'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[HistoryProf]

It's easier for the rest of us to laugh it up and tell other people not to care how their culture is endlessly joked about in popular culture. This feels like such an obvious matter of perspective, but I guess most people who are always irate about whatever they label as "political correctness" will never get it.

I'm always amazed how the suggestion that you might want to consider the other guy's feelings always brings howls of "PC" (usually accompanied by misinterpretations of the 1st Amendment). The textbook example is, of course, the endless flap over the Confederate battle flag.

Good rule of thumb: Ask a member of the group being characterized if the characterization is offensive. If he says yes, it is.

I agree wholeheartedly. As someone who has worked with American Indians for many years, I can attest to the sad fact that they remain maligned as one of the last minorities it remains okay to stereotype in mind bogglingly ignorant and often vicious ways. If I had a dime for every bingo/casino/drunk joke i've heard after saying what I'd do, i'd be a rich man - never mind the Washington Redskins. What's interesting to me is how American Indians have themselves co-opted many of those stereotypes and put them front and center in their own sense of humor. Interestingly enough Showtime had a "Native American Comic" showcase a few months ago. It was great...and sad it took so long to happen. Almost all Native friends of mine have an incredibly dark sense of humor - bred from generations of suffering, genocide, and displacement. They joke all day long about Custer and poverty...but it's THEIRS.

Humor and Race are a tough cocktail to get right, especially today when you have so much latent racism in a society desperate to convince the world they no longer have a 'race problem.' That stupid list is part of that problem.

[HistoryProf]

I'm always amazed how the suggestion that you might want to consider the other guy's feelings always brings howls of "PC"

on a second reading, I want to address this though: I think PC is much more a product of non-minorities too often seeing offense in something that may NOT be offensive to the other. i.e. Whites policing whites without even consulting the supposedly offended group. I think the problem too often is nobody even CARES what they think! Politicians, the worst offenders, sure as hell don't give a shit about Indians, black folks, or any other minority - unless they can swing an election, in which case you'll see manufactured outrage over some perceived slight on the front page.

[Gregory]

...I think it's a stretch to call it the 5th most racist film in history.

...but he barely deigns to look beyond the 1980s for them! Do I sense a topic for a new list?

It seems to be a given that the list only covers the last few decade. Perhaps the authors felt that classic Hollywood was an entirely different context, and in some ways it was. For one thing, past eras were bad enough, and it's even more shameful that viewers (note I'm putting a lot of the onus there) so often unquestioningly swallow stereotypes while at the same time feeling smug about being part of such a racially enlightened era.
For another thing, it would almost be too "easy" to identify racism in classic Hollywood. It's worth doing if one is studying an entire cultural picture, but for just picking out examples like this list does, where would one begin and where would one end? (Disclaimer for what I'm about to say next: as anyone who knows me can attest, I'm a huge admirer of many qualities of classic Hollywood cinema at its best, which includes a lot of outrageously offensive baggage.) Indeed virtually every film of the classic Hollywood era is tainted by racism. Those that contain no characters (or even extras) of color thus suffer from the "invisibility" problem. The exception would be the minority in which it's totally plausible that all the characters would be white.
And in areas, such as portrayals of Arabs and Arab-Americans, in which we haven't progressed as a culture, one can examine examples all the way up to the present and it's the rule rather than the exception. Jack Shaheen has done this, looking at around a thousand films and finding very pronounced stereotypes and patterns. Still, people have tried to erode his argument by quibbling about his reading of this or that film, but his argument is an inductive one, so that's not how it works. The Complex.com article doesn't seem to have any kind of broader purpose the way Shaheen does. Going back to Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation probably would have made even more of a pointless feel-good article.

"exaggerated stereotypes" is a perfect description of what I was trying to say....which are far too simplistic to attack as racist imo.

I guess I would disagree. Most racist stereotypes are extremely simplistic, and yet in a void of almost total ignorance (such as regarding Native Americans, who were almost totally invisible before the 1970s) they can be successfully drummed into people's heads via simplistic stereotypes in western films and TV shows and end up shaping a culture's entire view of something vastly greater and more complex. The same kind of void made the effects of Long Duk Dong in Sixteen Candles more drastic: if white America's view of Asian immigrants (and Asian-Americans born here -- many people apparently don't know the difference between the two) had also been shaped by several prominent Asian-American actors in more realistic roles then it would have been harder to for so many people to have been stereotyped primarily with Long Duk Dong and things like that.

