Based on the input of others willing to open that link (I’m not), I had no problem accepting their interpretation. I remember a flash of white too but my memory isn’t photographic enough to recall whether the short scene was continuous or yet another sequence of intermittent takes including a darker, up the dress view. What, you were offended we didn’t come back to verbally castigate ourselves over an item of such huge importance?
My “pantyless” comment was in reference to this… “whether it was planned beforehand or caught on camera and kept in in editing” in the OP itself.
No matter, I didn’t see it as anything other than the insanely trivial detail it was, just like the ubiquitous others shared daily on this board that civil folk somehow find the resolve to discuss without childish attempts at belittlement that add nothing to the conversation.
Your extrapolation to eyewitness testimony is reasonable enough. What you thought you were adding later is beyond me though.
I’ll confess– having been told about the shot beforehand, I was looking for it. And it definitely looked like waxed/shaved vulva (like any woman with a hand mirror, I know what a vagina looks like. Not that that’s what you’d see on a panty-less woman). I can’t open the pic in the link to verify, but admit that I could be wrong and she could have been wearing flesh-colored underwear. In which case my OP… still stands. It’s not as if focusing on her panties made it that much better. I wonder what the actress tells people. ‘Remember me? I was the hotel worker who got assaulted and then you saw my crotch for a bit before I disappeared.’
Was just reading a theory that she was wearing panties and that the shot was included to show she hadn’t been raped. I guess that makes sense, if it’s true, though it could have been shot in a way that made it more obvious and less offensive (like, hey, her skirt’s off but her non-nude panties are obviously on. And maybe some shots above the waist) in which case I suppose the ‘token would-be rape’ scene is just another victim of Forster’s shitty directing.
Could either one of you please point out where, exactly, lieu was adamant about anything? He said he noticed it, then immediately forgot about it. Is that what constitutes adamant these days?
It certainly looked like a naked crotch to me in the theater (I wasn’t aware of it going in). I don’t think the linked photos are proof positive that she was panty-clad (image quality is too low), but I’ll grant they *suggest *panties.
Regardless, the way the shot was filmed certainly made it appear that she was bare, whether or not that was actually the case.
No, but I certainly didn’t expect someone to come in and say, “How dare you be mean to me!” I really expected silence from the four I called out, or at worst a quick, “Huh. I stand corrected.” It seems very… er, Bush-administrationy to get upset at the way someone calls you on your wrongness, while completely overlooking the fact that you were indeed wrong.
How does that matter? There was no pantylessness. You might as well have invoked leprechauns in reference to the OP. It would have been just as relevant.
No, it’s not beyond you. You initially, correctly identified it as snark. Why you feel the need to continue whining about getting your nose tweaked is beyond me.
You were being a bit of a jerk by implying that those who saw bare flesh either have bad eyesight or don’t know what a vagina looks like. If you don’t want people complaining about the tone of your posts, then don’t insult them for what was, at worst, an honest and very common mistake.
ETA: It wasn’t a huge transgression, and there are plenty of places online where that level of snark wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow. This isn’t one of them, though.
Well to be fair, people were saying “brief-but-clear shot” and “most definitely a beaver shot”, so they were proclaiming with a a certain amount of authority they did not have.
Right, so talking about a certain level of innate fallibility or the unreliability of eyewitnesses is both on target and fair game. However, he then went on to ascribe the apparent mistake to a fault or defect of the specific eyewitnesses, which both undercuts his first point and is likely to cause some offense.
Well… wasn’t it a fault or defect of the specific eyewitnesses? They were all quite certain that they saw a bare crotch. There was no bare crotch. Does not compute. There has to be a fault or defect somewhere!
To me, the biggest fault isn’t that they saw something that wasn’t there – shit happens. The biggest fault is that they posted with conviction and certainty, despite the fact that (a) it was a brief, brief flash in (b) a movie laden with quick cuts and (c) in a fricking Bond movie, PG-13, which has always stopped at innuendo! There were no examples of, “It looked like a vagina to me,” or “I thought I saw a crotch.” Nope, just certitude and exactness.
Really, if someone posted “I saw Bigfoot in Manhattan” (which would be as inexplicable as a naked crotch in the PG-13, innuendo-only Bond franchise) and then three other people came in and said, “Yup, definitely, no doubt” – no mockery would be called for when someone else showed a picture of a guy getting dressed up as Bigfoot in Times Square?
No, not of the type you were suggesting. I take it you haven’t seen the movie, so let me assure that the split-second shot of moving crotch that flashed across the screen truly looked like bare-flesh in real-time. Anyone could make that mistake, even someone with superb vision who’s up to his eyeballs in pussy.
Yes, that was the mistake, and pointing it out is fine. You just stepped over the line slightly.
Also note that context plays a huge role here. Had this thread occurred at another, much more sarcastic message board which I frequent, then I’d say that your post was S.O.P. and that **lieu **was being a whiny bitch. Because it happened here, however, you were being unnecessarily caustic, and **lieu **was voicing a legitimate gripe. To exaggerate somewhat, it’s the difference between behaving a certain way at either Buckingham Palace or Yankee Stadium. You’re shouting and clapping at the top of your lungs and someone complains – in one venue you’re being justly reprimanded, while in the other, you’re being harassed by a stuck-up whiner. In this particular forum, you’re expected to err on the side of civility – specifically, you’re expected not to be sarcastically dismissive of other people who are participating in the thread.
Anyway, I’m really not trying to get on your case about it, because it’s a very small deal. I’m mostly trying to defend **lieu **from charges of whiny-bitchdom.
I’ll ask it one more time, since nobody has taken me up on my earlier offer:
Where did lieu show any kind of conviction? Where was he adamant?
On another note, when are you going to stop digging and realize that lieu isn’t the one acting entirely inappropriate? Of the two of you, I have my own guesses as to which one has never seen a vagina.
Actually, I did see the movie. To my recollection, it looked like – wait for it – an upskirt shot. That is, a tantalizing shot showing some leg and then deepening into perhaps but not definitely penetrable shadows. Based on what I saw, I wouldn’t be able to say for certain whether she was debriefed, but putting it in the context of a PG-13 Bond movie, I would have said something like, “If you were to use high-resolution satellite imagery to enhance the image, I bet it’d show that she’s not bare crotched.”
Granted, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. What I am disputing is the certainty evinced by those saying that they saw a woman’s bare privates.
Point taken, and well-made. I’ve certainly got no beef with you, and I admit I wasn’t very civil. But lieu is still being whiny (or he was – I suppose if he bows out of the thread, I’d retract my accusation of whining).
I do find it a little offputting that there are two less-than-admirable behaviors in this thread – wrongness and rudeness – and only one is getting any flak. But then again, I suppose I made myself a little bit of a target by being less than civil, so I’m not too worried about it.
Labrador Deceiver, where did I say that he was adamant about anything? My first post in the thread only mentioned that he said there was pantylessness. I never made a statement about his adamance (adamantness?), his conviction, his fervor, etc. I just said he made an unqualified, wrong sentence. You’re arguing against nobody (or at least you’re not arguing against me, because I didn’t say what you think I said).
