Roger Rabbit: VISTA review up! (1 Viewer)

[Beast]

Unless it was Michelangelo himself, risen from the grave after finding out that an assistant had painted somthing crude into his masterpeice that he never noticed originally. And wasn't meant to be there.

 

[Tony-B]

Too bad it's not in the final retail DVD

Jeremy Conrad, I believe you. However, I am still sticking to my belief, which is that it really looks like it is still there. It is way too hard to tell if that finger is sticking up or not. I advise all of the anti-Roger Rabbit Vista Series people to take a look at that commercial that I posted earlier in the thread, and decide for yourself. I think that it is good enough.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

There were instances when Michaelangelo had to alter sculptures for the Medici tomb to better please his patrons, not to mention alterations that were made between his drawings from the Sistine ceiling and the final painting in order to get approval from the Vatican. What most of you guys would be saying then, is "those fucking Medici's! That damn Vatican! How dare they have final say in the artwork they commissioned! Censoring assholes!"

From what I've read about Michaelangelo, I'm sure he did utter a few choice words to and about the pope. I wonder if John Ashcroft would put a pair of boxers on Michaelangelo's "David" if he had the chance? Feelings of inadequacy are mighty powerful. I've seen "David" in Rome, and that is one big piece of marble. The entire sculpture, I mean... :b

Back on topic, although I'd like to see no changes from the original cut, I'll still be picking this one up since the differences are so minor. Heck, even if the differences were more appreciable I'd probably still pick it up as I did E.T. and as I will the Star Wars original Trilogy if and when it ever comes out. Personally, the changes in these films aren't that critical to me, but I do respect the opinions of those who think otherwise.

 

[BrettB]

Please don't post political comments that have nothing to do with the issue. Thanks.

 

[Roy Batty]

Please don't post political comments that have nothing to do with the issue

Some times the people in this forum seems so scared to me that I can clearly understand the fact that you seem to deal with the concept of censorship just fine.

 

[BrettB]

It was just a tactful suggestion to a fellow member regarding the rules.



I'm in a really good mood today so I'll give you one of these ->

 

[Roy Batty]

I understand, respect and share the wish to keep the boards tightly focused on topic (we all benefit from it), but when there's censorship involved, politics become part of the topic, want it or not, and avoiding the subject means threading dangerously into the "irresponsible" side.

 

[RobertR]

politics become part of the topic, want it or not,

It was a gratuitous political comment that did not deal with the topic of a STUDIO (as opposed to a government official) making a change. Brett is right.

 

[Carlo_M]

but when there's censorship involved, politics become part of the topic, want it or not, and avoiding the subject means threading dangerously into the "irresponsible" side

Actually it is quite irresponsible to bring politics into an issue of studio/art/film censorship, especially when this forum explicitly requests members not to do so. Politics only become a part of the topic when someone brings it up. Brett (and Robert) are correct in pointing out and adhering to the HTF's policy regarding political discussion. There is no need for it when discussing this topic.

 

[Rain]

If Tony is right, I hope you all see the ridiculous irony.

It's ok to show the finger on broadcast TV, but it is too obscene for private DVD viewing.

This just gets more laughable by the second.

And still NO SALE.

 

[Brandon Conway]

But Disney allowed those things in the theatrical version. The alterations were made much later.

It's also highly possible that Disney had no idea it was there during the theatrical release or the LD release.

Anyway, to me, this is making mountains out of molehills. I can't tell if there's a finger sticking up from Baby Herman's hand in full motion, so it effects me to the amount of zero, zilch, nothing, nada.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

It was a gratuitous political comment

I agree wholeheartedly that it was a gratuitous comment (it was meant to be), but not political. I didn't mention and/or criticize any policies or laws or beliefs, just a silly situation that had to do with an appointed national figure and an object of art (lady justice?) that was covered to protect the public from its nudity. Just because it involves a politician doesn't automatically make it about politics, does it?