[triodelover]

I'm always amazed how the suggestion that you might want to consider the other guy's feelings always brings howls of "PC"

on a second reading, I want to address this though: I think PC is much more a product of non-minorities too often seeing offense in something that may NOT be offensive to the other. i.e. Whites policing whites without even consulting the supposedly offended group. I think the problem too often is nobody even CARES what they think! Politicians, the worst offenders, sure as hell don't give a shit about Indians, black folks, or any other minority - unless they can swing an election, in which case you'll see manufactured outrage over some perceived slight on the front page.

Maybe where you sit, but not here. As I said, the textbook example is the continued flap over the Confederate battle flag. Those who want to fly the flag on statehouse grounds or display it on their F-150s are the first to shout "PC" at those who suggest that some may find the flag offensive and a discomforting reminder of things they would like to forget. They dredge up "heritage" and the always reliable "states' rights" while protesting that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. And if that doesn't work, they just tell black folks they need "to get over it" 'cuz they ain't their great granddaddy. IME, it has always be those on the right who have resorted to the PC "defense" when someone objects to one of their utterances or ideas, but perhaps that's a function of where I live. We don't get a lot of the white wine and Volvo set around here. Most of the progessives I know are cut from the Molly Ivins mold.

[TMDaines]

I'm always amazed how the suggestion that you might want to consider the other guy's feelings always brings howls of "PC"

on a second reading, I want to address this though: I think PC is much more a product of non-minorities too often seeing offense in something that may NOT be offensive to the other. i.e. Whites policing whites without even consulting the supposedly offended group.

=D>

[swo17]

Politicians, the worst offenders, sure as hell don't give a shit about Indians, black folks, or any other minority - unless they can swing an election, in which case you'll see manufactured outrage over some perceived slight on the front page.

Isn't this statement sort of racist against politicians? I mean, that's the stereotype of them, but surely they're not all like that!

[HistoryProf]

Politicians, the worst offenders, sure as hell don't give a shit about Indians, black folks, or any other minority - unless they can swing an election, in which case you'll see manufactured outrage over some perceived slight on the front page.

Isn't this statement sort of racist against politicians? I mean, that's the stereotype of them, but surely they're not all like that!

oh come on now! We can't give politicians crap now?!??!

[HistoryProf]

I'm always amazed how the suggestion that you might want to consider the other guy's feelings always brings howls of "PC"

on a second reading, I want to address this though: I think PC is much more a product of non-minorities too often seeing offense in something that may NOT be offensive to the other. i.e. Whites policing whites without even consulting the supposedly offended group. I think the problem too often is nobody even CARES what they think! Politicians, the worst offenders, sure as hell don't give a shit about Indians, black folks, or any other minority - unless they can swing an election, in which case you'll see manufactured outrage over some perceived slight on the front page.

Maybe where you sit, but not here. As I said, the textbook example is the continued flap over the Confederate battle flag. Those who want to fly the flag on statehouse grounds or display it on their F-150s are the first to shout "PC" at those who suggest that some may find the flag offensive and a discomforting reminder of things they would like to forget. They dredge up "heritage" and the always reliable "states' rights" while protesting that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. And if that doesn't work, they just tell black folks they need "to get over it" 'cuz they ain't their great granddaddy. IME, it has always be those on the right who have resorted to the PC "defense" when someone objects to one of their utterances or ideas, but perhaps that's a function of where I live. We don't get a lot of the white wine and Volvo set around here. Most of the progessives I know are cut from the Molly Ivins mold.

I see what you're saying...I guess I consider that to be a different animal: The empty headed right wing "REVERSE RACISM" bullshit that gets screamed every time a white guy feels persecuted. I don't know that I'd call that "PC"...but now we're just talking semantics from essentially the same viewpoint. But that also may be my position as a northerner who just spent three weeks discussing slavery and the Civil War and convincing 18 year old yanks that you didn't have to live below the Mason Dixon line to not like black people in the 19th century - a fact that often seems to amaze them.

[triodelover]

on a second reading, I want to address this though: I think PC is much more a product of non-minorities too often seeing offense in something that may NOT be offensive to the other. i.e. Whites policing whites without even consulting the supposedly offended group. I think the problem too often is nobody even CARES what they think! Politicians, the worst offenders, sure as hell don't give a shit about Indians, black folks, or any other minority - unless they can swing an election, in which case you'll see manufactured outrage over some perceived slight on the front page.

