| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 07/27/2007 : 18:46:52
|
Films starring Mel Gibson usually/always require the audience to identify and/or sympathise with the Gibson character, and this makes it particularly difficult to watch if you would rather kick the racist bastard's teeth down his dirty throat.
Not that I have anything against Mel myself you understand...
Actually, some of my best friends are Mel Gibson.
|
 |
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 22:28:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
This Dawn of Man timing has been bugging me ever since I read it, so I went back and looked. Cool, from the MGM logo to the famous bone-throw jump cut is just shy of :20. The first line of dialogue -- "Here you are, sir" -- occurs at 25:44. You sure your prof cut the Dawn down to :20?
Hmmm. I thought it was 40, but if you say it was 20 then I appologize for the misinformation. I do know my teacher cut it in half, so it must have been from 20 to 10 minutes. Maybe I got the number 40 from some of the landscape shots that last 40 seconds? |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/27/2007 : 23:58:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by redPen
Movies Worthy Of Being Walked Out On
- any zombie film
I'd walk out on anyone who walked out on a zombie flick. 
There's nothing funnier than an animated rotting human corpse who's come back from the dead to eat live human flesh or brains. 
ZOMBIES DON'T CRAVE BRAINS!!!!!!
Yeah yeah, I'm as much of a zombie fan as you are, I know what they like to eat!  I added the "or brains" as about 20 years ago I was a major fan of Return of the Living Dead which I found hilarious at the time, and it contains zombies, and they eat human brains. (The sequels were garbage though). I watched it again a few years ago, and is has dated somewhat (unlike the Romero masterpieces), but it is still a zombie flick and a worthwhile member of it's genre. I'm sure you know all this anyway.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 00:08:36
|
I have to agree with the anti-Gibson sentiment. I used to simply think he was an arsehole until he showed his true colours last year (or whenever it was). He ain't getting any of my money either.
Polanski's victim publicly said that it was 30 years ago, that Polanski has paid for it and everyone should get over it.
I watched Triumph of the Will. Hitler had something to do with that if I remember rightly. I can happily watch it as I know that no Nazis are getting any of my money.
And if I watch Naked Gun I don't believe OJ is gonna get any more money from that either. And neither is Jeffrey Jones if I watch Ferris Bueller. |
Edited by - Sean on 07/28/2007 03:52:37 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 00:14:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
This Dawn of Man timing has been bugging me ever since I read it, so I went back and looked. Cool, from the MGM logo to the famous bone-throw jump cut is just shy of :20. The first line of dialogue -- "Here you are, sir" -- occurs at 25:44. You sure your prof cut the Dawn down to :20?
Hmmm. I thought it was 40, but if you say it was 20 then I appologize for the misinformation. I do know my teacher cut it in half, so it must have been from 20 to 10 minutes. Maybe I got the number 40 from some of the landscape shots that last 40 seconds?
First, make sure your prof isn't self-aggrandizing, but I'm almost positive he's only trying to make a production point. Just do me a favor and consider the possibility that the original cut might have been exactly the right length. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 01:11:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
This Dawn of Man timing has been bugging me ever since I read it, so I went back and looked. Cool, from the MGM logo to the famous bone-throw jump cut is just shy of :20. The first line of dialogue -- "Here you are, sir" -- occurs at 25:44. You sure your prof cut the Dawn down to :20?
Hmmm. I thought it was 40, but if you say it was 20 then I appologize for the misinformation. I do know my teacher cut it in half, so it must have been from 20 to 10 minutes. Maybe I got the number 40 from some of the landscape shots that last 40 seconds?
First, make sure your prof isn't self-aggrandizing, but I'm almost positive he's only trying to make a production point. Just do me a favor and consider the possibility that the original cut might have been exactly the right length.
Believe me, when I heard what my teacher (he taught high school and wasn't a professor) did, I thought he was mad because, like you and Sean, I thought the Dawn of Man was a fantastic, beautiful, perfect sequence. Then he showed me his cut and it became clear that his cut was even more fantastic, beautiful, and perfect than Kubrick's cut. Obviously, when i watch my dvd copy of 2001 (roughly once a year), I don't fast forward or otherwise alter the dawn of man sequence and it works fine at the length it is in Kubrick's cut. My teacher said most of what he cut were 30-40 second long shots of barren landscapes to 5-6 seconds long. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 03:57:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Films starring Mel Gibson usually/always require the audience to identify and/or sympathise with the Gibson character, and this makes it particularly difficult to watch if you would rather kick the racist bastard's teeth down his dirty throat.
Not that I have anything against Mel myself you understand...
Actually, some of my best friends are Mel Gibson.
I don't care who makes, stars or is in a movie or sings a song, if it appeals to me I will watch or listen to it. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 04:30:52
|
God, I'm such a provocateur. This is not how I usually behave, honest.
quote:
And if I watch Naked Gun I don't believe OJ is gonna get any more money from that either. And neither is Jeffrey Jones if I watch Ferris Bueller
Yes they do. Residuals.
quote:
Comparing OJ Simpson's brief appearance in a movie that predates the crime he was suspected of committing to Mel Gibson's free ride through Hollywood after the things he said is so utterly absurd I'm not even going to touch that one.
We weren't talking about Hollywood, we were talking about you. You refuse to watch Mel Gibson movies because you find him a repellent human being.
Perhaps he is. I suppose I could make a case that Gibson is also innocent of his supposed crimes. People say the truth comes out when you're drunk; I, a budding alcoholic, strongly disagree. As we know that Gibson was indoctrinated with that shit from his hateful father, perhaps he grew up believing it and grew out of it; but it came bubbling back up in the alcohol stew that was his brain at the time. Of course, there's also the vilification of the Jews in his movie. I would note, however, that of all screen Jesuses, Jim Caviezel looks the most Jewish.
Am I doing backflips to justify his statements? Perhaps. But look down this thread and read all the posts justifying the actions of Polanski, who, I must point out, RAPED A THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD, one who, whatever forgiveness lays in her heart, has always maintained that she was in fact raped by Roman Polanski. Wrap your head around that, and meanwhile, the only person Mel Gibson hurt was himself. I apologize if I offend at this point, but I simply cannot fathom the torturous logic that makes Mel Gibson a worse offender than Polanski.
And yes, I do think cheating on your wife with your adopted daughter is worse than making racist statements while drunk.
Bottom line is, I am not at all comfortable dismissing movies, or any art, just because it's made by assholes. Most artists are assholes. I don't think it's fair to limit yourself to things made by pleasant people. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 07/28/2007 04:33:47 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 05:52:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
And if I watch Naked Gun I don't believe OJ is gonna get any more money from that either. And neither is Jeffrey Jones if I watch Ferris Bueller
Yes they do. Residuals.
Interesting. I'm not arguing as I don't know, but does this mean that every supporting actor in the history of cinema continues to be paid from future DVD sales etc? And the inheritors of their estate continue to receive income after their death? E.g., is Claude Rains's estate continuing to be paid from income derived from Robin Hood? I thought some actors were paid a lump sum or wages.quote:
But look down this thread and read all the posts justifying the actions of Polanski, who, I must point out, RAPED A THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD, one who, whatever forgiveness lays in her heart, has always maintained that she was in fact raped by Roman Polanski.
I'm certainly not 'justifying' a child rapist. But it was 30 years ago, and if she can forgive him then so can I. I certainly wouldn't let him near my 13-year old daughter though (if I had one) but I'll watch a movie of his. Likewise, if Nelson Mandela can forgive the people who locked him up for 25 years then who am I to suggest they should be punished for that?
BTW, there are a lot of people who do actually boycott Polanski for his crime.quote:
...the only person Mel Gibson hurt was himself. I apologize if I offend at this point, but I simply cannot fathom the torturous logic that makes Mel Gibson a worse offender than Polanski.
