Corona Virus

[shootemindehead]

I felt like that about The Exorcist when I finally watched it sometime around '99/2000. For years I'd been hearing about how terrifying and controversial it was and that's why it was banned, but when I finally watched it myself I was a bit underwhelmed. It was ok but I was neither terrified or particularly shocked by it. I can see why it was controversial at the time of its original release though. I think I first saw 'The Exorcist' around 1986. In fact, I think I rented that and 'Day of the Dead' together strangely enough. I remember enjoying it, but wondering what all the fuss was about and also wondering how the crucifix scene could ever reconsidered "masturbation". Today, I think 'The Exorcist' is one of the masterpieces of horror cinema though. It's just played so well by everyone and it draws you in so completely, which makes it's hokey story so believable. In fact, I wish more directors of horror movies (and movies in general) would take a more serious approach to their stories.

[MinionZombie]

I felt like that about The Exorcist when I finally watched it sometime around '99/2000. For years I'd been hearing about how terrifying and controversial it was and that's why it was banned, but when I finally watched it myself I was a bit underwhelmed. It was ok but I was neither terrified or particularly shocked by it. I can see why it was controversial at the time of its original release though. I think I first saw 'The Exorcist' around 1986. In fact, I think I rented that and 'Day of the Dead' together strangely enough. I remember enjoying it, but wondering what all the fuss was about and also wondering how the crucifix scene could ever reconsidered "masturbation". Today, I think 'The Exorcist' is one of the masterpieces of horror cinema though. It's just played so well by everyone and it draws you in so completely, which makes it's hokey story so believable. In fact, I wish more directors of horror movies (and movies in general) would take a more serious approach to their stories. Yeah. First time I saw The Exorcist was on a 3rd generation dub not long after the BBFC had finally allowed it to be released in the UK after James Ferman (Director of the BBFC) had left (he was vehement that it would never be released on video in the UK, and kind of enjoyed having that power over Warner Bros.) - but within weeks of his departure it was on UK shelves. Anyway, I finally saw it, but found it a bit of a chore at the time - but I was only 15, and wasn't much keen on gradual build ups and so on. However, several years later I re-watched it and thought it was fantastic. I then saw the Director's Cut, but frankly it's inferior to the theatrical version (all those silly 'subliminal' images of the demon's face, and the big 'spider walk' scene is really best left as a deleted scene extra on a disc as a curio). I've found myself getting more and more out of certain films as I've got older. For example, I liked L.A. Confidential when I first saw it in my mid-teens, but wasn't too blown away by it and didn't quite 'get it'. However, several years later I re-watched it and enjoyed it far more, and have seen it a few times since then and now I love it.

[EvilNed]

I felt like that about The Exorcist when I finally watched it sometime around '99/2000. For years I'd been hearing about how terrifying and controversial it was and that's why it was banned, but when I finally watched it myself I was a bit underwhelmed. It was ok but I was neither terrified or particularly shocked by it. I can see why it was controversial at the time of its original release though. Just saw that two or three years ago for the first time, and I was underwhelmed. The horror in it doesn't scare me at all.

[MinionZombie]

Just saw that two or three years ago for the first time, and I was underwhelmed. The horror in it doesn't scare me at all. Aye, the movie never scared me, but in more recent viewings it does creep me out. The priest's nightmare (with his mother speaking, but he can't hear her, and she's going down into that subway stairwell) is quite unsettling, and the general tone of the movie. I do remember my Dad telling me that he went to see it with some of his mates when it first came out (it did actually make it to UK cinemas in the early 1970s, before it was then ostensibly outlawed on video in the 1980s) ... anyway, he said that about mid-way he and his mates decided to pack it in and get to the pub in time for last orders, rather than see the rest of the movie, haha! I'd have stayed for the rest of the film, personally.

[shootemindehead]

I then saw the Director's Cut, but frankly it's inferior to the theatrical version (all those silly 'subliminal' images of the demon's face, and the big 'spider walk' scene is really best left as a deleted scene extra on a disc as a curio). Yes. The original cut all the way for me. This has become an increasing issue with movies though. Often these extended cuts and director's cuts are inferior to what was originally edited. 'Apocalypse Now Redux' will never beat the theatrical cut. 'The Big Red One' reconstruction cut will always pale in comparison to the original 1980 version. 'Maniac Cop' in it's original running time plays better than its extended cut, and so on. They all have interesting scenes, but when packaged into the theatrical cut, they often don't work. The only truly successful "director's cut", and the one which start this whole nonsense off, was 'Aliens', which genuinely added to the story, without looking off or silly. There are others which work to certain degrees, but by and large they're failures. I've found myself getting more and more out of certain films as I've got older. For example, I liked L.A. Confidential when I first saw it in my mid-teens, but wasn't too blown away by it and didn't quite 'get it'. However, several years later I re-watched it and enjoyed it far more, and have seen it a few times since then and now I love it. He's persona non grata now, but there's a scene in that film with Spacey   where he suddenly gets shot that shows just what a great actor he could be.   The surprise and subsequent realisation all delivered on his face is brilliant. His only words being Rollo Tomasi.

