20254, RE: okaaaaaaaay|
Posted by handle, Sat Jan-20-01 10:04 AM
>Speaking of ignorance...
>Since you obviously know nothing about
>me or what I know,
>you should be last person
>giving a lecture on ignorance.
That's just the POINT. No one knows who you are. So how can we trust your opinion?
Now, since we are all open minded individuals on this board we WOULD give you the benefit of the doubt, IF YOU HAD SEEN THE MOVIE.
>Now, having said that, and also
>admitting that I haven't seen
>the movie, there is enough
>in the article - and
>the several other articles posted
>all over the internet, for
>anyone who cares to search
>- to get the sense
>that "legal issues" are probably
>the least likely reason for
>not allowing the film to
>be shown. Artisan has threatened
>legal action IF the film
>is shown. Aside from being
>barred by the distrubutor, there
>can be no other legal
>issues involved. What, you think
>Marc Levin hijacked the film
>a la "Burn Hollywood Burn"
>and tried to show it?
>You think that if there
>was some contractual obligation to
>premiere the film somewhere else
>or at a later time,
>they wouldn't have just mentioned
Maybe, maybe not. You admit not knowing the answer to the question, so it's just SPECULATION. Specualtion can get you burned. Ask an oil man.
>Furthermore, I have it from more
>than one source that the
>film blows. Of course, that
>is just a matter of
>opinion(s). Just as there are
>some people out there who
>thought "Belly" was a good
>movie, some might think this
>film is good too.
You have to NAME SOURCES for their opinions to be considered valid. For all I know your source is Jeffrey Lyons or Micheal Medved, who dislike the films due to it not being "Christian" enough. I have no idea who your sources are, and I have no idea who you are, so why would I trust what your friends say?
>Incidentally, I know more than a
>few things about the movie
>business, as well as film
>festivals, having been in and
>around this business for close
>to a decade. Not to
>say I know everything. I'm
>not even saying that I'm
>100% right. But all indicators
>point to the distributor getting
>cold feet. Feel free to
>speculate on why that is,
>but legal issues don't lead
>to cold feet.
Again, you have to PROVE CREDIBILITY before your opions about A FILM YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN are given CREDENCE. For all I know you are a cock fluffer and attend movie festivals to provide blowjobs for the patrons. I have no idea, you have provided no frame of refrence. You could be a Tom Cruise Stalker and attend the festivals in hopes of seeing his ass. I have no idea. Back it up with examples.
>In any event, regardless of the
>real reason Artisan blocked the
>showing, I am sure the
>film will be critically panned
>once it finally reaches an
>audience. You may not put
>much credence in the words
>of, um, pundits. You may
>even like the movie. But
>the I stand by my
>prediction: the movie is garbage.
Your predictions have as much sway as a National Enquirer psychic.
And ANY CREDIBLE critic or pundit would reserve judgement on the film until he has seen it, or AT LEAST until sources that he can CITE have made public their opinions.
And NO CREDIBLE person would call a film THEY HAVEN'T SEEN GARBAGE. The magic Eight Ball would say that "The Outllok doesn't look Good" at least.
>Now, if you simply want to
>figure out which of us
>can find the most inventive
>ways to call the other
>ignorant or stupid, go ahead.
>I have a thesaurus too
>- we can play that
>game until they delete us.
Why not call me garbage? It's your favorite word.
>Otherwise, I dare you to post
>an intelligent reply.
Again, you have NO CREDIBILITY. My name is Tom Hayes and I'll stand behind my shit. A lot of people know me here, and I CAN provide refrencees if needed.
A review of your posts: Because I have READ and SEEN your post my review is : Red is full of garbage.