And yes, I do think cheating on your wife with your adopted daughter is worse than making racist statements while drunk.
Hmmm, I think you're ignoring the potential future damage done by his comments. What he said was globally reported, and there are some whose bigotry will be confirmed by his comments (whether he believed them himself or not). E.g., lets say that his comments helped perpetuate a myth that result in Holocaust Part 2 twenty years from now, then how guilty does that make him? Does that make him a worse person than someone who shagged his step-daughter? I think so. The consequences of an attitude such as espoused by Gibson can be utterly horrendous. Hence I'm not surprised that many/most members of the Jewish tribe boycott him entirely. |
Edited by - Sean on 07/28/2007 06:29:11 |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 07:58:35
|
I love Woody Allen and Roman Polanski's films and I'll see anything by either of them. They are both masters of the craft. Mel Gibson's films (as a director) are popular and handsomely produced, but not very deep in terms of the human condition. One thing that dissapointed me about The Passion was that the content of the film was completely devoid of any of the wisdom, tolerance, and humanity Jesus is so famous for. I didn't see Apocalypto, but not out of solidarity with the Jewish people. It just looked as simple and historically inaccurate as The Passion and Braveheart were (although I did admire Braveheart dispite its simplicity and historical inaccuracies).
I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with thefoxboy. If a person has something meaningful to say about the human condition, then my ears are open. On the other hand, it is always important to consider the messenger as well as the message, but this is just as true about famous people as it is about infamous people. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 10:38:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I have to agree with the anti-Gibson sentiment. I used to simply think he was an arsehole until he showed his true colours last year (or whenever it was). He ain't getting any of my money either.
Polanski's victim publicly said that it was 30 years ago, that Polanski has paid for it and everyone should get over it.
I watched Triumph of the Will. Hitler had something to do with that if I remember rightly. I can happily watch it as I know that no Nazis are getting any of my money.
And if I watch Naked Gun I don't believe OJ is gonna get any more money from that either. And neither is Jeffrey Jones if I watch Ferris Bueller.
Look! We agree on all these points! Cool!
(I like giraffes, by the way. Do you like giraffes?)
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 12:52:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(I like giraffes, by the way. Do you like giraffes?)
Sure. I used to see plenty of those when I lived in Kenya.  On the whole, if an animal is cute (and most are) then I'll like it.
I even think that big hairy spiders are cute.  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 13:19:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Films starring Mel Gibson usually/always require the audience to identify and/or sympathise with the Gibson character, and this makes it particularly difficult to watch if you would rather kick the racist bastard's teeth down his dirty throat.
Not that I have anything against Mel myself you understand...
Actually, some of my best friends are Mel Gibson.
I don't care who makes, stars or is in a movie or sings a song, if it appeals to me I will watch or listen to it.
Me too!
It's just that if Mel is in it, it doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 07/28/2007 : 15:27:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I love Woody Allen and Roman Polanski's films and I'll see anything by either of them. If a person has something meaningful to say about the human condition, then my ears are open.
Woody Allen's last movie was about a reporter uncovering a murder with the help of a ghost, I would point out.
But seriously, ceasing to be an asshole for a moment, I would argue that while Mel Gibson's films may not be very deep, they are incredibly powerful, particularly Apocalypto, which is one of the most searing, horrifying portraits of a civilization gone insane I've ever seen. Gibson is a wild impressionistic artist and I'm really happy to see someone that insane making movies these days.
