-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

A few words about...™ Executive Decision -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 of 46 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted November 21 2012 - 12:31 AM

Stuart Baird's 1996 Executive Decision is one of those thrillers which have terrorists taking control of a large aircraft, with plans to do something will make them appear macho to their friends, and concurrently do harm to civilians.


This is a mid-level affair, with enough decent scenes to keep one's attention, even if the plot seems to come and go at times.  Kurt Russell and Halle Berry do what they can to make things work, and Steven Seagal is along for the ride (I generally don't watch his films) for a short enough period, making a Marion Crane-like appearance.


The film works enough to make it enjoyable at times.  Model work, especially near the end, turns a bit iffy, but in the cusp of a pre-CGI world, you can't have everything.


For those of you who fly, there's a message here.  If an airline has the word Oceanic anywhere in its name, don't fly it.


As to the Blu-ray, it's a very nice image harvest.  Quality resolution, colors look accurate, with proper shadow detail.  No sign of improper digital handling.  Audio is DTS-HD MA 5.1.


A fun flight, and Recommended for what it is.


Image - 4.5


Audio - 5


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#2 of 46 Michel_Hafner

Michel_Hafner

    Supporting Actor

  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2002

Posted November 21 2012 - 12:55 AM

Unfortunately it's the "politically correct" edited version. http://www.containsm...edited-version/

#3 of 46 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted November 21 2012 - 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner 

Unfortunately it's the "politically correct" edited version.
http://www.containsm...edited-version/

I have no problem with the cuts.  There is no real impact upon the film, and the deletions help to avoid possibilities of offending people's religious beliefs.  Possibly they should not have been a part of the film, which is entertainment, and not a study of religion, in the first place.


The disc jacket states "This R-Rated version contains material different from the original R-Rated version."


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#4 of 46 Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer

  • 11,026 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted November 21 2012 - 02:23 AM

I have the original DVD release. I assume this one is the original theatrical version. I guess I should give that version a spin before deciding if there's anything there I can't live without. I can't imagine that would be true.



#5 of 46 Charles Maesschalck

Charles Maesschalck

    Agent

  • 33 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2001

Posted November 21 2012 - 05:08 AM

I have no problem with the cuts.  There is no real impact upon the film, and the deletions help to avoid possibilities of offending people's religious beliefs.  Possibly they should not have been a part of the film, which is entertainment, and not a study of religion, in the first place. The disc jacket states "This R-Rated version contains material different from the original R-Rated version." RAH

No offence intended but I have a real problem with censorship in this way. It's just wrong.
"The Night Was Sultry"

#6 of 46 Michel_Hafner

Michel_Hafner

    Supporting Actor

  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2002

Posted November 21 2012 - 05:30 AM

Same here. Will not buy this.

#7 of 46 Will*B

Will*B

    Second Unit

  • 467 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2003
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted November 21 2012 - 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Charles Maesschalck 


No offence intended but I have a real problem with censorship in this way. It's just wrong.


I completely agree with you Charles. Nobody, no matter what religious, ethnic, sexual or political orientation they possess, has the right NOT to be offended.


The linked article makes some excellent points. Notably:



Quote:
"It also seems illogical to remove one element that could be perceived as offensive, from a film whose very premise may be just as equally so. Exactly who are these cuts supposed to appease?"   "However, a more worrying matter is whether a precedence has now been set".     "[...] the illogical mindset that exists behind this decision is still cause for concern".

Free speech is free speech. The erosion of this fundamental right is immense cause for concern. Whether it's "only" some minor cuts in a 90's action film, or more obvious intrusions on our everyday lives.


I wholeheartedly condemn this decision, and will not be buying this disc as a result. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come.


 

 


#8 of 46 Charles Maesschalck

Charles Maesschalck

    Agent

  • 33 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2001

Posted November 21 2012 - 06:21 AM

It does seem to me to be a politicically motivated decision to cut this film. As Robert Harris stated its entertainment. It should have been left to stand as it was made. Should Birth of a Nation be similarly censored? Where does it end? Why take a stance in this manner. What is Warner trying to say. We are sorry that we made a film the suggests there are terrorists that use religious beliefs to justify atrocities? It's a sad reality that there are. What smacks as pandering is the knowledge that if he was reading the bible in this film the cuts wouldn't be made.
"The Night Was Sultry"

#9 of 46 Will*B

Will*B

    Second Unit

  • 467 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2003
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted November 21 2012 - 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Charles Maesschalck 

Why take a stance in this manner. What is Warner trying to say. We are sorry that we made a film the suggests there are terrorists that use religious beliefs to justify atrocities?

It's a sad reality that there are. What smacks as pandering is the knowledge that if he was reading the bible in this film the cuts wouldn't be made.


You've hit the nail squarely on the head. It's pandering like this that has inexorably led to the curtailment of everyone's freedom of speech, in a misguided attempt to placate those who detest it the most.


