors to consider:
:
:1. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
:
: 2. People want to see a so-called leader LEAD. From the front, like in
:
: the old days when kings went into battle ahead of their troops and
:
: took the consequences, including death, in stride. Alexander
: didn't conquer the world by sitting in Macedomia on his ass, the
: way Johnson ran the cluster-fuck that was Vietnam.
: We're talking about a President who was a war hero fighter
: pilot who has just issued a call for any pilot who can fly staying
: home to watch it on TV. No way. We can NEVER have a real
: President like this again, so movies like ID and AFO are the
: closest we'll ever get and you damned "realists" (in a S-F
: flick?!) want to piss all over that, too.
Um, I don't remember Ike going down to Korea and kicking ass, or Kennedy
trying to personally take out the Russian missile sites in Cuba. It's
simply ridiculous, and if you can't see that, more power to you, but it
sure looked stupid to me (and to other people).
In any case, even unbelievable stuff is fine if the filmmakers know how
to present it right. Face/Off, for example, worked for me. ID4 decidedly
did NOT.
<snip>
:
: >That's why it wasn't good. They *were* trying to make it realistic, and
: >then they did some inexecusably unrealistic things with the plot.
:
: You haven't validated this point YET! You keep saying it, but you
: haven't backed it up with anything but accusations that certain things
: would NEVER happen in the real world. NO SHIT! Let's all keep this in
: mind so we'll know how to act when "they" arrive. Wouldn't want to do
: anything unrealistic.
:
It's not a matter of happening in the "Real world". It's a matter of
internal logic and resembling some form of reality. I didn't even bring
up the miraculous escape of WIll Smith's girlfriend from LA, the fact
that the alien in Roswell just "happened" to be one of the advance team,
the cardboard ethnicity of the characters, etc...
If you really think that these are all "acceptable" parts of an event
movie , I feel sorry for you, because your standards have obviously
dissolved into mush, with the only thing that really matters is the cool
special effects.
:: of the millions of people who saw that movie do you REALLY think sat
Watch the movie again. It's not a matter of "stupidity". The aliens are
of a believably different intelligence. The germ theory makes sense to
me, and it makes sense within the context of the movie. My point was,
though, that the director actually respected the audience enough to slow
down to explain all this, rather than just go for some fancy effects and
expect people to go "wow."
(besides, there are plenty of sci-fi instances of Earth astronauts
encountering fatal bioligical entities. Hell, look at Star Trek. Does
that mean the Enterprise crew is "stupid" ?
Still, by comparison, the computer virus looks ridiculous.
<snip
>
: >The thing is, I *didn't* think that about ID4. I went in thinking it
: >might be decent. However, I was just a sucker for the hype, like millions
: >of other people (are you saying that everyone who paid to see the movie
: >liked it?)
:
: Again, this thread is (was) about people going to movies that they
: KNOW they are probably not going to like and then bitching about it.
: If you were genuinely taken in, so be it. It has happened to all of
: us.
:
No, the thread is about how some people are going to be suckered in to
seeing another piece of crap from Emmerich and Devlin, and how I
personally want to try and stop that. :)
Trav 1138
Look all, ID4 sucked giant South American beaver testes sweat. End of story.
christop...@arch2.nara.gov
In article <35070D03...@hg-law.com>,
daniel...@hg-law.com wrote:
> The reason I get upset at moviews like ID4 is that there is no reason
> that they have to be stupid and mindless. With a little effort, they
> could have cleaned up the stupidities and inconsistencies, (you know,
> like Bethesda Naval Hospital not having enough crystalloid to save the
> President's wife).
Mindless inconsistencies? They didn't treat the President's wife at the
Bethesda Naval Hospital. She was brought in to the lesser equiped medical
facility at the Area 51 base. Since the existence of this base is
(technically) non-existent, any description of its interior medical treatment
facility is purely speculative.
> Mega-advanced aliens who are too dumb to protect their computers
Protect their computers from whom? Themselves? The aliens communicate with
each other telepathically. Why would they have a need for network protection
circuitry, security protocols, firewalls, virus scans, etc.? They operate as
a one-minded collective, much like insects in a hive. They may have advanced
without a sense of individuality, which would eliminate the need for
implementing security protocols against their own kind. They depend on their
shield technology for protection against intruders. Humans were probably the
first single minded beings the aliens went up against, which (combined with
some ingenuity and a lot of luck) allowed the human race prevail.
