Schindler's List!

Started by Lt. Col Baby Dinosaur, December 08, 2003, 12:17:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4 5
User actions

Lt. Col Baby Dinosaur

December 08, 2003, 12:17:19 PM
From dvdanswer.com:

Title: Schindler's List
Starring: Liam Neeson
Released: 9th March 2004 (TBC)
SRP: $26.98 (TBC)
Further Details
We're hearing from a number of reliable sources that Universal has scheduled Schindler's List for release on the 9th March next year. Details are still a little sketchy of course, although we also hear that it will be available in seperate anamorphic widescreen and full screen releases, as well as a collector's package. The collector's set should retail at around $79.98, whereas the standard releases will set you back around $26.98 a pop. We'll try and get confirmation from Universal early next week. Stay tuned!

NEON MERCURY

#1
December 08, 2003, 12:21:22 PM
"typical dvd geek response to this post"

"golly-gee willa-kers..hopefully Mr. Speilbergh does a fab. commentary track"

modage

#2
December 08, 2003, 03:50:47 PM
even more typical response...

http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=45
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ravi

#3
December 08, 2003, 04:19:02 PM
What is TBC?

ElPandaRoyal

#4
December 08, 2003, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: NEON MERCURY"typical dvd geek response to this post"

"golly-gee willa-kers..hopefully Mr. Speilbergh does a fab. commentary track"

He doesn't do commentaries.
Si

godardian

#5
December 08, 2003, 05:19:44 PM
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaum

He doesn't do commentaries.

I think we can all be grateful for that.
He's an undeservedly pompous ass
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

cowboykurtis

#6
December 08, 2003, 06:38:44 PM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaum

He doesn't do commentaries.

I think we can all be grateful for that.
He's an undeservedly pompous ass

such bitterness
...your excuses are your own...

godardian

#7
December 08, 2003, 06:58:29 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaum

He doesn't do commentaries.

I think we can all be grateful for that.
He's an undeservedly pompous ass

such bitterness

You haven't seen bitterness about Spielberg and Schindler's List until you've seen:

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

cowboykurtis

#8
December 08, 2003, 07:07:44 PM
ill take your word for it
...your excuses are your own...

bonanzataz

#9
December 08, 2003, 07:08:27 PM
i've never seen schindler's list followed by an exclamation point before. is that like: "Schindler's List! The Musical"?
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil's rain we'll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, 'cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, 'cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put 'em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put 'em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

godardian

#10
December 08, 2003, 08:19:25 PM
Quote from: taz.i've never seen schindler's list followed by an exclamation point before. is that like: "Schindler's List! The Musical"?

Wouldn't it just be Schindler!?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SHAFTR

#11
December 08, 2003, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaum

He doesn't do commentaries.

I think we can all be grateful for that.
He's an undeservedly pompous ass

such bitterness

You haven't seen bitterness about Spielberg and Schindler's List until you've seen:


Godardian, what did you think of this film?  I really did not like it at all.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

cine

#12
December 08, 2003, 08:32:26 PM
Anytime I think of "In Praise Of Love" I'm reminded of Ebert's review of the film and his response to the Spielberg shit:

"His attacks on Steven Spielberg are painful and unfair. Some of the fragments of his film involve a Spielberg company trying to buy the memories of Holocaust survivors for a Hollywood film (it will star, we learn, Juliette Binoche, who appeared in "Hail Mary" but has now apparently gone over to the dark side). Elsewhere in the film he accuses Spielberg of having made millions from "Schindler's List" while Mrs. Schindler lives in Argentina in poverty. One muses: (1) Has Godard, having also used her, sent her any money? (2) Has Godard or any other director living or dead done more than Spielberg, with his Holocaust Project, to honor and preserve the memories of the survivors? (3) Has Godard so lost the ability to go to the movies that, having once loved the works of Samuel Fuller and Nicholas Ray, he cannot view a Spielberg film except through a prism of anger? "

freakerdude

#13
December 08, 2003, 09:06:20 PM
Quote from: RaviWhat is TBC?
To be chastised......

Actually, I plan on renting Schindler's List DVD very soon. Along the same subject line only, I really liked the Pianist.
MC Pee Pants

godardian

#14
December 09, 2003, 12:56:43 AM
Quote from: SHAFTR
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaum

He doesn't do commentaries.

I think we can all be grateful for that.
He's an undeservedly pompous ass

such bitterness

You haven't seen bitterness about Spielberg and Schindler's List until you've seen:


Godardian, what did you think of this film?  I really did not like it at all.

I thought it was gorgeous, smart, irreverent, and very uneven.

Why do people get so defensive about Spielberg? Godard's point was not so much to attack Spielberg- though I suppose it could feel like an attack if you're one of the apparently 99.8% of the world that reveres him all out of proportion- as to say that no movie could ever do justice to something like the Holocaust, that a film like Schindler's List, aside from being simpleminded and fairly dishonest, serves mainly to obfuscate and placate.

I'd imagine Godard is very bemused by Spielberg and dislikes what he's done to film- as do I- but the real point was about the medium itself (as it almost always is with Godard), and that had to include Spielberg in this case. There were things about the story of Schindler's List that just weren't convenient, but instead of including anything that might confuse or upset anyone- that might've cast any doubt on whose "side" he film was on- Spielberg just got rid of those elements. He was patting people on the head with his movie, and there's something grotesque about patting people on the head and pretending you've made a brave statement when in fact you've made an amputated entertainment about an event that was an infathomable, bottomless bit of moral horror.

Ebert's points, as usual, are ludicrous and almost beneath argument. The stuff about Spielberg may be "painful" to Ebert, but that's his fault for idolizing someone so vulnerable to the slightest aesthetic or moral challenge or question; these are the kinds of questions Godard has always asked in his films, and they're hardly unfair.

Also, Nicholas Ray and Samuel Fuller would never have made anything so self-important and middlebrow as Schindler's List.

Certainly, Spielberg's philanthropic work is something separate from his filmmaking, it's an honorable thing for him to be doing, and it's rather inappropriate of Ebert to bring that into a discussion of the film. Having a lot of money and giving it to those who deserve it does not make one an artist- truly conscientious or otherwise- or mean one has anything important or interesting to say, nor an important or interesting way of saying it.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4 5
User actions