RE: The movie that shall not be named

RE: The movie that shall not be named (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/28/2017 8:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Song of the South It's interesting that this movie is approaching its 50th anniversary and, as such, will be subject to public domain laws. They may allow for it to see the light of day again. I've heard rumor that it may be re-released by Disney in order that it still be somewhat under their purview and control. I've wanted to see this movie again for years, as I think it a wonderful recitation of southern folk tales and song. I saw it in the theaters when I was young and loved it. Disney recognizes the quality of some of the mythos and ethos from the genre and naturally had to 'Disnify' it with the Brer Fox/Rabbit/Bear/Splash Mountain approach. [8\|] ETA: SOTS just had its 70th anniversary, not 50. Apparently Bob Eiger, the CEO of Disney hates the movie and has blunted all shareholder efforts to bring this fine film back. [:(] The stereotyping of the black people in the movie was probably why it was withdrawn from circulation, but I agree with what you say about folk tales and songs. The gent singing "Old Man River" had a great, deep voice but still hit the high notes. I also so the movie as a child and the impression I had of the black people was that they had dignity and honesty. I didn't understand slavery and prejudice back then but I knew the black folks were decent people in the movie. That made it OK by me. My understanding is that the film won two Oscars. One of them was the first Oscar won by an African-American man in any film. This film should be enshrined as a national treasure, not shunned at the capricious whim of a myopic CEO. [:@]

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/28/2017 8:51:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel Contemporary academic and social justice thinking is that it's racist to portray black characters in the role of slaves or laborers as happy or cheerful. They're right that slavery and Jim Crow life were basically miserable states of existence in which the people yearned for freedom or a fair chance, too often chaffing under mistreatment, inequality and an unequal opportunity for the "pursuit of happiness." But people are remarkable at finding ways to survive and sometimes thrive in adverse circumstance. There were slaves and Jim Crow-era blacks who enjoyed life. Some thrived. Sometimes black slaves, black tenant farmers, and black laborers had cordial and affectionate relationships with their white owners or neighbors. I think it would be fair to say that was perhaps startlingly common, while also acknowledging that far too often there was mistreatment and cruelty ("absolute power corrupts). Movies suggesting that white supremacy was beneficial or desirable would be detestable. Movies suggesting that blacks willingly embraced a subservient role (usually or all of the time) would be historically inaccurate and therefore detestable to we Forumites. Movies suggesting that it was possible for whites and blacks to get along, or for blacks to be at times happy or joyful and cordial with their white neighbors would be historically accurate. I haven't seen Song of the South in many years, but I didn't find it offensive at the time. Gone With the Wind does portray the slaves as mostly humble and cheerful in their servitude; that was possible though not universal, so the movie sees the South through rose-colored glasses, as told from the point of view of the privileged class. If the makers had wanted to present a more balanced view, they could've depicted slave auctions and whippings and whites fathering children by their slaves, which would be rape by any definition of the word. But the movie wasn't there to make a message or teach history; it was there to entertain through drama, and did a good job of it. It's not a perfect movie but those circumstances could have existed. Gettysburg was a nice balancing act that managed to do a lot of things rather seamlessly. I recognize that my views on these topics would be noxious to 75% of New York Timesand Washington Post readers. People see these things way differently. Well said. I think there are some aspects of your balanced point of view that 'slip past' the gatekeepers of political correctness as well. In 'Gods and Generals', I found the show production of the "Bonnie Blue Flag" at Jackson's camp to be-well-astonishing. Lyrically, that ballad is a glorious rendition of the joys of secession and catalogs each state's successive departure from the Union with the chorus. That Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star was found in South Carolina's secessionist flag as it left the Union and-arguably-in Texas' current flag. Why there wasn't an uproar about derivatives of this flag still flying high is beyond me. But it's not the Stars and Bars or the better known (and lesser used) Battle Flag, so I guess nobody in the know really cares about it. I think that's part of it though-people are so ignorant about history and historical relics that some of these can slip by without their knowledge or understanding. Meanwhile other equally poignant reminders of the times still fly high unassailed.

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/28/2017 8:52:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel The Forum is a remarkably learned and reasonable group, more interested in accuracy and history than polemics and open hostility to anyone that disagrees with them. Not me, snot face. [:'(] [;)]

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/28/2017 8:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel I haven't seen either Birth of a Nation and don't plan to. My children have seen the 1915 version and often talk about it in hushed voices, sort of like you'd talk about a nightmarish visit to a proctologist or a four-hour physics exam given by an instructor who failed miserably at teaching the course. Have you seen, "Triumph of the Will"? A magnificent spectacle with stirring cinematography, stage, spectacle and musical scores. Powerful film making. I intend to share it with my children and talk them through it as well.

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/28/2017 9:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stuman the direction, or perhaps one could say the lack thereof, kind of sucked. "Kind of"? We'll just have to agree to disagree. [:D]

Lovejoy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/28/2017 10:19:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy In 'Gods and Generals', I found the show production of the "Bonnie Blue Flag" at Jackson's camp to be-well-astonishing. Lyrically, that ballad is a glorious rendition of the joys of secession and catalogs each state's successive departure from the Union with the chorus. That Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star was found in South Carolina's secessionist flag as it left the Union and-arguably-in Texas' current flag. I really liked Gettysburg, and there are parts of Gods and Generals that are really good (I think the movie was hampered by the loss of Martin Sheen as Lee, Tom Berenger as Longstreet, and using Stephen Lang as Jackson considering that he played Pickett in Gettysburg. When you make a prequel, don't cast the same actor in a different role, as it just throws people). The one criticism that I will make about the movie is a dialogue between Jackson and his cook (a free black man) about slavery and fighting for the freedom of the south while having slavery (there's also the christian aspect of the fraternity of all men involved) . It wasn't so much that the movie tried to discuss the issue (which was fine), but the dialogue seemed rather awkward and forced (I did not think it was well written either), and it seemed like they were addressing the issue because they had to. If anyone wants to see an excellent use of the Bonnie Blue Flag, I'd suggest a movie made about the Hunley in 1999 with Armande Assante as Lt. Dixon and Donald Sutherland as Beauregard. Dixon gets a band to play it at a theater during a US Navy bombardment, by the end, the theatergoers are cheering defiantly and the shelling has stopped. A fantastic movie in my opinion, particularly as it was made for T.V (TNT). Say what you want about Ted Turner, but when he gets involved in the making of a historical movie, I allow a certain confidence.

Big B -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/28/2017 10:37:19 PM)
I agree with you, my only difficulty was/is that Stephen Lang did such a great job - in both roles .... I can't really picture anyone else doing Stonewall now either [X(] quote: ORIGINAL: Lovejoy ... I really liked Gettysburg, and there are parts of Gods and Generals that are really good (I think the movie was hampered by the loss of Martin Sheen as Lee, Tom Berenger as Longstreet, and using Stephen Lang as Jackson considering that he played Pickett in Gettysburg. .

bomccarthy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/29/2017 12:17:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel That's just the nature of the evolution of sensibilities but it makes Gettysburg an anachronism to be treasured forever. One day it'll be banned, like Song of the South is and like Gone With the Wind eventually will be. Song of the South is not banned � Disney has made a corporate decision that showing it in the U.S. market in its entirety would cause protests and boycotts that could financially impact Disney (and its shareholders). Disney has licensed Song of the South for distribution in other countries and regularly uses characters, scenes and songs from the movie in U.S. film and television productions, as well as in its theme parks. Song of the South was controversial from the day of its release in 1946, drawing negative commentary from mainstream African-American organizations (such as the NAACP) and film reviewers in media publications like the NY Times. Even Walt Disney understood that the subject matter could get him in trouble, so he hired a liberal Jewish screenwriter, Maurice Rapf, to work with the primary, and southern-born, writer Dalton Reymond to help ensure the movie didn�t reflect a �white southern slant�. According to Disney biographer Neal Gabler, Walt told Rapf ��I want you to work on it, because I know that you don't think I should make the movie. You're against Uncle Tomism, and you're a radical." (Neal Gabler, Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination) Rapf ended up in a personal dispute with Reymond and was taken off the project after seven weeks. Song of the South earned an Oscar for Best Song ("Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah") and the Academy gave James Baskett an Honorary Award for his portrayal of Uncle Remus. Disney and Baskett agreed that Baskett not attend the film�s opening in Atlanta because of the embarrassment that would have ensued � local laws in 1946 prohibited Baskett from attending opening festivities with whites.

bomccarthy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/29/2017 12:19:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn quote: Gettysburg I was told by some local reenactors that those from Texas packed up after a few days and went home. Too many things being thrown at them..... and other things floating around. Any comments on "nature of the evolution of Political sensibilities and modern perceptions of social justice and racism..." would take days to write and get me banned. Birth of A Nation(1915) VS Birth of A Nation(2016) Or just watch Animal Farm Political sensibilities have not changed as much as people think. Birth of a Nation was controversial when it was released in 1915 (D.W. Griffith�s original title was The Clansmen, after the Thomas Dixon book upon which it was based; Dixon persuaded Griffith to give the movie a grander title). I suppose the sense of change depends on where you sit. My grandfather spent the end of 1918 and beginning of 1919 recovering from his wounds in a Virginia military hospital. On Christmas Day, 1918, the local chapter(?) of the Daughters of the Confederacy treated the hospital�s patients to a Christmas dinner � except for the African-American, Jewish and Catholic soldiers. The Boston Irish environment in which my grandfather grew up was not exactly known for its �inclusiveness�, but that incident contributed to his distaste for the formalized nature of southern segregation. As a federal government attorney living in 1930s Washington D.C. (still a southern town in nature at that time), he was encouraged to join one of the local country clubs to help advance his career � he and my grandmother joined a Jewish-owned country club in Silver Spring, MD.

Alpha77 -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/29/2017 1:08:13 PM)
Gettyburgh - great (there is also a longer version I believe) - but God & Generals: meeeehhhh I wanna now watch the Indianapolis movie or at least a trailer. I did not note btw, in Thin Red Line a "modern frigate", can someone point me where it appears (or the poster saying it) [&:]

Yaab -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/29/2017 5:44:08 PM)
BLASPHEMY! "Gods&Generals" is ART (minus the fake beards, of course). General Burnside with his "Impregnable, irresistible FORCE!" speech prior to Fredericksburg battle, making Darth Vader look like an amateur Force user. An octogenarian John Bell Hood looking more like Gandalf's lost brother, sporting a white PTSD beard earned from stresses of 1862 campaign. General Hooker, with his aides-de-camp, probably female... oh wait, must have switched channels, nevermind. Anyway, a great, long, wordy flick. It is the "Tora!Tora!Tora!" of the Civil War, man.

Canoerebel -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 3:29:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 ...I did not note btw, in Thin Red Line a "modern frigate", can someone point me where it appears (or the poster saying it) [&:] Alpha, I took a screenshot from a YouTube snippet of Thin Red Line (the link is show at the top). That doesn't look like a frigate; more like a patrol boat. My memory of seeing that was nearly 20 years old when I typed my earlier entry. I had a mental picture of two American soldiers "frolicking" on the beach when (as I remembered it) a modern US Navy frigate rounded a point in a threatening manner. So my memory as incorrect, though I suspect that patrol boat is too modern for Guadalcanal '42. [image]local://upfiles/8143/FEF102229CCD4B80A5498C838777F5C3.jpg[/image]

stuman -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 4:05:45 AM)
quote: I wanna now watch the Indianapolis movie or at least a trailer. Don't do it to yourself. If you do, at least have several adult beverages handy.

warspite1 -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 9:53:59 AM)
I've never seen Song of the South so I cannot comment on the film itself. I saw a two-part film about Walt Disney a few months ago and they said that Disney was warned that he should not show the film the way he ultimately did (the allegation was that he ignored the advice that he himself sought - but there was no suggestion as to the reason he chose that path). I think it is a shame that it is not available - I would like to see it and make my own mind up - but from what I've heard I understand why Disney probably feel they just don't need the hassle that any such re-release would come with. As we know, many newspapers and social commentators would not be interested in the truth (whatever that is) but the chance to rake up accusations of this, that or the other (regardless of whether they have any basis in fact) means that Disney would be on to a sure fire loser.

BBfanboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 9:36:42 PM)
Controversy is good publicity. Both Disney and Howard Hughes knew that. People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about!

warspite1 -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 11:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Controversy is good publicity. Both Disney and Howard Hughes knew that. People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about! warspite1 Well this isn't about people going to see the movie - its about whether Disney will make it available for purchase on DVD once more. There is a saying isn't there, something like 'all publicity is good publicity'? But for Disney, with their brand built on good, solid, clean family entertainment, do they need to open themselves up for potential problems? Any decision to re-launch this film will, rightly or wrongly, give those who love to knock Disney a voice. I don't see that the limited extra revenue from sales of the film is worth opening up that can of worms. Disney have made a lot of effort to make the stories told more relevant (look at the difference in the 'Princesses' from Snow White to Rapunzel - e.g. being more diverse, more interesting and recognising that women do not exist just to find a man (without whom they cannot be complete)). Maybe the re-release of the film would be seen as a backward step? Maybe you are right and any such decision wouldn't have too adverse an effect - but maybe the thought process is 'why take that risk?'

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 11:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Controversy is good publicity. Both Disney and Howard Hughes knew that. People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about! warspite1 Well this isn't about people going to see the movie - its about whether Disney will make it available for purchase on DVD once more. There is a saying isn't there, something like 'all publicity is good publicity'? But for Disney, with their brand built on good, solid, clean family entertainment, do they need to open themselves up for potential problems? Any decision to re-launch this film will, rightly or wrongly, give those who love to knock Disney a voice. I don't see that the limited extra revenue from sales of the film is worth opening up that can of worms. Disney have made a lot of effort to make the stories told more relevant (look at the difference in the 'Princesses' from Snow White to Rapunzel - e.g. being more diverse, more interesting and recognising that women do not exist just to find a man (without whom they cannot be complete)). Maybe the re-release of the film would be seen as a backward step? Maybe you are right and any such decision wouldn't have too adverse an effect - but maybe the thought process is 'why take that risk?' Song of the South appeared in theaters for a re-release in 1986-its 40th anniversary. The re-release was also timed to drum up additional publicity for Splash Mountain-a new water ride opening at three of its parks. So Disney wasn't afraid to re-release it when it served good publicity for them. Unfortunately, 2017 is a different world than 1986 or-certainly 1946 regarding race sensitivities. Not necessarily a better world, but yes-Disney is looking at this from a corporate "why risk it?" mentality. According to Wiki, the movie was broadcast as recently as 2006 on BBC. Some of the American folks on chat rooms on the topic have copies of VHS tapes from the UK. So there is a bastion out there. Maybe see if you can get your hands on it locally?

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 11:23:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about! Did that sentiment get you to theaters to see The Great White North back in the day? [;)]

warspite1 -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 11:35:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Controversy is good publicity. Both Disney and Howard Hughes knew that. People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about! warspite1 Well this isn't about people going to see the movie - its about whether Disney will make it available for purchase on DVD once more. There is a saying isn't there, something like 'all publicity is good publicity'? But for Disney, with their brand built on good, solid, clean family entertainment, do they need to open themselves up for potential problems? Any decision to re-launch this film will, rightly or wrongly, give those who love to knock Disney a voice. I don't see that the limited extra revenue from sales of the film is worth opening up that can of worms. Disney have made a lot of effort to make the stories told more relevant (look at the difference in the 'Princesses' from Snow White to Rapunzel - e.g. being more diverse, more interesting and recognising that women do not exist just to find a man (without whom they cannot be complete)). Maybe the re-release of the film would be seen as a backward step? Maybe you are right and any such decision wouldn't have too adverse an effect - but maybe the thought process is 'why take that risk?' Song of the South appeared in theaters for a re-release in 1986-its 40th anniversary. The re-release was also timed to drum up additional publicity for Splash Mountain-a new water ride opening at three of its parks. So Disney wasn't afraid to re-release it when it served good publicity for them. Unfortunately, 2017 is a different world than 1986 or-certainly 1946 regarding race sensitivities. Not necessarily a better world, but yes-Disney is looking at this from a corporate "why risk it?" mentality. According to Wiki, the movie was broadcast as recently as 2006 on BBC. Some of the American folks on chat rooms on the topic have copies of VHS tapes from the UK. So there is a bastion out there. Maybe see if you can get your hands on it locally? warspite1 Yes, clearly the Disney executives are viewing such a decision through a 2017 lens so what they deemed acceptable previously does not necessarily hold any relevance now. Because the DVD is no longer on sale, locally means second hand, and I suspect second hand prices reflect the fact that it is no longer available. As said I would very much like to see it, but I am not going to pay over the odds for it - especially when there is so much good new product to buy [:)].

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (4/30/2017 11:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Controversy is good publicity. Both Disney and Howard Hughes knew that. People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about! warspite1 Well this isn't about people going to see the movie - its about whether Disney will make it available for purchase on DVD once more. There is a saying isn't there, something like 'all publicity is good publicity'? But for Disney, with their brand built on good, solid, clean family entertainment, do they need to open themselves up for potential problems? Any decision to re-launch this film will, rightly or wrongly, give those who love to knock Disney a voice. I don't see that the limited extra revenue from sales of the film is worth opening up that can of worms. Disney have made a lot of effort to make the stories told more relevant (look at the difference in the 'Princesses' from Snow White to Rapunzel - e.g. being more diverse, more interesting and recognising that women do not exist just to find a man (without whom they cannot be complete)). Maybe the re-release of the film would be seen as a backward step? Maybe you are right and any such decision wouldn't have too adverse an effect - but maybe the thought process is 'why take that risk?' Song of the South appeared in theaters for a re-release in 1986-its 40th anniversary. The re-release was also timed to drum up additional publicity for Splash Mountain-a new water ride opening at three of its parks. So Disney wasn't afraid to re-release it when it served good publicity for them. Unfortunately, 2017 is a different world than 1986 or-certainly 1946 regarding race sensitivities. Not necessarily a better world, but yes-Disney is looking at this from a corporate "why risk it?" mentality. According to Wiki, the movie was broadcast as recently as 2006 on BBC. Some of the American folks on chat rooms on the topic have copies of VHS tapes from the UK. So there is a bastion out there. Maybe see if you can get your hands on it locally? warspite1 Yes, clearly the Disney executives are viewing such a decision through a 2017 lens so what they deemed acceptable previously does not necessarily hold any relevance now. Because the DVD is no longer on sale, locally means second hand, and I suspect second hand prices reflect the fact that it is no longer available. As said I would very much like to see it, but I am not going to pay over the odds for it - especially when there is so much good new product to buy [:)]. Would you mind doing a little legwork to see what the going rate is for a compatible DVD or VHS there? A certain poultry-themed American online amigo of yours might want to work out some sort of deal with you. [:)]

AW1Steve -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/1/2017 12:30:54 AM)
Hey CB. Look into this. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01LWYA7YD/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/1/2017 1:45:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Hey CB. Look into this. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01LWYA7YD/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new I definitely will...thanks, Steve. [&o]

BBfanboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/1/2017 4:51:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about! Did that sentiment get you to theaters to see The Great White North back in the day? [;)] I don't have to go to the theatre to see that - I just look out the window!

warspite1 -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/1/2017 6:46:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Controversy is good publicity. Both Disney and Howard Hughes knew that. People will go to see the movie to see what all the fuss was about! warspite1 Well this isn't about people going to see the movie - its about whether Disney will make it available for purchase on DVD once more. There is a saying isn't there, something like 'all publicity is good publicity'? But for Disney, with their brand built on good, solid, clean family entertainment, do they need to open themselves up for potential problems? Any decision to re-launch this film will, rightly or wrongly, give those who love to knock Disney a voice. I don't see that the limited extra revenue from sales of the film is worth opening up that can of worms. Disney have made a lot of effort to make the stories told more relevant (look at the difference in the 'Princesses' from Snow White to Rapunzel - e.g. being more diverse, more interesting and recognising that women do not exist just to find a man (without whom they cannot be complete)). Maybe the re-release of the film would be seen as a backward step? Maybe you are right and any such decision wouldn't have too adverse an effect - but maybe the thought process is 'why take that risk?' Song of the South appeared in theaters for a re-release in 1986-its 40th anniversary. The re-release was also timed to drum up additional publicity for Splash Mountain-a new water ride opening at three of its parks. So Disney wasn't afraid to re-release it when it served good publicity for them. Unfortunately, 2017 is a different world than 1986 or-certainly 1946 regarding race sensitivities. Not necessarily a better world, but yes-Disney is looking at this from a corporate "why risk it?" mentality. According to Wiki, the movie was broadcast as recently as 2006 on BBC. Some of the American folks on chat rooms on the topic have copies of VHS tapes from the UK. So there is a bastion out there. Maybe see if you can get your hands on it locally? warspite1 Yes, clearly the Disney executives are viewing such a decision through a 2017 lens so what they deemed acceptable previously does not necessarily hold any relevance now. Because the DVD is no longer on sale, locally means second hand, and I suspect second hand prices reflect the fact that it is no longer available. As said I would very much like to see it, but I am not going to pay over the odds for it - especially when there is so much good new product to buy [:)]. Would you mind doing a little legwork to see what the going rate is for a compatible DVD or VHS there? A certain poultry-themed American online amigo of yours might want to work out some sort of deal with you. [:)] warspite1 I checked out Amazon and saw there was a VHS version for about �18. Then I read the reviews...... Basically beware, there are a lot of rip-off artists out there who appear to be selling versions pirate versions [&:]

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/1/2017 1:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Hey CB. Look into this. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01LWYA7YD/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new Update: The $22 version is not available, but a $38 was. Ordered same. Will see when it gets here what shape it's in and so forth.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/1/2017 8:27:14 PM)
The fake beards were brutal in Gettysburg and Gods & Generals. Could not get over them.

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/2/2017 12:53:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Basically beware, there are a lot of rip-off artists out there who appear to be selling versions pirate versions [&:] I hear you mate. Rest assured that any version for sale here is not official Disney product licensed for sale in the United States. The majority of the discs seem to be from your neck of the woods and are compatible with North American DVD players.

Yaab -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/3/2017 7:10:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk The fake beards were brutal in Gettysburg and Gods & Generals. Could not get over them. The should make a remake with CGI beards. In this age, I guess there is a technology capable of capturing men's facial hair corectly.

Chickenboy -> RE: The movie that shall not be named (5/14/2017 8:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Hey CB. Look into this. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B01LWYA7YD/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new Update: The $22 version is not available, but a $38 was. Ordered same. Will see when it gets here what shape it's in and so forth. Received the DVD and finished watching it. It's a serviceable copy and and a great movie. [8D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625