> Or (the aliens) use (of) biological warfare to exterminate humanity
Why would they (aliens) risk poisoning the natural resources they came to
pillage?
> Aliens who keel over at one punch from Will Smith but survive surgical
> dissection completely unharmed
The alien Smith punched had just crashed his ship. It was probably on the
verge of passing out from the crash impact alone. Smith's heavy Marine Corp
style punch was all that was needed to render the alien unconcious after the
crash. Also, the alien was wearing "some sort of bio-mechanical armor," not
an impenetrable suit of armor. The surgical dissection only cut into the
alien's outer armor, not the alien itself.
> Why couldn't just 5% of the budget have been spent on a script that made
> sense?
I think critics would have enjoyed this movie a lot more had they become more
engaged in the fantasy, rather than comparing every detail in the film to a
real life drama. On a level of fantasy, I think there is enough information
provided in the film to follow actions to their logical outcomes (yes, even
the infamous computer virus upload into the alien network).
Remember, ID4 is a fantasy movie. Most fantasies involve ludicrous and
improbable elements such as ghosts, monsters, werewolves, vampires, and
aliens. These elements allow people to escape from the real world, which many
find boring. Likewise, film makers create fantasy plot devises such as
crosses, silver bullets, and, yes, computer viruses to ward off and overcome
the evil elements. Some of these devices may seem unreal, but they off movie
goers a satisfying outcome to a fantasy. In the real world, it is unlikely
that humanity would survive the collosal invasion depicted in ID4. However,
as a depiction of fantasy, would most people have applauded and cheered had
the movie ended with the humans being annialated and the aliens pillaging the
earth?
Chris
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
christop...@arch2.nara.gov
The alien Smith punched had just crashed its ship. It was probably on the
verge of passing out from the crash impact alone. Smith's heavy Marine Corp
style punch was all that was needed to render the alien unconscious after the
crash. Also, the alien was wearing "some sort of bio-mechanical armor," not
an impenetrable suit of armor. The surgical dissection only cut into the
alien's outer armor, not the alien itself.
> Why couldn't just 5% of the budget have been spent on a script that made
> sense?
I think critics would have enjoyed this movie a lot more had they become more
engaged in the fantasy, rather than comparing every detail in the film to a
real life drama. On a level of fantasy, I think there is enough information
provided in the film to follow actions to their logical outcomes (yes, even
the infamous computer virus upload into the alien network).
Remember, ID4 is a fantasy movie. Most fantasies involve ludicrous and
improbable elements such as ghosts, monsters, werewolves, vampires, and
aliens. These elements allow people to escape from the real world, which many
find boring. Likewise, film makers create fantasy plot devises such as
crosses, silver bullets, and, yes, computer viruses to ward off and overcome
the evil elements. Some of these devices may seem unreal, but they off movie
goers a satisfying outcome to a fantasy. In the real world, it is unlikely
that humanity would survive the colossal invasion depicted in ID4. However,
Ronald J. Whalen
No, but some people did like the movie they paid to see and others felt
they had been cheated out of their money.
Daniel R. Baker
christop...@arch2.nara.gov wrote:
(snip Chris' objections to my characterization of certain of ID4's plot elements
as stupid)
> I think critics would have enjoyed this movie a lot more had they become more
> engaged in the fantasy, rather than comparing every detail in the film to a
> real life drama. On a level of fantasy, I think there is enough information
> provided in the film to follow actions to their logical outcomes (yes, even
> the infamous computer virus upload into the alien network).
>
> Remember, ID4 is a fantasy movie. Most fantasies involve ludicrous and
> improbable elements such as ghosts, monsters, werewolves, vampires, and
> aliens. These elements allow people to escape from the real world, which many
> find boring. Likewise, film makers create fantasy plot devises such as
> crosses, silver bullets, and, yes, computer viruses to ward off and overcome
> the evil elements. Some of these devices may seem unreal, but they off movie
> goers a satisfying outcome to a fantasy. In the real world, it is unlikely
> that humanity would survive the colossal invasion depicted in ID4. However,
> as a depiction of fantasy, would most people have applauded and cheered had
> the movie ended with the humans being annialated and the aliens pillaging the
> earth?
