Indiana's Coming!

0 views
Skip to first unread message

R. Scott Sherman

unread,
May 6, 2003, 9:25:17 AM5/6/03
to
The Indiana trilogy is coming out on DVD in November on a 4 disk set.
Yippee!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-05-06-indy_x.htm


Mike

unread,
May 6, 2003, 11:00:28 AM5/6/03
to
"R. Scott Sherman" <RSc...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1JOta.511783$Zo.111365@sccrnsc03...

> The Indiana trilogy is coming out on DVD in November on a 4 disk set.
> Yippee!
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-05-06-indy_x.htm

Thanks for the info... something to look forward to! :)

Best info in article...

"When Spielberg edited ET the Extra-Terrestrial last year for the
long-awaited DVD release, he digitally removed some guns because of the
film's young audience. But no changes were made to the Indy series."

Yay!

--
Mike


Derek Janssen

unread,
May 6, 2003, 1:18:40 PM5/6/03
to

So....you sound kind of happy that we're not getting individual disks.

Derek Janssen (expect Electronic Boutiques everywhere to be flooded with
used "Last Crusade"'s one week later)
dja...@rcn.com

Derek Janssen

unread,
May 6, 2003, 1:22:19 PM5/6/03
to
Mike wrote:
>
> > The Indiana trilogy is coming out on DVD in November on a 4 disk set.
> > Yippee!
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-05-06-indy_x.htm
>
> Best info in article...
>
> "When Spielberg edited ET the Extra-Terrestrial last year for the
> long-awaited DVD release, he digitally removed some guns because of the
> film's young audience. But no changes were made to the Indy series."

That sound you hear is several hundred a.v.d.'ers deleting the Send-Mail
posts they'd started to compose on reading the first headline, and going
"....Oh, damn!" ;)

Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com

ff-paramedic

unread,
May 6, 2003, 1:55:15 PM5/6/03
to
Indiana's coming? I thought he was still just breathing hard.

"R. Scott Sherman" <RSc...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1JOta.511783$Zo.111365@sccrnsc03...

spoch

unread,
May 6, 2003, 6:42:58 PM5/6/03
to
On Tue, 6 May 2003 10:00:28 -0500, "Mike" <so...@sorry.com> wrote:

>"When Spielberg edited ET the Extra-Terrestrial last year for the
>long-awaited DVD release, he digitally removed some guns because of the
>film's young audience. But no changes were made to the Indy series."


What exactly does "no changes" mean? Does this mean that they didn't
"remove" anything but possibly "added" something, like to the title?
Does this mean they didn't change from their last THX VHS release or
they didn't change from the original theatrical release?

I and many others in this newsgroup were under the impression that the
dvd release will resemble the VHS THX release--which DID digitally
change the original "Raiders of the Lost Ark" title to "Indiana Jones
and The Raiders of the Lost Ark" for marketing purposes to make it
sound more like a Indy trilogy. This has caused non-editting movie
viewers to groan.

Any confirmation on the title of the first dvd? Will it be "Raiders
of the Lost Ark" or "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark?"

Not to be pessimistic but I wager 20K that they will use the digitally
added title, "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark," and they
will lie to everyone that that's the way it has always been. History
tends to repeat itself. And people are generally overly trusting
(guillible) of those in power. But who can blame them since the media
is all about population mind control for the sake of capital mining.

CLOSEDOWN8

unread,
May 6, 2003, 8:00:57 PM5/6/03
to
>I and many others in this newsgroup were under the impression that the
>dvd release will resemble the VHS THX release--which DID digitally
>change the original "Raiders of the Lost Ark" title to "Indiana Jones
>and The Raiders of the Lost Ark" for marketing purposes to make it
>sound more like a Indy trilogy.

No, it didn't. The box art said "Indiana Jones & Raiders of the Lost Ark" but
the film itself had the same old "Raiders of the Lost Ark" title card.

>This has caused non-editting movie
>viewers to groan.

No, it didn't, but your post causes people who love accuracy to groan.

>Any confirmation on the title of the first dvd? Will it be "Raiders
>of the Lost Ark" or "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark?"

If the VHS is any indication, NO.

>Not to be pessimistic but I wager 20K that they will use the digitally
>added title, "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark," and they
>will lie to everyone that that's the way it has always been.

You're going to bet $20,000 on this when all the evidence points to you being
wrong?

>History
>tends to repeat itself.

You're right, and the original title card will most likely be unchanged, just
like it was for the VHS version.

>And people are generally overly trusting
>(guillible) of those in power.

Some people are also paranoid (IE: you)

>But who can blame them since the media
>is all about population mind control for the sake of capital mining.

That may be true, but how does adding three words to the title of a movie
apply?
--------------------------------
"That's the worst reverse-acting I've ever seen!" -Sam Raimi

Help bring "Freaks and Geeks" to DVD at http://www.freaksandgeeks.com/dvd/

George Hernandez

unread,
May 6, 2003, 8:13:20 PM5/6/03
to

"Steve Hanson" <SteveHan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ps0gbvgn8cogufdq4...@4ax.com...
: Derek Janssen wrote in <3EB7EE6D...@rcn.com>:
:

: >"R. Scott Sherman" wrote:
: >>
: >> The Indiana trilogy is coming out on DVD in November on a 4 disk set.
: >> Yippee!
: >>
: >> http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-05-06-indy_x.htm
: >
: >So....you sound kind of happy that we're not getting individual disks.
:
: I would have bought them all anyway so what do I care.