Also, I say, screw historical accuracy! Who needs it?!
quote:
but does this mean that every supporting actor in the history of cinema continues to be paid from future DVD sales etc
I'm not sure how it works exactly either. I do remember a Behind the Music where Emo Phillips showed off his residual check for his role in the Weird Al movie "UHF". If Emo Phillips is still getting checks for a half-forgotten, decade-old movie that really is not very good, I have to believe that Jeffrey Jones is still getting money for "Ferris Bueller's Day Off."
quote:
Hmmm, I think you're ignoring the potential future damage done by his comments. What he said was globally reported, and there are some whose bigotry will be confirmed by his comments (whether he believed them himself or not). E.g., lets say that his comments helped perpetuate a myth that result in Holocaust Part 2 twenty years from now, then how guilty does that make him? Does that make him a worse person than someone who shagged his step-daughter? I think so. The consequences of an attitude such as espoused by Gibson can be utterly horrendous. Hence I'm not surprised that many/most members of the Jewish tribe boycott him entirely.
Hoo boy. Let me go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe a second Holocaust is not going to happen because of one movie star's drunken statement that he publicly disavowed several times after. Let me also suggest that Mel Gibson is not and is not going to be the root cause of anyone's anti-Semitism, or even an ancillary cause. And while we're at it, I'd like to propose the idea that the effect of Gibson's drunken rants' on worldwide anti-Semitic sentiment is neglible to nil. There's not a Jew-hater in the world who needed Mel Gibson to tell him to hate Jews. This is a stretch and a half. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 00:48:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Hmmm, I think you're ignoring the potential future damage done by his comments. What he said was globally reported, and there are some whose bigotry will be confirmed by his comments (whether he believed them himself or not). E.g., lets say that his comments helped perpetuate a myth that result in Holocaust Part 2 twenty years from now, then how guilty does that make him? Does that make him a worse person than someone who shagged his step-daughter? I think so. The consequences of an attitude such as espoused by Gibson can be utterly horrendous. Hence I'm not surprised that many/most members of the Jewish tribe boycott him entirely.
Hoo boy. Let me go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe a second Holocaust is not going to happen because of one movie star's drunken statement that he publicly disavowed several times after. Let me also suggest that Mel Gibson is not and is not going to be the root cause of anyone's anti-Semitism, or even an ancillary cause. And while we're at it, I'd like to propose the idea that the effect of Gibson's drunken rants' on worldwide anti-Semitic sentiment is neglible to nil. There's not a Jew-hater in the world who needed Mel Gibson to tell him to hate Jews. This is a stretch and a half.
Jew-haters aren't born as Jew-haters. They learn their hate from others. They learn it by hearing conspiracy theories spouted by people like Gibson. Sure, Ghandi isn't going to become a Nazi after listening to Gibson, but there are numerous people who need to be told what to think who are easily swayed by such comments. E.g., someone reads a David Icke conspiracy theory, doesn't know whether to believe it or not, then next week a super-rich Hollywood movie director confirms the conspiracy. Do you really think that it isn't going to sway him and perhaps help confirm his suspicions?
The rantings of Gibson last year aren't terribly different from the rantings of a soldier named Adolf Hitler in 1918. In 1918 it didn't look like anyone needed to take Hitler seriously either.
Sure, Gibson disavowed his comments. His career was over if he hadn't. Hollywood isn't going to do a deal with a neo-Nazi, but they will deal with a drunken buffoon. But, if a friend of mine gets drunk one day and calls me a f***ing c**t and that I'm the cause of all his problems, then apologises the next day, there's no way would I trust him again. I'd simply assume that he doesn't like me. Mud sticks.
You should try stepping into a Jewish person's shoes for a day (perhaps a visit to Dachau) then tell Jews that anti-Semites are just "assholes". Jews have as much reason to ignore anti-Semitism as airport security staff at JFK have to ignore a guy with a beard and a turban who sets off the metal detector. Or to put it another way; if Jews don't have to worry about anti-Semites like Gibson, then precisely which anti-Semites do they need to worry about?
Woody Allen is a selfish narcissistic asshole because of the anguish he caused Mia Farrow. Guys who perpetuate myths that kill millions are not in the same category. They're fucking dangerous. |
Edited by - Sean on 07/29/2007 00:51:22 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
WORST FILMS EVER