I sense that I am not getting my point across. I do not expect absolute realism
out of all my films or out of ID4. My complaint was about sloppiness, about
making films more unrealistic than they have to be. JURASSIC PARK was not very
realistic - a biology major could pick plenty of holes in the science it presented
- but it was not sloppy. For the most part, it strained credulity no more than
necessary to tell a good story, and it made a bona fide effort to create a
plausible scenario with the re-creation of dinosaurs from imprisoned DNA.
Consequently, I liked JURASSIC PARK much better than ID4; it didn't give me the
constant feeling that the filmmakerrs were patronizing the audience and insulting
our intelligence, as ID4 did.
Now if you still feel it necessary, I'll go back and argue about the computer
virus and the president's wife dying and everything else that I thought was stupid
about ID4. But I do want first to make it clear why I was upset about these
elements; not merely because they were unrealistic, but that they were needlessly
unrealistic. You can't make a film about werewolves without including unrealistic
stuff about wolfbane and the moon, but you can make a film about alien invasion
without having the aliens act like retarded children. Emmerich chose not to make
such a film, because he thought his audience was too stupid to appreciate his
efforts or too apathetic to care. What can I say? In a lot of cases, he was
right.
Here's hoping he does better with GODZILLA, but I won't be there to find out.
Unless somebody whose judgment I trust tells me it's really good, I'm skipping it.
Respectfully,
Daniel R. Baker.
(Disclaimers ad nauseam).
Russell Watson
frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
>>Let's say that your view is that blacks are ignorant, unclean, lazy,
>>and will steal you blind if you turn your backs on them.
>>Anyone with any sense knows that as a global view of the black race,
>>this is bullshit.
>> However, there are many blacks who fall right into that description.
> How many, would you say?
Wouldn't hazard a guess, but I know they're there. I encounter a few
every day (I live in a town that is 75% black, with no real boundaries
between the ethnicities, so I probably see a much larger cross-section
than the average citizen). I also have many very good black friends
and co-workers who are probably "whiter" than me in the salacious
usage of the term.
What's your point?
Are you now attempting to skew this into some argument as to how
there's no wonder that I think what I think because I'm obviously an
ignorant bigot?
I hope you do, because it will be one more line drawn under the fact
that what this whole thing started over was you peoples' tendency to
portray anyone who likes anything other than what you like as being in
someway mentally deficient.
Dave Platt
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
: frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
:
: >>Let's say that your view is that blacks are ignorant, unclean, lazy,
: >>and will steal you blind if you turn your backs on them.
: >>Anyone with any sense knows that as a global view of the black race,
: >>this is bullshit.
: >> However, there are many blacks who fall right into that description.
:
: > How many, would you say?
:
: Wouldn't hazard a guess, but I know they're there. I encounter a few
: every day (I live in a town that is 75% black, with no real boundaries
: between the ethnicities, so I probably see a much larger cross-section
: than the average citizen). I also have many very good black friends
: and co-workers who are probably "whiter" than me in the salacious
: usage of the term.
"Some of my besst friends are black..."
: What's your point?
: Are you now attempting to skew this into some argument as to how
: there's no wonder that I think what I think because I'm obviously an
: ignorant bigot?
: I hope you do, because it will be one more line drawn under the fact
: that what this whole thing started over was you peoples' tendency to
^^^^^^^^^^^
"You people"? You claim you're not a bigot and then you use phrases like
this? Sure thing, buddy.
Franknseus
>What's your point?
>Are you now attempting to skew this into some argument as to how
>there's no wonder that I think what I think because I'm obviously an
>ignorant bigot?
No, I wasn't trying to skew it into any such argument and I don't intend to
even argue about it. But when you wrote:
>>>Let's say that your view is that blacks are ignorant, unclean, lazy,
>>>and will steal you blind if you turn your backs on them.
>>>Anyone with any sense knows that as a global view of the black race,
>>>this is bullshit.
>>> However, there are many blacks who fall right into that description.
...I found it pretty darned offensive, despite the careful attempts at
inoffensive wording, and I didn't want to let it go without at least a hollow
threat of Bugs Bunny style retribution.
Certainly, there is probably some guy of any race who is ignorant, unclean,
lazy and can't be trusted not to steal you blind if you turn your back on him
for a second. However your idea that "many" black people are this way is, to
say the least, uncomfortable.
