|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 163 of 323:
| 
Jul 29 15:05 UTC 2004 |
I think you have to look at the big picture. If releasing the movie had
upset their friends in government, and made lobbying for future
legislation (like copyright extensions) more difficult, it would have
been a net loss for them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 164 of 323:
|
Jul 29 15:08 UTC 2004 |
So much for free speech.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 165 of 323:
|
Jul 29 15:26 UTC 2004 |
Free what?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 166 of 323:
|
Jul 29 15:40 UTC 2004 |
I don't find it too terribly troubling that companies looking for special
favors from government feel the need to engage in self-censorship. If
Al Queda had flown planes into the Magic Kingdom (and the office of
Senator Fritz Hollings) I wouldn't shed many tears.
|
ric
|
|
response 167 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:14 UTC 2004 |
re 164 - free speech has and has always HAD consequences.
As for planes crashing into Disney World, please don't. I enjoy going to
Epcot Center, and look forward to my daughters first trip to the Magic
Kingdom.
|
twenex
|
|
response 168 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:18 UTC 2004 |
It's not the same thing, though, is it?
The Founding Fathers did not say:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that companies are endowed by
their Creators with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are
money, favours from government, and the unbounded pursuit of
greed...that to secure these rights, companies are free to avoid funding
controversial products, deriving their money from fleecing the governed..."
...did they?
|
twenex
|
|
response 169 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:30 UTC 2004 |
Re: #167. I'm not arguing against free speech, but against Disney limiting
it in exchange for favours from the Scumbag-in-Chief.
|
ric
|
|
response 170 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:43 UTC 2004 |
In what way did Disney limit free speech?
|
twenex
|
|
response 171 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:44 UTC 2004 |
They declined to release documentary. How were they to know someone else
would?
|
tod
|
|
response 172 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:55 UTC 2004 |
They're entitled to choose their customers like any other business. I don't
care about Disney and never did. I'm GLAD Lion's Gate is going to make out
on this cuz they are going to make a ton of cool movies with that dough.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 173 of 323:
|
Jul 29 17:28 UTC 2004 |
Re #169, I believe the favors were from the Scumbag-in-Chief's brother.
|
twenex
|
|
response 174 of 323:
|
Jul 29 17:29 UTC 2004 |
Oh, well in that case it's perfectly acceptable! ;-P
|
ric
|
|
response 175 of 323:
|
Jul 29 18:35 UTC 2004 |
re 172 - like "House of 1000 Corpses"?
|
jiffer
|
|
response 176 of 323:
|
Jul 30 02:06 UTC 2004 |
I believe you are a bit confused with "Free Speech". As a corporation, Disney
also has a right to speech, inwhich it refused to distribute that film. Free
Speech is up there with the meaning of Life, or as I put it, The Meaning of
Death.
|
other
|
|
response 177 of 323:
|
Jul 30 15:48 UTC 2004 |
Disney's decision not to release F911 was in no way an abridgement
of anyone's freedom of speech. It was nothing more than a business
decision, and a bad one at that.
|
gull
|
|
response 178 of 323:
|
Jul 30 17:57 UTC 2004 |
It's sort of like how freedom of the press is only meaningful if you own
a press. Fortuately, there are lots of presses around these days.
|
mary
|
|
response 179 of 323:
|
Jul 31 22:00 UTC 2004 |
"The Village" - I *really* liked this one and wanted to see it
before word filtered out about the plot. Glad I did. Again, as
with earlier films by Shyamalan, it's not about the monsters, aliens
or the dead. It's about the living, ordinary even, people.
See it soon and don't read Richard's review first. ;-)
|
twenex
|
|
response 180 of 323:
|
Aug 1 01:42 UTC 2004 |
I get the point!
Re: #179. Heheheh.
|
bru
|
|
response 181 of 323:
|
Aug 1 05:24 UTC 2004 |
we went to see "THUNDERBIRDS"
If you are not a fan of the supermarionation TV series from the 60's cartoon
series, you may not like this movie. But if you were a fan of the series,
this movie is true to tha concept, from the music to the hardware, to the
characters.
LAdy Penelope is spot on, as is her Chueffer/butler/bodyguard/safecracker
Parker. You are just going to love her pink Rolls Royce.
Some upgrades to teh electronics and mechanics has been done, the Mole is more
blunted and has more blades, Parker has a flip down visor and the Rolls is
now equipped with wings and a jet engine that pops out of the trunk.
Tin Tin and Alan are younger than in the series, with dad still operating some
of teh machinery that would later be relegated to the youngest son.
I was most disappointed with teh portrayal of Brains, the scientist behind
the machines. He had a very pronounced stuter that I do not remember.
Teh uniforms are improved, no funky hats and sashes anymore.
|
twenex
|
|
response 182 of 323:
|
Aug 1 05:28 UTC 2004 |
Damn. Those sashes were good.
Do the close-ups use mechanical plastic hands?!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 183 of 323:
|
Aug 2 03:08 UTC 2004 |
Enjoyed Spider-man 2. For sure there must be a SM3, as Harry the son
discovered the stash of hardware for the Green Goblin aka his dad.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 184 of 323:
|
Aug 2 07:07 UTC 2004 |
In the Spiderman universe it seems like practically everyone either
got into the superhero or supervillain business at one time or another,
with the possible exception of Aunt May. There were several other
Spiderman foes introduced in this movie, too.
|
ric
|
|
response 185 of 323:
|
Aug 2 12:42 UTC 2004 |
re 183 - I found that to be fairly disappointing though. I don't want to see
them rehash the Green Goblin.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 186 of 323:
|
Aug 2 16:37 UTC 2004 |
Given the other villain setups present in Spiderman 2, my prediction is
that the Harry Osborne story will continue in the background and one or
more other supervillains will be the main emphasis of the story, probably
not any of the relatively minor villains they've been setting up (such as
the Man-Wolf or the Lizard.) Given the increased and more effective use
of J. K. Simmons in the second movie perhaps they'll work up to the
hatred that newspaper publisher Jonah Jameson develops for Spiderman and
base the story around some villain Jameson has hired to kill Spiderman.
"
|
albaugh
|
|
response 187 of 323:
|
Aug 2 17:47 UTC 2004 |
I must have been sleeping through the parts where other potential villains
were "set up" (surely the machine-gun-toting hoods in the getaway car don't
qualify). Can you elucidate?
|