Sure - I mean who DOESN'T need a DVD set that comes with a $12.50
drink-coaster?


JWB

unread,
May 6, 2003, 9:16:42 PM5/6/03
to
"spoch" <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:979gbvk2ju8ll84u4...@4ax.com...

> (guillible) of those in power. But who can blame them since the media
> is all about population mind control for the sake of capital mining.

you're taking this movie stuff WAY too seriously.

JWB


LASERandDVDfan

unread,
May 6, 2003, 9:37:39 PM5/6/03
to
>The Indiana trilogy is coming out on DVD in November on a 4 disk set.
>Yippee!
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-05-06-indy_x.htm
>

It's about damn time! And I HATE snakes! - Reinhart

Vlvetmorning98

unread,
May 6, 2003, 9:39:13 PM5/6/03
to
>Sure - I mean who DOESN'T need a DVD set that comes with a $12.50
>drink-coaster?
>

fuck, I've got to pre-order it.

Vlvetmorning98

unread,
May 6, 2003, 9:43:29 PM5/6/03
to
Ward claims that there will be no commentaries because of the 4th disc and
"bandwidth issues" which is complete bull. Spielberg, being the ass that he is,
won't do commentaries.

Norman Wilner

unread,
May 6, 2003, 10:59:39 PM5/6/03
to
"Vlvetmorning98" <vlvetmo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030506214329...@mb-m20.aol.com...

>
> Ward claims that there will be no commentaries because of
> the 4th disc and "bandwidth issues" which is complete bull.
> Spielberg, being the ass that he is, won't do commentaries.

Why does that make him an ass? Who wants to hear someone talk for six hours
when he has nothing he wants to say?

Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd


Raymond Chuang

unread,
May 6, 2003, 11:01:40 PM5/6/03
to
"Vlvetmorning98" <vlvetmo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030506214329...@mb-m20.aol.com...

I think Mr. Spielberg is of the view that real-time "running" commentaries
on a DVD doesn't add to the enjoyment of the film.

In a way, I think he's right. There are very not many people that can pull
off doing a commentary track that does add to the enjoyment of the DVD. The
commentary track Producer Don Hahn and Directors Kirk Wise and Gary
Trousdale did for The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Atlantis: the Lost Empire and
Beauty and the Beast are among the few that are fun to listen to and are
quite insightful on the various aspects of the movie.

And then there the "mother of all commentary tracks," the four-track
commentary from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Extended
Edition. I don't think anybody has done such a level of commentary tracks
before, that's to be sure. And all of them are very insightful, giving huge
amounts of insights into the FoTR movie and how the Extended Edition was
made.

--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, CA USA


Esben

unread,
May 7, 2003, 4:04:43 AM5/7/03
to


Fight Club had 4 commentary tracks as well and it came before LOTR so
would it be the "Grandmother of all commentary tracks" ? ;-)


Melquiades

unread,
May 7, 2003, 8:34:47 AM5/7/03
to

Used Temple of Dooms, more likely.

Mike

unread,
May 7, 2003, 9:13:27 AM5/7/03
to
"spoch" <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:979gbvk2ju8ll84u4...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 May 2003 10:00:28 -0500, "Mike" <so...@sorry.com> wrote:
>
> >"When Spielberg edited ET the Extra-Terrestrial last year for the
> >long-awaited DVD release, he digitally removed some guns because of the
> >film's young audience. But no changes were made to the Indy series."
>
>
> What exactly does "no changes" mean? Does this mean that they didn't
> "remove" anything but possibly "added" something, like to the title?
> Does this mean they didn't change from their last THX VHS release or
> they didn't change from the original theatrical release?

As long as they don't change the content between the beginning and the end I
am fine. I don't care if they change the title, digitally master the sound,
add a THX logo, etc.. I just didn't want to see (for example) the swordsman
in RotLA get pushed down instead of shot (you know the part where he's
flinging his sword around and Jones shoots him).

As for the "bundling", I love RotLA, I think Temple of Doom is just plain
crap, and the last one (title? lol) is ok.

--
Mike


Bratboy

unread,
May 7, 2003, 10:38:52 AM5/7/03
to

"Mike" <so...@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:b9b0po$lcr$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...

> As long as they don't change the content between the beginning and the end
I
> am fine. I don't care if they change the title, digitally master the
sound,
> add a THX logo, etc.. I just didn't want to see (for example) the
swordsman
> in RotLA get pushed down instead of shot (you know the part where he's
> flinging his sword around and Jones shoots him).
>
> As for the "bundling", I love RotLA, I think Temple of Doom is just plain
> crap, and the last one (title? lol) is ok.

Exactly, if the only thing changed is the title so what...many movies get
released under new names. As long as the content is the same I'll be happy.
As for the second movie hate to say it my fav part is the opening and only
because we did "Anything Goes" in highschool so kinda neat to hear it in
another language...the rest of the movie is very mediocre to me. Still more
than happy to buy em in a set to have em all in one spot.


TSKO

unread,
May 7, 2003, 11:26:20 AM5/7/03
to
.........ppl complain when particular dvd titles dont get released......and
yet still complain when they do get released........

....for being an ass (of which I dont agree).....he has put out some damn
fine movies over the yrs....and once again....I am just happy its finally
getting released.......THANX STEVE!


"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in message
news:vE_ta.126280$kYH.1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

Derek Janssen

unread,
May 7, 2003, 1:08:31 PM5/7/03
to
Melquiades wrote:
>
> >So....you sound kind of happy that we're not getting individual disks.
> >
> >(expect Electronic Boutiques everywhere to be flooded with
> >used "Last Crusade"'s one week later)
>
> Used Temple of Dooms, more likely.

No, those you ENJOY trashing. Ends the distribution bloodline right there.

("Last Crusade" you feel guilty about throwing out, because, well, it
*did* have Sean Connery in it, and that opening scene; maybe someone
might find a good home for it...)

Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com

Evil

unread,
May 7, 2003, 1:56:19 PM5/7/03
to
"R. Scott Sherman" <RSc...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<1JOta.511783$Zo.111365@sccrnsc03>...
> The Indiana trilogy is coming out on DVD in November on a 4 disk set.
> Yippee!
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-05-06-indy_x.htm

From the Digital bits:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

--

Well... an interesting thing's happened this afternoon. We've just
gotten off the phone with Lucasfilm. They've told us that the initial
announcement made today is only the beginning in terms of details on
the special features to be included on the bonus disc. There are,
apparently, significant extras yet to be revealed in the weeks and
months ahead. In fact, they're apparently still working to finalize
everything to Spielberg and Lucas' satisfaction in terms of the
extras. So there is yet hope that The Adventures of Indiana Jones: The
Complete DVD Movie Collection will prove an impressive special edition
release. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

---

Cosmic Monster

unread,
May 7, 2003, 4:10:54 PM5/7/03
to

The New Line Platinum version of Se7en also has four great commetary
tracks.

Mark Spatny

unread,
May 9, 2003, 3:37:40 PM5/9/03
to
Vlvetmorning98,vlvetmo...@aol.com says...

> Spielberg, being the ass that he is,
> won't do commentaries.

I think that's great. I have greater respect for a director who lets his
work stand on its own, and lets you do the interpretation, instead of
feeding you everything. I don't expect, nor want, commentaries with
every movie any more than I want a copy of Cliffs Notes with every novel
I read.

Mike

unread,
May 9, 2003, 4:38:32 PM5/9/03
to

"Mark Spatny" <vfxpr...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1925a2efc...@news.earthlink.net...

Ah... but what happens 50 years from now when some stupid schmuck working
for a school board forces legions of students to learn what he thinks is the
correct interpretation for a movie? I absolutely hated my academic reading
because I often disagreed with the analysis that we were fed. How does
someone born in the 20th century know anything about a literary work created
well before his or her time? THEY DON'T! Not unless the original
author/composer leaves behind notes that convey his/her opinions on his/her
own work.

--
Mike


Mark Spatny

unread,
May 10, 2003, 1:25:44 PM5/10/03
to
Mike,so...@sorry.com says...

> Not unless the original
> author/composer leaves behind notes that convey his/her opinions on his/her
> own work.

If the director is OK with that, so am I. It's his work, and his
decision to make. He is not obligated to record his thoughts for
posterity. He is only obligated to make a movie with as much artistic
integrity as possible and still make a profit.

Jim Burgan

unread,
May 11, 2003, 9:29:11 PM5/11/03
to
> Not to be pessimistic but I wager 20K that they will use the digitally
> added title, "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark," and they
> will lie to everyone that that's the way it has always been.

Just like Lucas did in SW Episode IV A New Hope (claiming the "Episode IV"
was in the original prints) and like Zemeckis did in BTTF claiming that "To
Be Continued" was NOT at the end of the theatrical release....

Max Volume

unread,
May 11, 2003, 9:56:31 PM5/11/03
to
In article <HNCva.849838$S_4.869250@rwcrnsc53>, Jim Burgan
<j...@burganHORMEL.net> wrote:

> Just like Lucas did in SW Episode IV A New Hope (claiming the "Episode IV"
> was in the original prints) and like Zemeckis did in BTTF claiming that "To
> Be Continued" was NOT at the end of the theatrical release....

Thank you, Oliver Stone. Now, care to explain why Zemeckis would lie
about that? I could see it if it wasn't there and he said it was,
because it ties the three films together. We've just seen it so often,
that it's become the "default". Besides, I don't recall him saying it
wasn't in later prints. Regardless, there are a lot of things that
weren't in *THE FIRST* print of STAR WARS -- hell, the original trailer
didn't have the logo or colored lightsabers! Is THAT revisionist?!

Yes, I would be disappointed if he started referring to STAR WARS
exclusively as A New Hope, but then the STAR WARS universe has grown
considerably since the '70s, so I think the name is a little more vague
and there is an increasing need to specify which "STAR WARS" one is
talking about.

In short, deal with it.

