DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Roger & Me (1 Viewer)

[Walter Kittel]

The actualy quality, content and context of the FILM seems like an afterthought, or more likely no thought at all.

Opinions of films are much more subjective than the technical merits of the associated DVD release. When I read a DVD review I'm interested in the technical merits of the disc in question. Discussions of the film's content are best left in Movies. I tend to favor this division of topics simply because in many cases I've already seen the film theatrically and merely want to know if the DVD does a good job of recreating the theatrical presentation without wading through a lot of discussion of film content. In those cases where I haven't seen the film in question I either rely upon professional reviewers that I trust and / or go to the Movies section of the forum and read / participate in the threads devoted to that aspect of the film.

Edit: One is always free to start a discussion thread in Movies about the film in question.

- Walter.

 

[Ted Ehlers]

Discussions of the film's content are best left in Movies. I tend to favor this division of topics simply because in many cases I've already seen the film theatrically and merely want to know if the DVD does a good job of recreating the theatrical presentation without wading through a lot of discussion of film content

Walter, I guess I agree with the division as well, but it seems as soon as a thread gets, well, interesting, someone is always there to chide the naughty posters into sticking to the hallowed charter.

If you've seen a film, and someone reviews it here, and the 4 all-important criteria are met (anamorphic, good transfer, Dolby/DTS, interesting suplements), then you needn't read the rest of the thread! Chances are, only the reviewer has the early copy anyway, so everyone else is either saing "oh wow, I can't wait" or "why are the subtitles not burned in?"

In real life, if you discuss a DVD at a dinner party, do you talk about the transfer with one group, walk over to another room and group to discuss features, another for film critique? No, you talk about everyting to anyone who is interested. Probably everyone in this thread would love to get into a wider discussion right where we are.

I usually hate simplistic analogies, but let's say this was the Breakfast Cereal Forum. Let's say, by far, the most popular and busy section was called "Breakfast Cereal Ingredients" for some ood reason.

Well, a new cereal comes out, and someone posts a review. "This new corn-puff cereal is sweetenced my honey and corn cyrup, and contains crunch clusters similar to last years hit cereal, Oat Crisps. Standard preservatives are used, as well a new artifical color, Red # 32. Overall, a great presentation sure to make your top of the line bowl and spoon perfrom thier best. Excellent color contrast betwen the puffs and crunch clusters, thugh there is some color bleed when using skim milk."

If the responder followed the rules, he (and yeah, it's mostly HE) would say "Yes, this cereal has ingredients. Must check it out."

If someone dared to say 'Well, this cereal tastes like ass, contains almost no nutrional value, and is overhyped. In fact, Red #32 was orginally an artifical FLAVOR, not color, used for novelty manure scratch and sniff stickers. Come on, people, this cereal is a joke!"

Someone would say 'Whoa! Take your dirty preaching down to Cereal Flavor Roundtable. No one wants to hear subjective rants. It's just your, like, opinion, man."

Fine, only this cereal is meant to be actually eaten, is being discussed here and not there, and that forum has half the eyeballs of this one.

In further non-symbolic context, it seems like there is an eve-growing legion of people who don't care about great movies and only want the latest DTS subwoofer-candy to show off thier rockin' home theater setup. So sure, in the case of something like Spiderman or it's clones, it's only the specs that count anyway.

But a film like Roger and Me has no interesting specs anyway. Not many a LOTR dork would get all excited to slam Roger and Me and pump the reciever up to 11. The movie is all about its content, not presentation or technical details. In fact, it's biggest feature is it's ability to spark debate in forums like this, and across dinner tables nationwide.

 

[TheLongshot]

Ted,

While I understand your point about this release being more about the content, rather than the specs, this is still not the proper forum for that type of discussion. If only for the fact that the crowd that goes to the "Software" forum is different than the crowd that is in the "Movies" forum. One is looking for discussion on DVDs and their quality, or lack thereof. The other is talking about the films themselves and their quality, or lack thereof.

OK, what if we had a discussion on this forum, and an issue came up with the DVD? For people looking for information on the problem, they would have to wade through a lot of crap that they really didn't want to be reading.

It isn't that people don't want to hear opinions on the content of films, it is just that this isn't the proper place for it. Pretty simple, if you want to talk about a film, start a thread in the "Movies" forum. Plenty of people to talk with over there.

Jason

 

[Lew Crippen]

Walter, I guess I agree with the division as well, but it seems as soon as a thread gets, well, interesting, someone is always there to chide the naughty posters into sticking to the hallowed charter

As the one who did the initial chiding, I was trying to insure that a review of the DVD did not start getting warnings from the moderators—and possibly closed. I admit that I might be a bit sensitive on this as far as Moore’s films go, because we had a thread closure on Bowling for Columbine and a reasonable number of cautions on the second attempt (which did stay open).