The point I was trying to make is that changing the film like they did is just a silly attempt to protect us from being offended that is more offensive than the offending items. It was a satirical analogy that followed up on a previous post regarding Michaelangelo. And hey, why didn't anyone criticize him for mentioning the Medici's? Now there was a political juggernaut of a family.

That said, from now on, I shall be devoid of any humor and discuss the topics only in a dignified, sedate, and erudite manner. Now will someone please add a smiley face like :| and a sideways thumb? The others are too inflammatory.

I enjoy the Roger Rabbit program. I shall buy the disc.

 

[Tony-B]

I really believe that people here are really overreacting to this. It is only a few frames that are modified! It even looks very similar to the original. Rain, can you even tell if the finger is up when the movie is playing at normal speed and not zoomed in? Also, this commercial is not for TV, since it is 2 minutes long.

We really need Zemeckis to state his opinion on this matter. Does anyone know when the "censoring" of this scene started?

 

[Rain]

Rain, can you even tell if the finger is up when the movie is playing at normal speed and not zoomed in?

You know what? I don't even care.

It is the principle of the matter. Censorship is unacceptable. Period.

The distributors of this film have shown nothing but contempt for fans and purists and I have no inclination to reward that by giving them my money.

 

[Roy Batty]

Actually it is quite irresponsible to bring politics into an issue of studio/art/film censorship, especially when this forum explicitly requests members not to do so. Politics only become a part of the topic when someone brings it up. Brett (and Robert) are correct in pointing out and adhering to the HTF's policy regarding political discussion. There is no need for it when discussing this topic.

Well, judging from yours and other similar replies, actually it seems like politics are always off-topic. Again, it really scares me how easy it is to trespass here.

But hey, you seem to be on the majority, so whatever it suits you best. I'm keeping my mouth shut from now on, just the way it should be.

And anyway, your "Actually it is quite irresponsible to bring politics into an issue of studio/art/film censorship" really speaks for itself; if you can't understand that studio censorship equals to politics, I really can not explain it to you.

That's a wrap on my part.

 

[Mark-W]

I agree with the principle behind those who argue that
say they are not buying this DVD because the art has
been modified in a way that seems contrary to the original
creators' intentions: The Baby Herman scene was pretty
clear to me in the theater, and I doubt that Zemekis didn't
know about it being in the the theatrical print.

Having said this, I see that some of you have a 100%
intolerance for any alterations, and that is fine:
I hope the studios listen to you.

But for many of us, it sounds like it is a matter of
degree. Many of you may not like it, but the fact is
there is a big difference between what happened to
The Magnificent Ambersons and what has
been altered in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

Both unfortunate alterations to be sure, but some of
us aren't going to boycott a title because less than
a second's worth of footage has been tampered with.

That seems to be the crux of the debate in here:
idealists and realists, neither camp willing to
change their minds either...



Mark

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

Good point regarding The Magnficent Ambersons, Mark. The re-cutting of Touch of Evil back to Welles' original vision (or close to it) really brings home how a film can be changed by the tinkering of those who weren't the creator.

You know, I never did get to read the review that was the origin of this thread before it was taken down. What was the jist? Video? Audio? Content?

 

[Rain]

Good point regarding The Magnficent Ambersons...

I beg to differ.

You are comparing a 60 year old from which original footage has by all accounts been lost to a 15 year old film which has been deliberately censored, but could easily be presented in its original form.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[Carlo_M]

And anyway, your "Actually it is quite irresponsible to bring politics into an issue of studio/art/film censorship" really speaks for itself; if you can't understand that studio censorship equals to politics, I really can not explain it to you.

I understand just fine that you are trying to make that point. I'm saying that it's not a point that allowed to be made here under our forum's rules.

 

[Jeremy Conrad]

However, I am still sticking to my belief, which is that it really looks like it is still there. It is way too hard to tell if that finger is sticking up or not. I advise all of the anti-Roger Rabbit Vista Series people to take a look at that commercial that I posted earlier in the thread, and decide for yourself. I think that it is good enough.

Brandon posted a screen capture of the scene from the FINAL RETAIL DVD in this thread that clearly shows that the finger has been edited out. That commercial could be using old footage.