| Author |
Message |
|
| billyweeds |
 Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:26 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Terrible news for mo, nancy, and others, including me.
From today's Village Voice--column by Nathan Lee:
The good news for Zodiac fanatics is that the DVD version released today offers new angles on futility and frustration. The bad news is why. Fincher enthusiasts who remember the director’s early embrace of the format with his feature-packed Fight Club disc will be surprised by the total lack of extras on the Zodiac DVD. Other than watching the film itself, the only option is to click on “Previews,” where the mystery is explained. “Look for the Zodiac director’s cut featuring footage not seen in theaters, including commentary by [everyone], an in depth examination of the Zodiac’s actual crimes including all new interviews with the original investigators, survivors and informants and extensive behind-the-scenes supplements covering nearly every aspect of the creation of David Fincher’s landmark film.”
Look where, under “audio set up?” No. “Coming 2008.”
Excuse me but what the fuck is that? It’s like activating your brand new iPhone only to find a text message announcing a 20GB model for $300 on sale next year.
I planned on using this space to find out if I was correct in predicting that a director’s cut of Zodiac would be “amazing—and intolerable.” I was eager to discover if certain qualities that made Zodiac so compelling on the big screen—such as the inventive high-def cinematography by Harris Savides, so crucial to the success of this digital meditation on analogue information processing—might grow ever richer on DVD. Plenty of critics have noted Zodiac’s affinity with classic 1970’s procedurals like All The President’s Men, but what about the kinship with network cop shows or the system-based narrative of The Wire? If there is a sense in which Zodiac addresses the fragmentation and isolation of the mass media audience, could it prove more resonant as an individual home viewing experience than a collective theatrical one?
Yet even this half-assed Zodiac got under my skin. Intentions were thwarted, questions unanswered. My quest goes unresolved but not abandoned, with hope held out for future revelations. Comes with the territory. |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
| dbl. post |
Last edited by mo_flixx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:54 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| The Village Voice editor should have caught the mistake and changed it to, ..."if I were correct..." I've noticed even in my local paper that it's filled with mistakes in grammar. No wonder sloppy language is so pervasive. Even the highly educated speak like they have never taken an English course. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Gary--That distinction has been fading away for years and years. The kind of nicety you favor brands you as a linguistic conservative. What, no problem with the same writer's "Excuse me but what the fuck...?" Well, whatever. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: What, no problem with the same writer's "Excuse me but what the fuck...?" Well, whatever.
Yeah, I guess there should be a comma after "Excuse me". 
The thing of it is that I was no whiz in English class. I couldn't pass a test today on grammatic terminology. Though my marks in English were better than most other subjects, that is saying very little. We had this huge dictionary in our house and they used to give examples of usage. When they would give examples of bad usage they used to refer to it as "inelegant". If the consensus is to excuse incorrect grammar as just how they say things now days, I say with emphasis that it is INELEGANT! If you want to sound like a hillbilly, so be it.
I'm a linguistic elegantist. As are you, Billy.
I am not averse to language changing if it is an improvement, but when it just goes backwards, I'm opposed. I have no problem with "ginormous", it's a :colourful descriptive new word, but "well' and "good" are not interchangeable. They mean different things. And there is no sense in saying "at this point in time". You can say "at this point" or "at this time" and you will be saying the same thing in a simpler way. Padding language is just bafflegab.
I'll always remember that cartoon in The New Yorker where an author is sitting across from his publisher, with a pained look on his face, as the publisher compliments him by say, "You write good." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: You can say "at this point" or "at this time" and you will be saying the same thing in a simpler way.
Better yet, how about simply "now"?
My own pet peeve of peeves is the almost-ubiquitous "between you and I." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I always think of the Randy Newman song so I get it right.
You and me, you and me babe.
You and me, you and me babe.
Randy knows the language. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:00 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: I just rented the DVD at Marc's competition and they're being nasty about it. I should have known better. Never, never again.
What was the problem?
If, and I am assuming, you rented the DVD and got it home and discovered it didn't have the extras you wanted, is that the store's problem? DVD packaging is very specific when it comes to extras included on the disc. Its a selling point.
If the store puts their DVDs on the shelf in cases that are not the original case that came with the DVD than that could be a problem. If the DVD is displayed in its original case than its not the store's responsibility to make sure the renter has read all the info on the case. In other words, buyer beware. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| I am sure the studio wanted to rush ZODIAC on DVD into stores because it didn't do well at the box office and they wanted to make some cash. Inserting extra footage, audio commentaries etc. take alot of time to put together. I understand the need to get ZODIAC on the shelves now. If adding the bells and whistles would delay its DVD release by another six months or so, I think the studio decided to get any version out now and let Fincher do his more elaborate version for later release. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jeremy |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:14 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
| I may be displaying my ignorance here, but I get the impression that versions of films intended for the rental market often come on extras light DVDs. |
_________________
I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: I may be displaying my ignorance here, but I get the impression that versions of films intended for the rental market often come on extras light DVDs.
DVDs for the rental market and the retail market are exactly the same. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jeremy |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:21 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
jeremy wrote: I may be displaying my ignorance here....
It seems that I was. |
_________________
I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:24 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
As I said in my other post in Couch, "CAVEAT EMPTOR" (Let the buyer beware).
Maybe it's picky, but sometimes wording about extras _is_ vague. Sometimes it's not easy to tell an _import_ from a domestic DVD. Also on occasion original cases have store stickers stuck over vital info. such as copyright year or running length.
At the same time, I do not think it's too much to ask the merchant to cut a loyal, longtime customer some slack. In this case, I phoned the store within 30 min. of renting the DVD. I have been one of their customers since they opened back in the '90's (10 to 15 years ago?). I returned the DVD in about an hour so that it could be available to another renter.
I appreciate that the owner did take care of the problem to my satisfaction. Good friendly service never fails to impress.
I've learned my lesson. Mea culpa. |
Last edited by mo_flixx on Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
Marc wrote: I am sure the studio wanted to rush ZODIAC on DVD into stores because it didn't do well at the box office and they wanted to make some cash. Inserting extra footage, audio commentaries etc. take alot of time to put together. I understand the need to get ZODIAC on the shelves now. If adding the bells and whistles would delay its DVD release by another six months or so, I think the studio decided to get any version out now and let Fincher do his more elaborate version for later release.
I figured that out after I read the quote from the critic. I get an A+ in Monday morning quarterbacking and a D- or an F in everything else.
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mo_flixx |
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:47 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 12533
|
I agree with everything billy and Gary have said.
"Time" is composed of _moments_. And yes, the phrase "at this _point_ in time" bugs me.
Today one appears linguistically challenged without a liberal peppering of 4-letter words.
And I know that this post belongs in some other FUCKING forum.
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