Michael Black

unread,
May 12, 2003, 11:09:27 AM5/12/03
to
"T.D. Shadow" <tdsh...@onelink.net> wrote in message
> That's because it wasn't. If you do a little research, you'll find
> that when the LD/VHS came out, there was major internet hoopla about
> the addition of "To Be Continued..." at the end. (People were howling
> up a storm, demanding that an un-altered-from-theatrical version be
> made available, etc.) There is a noticable absence of any mention from
> anyone that they saw TBC on the end in theares.
>
> How far back does google archive alt.video.laserdisc ?
>

1995 is the earliest mention of BTTF. There was an indeed an uproar back
then over it. Listen, we've had this debate ad nauseum when the DVDs were
released. Some people will just never believe that it wasn't included no
matter what facts you present to them.


--
http://www.michaelblack.com/

"Lisa, if we conserve the environmentalist wins!"
--Homer Simpson


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Eric R.

unread,
May 13, 2003, 4:49:52 PM5/13/03
to
"Raymond Chuang" <rch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message n

> I think Mr. Spielberg is of the view that real-time "running" commentaries
> on a DVD doesn't add to the enjoyment of the film.

In other words, he's either:

a) An arrogant prick who thinks doing a commentary track is beneath him
b) A boring fuck who doesn't want people to know he's a boring fuck

More than likely, it's "a". Personally, I would have voted for "c":

c) Overrated

-Eric

Vlvetmorning98

unread,
May 13, 2003, 11:44:12 PM5/13/03
to
>Personally, I would have voted for "c":
>
>c) Overrated

well, I'm certainly not a big fan of most of his post-"Empire of the Sun"
efforts.

"Always", anyone? Yuck.

Eric R.

unread,
May 14, 2003, 8:47:56 AM5/14/03
to
vlvetmo...@aol.com (Vlvetmorning98) wrote in message

As with Lucas, I did like his stuff in the 70's. But once he started
pouring on the syrup, forget it. The man's name has become synonymous
with melodrama.

-Eric

Stephen Cooke

unread,
May 14, 2003, 9:18:29 AM5/14/03
to

Well, I guess R. Dean Taylor better look out.

swac
*sirens wailing*

Cosmic Monster

unread,
May 14, 2003, 9:38:29 AM5/14/03
to
On 14 May 2003 05:47:56 -0700, elr...@pop.uky.edu (Eric R.) wrote:

>As with Lucas, I did like his stuff in the 70's. But once he started
>pouring on the syrup, forget it.

I agree. They should have chaged the name of A.I. to A.J. for Aunt
Jemima. Too many sappy Pinocchio references.

Vlvetmorning98

unread,
May 14, 2003, 2:30:17 PM5/14/03
to
>
>I agree. They should have chaged the name of A.I. to A.J. for Aunt
>Jemima. Too many sappy Pinocchio references.

"A.I." is also a blatant rip-off of "Astro Boy", which aired in America and
Japan during the 60's.

jayembee

unread,
May 14, 2003, 2:55:48 PM5/14/03
to
vlvetmo...@aol.com (Vlvetmorning98) wrote:

I'm not a fan of Spielberg, JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
(and, to a lesser degree, I.J. AND THE LAST CRUSADE) aside.
But of his other films, I think ALWAYS is one of the most
watchable. Not a great film, but it's beautifully shot, and
I think the Dreyfuss-Hunter-Goodman trio had remarkable
chemistry. And I liked seeing Audrey Hepburn one last time.

-- jayembee

Derek Janssen

unread,
May 14, 2003, 4:09:17 PM5/14/03
to
jayembee wrote:
>
> > "Always", anyone? Yuck.
>
> I'm not a fan of Spielberg, JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
> (and, to a lesser degree, I.J. AND THE LAST CRUSADE) aside.
> But of his other films, I think ALWAYS is one of the most
> watchable. Not a great film, but it's beautifully shot, and
> I think the Dreyfuss-Hunter-Goodman trio had remarkable
> chemistry. And I liked seeing Audrey Hepburn one last time.

Me, OTOH, I agree with Goodman (or was it Drefuss?):
We DON'T care about forest firefighters.

As far as most Spielberg fans are concerned, Spiels already *did* do a
WWII-flyboy "Guy Named Joe" remake, and it was the "Mission" episode
from "Amazing Stories"...Why ruin it?

Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com

Stephen Cooke

unread,
May 14, 2003, 3:53:23 PM5/14/03
to

I still think his best film is Sugarland Express, but I'm probably alone
in that field...

swac

Peter Briggs

unread,
May 14, 2003, 4:25:58 PM5/14/03
to
Vlvetmorning98 <vlvetmo...@aol.com> wrote:


> well, I'm certainly not a big fan of most of his post-"Empire of the Sun"
> efforts.
>
> "Always", anyone? Yuck.

I don't care for "Sun", but rather like "Always".

Dr. Speedbyrd:>

unread,
May 14, 2003, 11:36:46 AM5/14/03
to
On 14 May 2003 05:47:56 -0700, elr...@pop.uky.edu (Eric R.) wrote:


It's gotten to where I purposely shy away from films in which he has involvement.

