emtiem said:Don't be pedantic and try to claim I was saying they're the same thing: they are, however, similar in so far as they are both instances in which a small amount of people have missed something.
Don't be a bald-face liar and claimed that's what I was claiming. The issue I raised was with the relevance of your comparison. The issue stands, as far as I'm concerned.
emtiem said:Exactly: in the UK version it's easy to perceive what's intended, just as with the US.
I would be curious to know how you'd intend to parse that gospel for the quite non-theoretical folks who perceived differently without coming across as patronizing or antagonistic.
emtiem said:You're right that editing is part of the filmmaking process, but just because it happens after the film is released in one market doesn't make it not acceptable.
It is at the very least a horse of a different color, and I don't think you'll have to look far to find fans who do consider it not acceptable.
emtiem said:What's this about, then? Unless you're being pedantic and think I wasn't conceiving the common sense reality that atmosphere and tension aren't something I'm including as qualities an audience need to follow.
It's "about" nothing more than responding to your point. "Easy to follow" suggests something very different to me than "difficult to misinterpret," and if you think of that as splitting hairs then get used to calling me a pedant.
emtiem said:What speculation about the US film are you saying I'm making?
I attributed the speculation to myself. Here is what I described as your judgment:
"I've seen both versions; they both do the same thing."
Evidently, this was true for you. Evidently, this was not true for other people. All I'm sayin'.. My entrance into this discussion was to ponder how I might have come away from Temple differently had the censored version been my first exposure. Your claim that both versions do the same thing does not reach the lofty heights of speculation - it's just wrong, because at this point we have no less than four people who've stated that the censored version gave them a different impression than the uncensored version.
emtiem said:Don't be so antagonistic and patronising. I don't want to continue with a conversation where you converse in such an unfriendly manner: there's no point to it.
Look, I like to think of myself as the sort of guy who doesn't take take the first shot. That said, there are some things sugar doesn't go on. I do not believe it's that hard to understand why you inspired me to get ugly, but perhaps in doing so I'm falling victim to that whole perception thing I've been on about. Let me just aks this: for what relevant and constructive purpose was there for invoking Spielberg's opinion on the matter? (And by the way, if you think there was even a hint of sarcasm in wanting you to produce the quote, you are wrong. The more points I have, the better the fascinating J curve that is Spielberg's regret for Temple of Doom will graph.)
emtiem said:Just accept that someone disagrees with you without having to pretend to be 'sorry' that you think you've 'confused' them. Being patronising won't make anyone want to talk to you.
There is a certain desperation to accusing me of being unable to accept someone else's opinion. The fact that it flies in the face of everything I've written in this thread might irritate me more if I wasn't so disarmed by the aggressive irony of that last sentence.
Montana Smith said:Good point - Indy usually puts forward the cautious, skeptical viewpoint. Yet, in this case, he's convinced.
And it's a key moment for that, hence my comparison to the ark-opening.
Last edited: