Giles

but I've found that not all 'newer' DVD's edtions of films are necesarily stocked at Netflex,
examples:

- Windtalkers
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Criterion)

Bandit03

Ill wait for the final specs for it before deciding on whether to buy it or not, but a s of right now I havent watched the current release enough to warrant another dip

mjlukich

It seems to me that all Mike Lowrey was saying is that for someone so willing to trade on their fame for time at the poltical pulpit, Clooney seemed a little inconsistent, that's all.

Mike Lowrey

No, what I'm saying is that Clooney was in a different particular movie than the one I watched, called Three Kings.

And then I'll lump this whole next bit into one quote...
I'll respond to this by asking one simple question with regards to the part about "doing the right thing the wrong way" which is an excuse I hear a lot from the other side.

And the question is..."How many dictators do you know that were removed without the use of force?"

And don't give me this, "We need to build bigger coalitions" BS.

In 1990/1, for the first Gulf War, of which this movie depicts, the senior President George Bush assembled the largest international coalition ever assembled against Saddam Hussein, and even had UN support, and the current Democratic nominee for President, John Kerry, voted AGAINST the action.

Mike Lowrey

Well yeah...that too. In fact, that is my main point.

How do you make a movie about the injustices of not following through with the promises (supporting the Shiites in thei rebellion) and then decide, "Oh well, we're actually following through with saving these people this time...but now I'm against it."

A bit of a "flip-flop" don't you think? And this nature of constant flip-flopping is one of the very character attributes of the current left-wing is one that I find very disturbing.

In other words, do you endorse a product in a commercial, and then privately not have anything to do with it? "I support Nike shoes"...."but at home I wear Adidas, I actually hate Nike."

ThatGuamGuy

So, in other words, "I'm not going to answer your question because I have no answer, so I'm just going to continue with my fallacy."

Look, you're being silly. The point of the question is, why do you refuse to acknowledge that there are multiple options, that it's not just a black and white "Either you choose this or you're evil" option? There are dozens of ways to conduct a war. Saying that you disagree with the way Bush conducted this one does not automatically compute to "Saddam is good", and I honestly don't see how you can pretend there's any logic to that at all.

Mike Mike Mike, we're talking about 'Three Kings' and George Clooney. If George Clooney had voted against the action, this might have been a good point, instead of just you being on a soapbox shouting your political nonsense at an audience who has repeatedly asked you to curb it down.

Because here's what you just did ... I specifically *didn't* say "bigger coalitions", but let's take it -- as you did -- that that was Clooney's reason for not supporting the war. Well, okay, why is that wrong? You're saying that the reason that that's not a good enough answer is ... because Kerry voted against that back in '91 (under significantly different circumstances). Are you even familiar with the *concept* of logic, how one thing directly leads to -- or even, in some cases, proves -- another? I mean, I know you're not familiar with grammar, but I can accept that, it's at least readable ... but your huge gaps in logic make these conversations difficult. Can you maybe break it down, step by step, and show me how John Kerry voting against the war is a logical response to "George Clooney, despite being pro-Iraqi, was against the particular way Bush fought this war, possibly due to his lack of international support"? 'Cause, seriously, it sounds, to put it as politely as possible, like a non sequitur.

nemein

MOD NOTE: As much as I like political discussions, this is not the right forum for it. Please take this sub-thread to the Other forum if you wish to continue it and leave this thread for info on the DVD. Any politically related posts after this will be removed.

Thanks

ThatGuamGuy

OK, getting back on track...

Are they gonna do a new transfer for this DVD? I love the movie, but the colors on that first DVD are all over the place. I hope they clean all of that up for this new release.

fumanstan

Thanks mod

PopcornTreeCt

Mod note: Political post removed as per warning given above

Geist

Mod note: Political post removed as per warning given above


Anyway, thanks for the head's up! I just cancelled my order for the first disk thru the DVD Empire sale.

jaeufraser

This was posted on darkhorizons.com.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040902f.php

Or...

" Ananova reports that the Fall release of a special edition of George Clooney's "Three Kings" on DVD is likely to be delayed after Warner Brothers refused to include a new anti-war documentary in the disc set.

It seems that Director David O. Russell's documentary, which was set for inclusion in the package, was deemed "totally inappropriate" for release in the current political climate by Warner Brothers.

Spokesperson Barbara Brogliatti said: "This came out to be a documentary that condemns, basically, war. This is supposed to be a special edition of Three Kings not a polemic about war."

The studio, which paid for the documentary to be made, says it will probably hand back the project to Russell. The director described the move as "a surprise and a disappointment", but said he would now try and find an independent distributor. "

NCYankee

I guess now that you mention it, Warner has gotten away from DTS. I have several early Warner releases with full-bitrate DTS - Twister, Interview with the Vampire, and the Lethal Weapon DCs. But nothing very recent.

Anyone know why?

Grubert

Maybe you missed the spoonfeeding, patronizing, Joe6pack-oriented disclaimer right before the movie:

fiver

I'm rather disappointed if the documentary has indeed been pulled from the special edition. The film itself, while being set during the first Gulf War, is something of an anti-war film in general since it doesn't really show the US as the rescuing hero of the Iraqi people.

Seems to me like an anti-war doc is appropriate to the themes of the movie and the political climate should have nothing to do with it.

Of course, Warner can include or exclude whatever extras they want but I would've been interested in seeing the documentary anyway I'll probably stick with the current release in that case. I thought it looked pretty good when it came out.

Michael

Veej

I wish they release this one as a 2 disk with the documentry that will be a waaaaay coooool disk......

I did'nt buy the current release cause 1) I hate the snappers, and 2) the picture quality could be better (and audio).

I always thought this was a underated movie like, Cop Land, and Glen Gary Glen Ross....

Hope they go with the plan..

NCYankee

Hmmm - I looked up 3 reviews of this DVD:
Widescreen review- video 5/5 and audio 4/5.
Digital bits - video A+, audio A.
DVD Verdict - Video 96, audio 100.

Either they are all wrong, or you are confusing the filmmaker's intentions with poor DVD quality. (You DID read the post 2 above yours, right?)

Veej

Maybe I just Hate Snappers with a vengence....that I overlook everything..

Yes thats it I just hate snappers, after spending my hard earned cash I want something thats worth good quality..snappers just suck they might as well give you the disk in paper sleeves...

digitalfreaknyc

The sound AND picture on this are excellent. It's a movie I've revisited several times.

I'm only going to re-buy it if it has extra material ON THE MOVIE. To be honest, I think a "war documentary" should be released on it's own.

nova

If the commentary is just an opinion of the director about the war now, I won't pick this up at all. I like hearing other people's views and debating issues but if you want opinions on the war, watch CNN! Now if he is going to talk about the movie and how certain aspects of the Gulf War played in the film, that's different. If he has anything to share about "Induring Freedom", partner up with Moore, shut the hell up, and leave it out of 3 Kings.

teddydogg

Just read this today

Here is the link: http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/...px?news=168113

LOS ANGELES -- Filmmaker David O. Russell planned to distribute a new anti-war documentary along with an upcoming Warner Bros. DVD release of his 1999 movie "Three Kings." But studio executives now say his finished documentary isn't what they had in mind, so they're giving it back to him.

The move by Warner Bros. is notable in a year when the Walt Disney Co. cited political sensitivity for its refusal to distribute Michael Moore's blockbuster "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"Three Kings" starred George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg and Ice Cube as three American soldiers searching for gold in Iraq during the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

The heads of Warner Bros. rejected the documentary this week, The New York Times reported Thursday, saying it was inappropriate to distribute a documentary about the director's personal political views in conjunction with his 5-year-old drama.

"This came out to be a documentary that condemns, basically, war," Warner Bros. spokeswoman Barbara Brogliatti told the newspaper. "This is supposed to be a special edition of 'Three Kings,' not a polemic about war."

Brogliatti said the studio made the decision after seeing the completed documentary, which features interviews with Iraqi refugees and veterans of the current war in Iraq.

The studio expected follow-up stories to the real lives of Iraqi extras and advisers who worked on "Three Kings." Brogliatti said the documentary cost about $180,000 and the studio was planning to give it to Russell to distribute independently.

"It was definitely a surprise and a disappointment," Russell said. "But they are being very gracious and letting me take it back."



I have been holding out on buying this just for this reason.

Duder

While I can understand WB's position, it's very disappointing that they're pulling what would amount to a pretty substantial extra from a double-dip. When the documentary was to be included, this was a must-buy for me. Now I'm not so sure. From what we'd heard before, it sounded like the documentary was going to be more even-handed than F9/11, and given the content of Three Kings, this didn't surprise me. Did it turn out to be more biased towards the left end of the spectrum than WB expected?

digitalfreaknyc

When the documentary was included, it was a never buy for me. I'm definitely "anti-war" but I dont' understand the point of having an "extra" that's not about the film AT ALL. I'm totally with WB on this one. If it's not about the movie or doesn't really tie into the movie at all, then it's just there for the directors ego.

Pointless.

Duder

Would you say the same thing about short films packaged with longer ones? For instance, the short film on the Y Tu Mama Tambien DVD--and I believe Zatoichi will have another film (not sure about the length) included with it as well. I think DVDs can be packaged with multiple works by the same director without it being a pointless ego trip. What smacks me of ego are the all-too-common fluff "specials" (read: extended advertisements) which consist of the cast and crew patting each other on the back, intercut with clips from the movie.

Chrisedge

Or the new "super - deluxe" edition with trailers for the sequel.