Maybe where you sit, but not here. As I said, the textbook example is the continued flap over the Confederate battle flag. Those who want to fly the flag on statehouse grounds or display it on their F-150s are the first to shout "PC" at those who suggest that some may find the flag offensive and a discomforting reminder of things they would like to forget. They dredge up "heritage" and the always reliable "states' rights" while protesting that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated. And if that doesn't work, they just tell black folks they need "to get over it" 'cuz they ain't their great granddaddy. IME, it has always be those on the right who have resorted to the PC "defense" when someone objects to one of their utterances or ideas, but perhaps that's a function of where I live. We don't get a lot of the white wine and Volvo set around here. Most of the progessives I know are cut from the Molly Ivins mold.

I see what you're saying...I guess I consider that to be a different animal: The empty headed right wing "REVERSE RACISM" bullshit that gets screamed every time a white guy feels persecuted. I don't know that I'd call that "PC"...but now we're just talking semantics from essentially the same viewpoint. But that also may be my position as a northerner who just spent three weeks discussing slavery and the Civil War and convincing 18 year old yanks that you didn't have to live below the Mason Dixon line to not like black people in the 19th century - a fact that often seems to amaze them.

First I need to backtrack a tad and say I agree with you about politicians and their headline grabbin'. We are talking semantics. What I'm saying is these folks shout "PC police" every time their ox is gored. I think the folks you were talking about take their stand about (choose your favorite potentially offended group) because they don't know any members of (the potentially offended group) except for those who take care of their lawns once a week. Limousine liberals, we used to call 'em.

As for your students, they are only responding to a media narrative that has existed for half a century or more. To wit, racism is a "Southern" phenomenon. To be sure, we earned our reputation the old fashioned way, but I grow tired of a lazy media apparatus that seeks only to find those that fit their preconceived narrative. For them, any story about politics/voting in the South means you find Bible-thumping, gun carrying white folks that hate the gummint messin' around in their lives and love both the Old South and the military because that's what Southern whites are. They are Republican and "conservative" and, so the message goes, any Democrat/progressive/liberal ignores their righteous anger at his/her peril. We are a center-right nation because the media - and not just the sycophants at Fox - keep telling us we are. If you need a "liberal" balance, you talk to poor black Southerners (since there aren't any other kind even though the last census showed a "reverse migration" among African-Americans due to better living conditions and better jobs) because they always vote for Democrats to keep their welfare checks coming.

BTW, you need to update this: "you didn't have to live below the Mason Dixon line to not like black people in the 19th century". That's true for the 20th century and, at least to date, for the 21st. We've come a long way. We've got a long way to go.

[HistoryProf]

BTW, you need to update this: "you didn't have to live below the Mason Dixon line to not like black people in the 19th century". That's true for the 20th century and, at least to date, for the 21st. We've come a long way. We've got a long way to go.

two thumbs up to your entire post: as for that last bit, don't I know it! They'll get that after spring break though..I was merely talking about disabusing them of the notion that the Civil War was some crusade to end slavery and the posthumous revisionism that cast Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" - the latter being a shame as it obscures his otherwise tireless efforts to keep the Union together. But next they get to learn about neat things like restrictive covenants in housing deeds that make/made it illegal to sell a home to a black family, the rise of the 2nd Klan in Indiana/the Midwest in the 1920s in response to the "Great Migration" of millions of southern blacks north, race riots everywhere in response to said "threat", etc etc etc. The "We've got a long way to go" part is my mantra...and what frustrates me is the delusional assertion that electing Obama proves we've evolved past it.

I apologize for misspeaking in my original posts on the topic last night...it was late, I just finished dealing with midterms, and I was ornery...and I have a bad habit of posting emotional responses that never translate properly when I should be sleeping. And doubly apologize for derailing this awesomely hilarious - yet frequently depressing - thread!

[triodelover]

BTW, you need to update this: "you didn't have to live below the Mason Dixon line to not like black people in the 19th century". That's true for the 20th century and, at least to date, for the 21st. We've come a long way. We've got a long way to go.

two thumbs up to your entire post: as for that last bit, don't I know it! They'll get that after spring break though..I was merely talking about disabusing them of the notion that the Civil War was some crusade to end slavery and the posthumous revisionism that cast Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" - the latter being a shame as it obscures his otherwise tireless efforts to keep the Union together. But next they get to learn about neat things like restrictive covenants in housing deeds that make/made it illegal to sell a home to a black family, the rise of the 2nd Klan in Indiana/the Midwest in the 1920s in response to the "Great Migration" of millions of southern blacks north, race riots everywhere in response to said "threat", etc etc etc. The "We've got a long way to go" part is my mantra...and what frustrates me is the delusional assertion that electing Obama proves we've evolved past it.