Derek Janssen

unread,
May 14, 2003, 6:35:43 PM5/14/03
to
"Dr. Speedbyrd:>" wrote:
>
> >As with Lucas, I did like his stuff in the 70's. But once he started
> >pouring on the syrup, forget it. The man's name has become synonymous
> >with melodrama.
>
> It's gotten to where I purposely shy away from films in which he has involvement.

Once he went off on his own, the movies started separating into the Type
A, B and C Spielberg films:
- Type A, the ones he's personally obsessed with doing, which end up
being pretty good [E.T., Color Purple, Empire/Sun, Minority Report];
- Type B, the ones they couldn't find another director for, and where a
couple pages of the script could *tangentially* be interpreted as being
about something that just happened to be on his mind that week (even
though the rest of the movie wasn't), so he re-steered the entire
production in that direction and cranked it out while waiting for post
to finish up on one of his A's, since we really wouldn't notice anyway
[Amistad, Hook, Always]
- Type C, the ones his reputation FORCED him to do, so he grit his
teeth, didn't want to disappoint the fans, and tried to goof and in-joke
his way out of it [Lost World, Last Crusade]

For example, finally got around to "Catch Me If You Can", one of his
not-that-you'd-notice Type B's, and those you pretty much interpret like
an analyst looking over his patient's inkblots--
Yeah, more daddy's-boy crap, but judging from the title sequence, you
can just *tell* deep down he really wanted to do a 60's-caper tribute so
bad he could taste it, and the movie wasn't letting him.

Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com

Dr. Speedbyrd:>

unread,
May 14, 2003, 11:22:40 PM5/14/03
to

He's never topped his earliest and best efffort 'Duel'.

On the surface, it's lowbudget, low flare, low profile. In substance, you might call it
somewhat of a masterpiece. He should have stayed with the simple.

Eric R.

unread,
May 16, 2003, 10:37:32 AM5/16/03
to
"Dr. Speedbyrd:>" <Spee...@fiznet.com> wrote in message

> He's never topped his earliest and best efffort 'Duel'.

Yeah, how many directors can claim that one of their most complex and
thoughful films was made-for-tv?

-Eric

Peter Briggs

unread,
May 17, 2003, 7:50:07 AM5/17/03
to
Dr. Speedbyrd:> <Spee...@fiznet.com> wrote:

> He's never topped his earliest and best efffort 'Duel'.

"Duel" is fabulous, but "Jaws" is the daddy!

Canuck21

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 2:07:33 PM6/5/03
to
On 14 May 2003 22:22:40 -0500, "Dr. Speedbyrd:>"
<Spee...@fiznet.com> wrote:

>>> >As with Lucas, I did like his stuff in the 70's. But once he started
>>> >pouring on the syrup, forget it. The man's name has become synonymous
>>> >with melodrama.


Spielberg is in fact underrated. People love putting him down for the
simple fact that he's so successful. People don't like others'
fortune. It's actually hip and cool to downgrade Spielberg in this
newsgroup and pretend to be part of an elite who knows movies. That's
all bull. Call me what you want but Spielberg is the director who
give me the most enjoyment out of his direction.

Btw, I never understood this idolization for Kubric. Maybe I'm not
smart enough to appreciate his movies. I could never pass the long,
slow and extremely boring beginning of 2001. I've tried numerous time
to watch it but could never continue.

Movies are strickly for entertainment for me so as long as it can make
me laugh, cry and excited, I'll enjoy it. Don't need to be all
intellectual.

Canuck21

P.S. Lucas though is a bad director. His recent movies are heartless
and he can't tell a story in an interesting way.

jayembee

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 5:00:51 PM6/5/03
to
Canuck21 <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Spielberg is in fact underrated. People love putting him
> down for the simple fact that he's so successful. People
> don't like others' fortune.

Excuse me, but just because you like his work doesn't give
you call to invalidate other people's legitimate dislike of
it. I dislike the bulk of Spielberg's *films*. His personal
success is irrelevant.

> It's actually hip and cool to downgrade Spielberg in this
> newsgroup and pretend to be part of an elite who knows
> movies. That's all bull.

No, it's not. While some people could well be dismissing
Spielberg because it's trendy to do so, certainly not
everyone is. Are you so blinded by your own opinions that
you can't believe that anyone else might actually think
differently?

> Call me what you want but Spielberg is the director who
> give me the most enjoyment out of his direction.
>
> Btw, I never understood this idolization for Kubric.
> Maybe I'm not smart enough to appreciate his movies.
> I could never pass the long, slow and extremely boring
> beginning of 2001. I've tried numerous time to watch it
> but could never continue.

Which just goes to show. With a couple of exceptions, every
film of Kubrick's is a cinematic masterpiece. With a couple
of exceptions, if I never saw any of Spielberg's films again
for the rest of my life, I wouldn't feel the least bit
deprived.



> Movies are strickly for entertainment for me so as long
> as it can make me laugh, cry and excited, I'll enjoy it.
> Don't need to be all intellectual.

I don't need all films to be intellectual. I can enjoy a
movie as "just entertainment", too. The problem with
Spielberg is that I don't enjoy his films. They are too
obviously manipulative.

When I see a film by Kubrick, I see Oz the Great and Powerful.
When I see a film by Spielberg, I see a man behind a curtain
pulling levers and barking into a microphone.