 

 


#10 of 46 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted November 21 2012 - 06:59 AM

I guess it was feared there might be another "spontaneous demonstration" if the film came out unedited. :rolleyes:

#11 of 46 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted November 21 2012 - 07:04 AM

I don't believe that these arguments are relevant, as they're all based upon logic.


With logic out of the way, this is not a battle worth fighting.


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#12 of 46 JoshZ

JoshZ

    Second Unit

  • 411 posts
  • Join Date: May 26 2012
  • LocationBoston

Posted November 21 2012 - 07:56 AM

It's pandering like this that has inexorably led to the curtailment of everyone's freedom of speech, in a misguided attempt to placate those who detest it the most.

Huh. Didn't realize that anyone had been imprisoned recently for exercising their right to speak. When did that happen?

Writer / Blogmaster

High-Def Digest


#13 of 46 theonemacduff

theonemacduff

    Second Unit

  • 297 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 2010
  • Real Name:Jon Paul
  • Locationthe wet coast

Posted November 21 2012 - 08:09 AM

I'll get it anyway because Baird does a rattling good yarn rattlingly well. If you're interested in the religious aspects of contemporary terrorism, try Paul Berman's Flight of the Intellectuals (a book not a film). Well reasoned and well written. And in the end, Executive Decision is just an entertainment; if they were going to make a point of the religious motivation, a couple of holy books in a few seconds of film was probably not the way to do it.

#14 of 46 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted November 21 2012 - 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Will*B 


You've hit the nail squarely on the head. It's pandering like this that has inexorably led to the curtailment of everyone's freedom of speech, in a misguided attempt to placate those who detest it the most.

There is no such thing as totally "free speech."


I would not suggest that anyone use the word "fire" in a crowded public place, or the words "bomb" or "gun" at an airport, or publicly the discuss one's thoughts regarding assassinations of public officials, even in jest.


Brings about bad karma, and makes people nervous.


"Free speech," within certain limitations, however, is a wonderful thing.


RAH


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#15 of 46 cafink

cafink

    Producer

  • 3,034 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted November 21 2012 - 09:05 AM

Huh. Didn't realize that anyone had been imprisoned recently for exercising their right to speak. When did that happen?

http://www.guardian....-poppy-facebook http://www.reuters.c...E8AF0MU20121116 http://www.volokh.co...ular-blasphemy/ http://english.ahram...ei-of-insu.aspx http://articles.chic...lish-television
 

 


#16 of 46 Will*B

Will*B

    Second Unit

  • 467 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2003
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted November 21 2012 - 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by JoshZ 


Huh. Didn't realize that anyone had been imprisoned recently for exercising their right to speak. When did that happen?


Actually, here in the UK, there's recently been a whole spate of people being literally imprisoned for posting dim-witted, moronic but perfectly legal things on Twitter. Also, as Westerners, we've all been shown the consequences of certain kinds of free speech: huge regions of the globe rioting, murdering and destroying anything in their immediate vicinity. If that's not metaphorically 'imprisoning' free speech, I don't know what is.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

There is no such thing as totally "free speech."


I would not suggest that anyone use the word "fire" in a crowded public place, or the words "bomb" or "gun" at an airport, or publicly the discuss one's thoughts regarding assassinations of public officials, even in jest.


Brings about bad karma, and makes people nervous.


"Free speech," within certain limitations, however, is a wonderful thing.


RAH


Well said Robert - I couldn't agree more.


This rational, reasonable sense of free speech also has an ugly sister who is just as important: the freedom to offend, within the law. This fundamental right has been just as maligned and abused in recent times.


As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said in an increasingly relevant quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".


 

 


#17 of 46 Felix Martinez

Felix Martinez

    Screenwriter

  • 1,452 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 27 2001
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted November 21 2012 - 02:32 PM

I'd like to revisit this one on blu-ray as I found the film entertaining when I saw it theatrically.  Good to see this is a solid release.


The changes as described above seem silly to me, but whatever.

Reminds me of a John Cleese quote I rather agree with:


"There's a good idea at the back of political correctness, but it gets taken ad absurdum...in a sense that's a bit sick, because you're trying to take as the general standard the standard of the people that have the greatest problem controlling their emotions in that area."
John Cleese



#18 of 46 TonyD

TonyD

    Who do we think I am?

  • 16,085 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted November 21 2012 - 03:07 PM

I think this will be $4 at BB tomorrow online and Friday in store. Probably matched by amazon too. I'll buy it if I can get it.
facebook.com/whotony

#19 of 46 Felix Martinez

Felix Martinez

    Screenwriter

  • 1,452 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 27 2001
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted November 22 2012 - 03:57 AM

$3.99 at Amazon right now.

#20 of 46 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted November 22 2012 - 07:11 AM

the changes made here don't have the impact like the change of the plastic in "the devil's advocate". that change has a bigger impact.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: A Few Words About

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users