HEH. How good could it be- the IMDB link says, " Plot synopsis: This plot synopsis is empty. "
At least it has plenty of Male Rear Nudity in it ! 
AAAARGH! This thread is giving me flashbacks. I’m so glad I’m not at Blockbuster anymore. In addition to every single post (joking or not) in this thread which actually did occur, with frightening regularity, I once had this faaaaaabulous exchange with an irate customer:
Customer: (slams door open with enough force to knock the hanging sign off its hook; throws videotape directly at my head) This movie is so fucking stupid!
Me: Buh…wha? Ow…
Customer: I can’t believe you carry this piece of shit! It’s the dumbest movie I’ve ever seen! I want a refund, NOW! Where’s your manager?
Me: Um…that would be me. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy the-
Customer: No, I want a guy. Where’s that guy that was in here last time?
Me: (thinking: he really didn’t just say that, did he?) I’m sorry, was there something wrong with the videotape?
Customer: No, it’s just a stupid fucking movie and I want my money back, goddammit!
Me: I’m sorry, I can’t -
Customer: No, you can. You can and you will, dammit, because this is the dumbest movie I have ever seen and I’m not paying for it. Where’s your manager?
Me: I am the manager, sir. Let me process that refund for you.
('Cause, see…it’s just not worth the $3.25, it just isn’t…)
And, as I check the tape to make sure it’s in the right box, I notice the title for the first time…Dumb and Dumber.
:smack:
Oops! My bad! I had originally rented it from Netflix based on this synopsis:
“Two young Irishmen, fresh off the boat from Dublin try to earn a little ‘scratch’ by becoming gigolos for London’s gay community. But when one of their clients dies during a sexual act, the lads find that it’s just the beginning of a spree that will end up with all nine of their clients dead. Pish-posh, that’s of small concern as they search the city for a legendary bed of cash.”
Sex, violence, nudity, gay themes and it’s a dark comedy! Plus one of the guys sounds a bit like Brad Pitt’s character in “Snatch”.
That’s incredible. Did the box actually say that??
" Now - With Added Snatch !!! "
:eek:
LOL. No but that certainly would be a great ad quote for the box.
Wow, WhyNot. That’s scary. I think the worst we ever had was a drunken woman who would scream at us at the top of her lungs for half an hour because we told her she didn’t rewind.
Yeah, I’ve got a few regulars like that, who just ask me to choose their movie for them. That’s so much easier, isn’t it? I should make it store policy . . .
Yeah, it always surprises me which customers are averse to subtitles. I usually point out that it’s pretty much the same thing as reading a comic book: you got your pictures, you got your brief bits of text.
I love what Dennis Miller said about subtitles:
“Hey! If I had wanted to read, I’d have bought a book-on-tape!”
See, I get it. Generally, I’m watching a movie for fun. and I’m often multi tasking, perhaps surfing web, reading a book, too etc, grabbing a drink from the kitchen etc. I can hear the dialog. But if it’s subtitles, I have to make sure my eyes are on the screen the whole time, and that just ain’t likely to happen.
A few years ago, a video store in my hometown had many copies of the new hit movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. On the shelf, the copies were divided into dubbed and subtitled, complete with signs:
DUBBED (English)
SUBTITLED (Have To Read)
It’s not quite the same, though, because with comics, the reader can study the images and accompanying words at their liesure, whereas in a film, he has to follow the pacing set by the director, which may be too fast for him to process both the imagery and the text.
So you deny that it’s a helpful analogy in helping the subtitle-averse in getting their feet wet? Or are you seriously arguing that I suggested, anywhere, that the two processes are interchangeable and indistinguishable?
Yes, I don’t watch subtitled movies when I need to multitask; when I’m knitting something complicated, for example. But all the activities you describe are, to varying degrees, disrespectful to the artists who made the movie. Granted, there are plenty of movies out there unworthy of such respectful attention, and I’m the first to multitask through them. But if you’re incapable of watching a movie without multitasking–incapable of giving a movie your full attention–then, well, be that way. Some movies are worth your full attention.
well thank you for your permission to live my life the way I want.
I understand that some folks take film very seriously, and I appreciate their (actors, writers, directors, grips, hell even the best boy) efforts. And while I’m watching a stage act, I am appropriately reverant of theater etiquette. But in the privacy of my own home, when I’m choosing to watch a film merely to entertain little old me, I will indeed do so in the manner I see most fit, even if the film is the cats pajamas in your (or anyone else’s) eyes and should only be watched in suitable lighting with no distractions.
I understand that you’re a great fan of the craft. But the condecending tone you take here is unnecessary. By doing that, you are committing (in my eyes) the same sin you condemn, that of treating something of worth (another human being in this case) with inadequate respect.
I’ll deny it’s an accurate analogy. I own literally hundreds of subtitled videos (anime fan) and, has been mentioned above, the fimmakers rarely allow time to both read the subtitles and appreciate the images before moving on to the next shot or line. I’m a reasonably fast reader and have plenty of experience with subtitles, and even so the “instant replay” button on my remote gets used regularly, to compensate for the fact that it’s not a comic book.
So, the analogy is very misleading, since the experience of watching a subtitled video is almost entirely dissimilar to that of reading a comic book. As to whether the analogy is helpful in talking people into trying subtitles out, I really couldn’t say. Telling them that subtitled videos emit ponies and rainbows might be equally helpful.
The condescending tone is in your perception. (I would have thought the “then, well, be that way” line was a pretty clear indication that my tone was more tongue in cheek than pedantic.) As I said in my post, I often multitask when watching movies, and I further agreed that I cannot multitask during a foreign film. Making such a distinction doesn’t strike me as particularly condescending. For you to read into my post that the distinction I was making was between *human beings *is bizarre and irrational.
Well, I wasn’t actually making that point in my prior post, but since you asked, yes, I am denying that. For Americans, watching subtitled movies and reading comic books are both niche interests that are considered fairly far off the mainstream, and are both stigmatized as being “geeky.” Comic books moreso than subtitled movies, most likely, as we do get the occasional subtitled film that breaks out in the mainstream (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, for example, or Pan’s Labyrinth) in a way you just don’t see in comics. So, in using this analogy, I suspect you’re comparing one thing your customers have no interest in, to something your customers have even less interest in.
Of course not. I do, in fact, understand how analogies work. The problem is, in your specific analogy, the two elements you are trying to show to be similar to each other are actually very dissimilar, because of inherent differences in the nature of the two mediums. Because of time constraints, watching a subtitled movie requires one to pay attention to the text and the video simultaneously. The static format of the comic book does not impose this limitation, and allows one to absorb the text and the images seperatly, and synthesize them at whatever pace is most comfortable for the reader. Therefore, reading a comic book, and watching a subtitled movie, are in actuallity very different things, and cannot be easily analogized the one to the other.
Pointing out the differences between the two parts of an analogy in no way invalidates the analogy; any analogy can be thus deconstructed, even analogies that you’d personally be on board with. The point of an analogy is the aspects that are similar; the dissimilarities are rarely as relevant.
In any case, as your own language makes clear, you’re speaking in dry theory. I can tell you, from the front lines, that the analogy works for some people, and has been a useful tool in getting some people who are customarily reluctant to rent subtitled films. Anecdotal, to be sure, and thus no more scientific than your abstract theory. But it works for me, IRL.
you misinterpret. you said
wherein you chastize me for my preferred method of watching movies, contend that I’m being disrespectful of the artists etc, and that some movies should be viewed with careful attention rather than the benign distracting attention I prefer, you are being disrespectful to me- that your opinion of my leisure activities should matter more than my preference for my leisure activities.
you disclaim any condescension? really.