-- jayembee

Tim Pace

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 5:38:39 PM6/5/03
to
Well Canuck21 this is a very interesting reply as I agree with you on some
points. I love movies and Enjoy comparing Directors, I believe that a
persons opinion of a Director is some kind of a reflection on your own
personality (up to a point). I adore the majority of Spielbergs films and
rate him on the whole as probably the best directer in the world.Now he does
tend to be emotional at times ( But so do I ) so his films fit in with me. I
agree 200% that films above all are entertainment. But we all get
entertainment in differing ways so this must be remembered. My Dad's idea of
an entertaining film was a John Wayne Movie. My mates idea of an
entertaining film is Driving Miss Daisy. So films are all entertaining but
they are all pitched at a certain target audience. Now I am strange I just
love films and can switch modes. Depending on if its a well produced film
that you can marvel at the direction, photoghraphy or character acting. I
can also be happy watching a subtitled movie or something like Die Hard.
2001 is one of my favourite films of all time. and the opening bit is in my
opinion fantastic. In fact many times I just watch that bit if I have 30
mins spare. But thats me, what a terrible state the movie industy would be
in if it presumed that we all liked the same type of film

--
Tim Pace


LASERandDVDfan

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 6:41:06 PM6/5/03
to
>I
>agree 200% that films above all are entertainment.

"Now remember firmly what I am going to tell you: the theatre (and consequently
the cinema) on account of its publicity and spectacular side, attracts many
people who merely want to capitalize their beauty or make careers. They take
advantage of of the ignorance of the public, its perverted taste, favouritism,
intrigues, false success, and many other means which have no relation to
creative art. These exploiters are are the deadliest enemies of art. We have
to use the sternest measures with them, and if they cannot be reformed they
must be removed from the boards."

- Constantin Stanislavski

- Reinhart

Joshua Zyber

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 7:24:05 PM6/5/03
to
"Canuck21" <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:rc0vdv09q7v2u1jgr...@4ax.com...

> Btw, I never understood this idolization for Kubric. Maybe I'm not
> smart enough to appreciate his movies.

Given that you can't spell his name, there is a strong possibility of
that.


Rick

unread,
Jun 5, 2003, 7:43:54 PM6/5/03
to

"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:d3aeee5b.03060...@posting.google.com...

> Canuck21 <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > Spielberg is in fact underrated. People love putting him
> > down for the simple fact that he's so successful. People
> > don't like others' fortune.
>
> Excuse me, but just because you like his work doesn't give
> you call to invalidate other people's legitimate dislike of
> it.

And your dislike of his work doesn't invalidate its greatness.


Canuck21

unread,
Jun 6, 2003, 2:27:49 AM6/6/03
to
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:24:05 -0400, "Joshua Zyber"
<jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> wrote:

>Given that you can't spell his name, there is a strong possibility of
>that.

So I can't spell his name, big deal. It just shows that I'm not a fan
of his. A name can be spelled in all kinds of ways. In Stanley's
case, I was missing a "k". Another person's name could possibly well
be spelled Kubic. Who knows.

Canuck21

Canuck21

unread,
Jun 6, 2003, 2:48:57 AM6/6/03
to
On 5 Jun 2003 14:00:51 -0700, jayembe...@snurcher.com (jayembee)
wrote:

>Excuse me, but just because you like his work doesn't give
>you call to invalidate other people's legitimate dislike of
>it. I dislike the bulk of Spielberg's *films*. His personal
>success is irrelevant.

Spielberg's personal success may be irrelevant to you but to many
others in this newsgroup, it is relevant unconciously. They won't
admit it and some won't even realize it but liking what is too popular
is uncool.

>No, it's not. While some people could well be dismissing
>Spielberg because it's trendy to do so, certainly not
>everyone is. Are you so blinded by your own opinions that
>you can't believe that anyone else might actually think
>differently?

I like blue and you like red. I know that others can have different
opinions. What I've notice about this newsgroup though is that many
are just following a trend. People who read this newsgroup are mostly
big fans of movies and a whole bunch consider themselves the elite.
Usually, elite snobs won't ever admit or want to like a popular
director like Spielberg.



>Which just goes to show. With a couple of exceptions, every
>film of Kubrick's is a cinematic masterpiece. With a couple
>of exceptions, if I never saw any of Spielberg's films again
>for the rest of my life, I wouldn't feel the least bit
>deprived.

Good for you. For me, Kubrick's movies are simply a perfect remedy
for my insomnia.



>I don't need all films to be intellectual. I can enjoy a
>movie as "just entertainment", too. The problem with
>Spielberg is that I don't enjoy his films. They are too
>obviously manipulative.

Give me some exemples of movies you like that are just entertainment.

>When I see a film by Kubrick, I see Oz the Great and Powerful.
>When I see a film by Spielberg, I see a man behind a curtain
>pulling levers and barking into a microphone.

I can say the same thing but switch the names of the directors.


Canuck21

Canuck21

unread,
Jun 6, 2003, 3:32:47 AM6/6/03
to
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:38:39 +0100, "Tim Pace" <tp...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:


I agree with you on everything you just said. I agree that
Spielberg's movies tend to be emotional but that's minor in my
opinion. As a whole, I think he's amazing. We can't say that he
hasn't revolutionized the industry. I don't like all of Spielberg's
movies of course but some of my all time favorites were directed by
him. I've been extremely disapointed by the blockbusters of recent
years except for two, "Minority Report" and "Catch Me if you Can".
Those are my favorite movies of the past couple of years.

