"Unwashed masses" ARE NOT "morons" - DVDfile.com forum for DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD

tycho282 · 08-09-2001, 07:45 PM

You know, I'm as disappointed as the rest of you a movie I love will not be released in its OAR, but let's cut the name calling down a bit, huh? Can any of you remember a time when you didn't know how badly a full-frame picture mangled a movie? Since then, a select few have become more discriminating, but that does not make ANYONE who disagrees with you a "moron".
I personally believe all films should be released in OAR, but neither mine nor any of your views individually are representative of the general public.
It burns me up to see a group of people with differing opinions dismissed as "morons" or "idiots". Folks, if you want to start up a production company, make films, make sure they only see DVD in OAR, and are only packaged in Amray keep cases, more power to you. I will be front of the line to buy your product.
Until then, accept the fact that as consumers of DVDs, as with anything, the only choices we have are whether or not to purchase the product offered. Make that choice. Make your complaints known to the powers that be, but win them over with the power of your logic and the dollars in your wallet. Try not to resort to calling anyone, producer or other consumers, names. That reflects poorly on anyone else who may hold opinions similar to yours.

Above and beyond that, when you have an opinion on something, whatever that is, do not hide behind the anonimity of usernames. Have the courage of your convictions. Let us know who you are. This especially applies to attacks on people, not just little plastic discs or the content on them.

Sorry for the rant and thanks for reading.

--Chris Thilk 8/9

------------------
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

Templar · 08-09-2001, 08:03 PM

Well I think the unwashed masses are morons (especially in the USA), but not because the OAR issue.

------------------
I will speak for you father.
I speak for all mediocrities.
I am their champion.
I am their patron saint.

egman · 08-09-2001, 08:10 PM

I agree with you. I'm very angry at Warner mostly because they lied and had no intention of telling anybody. The full frame has not bother me as much, and as some have said on the forum, Warner can avert some of this flaming by giving us more specific reasons for going full frame besides appealing to a wider audience.

I've said many times here that I think studio's should support both formats,while at the same educating less knowledgable people about the benefits of OAR. But instead they rather make a choice between either format to please a particular audience. This does not have to be this way. Warner was good about including both formats in the early days, but I have no idea what happen to them.

I notice that similar language condemning J6P is fairly common on the petition. I think that type of attacking is going to make our fight less effective,and make our community look more like spoil brats(though some might argue that we are

).

We need to keep pressuring Warner, but at the same time avoid putting down features that appeal to people outside of the cineastes. And I would like to reinterate that the fight is not about Warner trying snub us for another consumer group or desecrating works of art, but it is more about them lying to consumers and possibly forcing them to buy a product that they really didn't want to purchase.

billyslits · 08-09-2001, 08:11 PM

The "unwashed masses" are just people with different opinions about personal hygiene.

Adjuster · 08-09-2001, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tycho282:
It burns me up to see a group of people with differing opinions dismissed as "morons" or "idiots".

Most of the people who make up the "unwashed masses" don't have enough education on the subject of aspect ratios to have what you call an OPINION. They simply don't understand that they are actually losing information with Pan & Scan. They want the movie to "fill up my screen".

I believe that the studios owe it to the average american/canadian/whatever to educate them about aspect ratios. Fox did a great job of this with their "Why Letterbox" feature on the recent Die Hard 5 Star Collection DVD.

[silly analogy]
Thai food is spicy. You don't take the spice out just because you think more people will buy the food without it. It should be appreciated for what it is.
[/silly analogy]

Quote:

Originally posted by tycho282:
Until then, accept the fact that as consumers of DVDs, as with anything, the only choices we have are whether or not to purchase the product offered. Make that choice.

I disagree. I too, do not think people should be called "morons" because they lack the understanding of proper aspect ratios. But I do think that our passion for film should be expressed as faithfully as possible. The petition for Willy Wonka, refusing to buy the pan and scan version, boycotting the studios other P&S only releases , pressuring studios to educate the public about OAR, and vocally supporting those studios that are committed to OAR, are perfect examples of our "other" choices as consumers.

Quote:

Above and beyond that, when you have an opinion on something, whatever that is, do not hide behind the anonimity of usernames. Have the courage of your convictions. Let us know who you are. This especially applies to attacks on people, not just little plastic discs or the content on them.

I'm not sure if you are talking about me (I'm the one who used the term "unwashed masses"), but if you'd like to discuss this further just click on the envelope at the top of my post and send an email.

Cheers.
Jeff.