Since my experience indicated that his films drew a lot of comment from a wide variety of people, I wished to insure that the thread which is primarily about the DVD, remain free from true believers from both sides of the political spectrum.

Maybe it is appropriate to restate that Herb has done quite a good job in his review: the more so in retrospect.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Jack, Ted, and anyone else who is having trouble discerning what this thread (and section) is about: Herb writes and posts his (excellent) review of the DVD, with the film being merely an aspect of the DVD presentation. Resulting thread is confined to discussion of Herb's review and about the DVD's technical merits.

If you feeled compelled to comment on the film or on the director and his techniques and tactics, you go to the Movies section of the board.

When it comes to a politically charged film, we limit our discussion to how well or otherwise the director makes his points. Sidetracking into one's personal politics or into making attacks on other members ends up in locked threads and (sometimes) suspended memberships.

Questions about these policies are to be directed privately to the HTF staff.

Lew's advice is good advice, so please follow it.

Thank you.

 

[JamesY]

Great comments, Lew and Jack...so back to the DVD...

Does anyone have further info on the correct AR? Was it shot originally in 16mm, blown up to 35mm and cropped in theatres? If IMDB is correct, is this transfer done in open matte then?

Maybe too many questions around the same issue, but I do believe in Herb's "principle," and I'm just curious as to what the AR should be, and perhaps if the director approved this release or the Studio made a mistake...

By the way, good review Herb!

 

[Lew Crippen]

I am reasonably certain that this was first shot on 16mm film. Although I’ve not seen the film for maybe 10 years, if memory serves the grain could be nothing other than 16mm. And consistent with presenting himself as the working class documentation, he would not be able to go past 16mm and retain any street cred.

 

[Nick_Scott]

When it comes to a politically charged film, we limit our discussion to how well or otherwise the director makes his points.

Unfortunetly, with films like Moores, its pretty tricky to discuss how well he "makes his points". I was warned for suggesting that Moores movies are not documentaries by an admin.
But, to be honest, I think this rigid atmosphere is what separates "civilized" boards, from the many, MANY trashy, flame-filled, spam-riddled boards out there.
So, I think its a fair price to pay.

-Nick

 

[Lew Crippen]

I concur with your view as to what is necessary for a ‘civilized’ atmosphere, Nick. For any of you who are not familiar with what constitutes acceptable discussions, this thread was closed and this thread remained open. You can read through these and see where we stayed within bounds and where we got off course. IMO, we were allowed all of the freedom necessary to properly discuss the film.

 

[Grant B]

Herb, What a great review!
Michael Moore tends to divide people into Love or Hate and you walked a fine line in your review.
Not that this will change anyones feeling about him, the one time where I met him I was impressed. At a book signing the man in front of us was..... crazy(or severly messed up).
guy rambled incoherently for 10 minutes solid, not making an ounce of sense.
Moore stood there and was as nice as could be; whereas most would of had the guy thrown out.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

a thread calling into question the sanity and morals of someone who dared to call American Wedding a bad movie without actually viewing it... as if it was secretly Stanley Kubrick's secret last film and not a American Pie sequel.

Seems fair to me. A film need not be a masterpiece to be a worthwhile affair. And the fact that American Wedding can be considered bad without seeing it just because it's an American Pie film is ludicrous. Who, after all determines the flowers from the weeds in garden? Only the gardener, and you should let others make that decision, since everyone's view of what's worthwhile is different.

 

[Jack Shappa]

I was warned for suggesting that Moores movies are not documentaries by an admin.

I can't imagine it was for simply stating what so many already believe. You must have posted it in a hostile or insulting manner, or in the wrong thread or something...

- JS

 

[Nick_Scott]

I can't imagine it was for simply stating what so many already believe. You must have posted it in a hostile or insulting manner, or in the wrong thread or something...

I said: "To carry the non-political debate over from the last thread, is this a documentary? It certaintly doesnt fit the definition".

I was warned by the admins: "you're teetering on an area that really doesn't need to be explored in discussing the merits of this documentary film".

Like I said, I prefer this heavy-handed method of moderation then the usenet-style found on most other boards. But in the case of Moores films, it seems the admins are letting a little bit of there bias creep out.

This seems to be the case with the Roger and Me thread. Nonetheless, I'm still getting the DVD. Roger and Me is extremely entertaining.

 

[Jack Briggs]

No bias is being "let out." Simply information about the focus of the discussion that follows a staffer's DVD review, with special advice when the topic at hand is notably controversial.

But, as you note, the result is a smoother discussion than what one encounters at a Usenet flamethrowing session!

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Lew Crippen]

So Nick, are you going to start a discussion thread in movies?

 

[Kevin M]

Damn it! Pets or Meat was a perfect supplement for this film.....damn.