Entertainment indeed depends on each individual's personality. The
problem is that many people in this newsgroup consider art as the only
thing that is good and the rest are for idiots. How ridiculous is
that?

Are you strange? Maybe you are. But then, I'm probably too. I
consider myself as part of the mass and not an elite. I did enjoy
"The Matrix Reloaded". That just says it all. On the other hand, I
hate so many of the recent blockbusters. I find they lack heart.
It's a wonder why I like the Matrix in the first place. I don't like
CGI and prefer puppets instead. I cringe at the new Star Wars movies
and miss the old plastic, rubber or whatever, Yoda. I usually don't
like independant movies but I can like some foreign ones. I hate
pretentous arthouse movies, yet I enjoy Wong Kar-wai's works. I love
movies in small European villages like "Aurevoir les enfants", "La
gloire the mon père" and "Le château de ma mère" but generally hate
French cinema. I was bored to death while watching "Le pacte des
loups". I even get entertained by Bollywood sometime. Whatever, if
it's good, it's good.

Canuck21

Moses

unread,
Jun 6, 2003, 5:00:46 PM6/6/03
to

President Bush.....is that you?


BubbCoop

unread,
Jun 6, 2003, 11:23:47 PM6/6/03
to
<<I agree that Spielberg's movies tend to be emotional>>

Even Spielberg has said as much. Nothing revolutionary there.

<< As a whole, I think he's amazing. We can't say that he hasn't
revolutionized the industry.>>

Sure we can. We can say anything we want.

jayembee

unread,
Jun 7, 2003, 11:04:53 AM6/7/03
to
"Rick" <swtr...@NOSPAMtampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> "jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:

>> Canuck21 <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Spielberg is in fact underrated. People love putting him
>>> down for the simple fact that he's so successful. People
>>> don't like others' fortune.
>>
>> Excuse me, but just because you like his work doesn't give
>> you call to invalidate other people's legitimate dislike of
>> it.
>
> And your dislike of his work doesn't invalidate its greatness.

I never said it did. I'm not invalidating anyone's positive
opinion of Spielberg's work. I'm only supporting my own
contention that people can dislike his films for legitimate
reasons, rather than just being dismissed as jumping on a
bandwagon.

-- jayembee

jayembee

unread,
Jun 7, 2003, 11:23:52 AM6/7/03
to
Canuck21 <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Spielberg's personal success may be irrelevant to you but
> to many others in this newsgroup, it is relevant unconciously.
> They won't admit it and some won't even realize it but liking
> what is too popular is uncool.

And the flip side can also be true: that people can claim to
like Spielberg's films simply because he's the hottest director
in Hollywood, and they just want to be trendy. But that's not
a claim that I would think of making because there's no way
to support it.

You can *suspect* that many people in this newsgroup diss
Spielberg because he's popular, but how do you know that it's
a fact?

> I like blue and you like red. I know that others can have
> different opinions. What I've notice about this newsgroup
> though is that many are just following a trend. People who
> read this newsgroup are mostly big fans of movies and a
> whole bunch consider themselves the elite. Usually, elite
> snobs won't ever admit or want to like a popular director
> like Spielberg.

Maybe so. Are you willing to agree, then, that since Kubrick
is considered to be among the greats of cinema by the elite
that anyone who claims to find his work "boring" is just
trying to be an anti-elitist?

>> I don't need all films to be intellectual. I can enjoy a
>> movie as "just entertainment", too. The problem with
>> Spielberg is that I don't enjoy his films. They are too
>> obviously manipulative.
>
> Give me some exemples of movies you like that are just
> entertainment.

The Lethal Weapon series (yes, all four of them, though
even most fans of the first two don't like the second two),
the first DIE HARD, the first SUPERMAN, RAIDERS OF THE LOST
ARK (and to a lesser degree, IJ AND THE LAST CRUSADE), BACK
TO THE FUTURE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, USED CARS, SPIDER-MAN,
HALLOWEEN, and a whole heaping shitload of "B" movies from
the 30s through the 50s. Just to name a few.

At a guess, I'd say that in the last decade, I've probably
watched Pal/Haskin's THE WAR OF THE WORLDS more often than
any other film. And JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH not
far behind it.

-- jayembee

jayembee

unread,
Jun 7, 2003, 11:37:49 AM6/7/03
to
Canuck21 <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Entertainment indeed depends on each individual's personality.
> The problem is that many people in this newsgroup consider art
> as the only thing that is good and the rest are for idiots.
> How ridiculous is that?

As ridiculous as saying that movies are only meant to be
entertainment, and that art is only for boring old farts.

I wish I had a nickel for everytime I've seen a comment to
the effect of, "Who cares if it doesn't make sense? When I
go to the movies, I don't want to have to think. I just want
to have a good time."

As with anything else, both extremes are silly.

> Are you strange? Maybe you are. But then, I'm probably too.
> I consider myself as part of the mass and not an elite. I
> did enjoy "The Matrix Reloaded". That just says it all.

