Mike Kaminski

The Kingdom of Heaven 191-minute directors cut is coming out soon. he studio made Scott chop a whole freaking hour out of the film for gods sakes--no wonder it was so uneven. Reports say that this proper directors cut version is easily one of his greatest accomplishments, up there with Blade Runner. Scott is my favourite director and i have been deliberately avoiding KOH for years now because i heard it was cut up so bad in the edit--now i will finally have a chance to see it.

I've actually had nightmares about this happening but luckily I've been spared this grief. Once in film school i loaded a roll slightly wonky and the edges got fogged; it was just film school and the footage was usable but I remember how that felt--i cant imagine what flashing a whole reel would feel like.

As far as i know the only way is to simply cool down the room and get the real thing. Other than that CG breath is the only option, or maybe as you suggested, comping in some.

Death and the Maiden. Brilliant film.

Sounds like it might be a back focus issue, but i dont think the dvx even has this option. It could simply be that the huge depth of field of the CCD keeps the BG and subject in the same amount of focus and the background appears sharper and more contrasty simply because it is hot, hence giving the illusion that the BG is sharper. Otherwise, I dont know.

An interesting choice to be sure. Personally I'm glad that some form of originality is being brought to a tired genre. The film looks like it will ignore all of that Revolution stuff that happened later in her life.

Takeshi Miike's work is always interesting, although i find him overrated. His films are good watches but generally not a whole lot to them, i find. The only exception is his film Audition, probably because the source material was a novel. This, I feel, is Miike's masterpiece, even if it has been greatly overhyped in recent years and its twist ending spoiled. Amazingly, Miike appears to have made a masterpiece in spite of himself--he seems completely unaware of the subtext and treats it as a straight exploitation flick. The film works great as a visceral psychological horror flick but on repeat viewings the brilliant freudian undertone becomes apparent and you realise that the film was not at all the film you thought it was (hint, the sleeping sequences are key). Its a brilliant freudian study of mans fear of women and marriage. I'm actually looking for some good contemporary Japanese drama that doesn't involve gore, cops and robbers or Yakuza but there sadly doesn't seem to be a lot. Kitano and Miike are good but I'm still searching for Japan's equivalent to China's Wong Kar Wai or Zhang Yimou.

I still think Jurrassic Park is one of the best examples of CGI. Its incredible how well that film has held up. The T-Rex attack the Raptor kitchen sequence are 100% believable. Usually the only time i know "okay this shot is CG" is because there is no way a puppet could be doing the motion or subtlety that is onscreen. The insertion of the animatronics went a long way too but most the time i am amazed that the CG looks identical to the puppets, and the puppets looked 100% real. What an achievement that film was.

Yes i am aware, but that has nothing to do with what i was discussing, which is that every religion says "we/I are/am right and everyone else is not," and that disobedience is not tolerated. And for the record, Judaism was intially polytheistic-- Marduk, the Elohim and Yahweh are all different gods of the ancient eras. Thats completely baseless. Because we have artistic achievements that is proof of god? How does that logic work? And by your train of thought you seem to be implying that my emotion comes from god as if he is pushing buttons "be sad now" "be happy now" as if we are some kind of puppet. Theres no reason to introduce god in the equation here. Emotion comes from various chemical balances in the brain. Why do certain images and moods evoke the same emotions in most people? Because all human brains are wired in a similar manner. Theres absolutely no rational logic progression to say that this is proof of a god or gods. You are simply starting with the conclusion that god exists and forcing it into natural phenomena that dont need this conclusion to be explained.

I think this all just demonstrates what i said earlier. Scientology is hardly unique. Any religion is inevitably frought with corruption and irrationality, whether or not you see it just depends on what side of the fence you are sitting on. And yeah, religion can help people too--it certainly seems that scientology has given Tom Cruise a purpose in his life. Scientology's stance on medicine can hardly be criticized by christians, whose religion has been the biggest obstacle in scientific advancement, and in fact STILL is. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other, but I think that perhaps christians themselves may be too close to their religion to objectively see how similar they all are in the fundamentals.

Lets apply this to christianity: If you dont believe in christianity, then yes. It sure does. "I am the one true god, thou shalt have no other gods but me." Followed by orders to slay the heathens who dont believe. Similarly, anything disobedient to god is a "sin" and thus punished by eternal damnation. This is the basis of every religion, including of course good ol christianity. Sure does, hence evangelical christians. The heathens must be saved from themselves by introducing the light of christ into their life or they will burn in hell. The giant palaces the Pope lives in werent built by god thats for sure. I sure havent seen any money from the church. I think people really have to stop deluding themselves that Scientology is a uniquely harmful cult. A cult is not defined by its deceptions or manipulation, its defined by numbers--religion on a small scale.

The excuse "anyone who uses christianity for bad purposes ie the crusades is not a true christian" is a huge cop out. The Bible clearly advocates the slaughter of "heathens" and portrays its heroic warlord leader Moses as cutting apart heathen babies and allowing his followers to take the virgin girls of enemy towns as trophies. Theres a reason why the clergy of the midieval times were able to use the bible to promote bloodshed and its because it is commanded in the bible, the existance of passages promoting harmony nonwithstanding. Although Scientology promotes several harmful and emotionally manipulative practices this is not unique to it at all, nor is its misunderstanding of science, which is a natural by product of belief in the supernatural. I mean i dont really need to get into creationism, geo-centric universes or flat-earths, and i shoudl remind you that there are societies which still believe in all of those things because the Bible explicitly states such things. So again, not to be picking on christians here, but there is nothing at all different about scientology and those who loath that religion should take a look at the fundamentals of their own (and any religion for that matter).

I dont think anyone can try to seriously claim that Scientology is more destructive than christianity. I mean when scientology is resposible for the systematic execution and torture of countless thousands plus many terrible, terrible wars I'll reconsider your statement. I mean the Inquisition, the Crusades--hello?? Ring a bell anyone? As for moneymaking, i think you are seriously naive if you think the church isnt designed to maximize profit. Their entire history is one of coinage and bloodshed. The actual figures have been supressed but the startliung figure is that the church brings in billions of dollars each year. If you think about it, Scientology is really the most harmless religion ever seen--hardly anyone even takes it seriously, they are like the clowns of the religious world. Really there is absolutely no difference at all between scientology and, say, christianity (sorry to keep singling out you guys, you just happen to be the most prominent group :P ), except that the man-made roots of scientology are easy to trace since its founder lived only a few decades ago and that he was a respected writer of imaginative fiction.

I think it just illuminates the inherant silliness of supernatural worship. All the world religions have been around for a long time so we all view them as being "proper" on the basis that they were here first but since Scientology is based on contemporary superstition and not some long-ago "mythological" ancient era it suddenly loses credibility. Personally I'm all for exposing the obvious-irrationality of ANY religious belief but i dont know if this forum is the proper place to be having this discussion. Anyway, point of the original post--evangelicanism is annoying, regardless of the sect they represent be it scientology or their sometimes-more-annoying competitors the christians. A guy in a suit carrying a pamphlet and a "holy book" is pretty much the same whether he is from the Church of Scientology or the Church of Latter Day Saints (and they are all annoying).

I view scientology as equal with christianity, islam, budhhism, etc. and i suppose this more objective view comes from the fact that i am an atheist. Its all the same. The REAL question that i have is why is the mocking of the obvious-ridiculousness of scientology beliefs accepted but considered bigoted when its judaism or islam? The only difference between a cult and a religion is numbers.