I wonder, what exactly are these encounters like that you have almost every
day? Let me take a shot:
You turn your back on the guy and he steals everything you own. You turn back
around and say, "Hey, that's my watch!" He says "That's not a watch, that's a
bracelet." Thus you have proven that the guy is ignorant. Then he asks you to
carry his bracelet to the getaway car for him, because he is too lazy to carry
it himself. But when he hands back the watch, it's covered in grime, thus
proving that the guy is unclean.
You see, you didn't just say "There are stereotypes about black people, and
inevitably some of them can be true in some cases." Instead you said that many
black people are ignorant, lazy kleptomaniacs who also happen to be unclean
(let me just interject a "What the fuck?" for the unclean part - you're
inventing your own racial stereotypes).
Now, I know that you don't think you are a racist, and that's fine. Maybe
you're not. I just thought that what you said came off as incredibly ignorant,
and maybe a tad unclean, and I would have felt bad if I just sat back and
didn't say anything.
No need for you to defend yourself, and I won't attack you again. Let's talk
about Godzilla.
But just don't be calling him a "nigger."
(Okay, that last part was uncalled for, I take it back.)
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss, Super Monster
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center grand re-opening
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/index.html
Dave Platt
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Dragan Antulov wrote:
:
: Dave Platt wrote in message ...
: >On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
:
:
: >: Why should they ? Movie critics reveal most information about the movie,
: >: sometimes they even reveal the ending of the movie and they don't say in
: >: their review that there are spoilers for the movie, if you haven't seen
: >: it or in this case read it.
:
:
: >This gives me an idea. As an act of civil disobedience, and in an attempt
: >to sink this movie's chances of making money, I propose a campaign to
: >spoil the entire plot of Godzilla. If you know anything about it, please
: >tell the newsgroup and any other movie-related ones! If you have the
: >script, PLEASE POST IT! I want to see this movie make negative cash.
:
: In July of 1996 most popular Croatian magazine, GLOBUS, published a
etailed
: plot outline of ID4. Four months later, people were flocking to theaters.
: The movie was commercial success, although being #2 on Croatian box-office.
: Top spot was taken by Croatian comedy KAKO JE POCEO RAT NA MOM OTOKU, movie
: whose entire plot was also revealed in the form of photo-novel,
:ublished in > another popular newspaper.
:
: So, I don't think that spoiling campaign would make a lot of difference.
:
I still say it's worth a try. If Godzilla is really bad, I want people to
know about it. If it's not bad, then it will survive on its own merits.
But I want the moviegoers of America to be informed consumers :)
Russell Watson
frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
Your attempt at being clever is a dud. I'm talking seriously about
people who don't know shit from shinola, don't work, don't bathe, and
in general are worthless and will put more effort into taking
something that doesn't belong to them than they will into and honest
living. I have personally known members of many races, including
whites, to whom the above applies. But that isn't really what was
being discussed, now was it? But it is par for you social apologists
to squirm when they see that somebody actually has the guts to say
that "Yes, there are individuals among the various stereotyped groups
for whom the stereotype serves as a nutshell description", so I'll
have to excuse you for it.
> You see, you didn't just say "There are stereotypes about black people, and
>inevitably some of them can be true in some cases." Instead you said that many
>black people are ignorant, lazy kleptomaniacs who also happen to be unclean
>(let me just interject a "What the fuck?" for the unclean part - you're
>inventing your own racial stereotypes).
Where are you from? How do you know what the stereotypes are where I
come from? Are we now to add a sense of omniscience to your list of
conceits? I happen to be from the rural South. I didn't even get into
the more unsavory elements of what constitutes the stereotype of the
black race in my part of the country. And as I stated before, I went
with the black stereotype because someone else brought it up.
There are stereotypes that are applied to just about every ethnicity
on earth, including Caucasians of different European origins, not to
even get into the ones that are applied to members of various
religions or the homosexual community. And EVERY SINGLE ONE of those
groups will have a certain number of people who live up to whatever
label their detractors have stuck on them.
> Now, I know that you don't think you are a racist, and that's fine. Maybe
>you're not. I just thought that what you said came off as incredibly ignorant,
>and maybe a tad unclean, and I would have felt bad if I just sat back and
>didn't say anything.
