Geez, I'm beginning to wonder if everyone here is just so disgusted with me, and that's why this thread suddenly died...
Okay. Well, I went for a walk tonight, and just as I was about to turn around, I noticed a little circular, walled-in area with a statue of a guy playing a piano that I had never noticed before (I live right off of Music Square in Nashville, so this kind of thing isn't uncommon). I decided to take a closer look at it, but as I got inside, I noticed a man curled up on the ground, his face to the brick. I leaned in for a closer look and didn't see any signs of violence. So after that, I uncomfortably turned around and walked back home.
Should I have stopped to see if this guy was alright? I wasn't sure. I'm still not. Moving here was the first time I saw homeless people on a regular basis. And most of my encounters with them end up with me sacrificing some of my money. And as a retail clerk, that's not really money I can spare at the moment, but I can't really find the heart to say no to them (until they start badgering me for more after I've just given them some). But at any rate, I've gotten used to seeing them, and, chances are, this was just a homeless guy taking a nap in an unobtrusive spot. I could have called 911 and let the police sort it out, but if he was just sleeping, they would have awakened him and booted him out. Then I would have just ruined that guy's day.
If he was dead, well, he's dead. I can't really do anything for him. He didn't look like he was in pain or injured in any way, so it seemed to me like it was either one of the two.
Nonetheless, it still made me think of this discussion. So I'm really not sure.
Warbler said:
TheBoost said:
Gaffer Tape said:
But it does seem to be a problem with our society that men will rush to the aid of a woman in distress whether or not she actually needs it.
Perhaps I'm hung up on semantics, but if she's in distress, doesn't she need help?
I'm sure was Gaffer actually meant was "men will rush to the aid of a woman that looks like she's in distress whether or not she actually needs it. "
Haha, I guess you're both right. I guess what I was saying is that men have a tendency to jump in with overbearing machismo even with situations that don't warrant it. Like that guy at a bar who sees a couple having a fight and throws in his classic, "The lady said no!" line without having any idea if the woman needs, warrants, or wants help in this altercation.
Oh, and as for my tangential question, I was just wondering whether anyone thought someone might have helped the stabbed man more quickly if he was a helpless-looking bleeding woman instead. But I retracted it because I felt like I'd already supposed too much gender debate into this topic.
Good point. You're right. We should all reach out to people who need help.
EDIT: Removed tangential question that really doesn't belong in this thread at this moment.
Whoah, whoah. I certainly didn't say the man deserved to die. Or be injured at all. And, of course, I'm just speculating. But it does seem to be a problem with our society that men will rush to the aid of a woman in distress whether or not she actually needs it. For all we know (and again, just speculating), she could have been the one who turned the argument "physical" in the first place. And based on the actions of the woman afterwards, it didn't appear that she deserved to have this man die for her. I do believe the unfortunate man was attempting to do the right thing. I never suggested otherwise.
Let me illustrate a hypothetical example. Let's say the man and the woman were walking down the street having an argument. They're both really pissed off, and then the woman just starts wailing on the man. Beating the shit out of him. The man manages to forceably restrain her, but she's writhing and screaming for him to let go of her. Guy turns the corner and sees this scene and runs to the aid of this "damsel in distress." Now the man is being attacked by both his girlfriend and a random homeless guy. Things turn for the worse...
Now, if witnesses are correct (and why the hell didn't these witnesses call an ambulence?!) and the homeless man had been walking behind them for a while, hopefully he would have had better context than that, but you never know for sure.
This is a very sad story.
Part of me wonders, though, if the impetus of this is the Dulcinea Effect in play, though. We don't really know the circumstances of what happened, but this man jumped in to save a random woman from an argument that turned "physical." I wonder if he didn't act too rashly. After all, it didn't seem like the woman he was saving had much respect for him or any desire to do the right thing herself, since she apparently didn't seek any medical aid for him and instead just heartlessly left him to die. Makes me think she was a bit shady in the first place, and the poor man just jumped in because of some mis-aimed need to rescue the damsel in distress.