I apologize for misspeaking in my original posts on the topic last night...it was late, I just finished dealing with midterms, and I was ornery...and I have a bad habit of posting emotional responses that never translate properly when I should be sleeping. And doubly apologize for derailing this awesomely hilarious - yet frequently depressing - thread!

No apology required. I assumed we were on the same page but using different words to describe it. If I was.. well, defensive or combative, it comes from a lifetime of alternating between being ashamed of my heritage and taking pride in the positive contributions all Southerners have made to the national fabric of who we are. It's the conundrum of the self-loathing (fill in the blank).

It's very painful to watch folks vote against their own interests because some demagogue has used, as Howard Dean famously said, "God, guns and gays" to convince them the folks at the country club are better suited to help them than people who share their burdens but don't look or live like them. The really sad thing is that most of these folks are good people down on the ground. If Adam and Steve live next door and keep up their place, they are fine with that and will be the first in line to help if their neighbors need it. They would say that what they do in their own home is their business and neighbors help neighbors. Yet let some ambitious politician harangue them about family values and God's intent and all of a sudden, Adam and Steve have become a threat to life as we know it. It's the confluence of good intentions and ignorance. It's really frustrating.

[HistoryProf]

BTW, you need to update this: "you didn't have to live below the Mason Dixon line to not like black people in the 19th century". That's true for the 20th century and, at least to date, for the 21st. We've come a long way. We've got a long way to go.

two thumbs up to your entire post: as for that last bit, don't I know it! They'll get that after spring break though..I was merely talking about disabusing them of the notion that the Civil War was some crusade to end slavery and the posthumous revisionism that cast Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" - the latter being a shame as it obscures his otherwise tireless efforts to keep the Union together. But next they get to learn about neat things like restrictive covenants in housing deeds that make/made it illegal to sell a home to a black family, the rise of the 2nd Klan in Indiana/the Midwest in the 1920s in response to the "Great Migration" of millions of southern blacks north, race riots everywhere in response to said "threat", etc etc etc. The "We've got a long way to go" part is my mantra...and what frustrates me is the delusional assertion that electing Obama proves we've evolved past it.

I apologize for misspeaking in my original posts on the topic last night...it was late, I just finished dealing with midterms, and I was ornery...and I have a bad habit of posting emotional responses that never translate properly when I should be sleeping. And doubly apologize for derailing this awesomely hilarious - yet frequently depressing - thread!

No apology required. I assumed we were on the same page but using different words to describe it. If I was.. well, defensive or combative, it comes from a lifetime of alternating between being ashamed of my heritage and taking pride in the positive contributions all Southerners have made to the national fabric of who we are. It's the conundrum of the self-loathing (fill in the blank).

It's very painful to watch folks vote against their own interests because some demagogue has used, as Howard Dean famously said, "God, guns and gays" to convince them the folks at the country club are better suited to help them than people who share their burdens but don't look or live like them. The really sad thing is that most of these folks are good people down on the ground. If Adam and Steve live next door and keep up their place, they are fine with that and will be the first in line to help if their neighbors need it. They would say that what they do in their own home is their business and neighbors help neighbors. Yet let some ambitious politician harangue them about family values and God's intent and all of a sudden, Adam and Steve have become a threat to life as we know it. It's the confluence of good intentions and ignorance. It's really frustrating.

The scary thing about the debate over Gay Marriage/rights is the eerie similarity to Loving v. VA - the Supreme Court ruling from the 60s that declared unconstitutional all laws banning "miscegenation" (that ugly word for interracial relationships invented by the South during the Civil War). I don't understand why it's so hard to understand Gay rights AS Civil Rights...same difference, and you'd think southerners in particular would recognize the similarities. Though perhaps that's the problem...I don't know. It's sad seeing demagoguery becoming the norm in America, while Democrats do nothing to counter it...their spinelessness is often as offensive as right wing religious agitprop. It's become PC Police vs. the God Squad, and nothing gets done in the middle while we all suffer the consequences. What's scary is how easily otherwise decent folks can fall for the rhetoric and, as you said perfectly, vote against their own interests. I watch (not literally) Glenn Beck with detached bemusement, because to take it seriously becomes truly frightening: Hence my deepening cynicism I guess.

