DominicCobb

dahmage said:

DominicCobb said:

Sometimes I even keep two.

But who’s?

None of your business.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Even then, from what I understand, Walt himself was uncomfortable with the scene, thinking it was “un-Disney.”

what scene do you refer to?

Maybe the one in the OP?

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

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.

You should keep reading before you post…

DominicCobb said:

SilverWook said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

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 movie.

It was briefly before Spielberg made sure the original theatrical would not be left in the dust bin of analog video formats.
In any case, how can you be on this site and not understand why altering a scene from a 1982 film twenty years later might upset someone who loved the movie?

I’ve never had a problem with the idea of a special edition. I actually think it’s a cool concept.

Anyway, what’s important is that when the special edition was released on DVD, the theatrical was right there with it. So the complaints don’t hold much water, in my mind.

Sometimes I even keep two.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

DominicCobb said:

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.

Cretin is not how I’d describe all of them, mostly they’re just people wasting their time and energy getting worked up about nothing. Framing the potential agenda in positive terms is just natural, there’s nothing nefarious about removing something that many people find demeaning to women, whether it objectively is or isn’t (of course, hard to apply objectivity in something such as this).

As for fighting against the “PC agenda,” I’ll rarely ever find that not silly.

Inspired by my trip to the multiplex last night to see the always spectacular 1958 film Vertigo, I’m wondering who else has seen some movies in theaters that were originally released before you were born? Well, I guess it doesn’t have to be before you were born, any years later rerelease will do.

Rereleases have become fairly rare, so it can be tricky to see a classic on the big screen. Luckily I always keep an eye out for limited events (like TCM’s Big Screen Classics) and on my nearby revival houses. In my time, I’ve had the chance to see a number of my favorites (and a couple not exactly favorites):

• Singin’ In the Rain
• Raiders of the Lost Ark twice, first time in IMAX
• Lawrence of Arabia
• A Hard Day’s Night
• Ghostbusters
• Blade Runner (The Final Cut) twice, first time 35mm, second time in Dolby Atmos
• Jaws on 35mm
• Back to the Future
• Planet of the Apes
• Casablanca
• Batman: Mask of the Phantasm on 35mm
• The three Battlestar Galactica movies that were edited together TV episodes, all on 35mm
• Citizen Kane
• F For Fake on 35mm
• Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Director’s Cut)
• 2001: A Space Odyssey twice, once on 70mm, then in IMAX 70mm
• Vertigo
• E.T. The Extra Terrestrial on 35mm

Maybe another I’m forgetting too. It’s a fair amount but I honestly feel like I’m slacking.

What about you guys?

dahmage said:

This is the most ridiculous thread i have seen in a while. Why exactly should we be up in arms that a them park, (mostly a child-hood affair) decided to not show rape as reason for humor?

They aren’t changing the history books last i checked.

Careful, logic is not allowed in here.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

DominicCobb said:

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

Well you obviously aren’t too worried about offending people like me, but you’re so in favor of political correctness because it preserves the feelings of people.

Why should I be worried that saying “fuck you” might offend you when it’s a very commonly known running joke here?

And it’s not about “preserving the feelings of people.” That’s a purposefully ignorant mischaracterization.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

He was being a pathetic person. He repented later. Thankfully people can change.

Fuck you.

So much for caring about people’s feelings. That’s why everyone can’t stand political correctness. It’s inconsistent.

And people complain that PC people can’t take a joke, and yet look at you…

I’m not offended. I’m pointing out your hypocrisy on PC stuff.

What hypocrisy?

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

He was being a pathetic person. He repented later. Thankfully people can change.

Fuck you.

So much for caring about people’s feelings. That’s why everyone can’t stand political correctness. It’s inconsistent.

And people complain that PC people can’t take a joke, and yet look at you…

moviefreakedmind said:

He was being a pathetic person. He repented later. Thankfully people can change.

Fuck you.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

DominicCobb said:

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

The ET walkie-talkies is a perfect example of pathetic people attempting to avoid offending the senses of other pathetic people. “We can’t have these evil FBI agents carrying guns. What will the children think when they see that? Won’t somebody think of the children!”

You just called Steven Spielberg pathetic. That’s a no fly zone.

SilverWook said:

I’d love to see a verifiable quote from Disney on that. If he wasn’t comfy with the scene, he could have ordered it changed. He only owned the darn park.

Saw it quoted from a book in a tweet awhile ago (I’ll see if I can track it down). Obviously in the end he decided to move forward with it, but if he was initially skeptical of it decades ago, it’s not so insane to think that maybe some of that skepticism is just as (if not more) justified now.

SilverWook said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

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 movie.

It was briefly before Spielberg made sure the original theatrical would not be left in the dust bin of analog video formats.
In any case, how can you be on this site and not understand why altering a scene from a 1982 film twenty years later might upset someone who loved the movie?

I’ve never had a problem with the idea of a special edition. I actually think it’s a cool concept.

Anyway, what’s important is that when the special edition was released on DVD, the theatrical was right there with it. So the complaints don’t hold much water, in my mind.

SilverWook said:

Those are Brazilian posters for Solo, BTW. Other countries have different standards.

Anyway, is a Disney ride more sacred than a Disney movie that’s altered/censored? A lot of us have pretty strong feelings about the latter.
I still have trouble wrapping my head around a Disney ride based on a movie we can’t legally purchase on DVD or Blu-Ray. 😉

It’d be cool if Disneyland was still preserved exactly as it was when it originally opened. But the reality of theme parks is constant updates. So why not? And I don’t think censored is really the right word. More like updating to more modern sensibilities. Even then, from what I understand, Walt himself was uncomfortable with the scene, thinking it was “un-Disney.”

Mrebo said:

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

DominicCobb said:

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

Relevant to this topic and Wook’s post, blasters removed from Solo movie posters: https://movieweb.com/han-solo-movie-posters-gun-free/

Who cares?

Anyone whose judgement is clouded by anti political correctness insanity

Fixed.

moviefreakedmind said:

I just think it’s funny that we’re expected to be entertained by violence while simultaneously pretending that there the subject is less violent than it is.

I don’t think it’s quite that, it’s not like they’re removing guns from the movie, it’s just a poster. Presumably there’s more to these characters than violence, so it’s not unreasonable to portray them without guns.

Possessed said:

DominicCobb said:

It also applies to the outrage people get over incredibly minor things like this.

I’m definitely not “outraged” by it, but if they had to do this they should have put more effort into making it still look good. It’s fine for most of it, but Han’s blasterless photoshop job looks quite silly because they didn’t change the position or look of his head and having him look like that but with his arms at his side looks a bit silly. The original poster was better.

I’m not “offended” that they decided to not have blasters on the poster or anything, but I do wish they would have gone about it better.

I agree.

It also applies to the outrage people get over incredibly minor things like this.

Mrebo said:

Relevant to this topic and Wook’s post, blasters removed from Solo movie posters: https://movieweb.com/han-solo-movie-posters-gun-free/

Who cares?