> No need for you to defend yourself, and I won't attack you again. Let's talk
>about Godzilla.
> But just don't be calling him a "nigger."
>(Okay, that last part was uncalled for, I take it back.)
Yes, I know. Your finely honed sense of social justice wouldn't let
you pass on that one. I actually applaud you for havig the guts
uncommon to your sort to actually type and send the word "nigger".
Most of your fellows have to say 50 MLK,Jrs. to feel clean again after
using it even in a quote, and here you are actually using it in a
"joke". of course you had to add on the "I take it back".
Guess what? The only real way to take it back would have been to
delete before you sent it, and kept it locked in your own filthy
little mind.
Russell Watson
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
>: frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
>:
>: >>Let's say that your view is that blacks are ignorant, unclean, lazy,
>: >>and will steal you blind if you turn your backs on them.
>: >>Anyone with any sense knows that as a global view of the black race,
>: >>this is bullshit.
>: >> However, there are many blacks who fall right into that description.
>:
>: > How many, would you say?
>:
>: Wouldn't hazard a guess, but I know they're there. I encounter a few
>: every day (I live in a town that is 75% black, with no real boundaries
>: between the ethnicities, so I probably see a much larger cross-section
>: than the average citizen). I also have many very good black friends
>: and co-workers who are probably "whiter" than me in the salacious
>: usage of the term.
>"Some of my besst friends are black..."
I manage a data processing operations staff of 4 people. 3 of the 4
are black and were hired by me. They got their jobs because they were
the most qualified applicants, and have kept them because they do
their jobs well, and though I'm their supervisor I consider them to be
friends, as we do interact socially on occassion. 2 of the 3 have been
to my home to visit. Many of my classmates from high school are
employed by the company that I work for, and all of them happen to be
black as well, and I have very cordial relationships with all of them.
So your smarmy-assed quotation marks to denote an implied "Yeah,
right" to my earlier remarks is wasted. I know the truth, but
unfortuntely this medium isn't the best place to prove such things so
you'll either have to take my word or not. I really don't give a shit
what you think.
>: What's your point?
>: Are you now attempting to skew this into some argument as to how
>: there's no wonder that I think what I think because I'm obviously an
>: ignorant bigot?
>: I hope you do, because it will be one more line drawn under the fact
>: that what this whole thing started over was you peoples' tendency to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>"You people"? You claim you're not a bigot and then you use phrases like
>this? Sure thing, buddy.
"You people" meaning all the assholes in denial who responded to my
original post to claim that it didn't apply to them. Something hit
home or it would have been ignored by those who didn't see themselves
reflected in it in any way. So yes, "you people", as representative of
a group of responders. You all have your little individualities I'm
sure, but on the issue in question you're all reading out of the same
book.
L...@ziplink.net
In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.980311...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>,
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
(snip)
> : Actually, the reverse:
> : Japan pop-culture nuts like us loved the vintage 'Zillas because they
> : *did* take themselves with ponderous seriousness (unlike the
> : commercialized next-generation "Biollante", "1984", etc.)...and only the
> : Japanese WOULD-- ; )
> : Gaijin US producers who thought we Toho-philes wanted a campy
> : giggle-fest are in for an expensive shock--Unfortunately, that's not the
> : audience E&D were aiming for...
> :
> I stand corrected. However, I still say there's a difference between the
> "seriousness" of the Toho Godzilla (which were, after all, aimed at kids,
> weren't they?) and the dour earnestness of the new one. The idea seems to
> be that Emmerich and Devlin are trying to "do it right," with "doing it
> right" meaning laying on the bloated, grim FX and neo-Wagnerian music.
--------------------------------------------- The early Godzillas did take
themselves with ponderous seriousness but had as their topics the firebombing
of Tokyo; the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and Japan's
relationship with the United States.
It is possible this movie has as its message that the United States is
destroying itself from within. In which case it will likely be pretty awful.
Even assuming the US is destroying itself from within it is not doing so by
stomping itself into the ground. A better metaphor might be fire ants.
LIV
garba...@Ziplink.net
take out the garbage to reply
Dave Platt
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, Russell Watson wrote:
No matter how you say it, pointing out that you have black friends or
black coworkers is NOT a valid defense against racism. That' my point. If
you can't see that, then I can't help you.