I never realized how apropos my avatar was until this discussion though

[triodelover]

The scary thing about the debate over Gay Marriage/rights is the eerie similarity to Loving v. VA - the Supreme Court ruling from the 60s that declared unconstitutional all laws banning "miscegenation" (that ugly word for interracial relationships invented by the South during the Civil War). I don't understand why it's so hard to understand Gay rights AS Civil Rights...same difference, and you'd think southerners in particular would recognize the similarities.

Well, LBGT rights are having trouble in a lot of places outside the South. But there's still a huge mistrust of anything associated with the federal government down here. Which is funny since the South benefits from federal dollars disproportionately to the tax dollars they send to Washington. No area supports the military more and many areas in the South would be truly depressed without the military installations that are responsible for their economic survival. Yet for large portions of the white South, the government in Washington is the devil. So if the Feds are seen to be pushing something, it needs to be resisted.

If there is good news in this, most of the folks that hold onto these ancient resentments are dying off. Younger people - those under 40 - are like younger people elsewhere, by and large. They've grown up in a multiracial, multicultural environment. They've had gay friends in high school (and many are gay themselves). I'm always encouraged when Prom time rolls around because I see the photos of the couples in the local paper and it's impossible to avoid noting the range of diversity that certainly didn't exist when my Prom came around. if you add to that that fact that even the older hardliners are being diluted by transplants from other places who have either found the area a better place to work or have retired here, a lot of this nonsense is going to go away sooner, rather than later.

It's sad seeing demagoguery becoming the norm in America, while Democrats do nothing to counter it...their spinelessness is often as offensive as right wing religious agitprop. It's become PC Police vs. the God Squad, and nothing gets done in the middle while we all suffer the consequences. What's scary is how easily otherwise decent folks can fall for the rhetoric and, as you said perfectly, vote against their own interests. I watch (not literally) Glenn Beck with detached bemusement, because to take it seriously becomes truly frightening: Hence my deepening cynicism I guess.

The flipside of my enthusiasm for our youth above is that they still haven't coalesced into a voting force. The demagoguery continues as politicians appeal to the reliable voting demographic which skews considerably older. The Republican party has little choice. They can't win without their base and their base is old, white and dying. But they can't broaden their appeal without alienating that base, so they are caught in a Catch-22 that may ultimately be their undoing. But to make that happen the youth turnout of 2008 - particularly in urban areas - has to be more than a one-time phenomenon. As for the Democrats...what can you say. As a party they are like a deer in the headlights. So afraid that they might offend somebody (and hurt their poll numbers) that they can't do anything for anybody. if I never hear the word bipartisan again it will be too soon.

[HistoryProf]

The flipside of my enthusiasm for our youth above is that they still haven't coalesced into a voting force.

I don't know what the answer is to this, but I even see the self-questioning in their faces when they see footage from the late 60s - especially the spiral of '68 from Tet to MLK to RFK to Chicago - and the genuine feeling that a revolution was coming. I directly challenge them to do the same - for ANYTHING...I don't care what cause, just PARTICIPATE. Right, left, libertarian, I don't give a shit....just get off your ass and do something. I hear lots of vague indignation over Iraq, but few of them can actually explain what they don't like about it. It's like they know they are supposed to so they do with no real emotion behind it. That lack of passion = ennui. Christ, some of them can't find Iraq on a map!

If I can say anything positive about the anti-gay marriage crowd, at least they know how to rally the troops and mobilize for action. The general apathy of young people who quite obviously disagree with them, however, is very disconcerting.

[HistoryProf]

man...this got completely derailed! someone post some depressing movie reviews, quick!

[Jeff]

man...this got completely derailed! someone post some depressing movie reviews, quick!

How about this take on The Hurt Locker at Amazon, from someone who has seen all war movies.

What an absolute piece of C--P!

The worst war movie I have ever seen, and I have seen them ALL.

The dialogue is lame, everything is lame about this movie.

Now I know why the true (awesome) veterans of the Iraq War think this movie S-cks!

Avatar, despite the tree hugging BS, is lightyears ahead of this stinking tripe.

Yet it is almost certain to sweep the Oscars, because Hollywood is That Far Away from reality now...

Very Sad Stuff.

[Tuco]

I posted this on the Shutter Island forum. This is part of the review from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"Scorsese is a psychologically astute filmmaker. In "Taxi Driver" and "Cape Fear" he opened a trap door in the civilized forebrain and threw a bucket of bloody meat to the hungry crocodiles writhing in the sewer below."