[MinionZombie]

Yes. The original cut all the way for me. This has become an increasing issue with movies though. Often these extended cuts and director's cuts are inferior to what was originally edited. 'Apocalypse Now Redux' will never beat the theatrical cut. 'The Big Red One' reconstruction cut will always pale in comparison to the original 1980 version. 'Maniac Cop' in it's original running time plays better than its extended cut, and so on. They all have interesting scenes, but when packaged into the theatrical cut, they often don't work. The only truly successful "director's cut", and the one which start this whole nonsense off, was 'Aliens', which genuinely added to the story, without looking off or silly. There are others which work to certain degrees, but by and large they're failures. He's persona non grata now, but there's a scene in that film with Spacey   where he suddenly gets shot that shows just what a great actor he could be.   The surprise and subsequent realisation all delivered on his face is brilliant. His only words being Rollo Tomasi. Some DCs are good curios - and there's some good stuff in AN: Redux, but good lord, that whole French plantation segment is way too fucking long and absolutely stalls the movie just when you're ready to get to the third act - although sometimes it depends on which version I saw first. The Director's Cut / Final Cut of Blade Runner is where it's at for me. I can't watch the original theatrical cut. That god-awful voice over and studio tinkering. Aliens - I first saw it as the DC, and then I saw the theatrical cut and I missed all those additional scenes. However, I'd argue that T2's DC is inferior to the theatrical version. There's nothing really that's added into T2's DC that seems all that worthwhile. It might explain the odd thing a smidge better (e.g. the T-1000 being able to 'read' the environment with its fingertips, or more of it 'breaking down' in the steel factory), but I never found much of it truly adding to the film (although it was nice to get Kyle Reese back, if only for a scene). RE: L.A. Confidential...   And how he was able to get his eyes to 'go dead', somehow managing to seague from looking at the other actor to a little "X" on the wall so seamlessly. Talented actor, but it seems that he's a scumbag of a person. I'd argue that Snyder's DCs of Watchmen and BvS are both decidedly better than the theatrical cuts. In both cases there's much more room to breathe for the story, there's less of a muddled rush going on, and they generally feel shorter even though they're longer.

[EvilNed]

I may be alone in this, but the next time I'm watching Aliens I think I'll pop the theatrical version in. Having rewatched the Director's Cut I understand why they felt the need to trim all those parts out. I think they're supposed to be suspensful, but they're not really. And damn does it slow the film down. Kingdom of Heaven was also superior in it's director's cut form, though neither was great. Troy Directors Cut is too long, but I that's not entirely down to the fault of the cut itself. The script is just not very exciting - the character closest to the audience is killed with half-an-hour to go leaving us not really caring how it ends. Gladiator DC is inferior to the TC... Agreed on Watchmen, however. The DC is perfect.

[shootemindehead]

The Director's Cut / Final Cut of Blade Runner is where it's at for me. I can't watch the original theatrical cut. That god-awful voice over and studio tinkering. Well, I actually much prefer the original cut of 'Blade Runner', even with Ford's voice over, which I think lends an air of film noir to the whole thing. Never really understood all the hate it gets, when its just the same type of device that's been used in any number of noir productions since the 40's, from 'The Maltese Falcon', to 'L.A. Confidential'. Aliens - I first saw it as the DC, and then I saw the theatrical cut and I missed all those additional scenes. However, I'd argue that T2's DC is inferior to the theatrical version. There's nothing really that's added into T2's DC that seems all that worthwhile. It might explain the odd thing a smidge better (e.g. the T-1000 being able to 'read' the environment with its fingertips, or more of it 'breaking down' in the steel factory), but I never found much of it truly adding to the film (although it was nice to get Kyle Reese back, if only for a scene). I don't think I've seen the original cut of 'Aliens' since the 80's. Can't imagine it now without the DC's added material. As for 'T2', I was never really a fan and always thought that film was a bit stupid, so a DC of it doesn't interest me. One thing I would be in favour of, if it was handled correctly, would be to go back and put in better effects on 'The Terminator' though. If done well, CGI could be applied perfectly there. RE: L.A. Confidential...   And how he was able to get his eyes to 'go dead', somehow managing to seague from looking at the other actor to a little "X" on the wall so seamlessly. Talented actor, but it seems that he's a scumbag of a person.   Yeh, it's brilliant. Shame about Spacey, if the allegations are to be believed. For a while there, he could do no wrong as an actor. String of great films in the 90's. That scene is one of cinema's greats, IMO. It's a real "oooh shit" moment that you'll never forget. I didn't see it coming either. I'd argue that Snyder's DCs of Watchmen and BvS are both decidedly better than the theatrical cuts. In both cases there's much more room to breathe for the story, there's less of a muddled rush going on, and they generally feel shorter even though they're longer. Perhaps. I never saw the original cuts, so I don't know. I don't really consider them to be that good anyway, so it would be neither here nor there for me.

[Mike70]

*cough, cough* there was a time when the PM's on here were alive with the sounds of trading. I've traded or mailed stuff to a bunch of y'all over the years. Dead Set was just one thing that got traded through here when it first came out because it wasn't available on this side of the pond. An assload of comics got moved around on here via PM too.

