Also Han didn’t shoot first. He shot only.
“Wanna hear another theory? Greedo was so upset about the lousy jazz music that night, he took out his blaster and in a fit of depression, shot himself first.”
Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.
First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.
I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.
Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.
Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.
You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.
I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.
I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.
Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.
To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.
That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.
I don’t think so, Dom.
If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.
Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.
Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.
You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.
My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.
A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???
Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.
Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?
HAN SHOOTS FIRST!
You’re missing my point.
Knock it off.
Also Han didn’t shoot first. He shot only.
Also last I heard “fup ur” wasn’t even allowed as a joke anymore (Which in and of itself is funnier than the actual joke ever could have been…). Is jokingly saying fuck you flying again? Coz I’m in favor of that.
Fuck you neglify.
Wook told me to play nice right after, so no.
But maybe he also thought you were srs
Also Han didn’t shoot first. He shot only.
“Han Shoots First” is ot.com’s unofficial slogan.
Also Han didn’t shoot first. He shot only.
“Han Shoots First” is ot.com’s unofficial slogan.
I unofficially changed it to “Not fighting what we hate, saving what we love.”
The blue elephant in the room.
Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.
First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.
I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.
Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.
Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.
You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.
I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.
I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.
Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.
To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.
That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.
I don’t think so, Dom.
If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.
Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.
Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.
You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.
My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.
A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???
Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.
You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.
Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?
HAN SHOOTS FIRST!
You’re missing my point.
aren’t I always?
Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.
First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.
I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.
Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.
Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.
You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.
I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.
I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.
Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.
To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.
That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.
I don’t think so, Dom.
If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.
Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.
Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.
You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.
My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.
A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???
Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.
You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.
That wasn’t what I said.
Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?
HAN SHOOTS FIRST!
You’re missing my point.
aren’t I always?
I guess so?
Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.
First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.
I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.
Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.
Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.
You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.
I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.
I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.
Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.
To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.
That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.
I don’t think so, Dom.
If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.
Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.
Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.
You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.
My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.
A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???
Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.
You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.
That wasn’t what I said.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
So you’re a fan of the walkie talkies in ET? Or just annoyed with anybody who questions such a choice?
Are you talking to me? I literally said “it’s not like they’re removing guns from the movie, it’s just a poster.” There’s a big difference between a film and its marketing materials.
As for ET, I’ve legitimately never understood the walkie talkie complaint. I mean sure, was that really necessary? Nah. But honestly is it that big a deal? Judging by the reaction you see about it on the internet you’d think they’d replaced ET with the alien from Mac and Me, everyone acts like this small change ruins the whole movie.
Some of us don’t like it when they go back and change movies. Some of us prefer movies how they originally were. Welcome to originaltrilogy.com.
This is true.
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Knick-Knack-Boobs-Restoration/id/17679/page/1
Thank god for the anti-PC heroes at originaltrilogy.com. I sleep easy at night knowing you guys are here to make the world great again.
I am not even sure how that thread applies to me. I have no idea what it is about and I don’t remember ever posting in it. Nonetheless, this site is dedicated to the idea the movies should be preserved how they originally were. You know, the whole “Han Shoots first” bit?
Warbler, you do realize that Frink was agreeing with you, right? He was just using a somewhat ridiculous example of preserving the original version of something to point out that that’s exactly the point of this site, even going so far as to preserve original versions of things that most would find pointless or ridiculous.
The Knick Knack project has nothing to do with you personally - it’s an early Pixar short that was later censored and someone here started a project to restore the original version (where the character had larger boobs than in the later, censored version).
Maybe next time actually figure out what Frink is trying to say before you assume he’s antagonizing you and fly off the handle for no good reason?
So you’re a fan of the walkie talkies in ET? Or just annoyed with anybody who questions such a choice?
Are you talking to me? I literally said “it’s not like they’re removing guns from the movie, it’s just a poster.” There’s a big difference between a film and its marketing materials.
As for ET, I’ve legitimately never understood the walkie talkie complaint. I mean sure, was that really necessary? Nah. But honestly is it that big a deal? Judging by the reaction you see about it on the internet you’d think they’d replaced ET with the alien from Mac and Me, everyone acts like this small change ruins the whole movie.
Some of us don’t like it when they go back and change movies. Some of us prefer movies how they originally were. Welcome to originaltrilogy.com.
This is true.
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-Knick-Knack-Boobs-Restoration/id/17679/page/1
Thank god for the anti-PC heroes at originaltrilogy.com. I sleep easy at night knowing you guys are here to make the world great again.
I am not even sure how that thread applies to me. I have no idea what it is about and I don’t remember ever posting in it. Nonetheless, this site is dedicated to the idea the movies should be preserved how they originally were. You know, the whole “Han Shoots first” bit?
Warbler, you do realize that Frink was agreeing with you, right?
He was? could have fooled me.
Maybe next time actually figure out what Frink is trying to say before you assume he’s antagonizing you and fly off the handle for no good reason?
Maybe next time he could be more clear as to what he was saying(if indeed he was agreeing with me). He could also learn to be less antagonizing so that one wouldn’t so readily assume that is what he was doing.
Oh my god…
What?
Ash is frustrated that even when he tries to explain what Frink was saying and clear up misunderstanding you were having…you blame Frink. That’s my last public word on the matter.
The blue elephant in the room.
He agreed with you, then linked to an example that proved the exact point you were making. Because it was a ridiculous example, he made a joke about it.
You immediately assumed that he was antagonizing you, didn’t even bother to figure out what the project in the link actually was, assumed it was a personal shot at you, and went at Frink.
When you assume someone’s always out to get you, you’ll see it all the time in their interactions, even when it’s not there. It’s not on Frink to constantly treat you with kid gloves and make sure you’re always happy.
Ash is frustrated that even when he tries to explain what Frink was saying and clear up misunderstanding you were having…you blame Frink. That’s my last public word on the matter.
Yep.
Mine too before I get myself in trouble.
Well if I misunderstood Frink I am sorry.
.
Also when he mentioned “knick knack boobs”, it sounded like it was some sort x rated piece of crap. Therefore, I had no interest in figuring out what it was.
Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.
First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.
I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.
Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.
Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.
You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.
I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.
I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.
Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.
To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.
That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.
I don’t think so, Dom.
If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.
Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.
Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.
You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.
My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.
A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???
Read that exchange again, we’re talking about a hypothetical.
You asked if the theatrical cut would be worse than the original, the only way that could be is if they are different.
That wasn’t what I said.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
Those are two separate questions. “It” refers to the hypothetical altered version. The theatrical and the original are the same.
Wow, this thread sucks.
Also when he mentioned “knick knack boobs”, it sounded like it was some sort x rated piece of crap. Therefore, I had no interest in figuring out what it was.
He linked to the fucking thread.
Also when he mentioned “knick knack boobs”, it sounded like it was some sort x rated piece of crap. Therefore, I had no interest in figuring out what it was.
He linked to the fucking thread.
That thread must be X rated.
and I thought it was about some sort of x-rated movie and therefore didn’t even want to go into the thread. It was named " knick knack boobs" doesn’t that sound like porn to you?
Wow, this thread sucks.
+1