[HistoryProf]

this was previously posted in the 1900/Conformist thread, but it belongs here for it's utter ridiculousness:

The American DVD of Tokyo Story was released by The Criterion Collection on a two disk version and the print of the film on Disk One was in very disappointing quality, with streaks, murky grays and too light whites. Criterion usually does far better work than this. It is especially annoying when trying to read the white subtitles against the blanched and bleeding backgrounds. Are gold subtitles too much to ask, especially when there is no English language dubbed track to satisfy real film connoisseurs who appreciate the visual aspects of the medium?

Never mind referring to those piss yellow subs as "gold" - hilarious in its own right - but claiming "real film connoisseurs" require their foreign films to be dubbed so they can enjoy the images is about the most ludicrously condescending bit of criticism i've ever heard. Dan Schneider should have had his dvd review powers revoked immediately after writing that! The combination of ignorance and hubris is truly astonishing.

[TMDaines]

That's a good find.

[Lemmy Caution]

While I agree with your post and smack-down, many other countries do dub films, and there's an art/skill to it. There are a host of foreign films where I would like to have had an English dub option as well as Eng. subtitles, assuming the dub was well done. I don't think it's ludicrous though, as dubbing does allow you to pay greater attention to a film's visual dynamics compared to reading the bottom of the frame, which is what I believe the pompous poster was trying to convey. I also understand that dubbing has never been much accepted in the US, except for perhaps animation.

Those ugly yellow subs might indeed look better if they were gold, or perhaps a copper color. I think the vitamin-piss-yellow is considered easy-to-read for the visually impaired -- at least I've seen it presented that way on Dvd back-covers. I'm surprised that some technicians/studios don't test out other colors. I'm happy with well-conceived white subs (with bordering), and simply turn the color off for those b&w films with inexplicable yellow subs. But shouldn't there be blue subs for the Na'vi (however that's spelled)? Shouldn't Avatar have blue subs?

Veering off-course, I just had a mildly frustrating sub-title experience last night with A Prophet. When the characters spoke Italian, the French subs were burned onto the film. For one line of dialogue, the English would simply appear below. Fine. But for two lines of French subtitling it was essentially "double-spaced" and the two-line English subs would appear with the first line in between the French and the second line below, so I'd be trying to read every other line, the 2nd and 4th, of "single-spaced" alternating dual languages. Not sure if dubbing would have helped, but I guess I could have done with one set of colored subs.
Okay, this is at best marginally semi-related to the original post, but I would be interested to know how this was properly handled on the US Dvd of A Prophet (is it even out yet?).

[Zot!]

Prophet is just playing theaters now in the US.

[tenia]

While I agree with your post and smack-down, many other countries do dub films, and there's an art/skill to it. There are a host of foreign films where I would like to have had an English dub option as well as Eng. subtitles, assuming the dub was well done. I don't think it's ludicrous though, as dubbing does allow you to pay greater attention to a film's visual dynamics compared to reading the bottom of the frame, which is what I believe the pompous poster was trying to convey. I also understand that dubbing has never been much accepted in the US, except for perhaps animation.

I remember of French dub done during the 60s and 70s (and some from the 80s) which are absolutely splendid. There were at the time a real implication of the dubbers, making me still watching the movies in French, like Superman, Die Hard or Indiana Jones.
It may seem to be blasphematory, but there is also some nostalgy attached to these special dubbing.

[knives]

Not blasphemy at all. I still watch the old Godzilla dubs from time to time. There's something real enjoyable to the insanity of some of these that aren't present in the original dialouge.

[tenia]

this was previously posted in the 1900/Conformist thread, but it belongs here for it's utter ridiculousness:

The American DVD of Tokyo Story was released by The Criterion Collection on a two disk version and the print of the film on Disk One was in very disappointing quality, with streaks, murky grays and too light whites. Criterion usually does far better work than this. It is especially annoying when trying to read the white subtitles against the blanched and bleeding backgrounds. Are gold subtitles too much to ask, especially when there is no English language dubbed track to satisfy real film connoisseurs who appreciate the visual aspects of the medium?

Never mind referring to those piss yellow subs as "gold" - hilarious in its own right - but claiming "real film connoisseurs" require their foreign films to be dubbed so they can enjoy the images is about the most ludicrously condescending bit of criticism i've ever heard. Dan Schneider should have had his dvd review powers revoked immediately after writing that! The combination of ignorance and hubris is truly astonishing.

But he is kind of right when arguing about the white subs on white-ish bleached backgrounds, though.

[HistoryProf]

No, he's not. That's why they invented text with black outlines.