[JDP]

A second wave is to be expected. The question simply is how big. I suspect it will not be very big... "Second wave" so far seems pretty big in the US. It's starting to hit Florida, California and Texas with a vengeance. And with irresponsible imbeciles like these loose in the world, it is no wonder: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/us/al...rnd/index.html

[EvilNed]

*cough, cough* there was a time when the PM's on here were alive with the sounds of trading. I've traded or mailed stuff to a bunch of y'all over the years. Dead Set was just one thing that got traded through here when it first came out because it wasn't available on this side of the pond. An assload of comics got moved around on here via PM too. I didn't know that. I trade sometimes still, though mostly through facebook these days.

[EvilNed]

It's interesting how articles like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/b...ronavirus.html Paint Sweden as some form of country in despair. Well, I have to say life here is pretty much going on as if nothing has happened. Even the stock market has made a remarkeable recovery, thanks in a huge part to all the stimulus packages (and the payment is due next year). There was an enormous strain on the hospitals during the peak months of April and May, but since then everything has slowly calmed down. Meanwhile, many other countries (most of which closed down) are now reporting an increase in daily new cases again. Not so in Sweden. Thanks in parts to the general well being of the average swedish citizen of course.

[Neil]

It's interesting how articles like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/b...ronavirus.html Paint Sweden as some form of country in despair. Well, I have to say life here is pretty much going on as if nothing has happened. Even the stock market has made a remarkeable recovery, thanks in a huge part to all the stimulus packages (and the payment is due next year). There was an enormous strain on the hospitals during the peak months of April and May, but since then everything has slowly calmed down. Meanwhile, many other countries (most of which closed down) are now reporting an increase in daily new cases again. Not so in Sweden. Thanks in parts to the general well being of the average swedish citizen of course. The press blowing things unfairly out of proportion for alarmism? Surely not? While we can't compare other Western countries blindly with Sweden, we can take some information from it etc. I think the lesson is, with 20-20 hindsight, that while taking precautions for the initial hit/spike was prudent, most areas could ease up far quicker that they have. ie: Overall, most areas have been too cautious. Agree? Disagree?

[MinionZombie]

The press blowing things unfairly out of proportion for alarmism? Surely not? While we can't compare other Western countries blindly with Sweden, we can take some information from it etc. I think the lesson is, with 20-20 hindsight, that while taking precautions for the initial hit/spike was prudent, most areas could ease up far quicker that they have. ie: Overall, most areas have been too cautious. Agree? Disagree? In the UK, for instance, I think the decision making has been far too slow - i.e. lockdown should have come earlier, the farce with flights and people entering the country, and they should have been truthful about masks (i.e. don't wear them because we don't have enough of them! - but then, during lockdown, get companies producing masks for public purchase for when lockdown was lifted) etc etc etc. The messaging has been piss poor, too. Either overly-complicated where it isn't necessary, or brashly stupid and simplistic when it needs to be nuanced. Doesn't help you have chumps who set rules and then break them themselves, as well. You need clear and concise leadership, not a load of bluster and "oh yeah, whatever, it'll be fine" say one thing one day and say the opposite a few days later etc.

[Neil]

In the UK, for instance, I think the decision making has been far too slow - i.e. lockdown should have come earlier, the farce with flights and people entering the country, and they should have been truthful about masks (i.e. don't wear them because we don't have enough of them! - but then, during lockdown, get companies producing masks for public purchase for when lockdown was lifted) etc etc etc. The messaging has been piss poor, too. Either overly-complicated where it isn't necessary, or brashly stupid and simplistic when it needs to be nuanced. Doesn't help you have chumps who set rules and then break them themselves, as well. You need clear and concise leadership, not a load of bluster and "oh yeah, whatever, it'll be fine" say one thing one day and say the opposite a few days later etc. As regards the UK locking down too slowly, as you suggest... If we go by the understanding that most people in the UK are going to get CV19 by the end of this year, the earliest any vaccine is likely to even be getting to us, then IMHO the most ideal policy would be to allow as many (not at risk people) to get it, as soon and as quickly and as possible, while not stretching the capacity of the NHS. With this in mind, doing much of anything until high numbers were hit (eg: blocking flights, going into a full lockdown) was a waste of time. ie: You almost want to accelerate towards high numbers to get people through infection ASAP. Once you reach high numbers then put the breaks on for a while, and then start to ease up (lockdown) ensuring you don't peak and put the NHS risk again. If we'd locked down on the sight of the first infections, and prevented all incoming travel, all this would have done is stopped people from getting it, at huge economic expense, only to in fact mean when the lockdown was eased, then the very same people you'd prevented from initially getting it, then get it... The gut reaction is to close down as soon as possible, as hard as possible, for as long as possible. But to my thinking this doesn't achieve much other than huge unnecessary economic cost. On a similar note people complain why only now are masks being suggested? Again, the gut reaction is to do as much as possible as soon as possible, but now social distancing has been relaxed, NOW masks make sense, and it means people haven't been unnecessarily using them (wasting them) and been inconvenienced with them, while less social interaction was taking place. Now people are interacting far more, so masks NOW make more sense.