: >: What's your point?
:>: Are you now attempting to skew this into some argument as to how
: >: there's no wonder that I think what I think because I'm obviously an
: >: ignorant bigot?
: >: I hope you do, because it will be one more line drawn under the fact
; >: that what this whole thing started over was you peoples' tendency to
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: >"You people"? You claim you're not a bigot and then you use phrases like
: >this? Sure thing, buddy.
:
:
: "You people" meaning all the assholes in denial who responded to my
: original post to claim that it didn't apply to them. Something hit
: home or it would have been ignored by those who didn't see themselves
: reflected in it in any way. So yes, "you people", as representative of
: a group of responders. You all have your little individualities I'm
: sure, but on the issue in question you're all reading out of the same
: book.
By saying this, you're by definition being a bigot. You are painting
members of a group as the same. It's that simple, and again, if you can't
understand that, there's no point in talking with you.
I realize that it's not the same as racism, because film geeks are not an
oppressed group, but you are showing extreme examples of stereotypical
thinking, and yet you seem to have no comprehension that you're doing it.
Trudi Koh
The ScriptPro 2000 System
Russell Watson, also known as the most annoying poster to this group,
spewed at some point:
What's your point?
Are you now attempting to skew this into some argument as to how
there's no wonder that I think what I think because I'm obviously an
ignorant bigot?
Franknseuss was fuly justified when he wrote:
No, I wasn't trying to skew it into any such argument and I
don't intend to even argue about it. But when you wrote:
Let's say that your view is that blacks are ignorant,
unclean, lazy, and will steal you blind if you turn your
backs on them.
Anyone with any sense knows that as a global view of the
black race, this is bullshit.
However, there are many blacks who fall right into that
description.
...I found it pretty darned offensive, despite the careful
attempts at inoffensive wording, and I didn't want to let it go
without at least a hollow threat of Bugs Bunny style
retribution.
Certainly, there is probably some guy of any race who is
ignorant, unclean, lazy and can't be trusted not to steal you
blind if you turn your back on him for a second. However your
idea that "many" black people are this way is, to say the least,
uncomfortable.
I wonder, what exactly are these encounters like that you have
almost every day? Let me take a shot:
You turn your back on the guy and he steals everything you own.
You turn back around and say, "Hey, that's my watch!" He says
"That's not a watch, that's a bracelet." Thus you have proven
that the guy is ignorant. Then he asks you to carry his bracelet
to the getaway car for him, because he is too lazy to carry it
himself. But when he hands back the watch, it's covered in
grime, thus proving that the guy is unclean.
You see, you didn't just say "There are stereotypes about black
people, and inevitably some of them can be true in some cases."
Instead you said that many black people are ignorant, lazy
kleptomaniacs who also happen to be unclean (let me just
interject a "What the fuck?" for the unclean part - you're
inventing your own racial stereotypes).
Now, I know that you don't think you are a racist, and that's
fine. Maybe you're not. I just thought that what you said came
off as incredibly ignorant, and maybe a tad unclean, and I would
have felt bad if I just sat back and didn't say anything.
No need for you to defend yourself, and I won't attack you
again. Let's talk about Godzilla.
But just don't be calling him a "nigger."
(Okay, that last part was uncalled for, I take it back.)
You know what, Bryan? This guy really isn't worth the effort. His
original intent (according to him) in starting this thread was to
antagonize all those who prejudge a film and go see it just so they can
say how bad it was. He's dressed it up a million different ways since
then, and his various rants have digressed, to say the least, but that
was his original thesis.
I think if you read between the lines in everything he's said, though,
that's exactly the kind of guy he is. He came here looking for a fight.
He wanted to antagonize a number of people into a pissing match. In
short, he's a loathsome little troll.
I say ignore him. If someone actually wants to discuss exactly why
Emmerich/Devlin should be executed publicly, I'll be happy to pick that
up in another thread. This one's a dead end, though.
Drew
POISONVILLE, LTD.
http://www.pacificnet.net/~noname/Roundup.html
Want to write me? Remove NOSPAM and feel free -- if it's not SPAM.