------------------
"I've got a bad feeling about this...."
My Spare time larcenists
The worst HT in America.

[This message has been edited by Adjuster (edited 08-09-2001).]

BeanBandit · 08-09-2001, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Above and beyond that, when you have an opinion on something, whatever that is, do not hide behind the anonimity of usernames. Have the courage of your convictions. Let us know who you are. This especially applies to attacks on people, not just little plastic discs or the content on them.

Well this is a message board, so we have user names. What do you want? Most people have their email addresses listed if you have something to say outside the forum. Or how bout:
ADDRESS LETTER BOMB TO:
Xen Sugiman
[address removed cause you guys scared me]
Toronto, Ontario
CANADA

Happy?

[This message has been edited by BeanBandit (edited 08-09-2001).]

Prospero · 08-09-2001, 09:01 PM

BeanBandit, that's hilarious.

Expect a package wrapped in brown paper with oil stains in the next few days.

Jerm · 08-09-2001, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prospero:
Expect a package wrapped in brown paper with oil stains in the next few days.

I am just going to say that that's not funny

There are a lot of crazies out there.

Jeremy

------------------
"I shall finish the game...I shall finish the game."

08-09-2001, 09:29 PM

can we have a strict definition of 'unwashed masses'? I ask because there's a lot of grey area there... like 'rednecks' or 'inbred' or 'illiterate'... and I'd like to know who I'm laughing at.

***Taxi*** · 08-09-2001, 11:29 PM

People!

If you want to go to a forum where real names are required, then do so. DO NOT complain about it here. We don't require real names, we're not going to require real names. If you can't deal with that, then this isn't the place for you. (I've never understood this logic. What are you going to do, call somebody up on the phone using their real name? What validity does a name lend to a persons opinion?)

Also, BeanBandit, I would strongly suggest that you remove your address from that post (assuming it is a real address).

------------------
Taxi - DVDFile Forum Administrator
Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one

Adjuster · 08-09-2001, 11:32 PM

unwashed adj 1: of or associated with the great masses of people; "the common people in those days suffered greatly"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "his square plebeian nose"; "a vulgar and objectionable person"; "the unwashed masses" [syn: common, plebeian, vulgar] 2: not cleaned with or as if with soap and water; "a sink full of unwashed dishes" 3: Someone who does not understand aspect ratios.

------------------
"I've got a bad feeling about this...."
My Spare time larcenists
The worst HT in America.

BeanBandit · 08-09-2001, 11:43 PM

Why do you guys freak me out like that? It was all a little joke. This world is too dangerous now. As soon as I get my Lunar property I'm leaving!

Prospero · 08-10-2001, 01:11 AM

Jerm71 said: I am just going to say that that's not funny.

My apologies. I would like to publicly recognize my lack of intent to send BeanBandit a letter bomb.

Good day.

tycho282 · 08-10-2001, 01:10 PM

Let me clarify my points here:

This is more a philosophical issue for me. It seems the internet culture has allowed us to "hide" behind usernames, therefore allowing us to be as vitrolic as we can amid the safety of anonimity. Where I feel this is inappropriate is when personal attacks are made. If it's something you would feel uncomfortable saying it to someone's face, don't say it just because no one knows who you are. I have no problem with usernames for general discussion, but personal attacks are a different issue.
I really didn't mean to ignite a whole thing here (sorry admins). It's just I felt people were lacking perspective as to Warner's decision on the Wonka DVD and that was leading to a whole lot of hate being spewn (sp?) forth.
I love these boards, but perhaps I will be taking a break from them for a while, to gain my own perspective.

Thanks,
--Chris

------------------
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

saraswati · 08-10-2001, 02:13 PM

the idea that internet users who pick fights are "hiding" behind handles is just plain silly. i mean, to quote shakespeare, "what's in a name?" it's just something people call you. it doesn't really matter that the people i argue with in person know that my name is Sara Clarke, while the people i argue with online know me as one of several different handles. it doesn't give them any power over me or put us on a level playing field, or somehow make things more legit. hell, when people started devising names for themselves aeons ago, it was quite similar to the way we come up with screen names today. they didn't name themselves joe or mary, they called themselves "tall girl" or "loves to fish". which, if you think about it, is pretty similar to "bsbluvver14" or "thxsuxass"

and people on the internet hide behind more than just a screen name. we mostly hide behind the fact that no one really knows us, and we could just disappear at any time. we hide behind the "who is this person really?" enigma, as well as the ability to be whoever we want. there are easily thousands of people around the world with the name Sara Clarke. it's not like knowing that one vital piece of info clicks into knowing me as a person. and even if it became the norm to provide a more clarifying set of stats (social security number, home address, credit info), the information that those things provide still wouldn't allow the average hacker out there to know me. they might know my address or how much money i owe Citibank, but they still don't know me. hell, even the posting of my picture to this board hasn't really compromised my ability to "hide" behind an internet persona. and i think the existence of the "fess up people" thread pretty much proves most of us are not here to hide and lie and attack people just because we can.

------------------
deep in the heat of the bush...

08-10-2001, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adjuster:
unwashed adj 1: of or associated with the great masses of people; "the common people in those days suffered greatly"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "his square plebeian nose"; "a vulgar and objectionable person"; "the unwashed masses" [syn: common, plebeian, vulgar] 2: not cleaned with or as if with soap and water; "a sink full of unwashed dishes" 3: Someone who does not understand aspect ratios.

that puts a whole new light on this, making it twice as funny

Rock · 08-10-2001, 07:54 PM

Yeah, what Sara said.

------------------
DVDFile.Com Administrator | TheGreatOne@DVDFile.com | The Rock's DVD List

There's no reason to hate the munchkin race! Though their stunted bodies repulse us, their ugliness is proof that God likes us best!

BeanBandit · 08-11-2001, 05:33 AM

While we may be more reluctant to cuss someone out in person, the annonymity of a username makes no difference. Like Sara and Shakespeare said, "what's in a name?" We still follow the same general rules of etiquette and when someone breaks those rules they are reprimanded and often shunned by other members of the board. If the laws of human decency and repect aren't enough to keep people in line on the Net, at least the consequences of a slanderous outburst still serve as a deterant.

------------------
"Hey Kevin! Armada dupla!" *CRASH* "Oh f*ck!"

Soggy Bagel's Revenge! · 08-12-2001, 05:25 AM

That's competely ridiculous. Anyone who supports pan and scan is against art. Period.

thanx,
Brook

------------------
If you're a film fan in Colorado, be sure not to miss BLOODFEST!, my horror film festival benefiting Bonfils Blood Center. There are great films showing, so you should come! Get all the info here!

Go to the missing title art gallery for fun comics, creative writing, and original short films!
or, visit Cheap Thrills ...or more? for lots of horror cinema fun!
Also, see my ever-so-wonderful DVD collection!

Soggy Bagel's Revenge! · 08-12-2001, 05:42 AM

Ah, let me expand upon my point a bit. Pan and scanning is the raping of film. It should have never happened in the first place. If people were exposed to widescreen on home video in the first place, I'm sure they'd have no problem with it.

Once more, I'd like to give thanks to all the wonderful people over at Criterion Collection, as that's the company who REALLY pushed the format.

My heart really goes out there to all the Wonka buyers. If this ever happened to a DVD I was going to buy, I would literally be crying for hours. It's that terrible.

Can you imagine what something like "Manhunter" or "Profondo Rosso" would look like panned and scnned? It's terrible, and I know, as I've seen the VHS editions. I commend companies like Criterion, Anchor Bay, New Line, and Fox for generally ONLY offering pan and scan, as I believe to even offer the choice to watch a film raped should be some sort of crime.

Now, I could deal with the fact that film get raped on VHS, as it's always been that way, and I don't really mind, becuase I don't have to deal with it. But when a studio does something like that to DVD, a format made for people who really care about film, it's just terrible.

There is absoloutley no excuse for having films panned and scanned on DVD. If people don't like it then too bad! They can go back to VHS! Eventually, if only because people like to be technically advanced, they'll get used to widescreen, so I don't know what studios are worrying about.

Oh, and here's a tip you guys can give to all those having problems with widescreen:

Focus on the image on the screen, rather than the actual television set. you won't even know the black bars are there! That's the reason why they made them black, so you can ignore them. I think that if people start to heed this advice, even the most subborn voyers of film rape will switch over to widescreen!

Thanx,
Brook

------------------
If you're a film fan in Colorado, be sure not to miss BLOODFEST!, my horror film festival benefiting Bonfils Blood Center. There are great films showing, so you should come! Get all the info here!

Go to the missing title art gallery for fun comics, creative writing, and original short films!
or, visit Cheap Thrills ...or more? for lots of horror cinema fun!
Also, see my ever-so-wonderful DVD collection!

Fart Lighter · 08-13-2001, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soggy Bagel's Revenge!:
That's competely ridiculous. Anyone who supports pan and scan is against art. Period.

thanx,
Brook

very true. But let's not forget the matting down of older films that aren't to at least a 1.85:1 ratio, just to get an anamorphic transfer, or please those who think that everythin'gs shot WS (Home Theater Forum miseries for example).
As a collector of older films I'm getting really sick of this happening to ones I want.
Perhaps your statement should read that all films should be left in their original OAR irregardless of whatever that ratio may be?
Bring on Hitchcok's PSYCHO without the matte, and all the others too!

Soggy Bagel's Revenge! · 08-13-2001, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fart Lighter:
very true. But let's not forget the matting down of older films that aren't to at least a 1.85:1 ratio, just to get an anamorphic transfer, or please those who think that everythin'gs shot WS (Home Theater Forum miseries for example).
As a collector of older films I'm getting really sick of this happening to ones I want.
Perhaps your statement should read that all films should be left in their original OAR irregardless of whatever that ratio may be?
Bring on Hitchcok's PSYCHO without the matte, and all the others too!

I know. I think that even if the film was shot in 1.33:1, if the director wants it shown in a different aspect ratio ("Dead Ringers" is a prime example, Cronenberg likes it at 1.66:1), than those wishes should be acknowledged. I'm a little hesitant about getting the "Carrie" special edition, as I'm pretty sure DePalma wanted it 1.33:1.

thanx,
Brook

------------------
If you're a film fan in Colorado, be sure not to miss BLOODFEST!, my horror film festival benefiting Bonfils Blood Center. There are great films showing, so you should come! Get all the info here!

Go to the missing title art gallery for fun comics, creative writing, and original short films!
or, visit Cheap Thrills ...or more? for lots of horror cinema fun!
Also, see my ever-so-wonderful DVD collection!

tycho282 · 08-20-2001, 09:32 PM

I debated if I should reopen this can of worms or not, and decided to go ahead and do so. The following quote comes from Kevin Smith (Clerks, Mallrats, etc) and appears in the latest Newsweek:

"Easy access doesn’t come without a price, though. “People who don’t like your s—t will hunt you down and tell you—behind the anonymity of a modern-day CB handle. I honestly don’t mind if someone says, ‘You suck.’ But have the courage to say who you are. It’s fascinating to get a three-page analysis of your work from some guy named Wampa12.” Smith stops to take a drag on his cigarette. He’s not done. “Some days you just wanna pick up the phone, call Magnum P.I. and say, ‘Get me the address of Wampa12’.” At the end of “Jay and Silent Bob” the boys do exactly that, showing up on the doorstep of their slanderers and beating them silly. For that one, Kevin, the thank-you is on us."

Flame me at will.
--Chris

------------------
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

saraswati · 08-20-2001, 09:43 PM

i think smith was making fun of the idea of getting a 3-page critique by someone who calls himself Wampa12, not the idea of screennames in general.

also, if you didn't know this, Kevin Smith is not God.

and if i were to send him a long criticism of his films, i would most likely use my real name. there is a difference between being known under a handle on a casual message board, and being known under a handle when sending someone something that is supposed to mean something. kinda like when i go to Rotten Tomatoes, i tend to disregard the reviews written by joblo, of joblosmovies.com.

and finally, if you treat every celebrity interview as gospel, i feel real sorry for you...

------------------
deep in the heat of the bush...

tycho282 · 08-21-2001, 02:02 PM

I agree KSmith was making fun of the whole idea, specifically the absurdity of people hiding behind screen names when issuing opinions.
Secondly, I do not think Smith is a god. However, using quotations to back up a point you wish to make or argument you are trying to further is part of effective rhetorical persuasion. It's the same as when people here cut and paste someone's previous comments into their reply. I do not take celebrity quotations as gospel. I merely thought Mr. Smith's comments were similar in nature and subject to what I was trying to say here.
--Chris

------------------
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

ElCuCuy2000 · 08-21-2001, 02:25 PM

First of all, "boycotting" Pan And Scan doesn't work, simply because if one of us DVD "connoiseurs" doesn't buy it, somebody else will (take 'Willy Wonka' for instance, it's been sold out forever...it even goes for big bucks on eBay!). Secondly, the very few people who I know who love films as much as I do HATE letterboxed movies, simply because they THINK they're getting a "chopped up" version of it. I myself prefer letterboxed movies, would never buy a "Pan And Scan". Finally, just because some of us prefer "letterbox" over "Pan And Scan" does not make us better people, just picky. Realize that not everybody gets the same pleasures out of watching movies...I mean, you gotta wonder what those people who watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "WWF" call "entertainment"....

saraswati · 08-21-2001, 02:32 PM

yeah, but you implied a sort of "i told you so" feeling. like, "kevin smith says screennames are bad, so they must be."

when using quotations in writing, you use quotes from a relevant source to support yourself, when your points need support. since this topic made no mention of smith or his standpoint on the use of screennames, that material isn't particularly relevant. and since we all understood what you were saying when you said it originally, you don't need to support your points. and to top it off, your use of the smith material doesn't really support your points anyway, because kevin smith is not an authority on the use of screen names or anything else pertaining to internet politics.

------------------
deep in the heat of the bush...

Eye · 08-21-2001, 03:26 PM

Where the hell is this thread going?

------------------
..:: Eye | Moderator | Don't thread on me.

Templar · 08-21-2001, 03:37 PM

What's up with this thread?

It starts out being a condemnation of people airing their concerns that uninformed consumers (unwashed masses) will support a non-OAR version of a film. There was also a condemnation of the verbal abuse hurled at these people.

Now it's suddenly turned into a "cowards hide behind usernames" thread.

For the record: People who blindly want a film to fill their TV screen (at 1.33:1) are morons. Just like the people in the Vatican who put fig leaves over the naughty bits on the Lacöon Group were morons. If you want to "fill" your screen, buy a widescreen set, and anamorphic titles. If you bought a van Gogh, would you cut the canvas to fit your wall? What would you think of someone who did?

Secondly, as much as I do like Kevin Smith, who cares what he thinks? Does someone's name really mean so much in the grand scheme of things? If someone had signed John Smith or Larry Fine instead of Wampa12, what would the difference be?

This is all semantics. I don't like leveling vast generalizations (usually) but people who don't know or don't care (especially) about OAR are moronic.

------------------
I can be both a bad boy rebel and a gentleman!!!

Eye · 08-21-2001, 04:34 PM

Moving to the Soapbox forum. Please pick up the conversation there.

Thanks.

------------------
..:: Eye | Moderator | Don't thread on me.

[This message has been edited by Eye (edited 08-21-2001).]

08-09-2001, 07:45 PM	#1 (permalink)
tycho282 Actor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Aurora, IL, USA	"Unwashed masses" ARE NOT "morons" You know, I'm as disappointed as the rest of you a movie I love will not be released in its OAR, but let's cut the name calling down a bit, huh? Can any of you remember a time when you didn't know how badly a full-frame picture mangled a movie? Since then, a select few have become more discriminating, but that does not make ANYONE who disagrees with you a "moron". I personally believe all films should be released in OAR, but neither mine nor any of your views individually are representative of the general public. It burns me up to see a group of people with differing opinions dismissed as "morons" or "idiots". Folks, if you want to start up a production company, make films, make sure they only see DVD in OAR, and are only packaged in Amray keep cases, more power to you. I will be front of the line to buy your product. Until then, accept the fact that as consumers of DVDs, as with anything, the only choices we have are whether or not to purchase the product offered. Make that choice. Make your complaints known to the powers that be, but win them over with the power of your logic and the dollars in your wallet. Try not to resort to calling anyone, producer or other consumers, names. That reflects poorly on anyone else who may hold opinions similar to yours. Above and beyond that, when you have an opinion on something, whatever that is, do not hide behind the anonimity of usernames. Have the courage of your convictions. Let us know who you are. This especially applies to attacks on people, not just little plastic discs or the content on them. Sorry for the rant and thanks for reading. --Chris Thilk 8/9 ------------------ On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-09-2001, 08:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
Templar Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Bumblefark, PA	Well I think the unwashed masses are morons (especially in the USA), but not because the OAR issue. ------------------ I will speak for you father. I speak for all mediocrities. I am their champion. I am their patron saint.

08-09-2001, 08:10 PM	#3 (permalink)
egman Actor Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Lawrenceville, GA	I agree with you. I'm very angry at Warner mostly because they lied and had no intention of telling anybody. The full frame has not bother me as much, and as some have said on the forum, Warner can avert some of this flaming by giving us more specific reasons for going full frame besides appealing to a wider audience. I've said many times here that I think studio's should support both formats,while at the same educating less knowledgable people about the benefits of OAR. But instead they rather make a choice between either format to please a particular audience. This does not have to be this way. Warner was good about including both formats in the early days, but I have no idea what happen to them. I notice that similar language condemning J6P is fairly common on the petition. I think that type of attacking is going to make our fight less effective,and make our community look more like spoil brats(though some might argue that we are ). We need to keep pressuring Warner, but at the same time avoid putting down features that appeal to people outside of the cineastes. And I would like to reinterate that the fight is not about Warner trying snub us for another consumer group or desecrating works of art, but it is more about them lying to consumers and possibly forcing them to buy a product that they really didn't want to purchase.

08-09-2001, 08:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
billyslits Actor Join Date: Jun 2001	The "unwashed masses" are just people with different opinions about personal hygiene.

08-09-2001, 09:01 PM	#7 (permalink)
Prospero Actor Join Date: Mar 2001	BeanBandit, that's hilarious. Expect a package wrapped in brown paper with oil stains in the next few days.

08-09-2001, 09:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
stiles	can we have a strict definition of 'unwashed masses'? I ask because there's a lot of grey area there... like 'rednecks' or 'inbred' or 'illiterate'... and I'd like to know who I'm laughing at.

08-09-2001, 11:29 PM	#10 (permalink)
*Taxi* Administrator Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Orygun	People! If you want to go to a forum where real names are required, then do so. DO NOT complain about it here. We don't require real names, we're not going to require real names. If you can't deal with that, then this isn't the place for you. (I've never understood this logic. What are you going to do, call somebody up on the phone using their real name? What validity does a name lend to a persons opinion?) Also, BeanBandit, I would strongly suggest that you remove your address from that post (assuming it is a real address). ------------------ Taxi - DVDFile Forum Administrator Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one

08-09-2001, 11:32 PM	#11 (permalink)
Adjuster Actor Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Charlotte, NC	unwashed adj 1: of or associated with the great masses of people; "the common people in those days suffered greatly"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "his square plebeian nose"; "a vulgar and objectionable person"; "the unwashed masses" [syn: common, plebeian, vulgar] 2: not cleaned with or as if with soap and water; "a sink full of unwashed dishes" 3: Someone who does not understand aspect ratios. ------------------ "I've got a bad feeling about this...." My Spare time larcenists The worst HT in America.

08-09-2001, 11:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
BeanBandit Actor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Toronto	Why do you guys freak me out like that? It was all a little joke. This world is too dangerous now. As soon as I get my Lunar property I'm leaving!

08-10-2001, 01:11 AM	#13 (permalink)
Prospero Actor Join Date: Mar 2001	Jerm71 said: I am just going to say that that's not funny. My apologies. I would like to publicly recognize my lack of intent to send BeanBandit a letter bomb. Good day.

08-10-2001, 01:10 PM	#14 (permalink)
tycho282 Actor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Aurora, IL, USA	Let me clarify my points here: This is more a philosophical issue for me. It seems the internet culture has allowed us to "hide" behind usernames, therefore allowing us to be as vitrolic as we can amid the safety of anonimity. Where I feel this is inappropriate is when personal attacks are made. If it's something you would feel uncomfortable saying it to someone's face, don't say it just because no one knows who you are. I have no problem with usernames for general discussion, but personal attacks are a different issue. I really didn't mean to ignite a whole thing here (sorry admins). It's just I felt people were lacking perspective as to Warner's decision on the Wonka DVD and that was leading to a whole lot of hate being spewn (sp?) forth. I love these boards, but perhaps I will be taking a break from them for a while, to gain my own perspective. Thanks, --Chris ------------------ On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

08-10-2001, 02:13 PM	#15 (permalink)
saraswati Actress Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: New York City?!	the idea that internet users who pick fights are "hiding" behind handles is just plain silly. i mean, to quote shakespeare, "what's in a name?" it's just something people call you. it doesn't really matter that the people i argue with in person know that my name is Sara Clarke, while the people i argue with online know me as one of several different handles. it doesn't give them any power over me or put us on a level playing field, or somehow make things more legit. hell, when people started devising names for themselves aeons ago, it was quite similar to the way we come up with screen names today. they didn't name themselves joe or mary, they called themselves "tall girl" or "loves to fish". which, if you think about it, is pretty similar to "bsbluvver14" or "thxsuxass" and people on the internet hide behind more than just a screen name. we mostly hide behind the fact that no one really knows us, and we could just disappear at any time. we hide behind the "who is this person really?" enigma, as well as the ability to be whoever we want. there are easily thousands of people around the world with the name Sara Clarke. it's not like knowing that one vital piece of info clicks into knowing me as a person. and even if it became the norm to provide a more clarifying set of stats (social security number, home address, credit info), the information that those things provide still wouldn't allow the average hacker out there to know me. they might know my address or how much money i owe Citibank, but they still don't know me. hell, even the posting of my picture to this board hasn't really compromised my ability to "hide" behind an internet persona. and i think the existence of the "fess up people" thread pretty much proves most of us are not here to hide and lie and attack people just because we can. ------------------ deep in the heat of the bush...

08-10-2001, 07:54 PM	#17 (permalink)
Rock Cunning Linguist Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Parts Unknown	Yeah, what Sara said. ------------------ DVDFile.Com Administrator \| TheGreatOne@DVDFile.com \| The Rock's DVD List There's no reason to hate the munchkin race! Though their stunted bodies repulse us, their ugliness is proof that God likes us best!

08-11-2001, 05:33 AM	#18 (permalink)
BeanBandit Actor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Toronto	While we may be more reluctant to cuss someone out in person, the annonymity of a username makes no difference. Like Sara and Shakespeare said, "what's in a name?" We still follow the same general rules of etiquette and when someone breaks those rules they are reprimanded and often shunned by other members of the board. If the laws of human decency and repect aren't enough to keep people in line on the Net, at least the consequences of a slanderous outburst still serve as a deterant. ------------------ "Hey Kevin! Armada dupla!" *CRASH* "Oh fck!"*

08-12-2001, 05:25 AM	#19 (permalink)
Soggy Bagel's Revenge! Actor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Denver, Colorado	That's competely ridiculous. Anyone who supports pan and scan is against art. Period. thanx, Brook ------------------ If you're a film fan in Colorado, be sure not to miss BLOODFEST!, my horror film festival benefiting Bonfils Blood Center. There are great films showing, so you should come! Get all the info here! Go to the missing title art gallery for fun comics, creative writing, and original short films! or, visit Cheap Thrills ...or more? for lots of horror cinema fun! Also, see my ever-so-wonderful DVD collection!

08-12-2001, 05:42 AM	#20 (permalink)
Soggy Bagel's Revenge! Actor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Denver, Colorado	Ah, let me expand upon my point a bit. Pan and scanning is the raping of film. It should have never happened in the first place. If people were exposed to widescreen on home video in the first place, I'm sure they'd have no problem with it. Once more, I'd like to give thanks to all the wonderful people over at Criterion Collection, as that's the company who REALLY pushed the format. My heart really goes out there to all the Wonka buyers. If this ever happened to a DVD I was going to buy, I would literally be crying for hours. It's that terrible. Can you imagine what something like "Manhunter" or "Profondo Rosso" would look like panned and scnned? It's terrible, and I know, as I've seen the VHS editions. I commend companies like Criterion, Anchor Bay, New Line, and Fox for generally ONLY offering pan and scan, as I believe to even offer the choice to watch a film raped should be some sort of crime. Now, I could deal with the fact that film get raped on VHS, as it's always been that way, and I don't really mind, becuase I don't have to deal with it. But when a studio does something like that to DVD, a format made for people who really care about film, it's just terrible. There is absoloutley no excuse for having films panned and scanned on DVD. If people don't like it then too bad! They can go back to VHS! Eventually, if only because people like to be technically advanced, they'll get used to widescreen, so I don't know what studios are worrying about. Oh, and here's a tip you guys can give to all those having problems with widescreen: Focus on the image on the screen, rather than the actual television set. you won't even know the black bars are there! That's the reason why they made them black, so you can ignore them. I think that if people start to heed this advice, even the most subborn voyers of film rape will switch over to widescreen! Thanx, Brook ------------------ If you're a film fan in Colorado, be sure not to miss BLOODFEST!, my horror film festival benefiting Bonfils Blood Center. There are great films showing, so you should come! Get all the info here! Go to the missing title art gallery for fun comics, creative writing, and original short films! or, visit Cheap Thrills ...or more? for lots of horror cinema fun! Also, see my ever-so-wonderful DVD collection!

08-20-2001, 09:32 PM	#23 (permalink)
tycho282 Actor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Aurora, IL, USA	I debated if I should reopen this can of worms or not, and decided to go ahead and do so. The following quote comes from Kevin Smith (Clerks, Mallrats, etc) and appears in the latest Newsweek: "Easy access doesn’t come without a price, though. “People who don’t like your s—t will hunt you down and tell you—behind the anonymity of a modern-day CB handle. I honestly don’t mind if someone says, ‘You suck.’ But have the courage to say who you are. It’s fascinating to get a three-page analysis of your work from some guy named Wampa12.” Smith stops to take a drag on his cigarette. He’s not done. “Some days you just wanna pick up the phone, call Magnum P.I. and say, ‘Get me the address of Wampa12’.” At the end of “Jay and Silent Bob” the boys do exactly that, showing up on the doorstep of their slanderers and beating them silly. For that one, Kevin, the thank-you is on us." Flame me at will. --Chris ------------------ On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

