Mark McLeod
Second Unit
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2000
- Messages
- 451
Bravo Mark Bendiksen.. Bravo.. Well said.
4) This is not like Eyes Wide Shut. There are no CGI-created people standing between Harring and the camera. It's a soft blur in an already dark shot. If you have your contrast and brightness set to proper levels it's barely noticeable, and it's only noticeable if you're really looking for it
Sadly, this is one of the biggest problems I have with it. Lynch has made it an issue and I will notice it every single time I watch the scene. To me it is the exact same thing as EWS. I can't watch that scene without thinking of the horrible censorship that is occuring.
I'd almost rather have him cut frames out than put huge digital hands over my eyes and say "naughty naughty, don't look".
I'm with the other poster, I'll buy it used until the real version comes out.
Doug
Lynch did this himself out of respect for his actress.
all over the net? What then? Lynch has to blur those scenses? Please.
I blame Harring more than anyone. Maybe she thinks she's going to be a big star and can call the shots. Well, Laura, NAOMI is going to be the star and she didn't gripe.
Regardless, I'm halfway through at 1:22. (Wrote it down in case I need to remove the disc. )
probably shouldn't have filmed the scene that way to begin with if he intended on editing it later.
I'll be picking this up regardless.
Joseph
It's a marvellous film, and I truly pity those of you who are refusing to buy it on blanket principal.
Thats why I'll be boycotting Laura Harring, not David Lynch.
"I personally can't see why it's a huge deal. It's not going to ruin your enjoyment of the film. It's hardly worth mentioning."
It's worth mentioning because it's a matter of principle.
I believe Laura requested that there not be any full frontal nudity. From what I've learned she wore a crotch patch.
If this is indeed the case THEN THERE IS NO FULL-FRONTAL NUDITY. So what's the big deal? Is she worried that people will be zooming in on her crotch patch? Just thinking out loud...
It's worth mentioning because it's a matter of principle.
Agreed, Jack. If the argument is "minor changes are ok but not major ones", I'd like the person making such an argument to give me an objective definition of when "minor" becomes "major".
If the argument is "the director can do what he wants", then I assume such as person doesn't object to ANY change, including colorizing a B&W film or deleting an entire storyline.
As another, perhaps ill-advised aside, I can't help but wonder if some of the high-minded objections to Lynch's re-edit aren't instead inspired by disappointment at the loss of some exposed flesh for its own sake.
Yeah, if the same digital fudging was happening to a nude male actor, I wonder if there would be a similar outcry?
Yeah, if the same digital fudging was happening to a nude male actor, I wonder if there would be a similar outcry?
The outcry wasn't the same magnitude because of the smaller market size, but YES, the SAME principled objection (and some of the same "it's only minor" responses) was raised to the digital censoring of male genitalia in the Japanese laserdisc of Fight Club.
Why couldn't they do this to Kevin Bacon in Wild Things?
No kidding. Taking it to the hardware level, some manufacturer could develop a "Keitel Device" to help Harvey keep it in his pants.
some manufacturer could develop a "Keitel Device" to help Harvey keep it in his pants.
I'd buy that for a dollar.