I'm not sure it does. I prefer to think of myself as an "elite"
(if I had to think of myself as anything), but I enjoyed THE
MATRIX RELOADED as well.

> [...] Whatever, if it's good, it's good.

Which is probably the best approach, and one I use. The trouble
is in trying to establish some standard of what's "good". You
think Spielberg is good; I don't. I think Kubrick is good; you
don't.

-- jayembee

Joshua Zyber

unread,
Jun 7, 2003, 12:31:16 AM6/7/03
to
"Canuck21" <canu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:glc0ev8mgj8lfm5ev...@4ax.com...

> So I can't spell his name, big deal. It just shows that I'm not a fan
> of his. A name can be spelled in all kinds of ways.

Actually, it can't. If you spell it differently, it becomes someone
else's name.

> In Stanley's
> case, I was missing a "k". Another person's name could possibly well
> be spelled Kubic. Who knows.

Could possibly well, yes. But that wouldn't be the same person you were
referring to, would it?


Canuck21

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 12:00:17 AM6/8/03
to
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 09:00:46 +1200, "Moses"
<possi...@notverylikely.com> wrote:

>President Bush.....is that you?


No, I'm Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

aka Canuck21

Canuck21

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 12:03:59 AM6/8/03
to


My point is it's not such a big deal if I missed the "k". You did
afterall knew who I was talking about right? If I was a fan of his
and made the mistake, then I'd be worried, but I'm not so I don't feel
that stupid. Ignorant, maybe.

Canuck21

Canuck21

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 12:21:55 AM6/8/03
to
On 7 Jun 2003 08:37:49 -0700, jayembe...@snurcher.com (jayembee)
wrote:

>As ridiculous as saying that movies are only meant to be
>entertainment, and that art is only for boring old farts.
>
>I wish I had a nickel for everytime I've seen a comment to
>the effect of, "Who cares if it doesn't make sense? When I
>go to the movies, I don't want to have to think. I just want
>to have a good time."
>
>As with anything else, both extremes are silly.

Yes you're right. I like the fun aspect but if there's no reasonable
content, I feel empty after.

>I'm not sure it does. I prefer to think of myself as an "elite"
>(if I had to think of myself as anything), but I enjoyed THE
>MATRIX RELOADED as well.

Well I always refer to the majority of the elite and most consider
Reloaded awful On top of that, I like Keanu Reeves. I don't think
he's all that bad and I can't see anyone else playing Neo. I feel
very lonely for liking him.

>Which is probably the best approach, and one I use. The trouble
>is in trying to establish some standard of what's "good". You
>think Spielberg is good; I don't. I think Kubrick is good; you
>don't.

What's good is what has a good impression on you. I just think that
some just don't follow their feeling ut go with the trend without
realizing it. I know, I used to be like that.

Canuck21

Canuck21

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 12:54:41 AM6/8/03
to
On 7 Jun 2003 08:23:52 -0700, jayembe...@snurcher.com (jayembee)
wrote:

>And the flip side can also be true: that people can claim to
>like Spielberg's films simply because he's the hottest director
>in Hollywood, and they just want to be trendy. But that's not
>a claim that I would think of making because there's no way
>to support it.

Trust me, it is not trendy to like Spielberg at the moment.

>You can *suspect* that many people in this newsgroup diss
>Spielberg because he's popular, but how do you know that it's
>a fact?

I never claimed it was fact. I'm just saying what I think.

>Maybe so. Are you willing to agree, then, that since Kubrick
>is considered to be among the greats of cinema by the elite
>that anyone who claims to find his work "boring" is just
>trying to be an anti-elitist?

You have a point there. All I can say is that there's a difference
between the elite that is following a trend that will make him sound
superior while the anti-elitist is trying to make a statement, which
is also wrong. Anyway, you've made your point well.

>The Lethal Weapon series (yes, all four of them, though
>even most fans of the first two don't like the second two),
>the first DIE HARD, the first SUPERMAN, RAIDERS OF THE LOST
>ARK (and to a lesser degree, IJ AND THE LAST CRUSADE), BACK
>TO THE FUTURE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, USED CARS, SPIDER-MAN,
>HALLOWEEN, and a whole heaping shitload of "B" movies from
>the 30s through the 50s. Just to name a few.
>
>At a guess, I'd say that in the last decade, I've probably
>watched Pal/Haskin's THE WAR OF THE WORLDS more often than
>any other film. And JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH not
>far behind it.

Even with your fun list, you're showing your elitism (does that word
exists?) with those "B" movies from the '30s through the '50s. Sure
they're low quality but they're considered cult movies now. The mass
have never seen them.

Anyhow, thanks for replying to me without putting me down with
smartass remarks. You're a rare specimen in this newsgroup.

Canuck21

BubbCoop

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 8:52:52 AM6/8/03
to
<<Are you willing to agree, then, that since Kubrick
>is considered to be among the greats of cinema by the elite
>that anyone who claims to find his work "boring" is just
>trying to be an anti-elitist?>>

It's possible to find a movie boring and still appreciate it. 2001 is a long
movie where not much happens. I wouldn't begrudge anyone finding it boring, but
that doesn't mean any of those people don't like it.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages