darkblue

You don't think that making up a movie that has TWENTY Academy Awards to its credit but is "below average" (??) so that you can use that imagined creation to equate an actual centuries-old painting to it - with a puzzling rhetorical question tacked on - is wise, do you? And, could you explain again how history means the painting doesn't stand on its own for you or anyone else who views it? Isn't each viewer the judge of whether a work of art "holds up" for them or not? Or are they not supposed to enjoy a work of art unless they're knowledged in its history? It's been said that the most moving art is "timeless", after all.

Political pressure is no match for profit-making. If a studio thinks it can make money, that's the reason it continues to print copies. Political pressure - in the form of protests, consumer boycotts or lost associations - become an expense that negates the expectation of profit and very possibly incurs losses. It's always about the money. If you have enough of it to buy up the rights to a movie and produce more copies for consumption, you can do so. There's no law requiring you to care about how anyone specific may feel about it. You just have to be willing to lose money if there's enough blowback to cause such loss.

Even if they did need to be autistic to do it.

You know who else thinks it should be all about politeness on this board? Hitler.

So, you don't feel that anything should go out-of-print? Ever? I can't tell you how many records have failed to make it to cd to my dismay. And movies that have not gotten a home video release. Books and magazines that are no longer in print. While I do agree with you that I'd love to have everything available to me, someone has to manufacture it for my consumption - at their expense. If there are not enough potential consumers to justify the investment, then we are left with what we have - the existing productions. Sometimes something simply goes out of style, to a point where the manufacturer no longer feels it's wise to invest in newly-produced inventory. That leaves us with fewer (and usually more expensive) options for acquiring the item, but it's not like it's been removed from the earth - lost to some film/record/book-burning fanatics. Everything that exists is still available for new edition-ing - it just requires someone who's willing to spend the necessary money to make it happen. But if it's not worth it to anyone with the necessary money, what can we do? We can make it happen ourselves or we can go hunting for already existing editions.

Now, that's what I call a personal insult! No namby-pamby statements of truth that Topper calls "rude" 'cause he doesn't like them - you've got the real goods, primo!

She & Him

I still think Richard could take her. Martha too.

Well, if she uses a gun against Richard, then I suppose she could take him. Anyone can take anyone under that circumstance.

Could so.

I disagree. It doesn't matter how many people are involved in making a movie - how many artists it takes to create the work. The finished work is the art piece - it stands as is, on its own. If it doesn't garner appreciation, that doesn't stop it from being a finished piece of art - it just makes it an unappreciated piece of art.

It could indeed. But, she was acquitted - was she not?

Speaking of lesser-known, one of his very best performances was in the Canadian movie, 'The Changeling' in 1980. He didn't appear in much horror fare, but he did a great job in that one.

He excelled at playing hard men with a seething interior. He seemed made for that - and in almost all his roles he couldn't quite hide it, even when it wasn't called for. 'Hardcore' (1979) was a good one for his oeuvre. Also good in 'The Last Run' (1971). 'The New Centurions' (1972) was an excellent film for him wherein he got to appear marginally less angry. Frankly, considering these titles plus some oddball stuff like 'The Savage Is Loose', 'Rage', 'Firestarter' and 'The Formula', it would seem that Scott was quite a peculiar film personage. Unique.

You're a very understanding person, james.

For me, EVERY movie stands or does not stand depending on whether I think it's good or not. If I'm thinking about matters apart from what's on the screen, it's probably not a very good movie and therefore it does NOT stand on its own.

The detoxification (known colloquially as the DT's) can cause severe hallucinations and unsafe reactions to them.

People are funny.

Poor bastard never saw it comin'.

I went post-it once. That was pretty intense.

Right. Maybe if she went for a cross-country drive wearing a diaper we'd have a clearer idea.

Not sure I understand the question. Are you referring to a movie that's about something historical (like the battle of the Alamo; or the French Revolution; or the 1919 BlackSox scandal) - or just any movie at all?

Never thought much of the Beatles' taste in women. Ringo probably had the best.

Absolutely. Today's slippage into the farcical is a sure sign that what can be said about the parlance to an 'actor or actress' word-choice has been exhausted. We've now entered silly city. Shut 'er down and spare us our selves, oh moderator fair!

Now, james - I see no reason to be so critical of roverrock's attempt at humour. Why should hepclassic be the only member making hilarious statements today?