08-20-2001, 09:43 PM	#24 (permalink)
saraswati Actress Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: New York City?!	i think smith was making fun of the idea of getting a 3-page critique by someone who calls himself Wampa12, not the idea of screennames in general. also, if you didn't know this, Kevin Smith is not God. and if i were to send him a long criticism of his films, i would most likely use my real name. there is a difference between being known under a handle on a casual message board, and being known under a handle when sending someone something that is supposed to mean something. kinda like when i go to Rotten Tomatoes, i tend to disregard the reviews written by joblo, of joblosmovies.com. and finally, if you treat every celebrity interview as gospel, i feel real sorry for you... ------------------ deep in the heat of the bush...

08-21-2001, 02:02 PM	#25 (permalink)
tycho282 Actor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Aurora, IL, USA	I agree KSmith was making fun of the whole idea, specifically the absurdity of people hiding behind screen names when issuing opinions. Secondly, I do not think Smith is a god. However, using quotations to back up a point you wish to make or argument you are trying to further is part of effective rhetorical persuasion. It's the same as when people here cut and paste someone's previous comments into their reply. I do not take celebrity quotations as gospel. I merely thought Mr. Smith's comments were similar in nature and subject to what I was trying to say here. --Chris ------------------ On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

08-21-2001, 02:25 PM	#26 (permalink)
ElCuCuy2000 Actor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: San Antonio,Texas, USA	First of all, "boycotting" Pan And Scan doesn't work, simply because if one of us DVD "connoiseurs" doesn't buy it, somebody else will (take 'Willy Wonka' for instance, it's been sold out forever...it even goes for big bucks on eBay!). Secondly, the very few people who I know who love films as much as I do HATE letterboxed movies, simply because they THINK they're getting a "chopped up" version of it. I myself prefer letterboxed movies, would never buy a "Pan And Scan". Finally, just because some of us prefer "letterbox" over "Pan And Scan" does not make us better people, just picky. Realize that not everybody gets the same pleasures out of watching movies...I mean, you gotta wonder what those people who watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "WWF" call "entertainment"....

08-21-2001, 02:32 PM	#27 (permalink)
saraswati Actress Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: New York City?!	yeah, but you implied a sort of "i told you so" feeling. like, "kevin smith says screennames are bad, so they must be." when using quotations in writing, you use quotes from a relevant source to support yourself, when your points need support. since this topic made no mention of smith or his standpoint on the use of screennames, that material isn't particularly relevant. and since we all understood what you were saying when you said it originally, you don't need to support your points. and to top it off, your use of the smith material doesn't really support your points anyway, because kevin smith is not an authority on the use of screen names or anything else pertaining to internet politics. ------------------ deep in the heat of the bush...

08-21-2001, 03:26 PM	#28 (permalink)
Eye Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Usa	Where the hell is this thread going? ------------------ ..:: Eye \| Moderator \| Don't thread on me.

08-21-2001, 03:37 PM	#29 (permalink)
Templar Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Bumblefark, PA	What's up with this thread? It starts out being a condemnation of people airing their concerns that uninformed consumers (unwashed masses) will support a non-OAR version of a film. There was also a condemnation of the verbal abuse hurled at these people. Now it's suddenly turned into a "cowards hide behind usernames" thread. For the record: People who blindly want a film to fill their TV screen (at 1.33:1) are morons. Just like the people in the Vatican who put fig leaves over the naughty bits on the Lacöon Group were morons. If you want to "fill" your screen, buy a widescreen set, and anamorphic titles. If you bought a van Gogh, would you cut the canvas to fit your wall? What would you think of someone who did? Secondly, as much as I do like Kevin Smith, who cares what he thinks? Does someone's name really mean so much in the grand scheme of things? If someone had signed John Smith or Larry Fine instead of Wampa12, what would the difference be? This is all semantics. I don't like leveling vast generalizations (usually) but people who don't know or don't care (especially) about OAR are moronic. ------------------ I can be both a bad boy rebel and a gentleman!!!

08-21-2001, 04:34 PM	#30 (permalink)
Eye Moderator Emeritus Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Usa	Moving to the Soapbox forum. Please pick up the conversation there. Thanks. ------------------ ..:: Eye \| Moderator \| Don't thread on me. [This message has been edited by Eye (edited 08-21-2001).]