Okay, I stand corrected. Like I said, I didn't read the whole article. I admit I'm not crazy about alternate version at all, but I can tolerate that, I suppose. If this extended version ISN'T supposed to supplant the original, then I rescind most of my argument and am willing to say that Cameron has the right attitude about this.
That was the impression I got. If the movie is being recut exclusively for the home release, then it's supplanting the theatrical cut, right? Or did I misread that? I admit I didn't read the whole interview, so I could be wrong. But there's no need to get snarky about it.
Well, that's my opinion. I still think it's revisionism, and I resent you implying my "ignorance at not-uncommon editorial practices," zombie. I know that this kind of action is not unprevalent, but I still don't find it any less frustrating or unworthy of criticism. I just happen to think that people are so marred by how egregious Lucas was with his changes that anything less seems like a relief by comparison.
I honestly don't see any difference. A change is a change. PERIOD. Is the extended version of Avatar replacing the theatrical version? Yes. That's all there is to it. To me, it has nothing to do with mindset, with passage of time, with any of that. He's changing the film and has no ground to stand on to call Lucas out for it. They're equally wrong.
Um... gotta say in context that sounds highly hypocritical. "What George did was wrong. I'm going to do the same thing, but it's cool because... well, I'm doing it and nobody's complaining about it." Pff.
I'd still hit it.
Mmm... soy.
Nah, I'd be all for being devoured by zombies to get me out of this crapsack world. As long as they make it fast.
I don't think it's that. I think it's more of him wanting to hold on to the glory that is Star Wars for as long as he can make it last, especially considering it's a his biggest property. Updating the old movies, in his mind, keeps them relevant and fresh and able to continue to sell constantly.
bkev said:
Really, Gaff? It may be just a generation thing, but I've always found a lot of people preferred Columbus' take on the movies. At least for me, I know they feel more... magical. Less emphasis on dumb action movie trends - seriously, people, not even Harry Potter is safe from this stuff anymore! Although they were more liberal with what they cut than some, I felt they worked best as movies.
Feel free to disregard as irrational nostalgia.
That's the impression I got. Most people I've talked to regard them as amateurish and shallow. I never had a problem with his two films, although I don't know if that style would work for the later ones. Although I do have to disagree with the Columbus movies liberally cutting stuff. If his films had any tangible thing going for them, it's that they were the most accurate to the books of any of them. Granted, working with the shorter books helps, but putting them side by side to Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban gave fans plenty to think about, as they were completely different. Cuaron's was much more stylized and original at the cost of being much less faithful to the book and leaving out lots of pertinent information. It was when Mike Newell came along in Goblet that I felt a Potter film adaptation of one of the long books could be both its own identity as well as capturing everything important from the book. Order felt the same way to me. I never saw Half-Blood.... so I don't care.
And, yes, I agree that the first two films felt "magical."
I thought he was referring to the first Twilight movie, but I could be wrong.
Also, "not even the first"? As I understand, a lot of people dislike both of the Columbus-directed Harry Potter films.
Baronlando said:
A six movie set released by Fox, it's gonna be expensive. I wonder how many people would consider the lack of OOT a dealbreaker. I wonder if LFL is doing that market research right now.
DEALBREAKER!!!
(Granted, I don't have a Blu-ray player in the first place, so it's rather moot at the moment... but still... DEALBREAKER!!!)
And hopefully, when that happens, they'll either be individual releases or a trilogy box, so we won't have to buy the prequels to get the OOT.
Ah, okay. As soon as people started using the term "missing the mark" I started flashing back to my college Theatre History classes. I don't think I was aware it was one of the words used for sin, though.
Isn't that "hamartia," the same word sometimes mistakenly translated as "tragic flaw" in analyzing plays?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wait... aren't Vulcans vegetarians?
TV's Frink said:
Gaffer Tape said:
OHHHHH! You are very funny! It's like something but it sounds like something else and then it's funny!
Hey Gaff, you think Ackbar would use a matta boo boo?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...... Wait, I don't get it...
They're both made from the same thing. See also, butterscotch.
*Sniff* I miss those days. Don't miss the smell of socks, though. Please refrain from doing that again.
We shall continue this later!!!
Never Forget '72! TM