"Warner Bros., in a naked attempt to recapture the success of FREE
WILLY, is about to release a new film called FREE CHIMPY. It's the
story of a young boy who kidnaps a chimp from the zoo and releases him
into the ocean." -- Dennis Miller
The ScriptPro 2000 System
Russell Watson, in response to Franknseuss, wrote:
( various filth deleted )
... it is par for you social apologists to squirm...
and also:
... I actually applaud you for havig the guts uncommon
to your sort...
... most of you fellows have to...
I'd just like to point out that for someone who claims not to be
bigoted, Russell sure does spend a lot of time dealing in stereotypes.
Franknseuss made sure that his post had to do with Russell specifically.
Somehow, Russell manages to keep opening his attack up to a broader
group. He wants to make sure that he doesn't let a single post get by
without some sort of irresponsible generalization or broad
characterization.
Way to go, Russ. You're a hell of a troll. Keep it up.
Russell Watson
Glad to see that you got the point.
>I think if you read between the lines in everything he's said, though,
>that's exactly the kind of guy he is. He came here looking for a fight.
>He wanted to antagonize a number of people into a pissing match. In
>short, he's a loathsome little troll.
We don't need any heroic shit here from anybody who doesn't even post
under their real name, Braveheart. I'll cut you a little slack on
that, though: at least you aren't one of the morons who actually uses
the name of a movie character as though this were some silly-ass RPG.
Yes I was tying to pick a fight, and succeded beyond my wildest
dreams. My only regret is that Iet myself get suckered into this whole
"stereotype" bullshit. It has nothing to do with the original intent,
but I walked right into it, so I can't complain. Anyone who goes back
and reads the earlier entries objectively will see that there was no
attempt to "stereotype" anyone, despite the fact that this WAS about a
certain group of people who are linked by a common mindset on one
particular subject. Sort of a "KKK" of film fans, so to speak.
Damn! Is that another stereotype?
>I say ignore him. If someone actually wants to discuss exactly why
>Emmerich/Devlin should be executed publicly, I'll be happy to pick that
>up in another thread. This one's a dead end, though.
I agree with that as well. In fact my intent was to ignore further
posts to this thread until I saw your 11th hour entry.
As it is, I will ignore any future articles, and hope that the
disinterested will accept my apology for my personal part in allowing
this thread to go so far off-topic.
FINI
Franknseus
>We don't need any heroic shit here from anybody who doesn't even post
>under their real name, Braveheart.
What makes you think that Drew isn't his real name, "Russell"?
Brian John Wright
Dave Platt (lit...@freenet.mb.ca) wrote:
: There's no comparison. War of The Worlds handles the same material
: intelligently, and explains itself quite well. the idea that the aliens
: would have the same computer systems as we do is insane; the idea that
: they would respond to the same biological diseases as us isn't.
I'd like to hear how one is more plausible than the other.
They're both bullshit - problem is, ID4 had a bigger responsibility
(at least in my baby blues) to explain the bullshit, which it could have
with one simple line. It didn't - which didn't ruin the movie by
any stretch, but it's a shame that Devlin's too lazy of a screenwriter
to do it.
: The thing is, I *didn't* think that about ID4. I went in thinking it
: might be decent. However, I was just a sucker for the hype, like millions
: of other people (are you saying that everyone who paid to see the movie
: liked it?)
Well, most of 'em did...which of course says nothing about the
quality of the film, but to deny its popularity is absurd.
-Brian J. Wright
"There's a fine line between clever and stupid."
-Spinal Tap
Daniel R. Baker
> Dave Platt wrote in message ...
>
> >This gives me an idea. As an act of civil disobedience, and in an attempt
> >to sink this movie's chances of making money, I propose a campaign to
> >spoil the entire plot of Godzilla. If you know anything about it, please
> >tell the newsgroup and any other movie-related ones! If you have the
> >script, PLEASE POST IT! I want to see this movie make negative cash.
(snip)
I beg your pardon? Are you under the impression that the majority of people
going to see GODZILLA are chiefly interested in the _plot_? I'm afraid I have
some bad news for you . . .
Pentti J Lajunen
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> writes:
> I still say it's worth a try. If Godzilla is really bad, I want people to
> know about it. If it's not bad, then it will survive on its own merits.
> But I want the moviegoers of America to be informed consumers :)
You'd better have powerful allies, when Tri-Star is coming after you.
(said in deep Darth Vader voice)
--
would you like to know more?