Caddyshack: No Respect

[Adabisi]

I really respect that you can give an objective review like that. I can't. For me, an edit can be technically flawless but if the content is not enjoyable to me, I'm not going to give it a high mark. Examples would be Boon's Azael and Mirrors edits (no offence Boon, I hope). They technically couldn't be better, but I didn't find them all that interesting or enjoyable as movies in and of themselves. I think I ended up giving them 6s.

I think a lot people here fall into the category of people who love editing software and what can be done with it to alter films and create a new experience with fancy supplements (DVD art, menus, easter eggs, etc). Others are film lovers that just see editing software just as a means to an end. I'd say I fall in the latter category.

I really like my American History X edit, but I just wish I knew when I was making it what I know now about editing. I think it was the 2nd edit that I ever attempted. Overall, it's a very interesting and different way of looking at the film, but there are some cuts that just make me cringe when I watch it. Anyway, I hope you like it.

 

[philmfan]

Just to throw my utterly worthless two cents into the discussion. I, myself, think Rodeny Dangerfield was funny, a legendary comic by any stretch of the imagination who has a lot of respect from his peers, even the best of them. However, his films and film roles were not always funny, at least not as funny as they could have been. Basically, he had a screen persona, mainly due to his appearance in Caddyshack, that got used and used and used... and used and used and used, over and over again. Such repetition could irritate anyone, I suppose. Of all his movies, I think Easy Money was probably the closest one to his stage persona. Maybe not a great comedy, but decent, and had a slight edge to it, more desperation than his other appearances. For example, he often played a boisterous rich guy when he probably should have concentrated on desperate, struggling, lower-middle class schmucks. But, since Easy Money wasn't that big of a success it wasn't the model for his later film roles. On the other hand, I think his appearance in Natural Born Killers was the second closest film to his actual persona. He wasn't evil, but there was a definite edge there, just like WC Fields had an edge, a comedian he was sometimes compared to, which also often got obscured by the compromised Hollywood products he appeared in. That said, I sorta like Caddyshack but certainly wouldn't consider myself a fan. As for hating anyone in it, many more people despise Chevy Chase than Dangerfield, so why not cut him out, too? Then remove the theme song (Kenny Loggins? Who really likes Kenny Loggins?). Start chopping out the stuff people don't like and you'd have almost nothing left. But since this place is all about fanedits, well, anything goes and if you don't like something then you're free to dislike it and by all means should offer your alternative vision. As for Caddyshack, aside from a couple scenes, maybe a bit here or there, I doubt I could find enough in it to cut anything longer than fifteen minutes together... but that's just me, and what do I know?

 

[nOmArch]

To say Dangerfield was never funny is a strong slap in the face and a huge insult to one of the most legendary comics there was.

Lenny Bruce was Legendary
Bill Cosby (back in the day and before mainstream television) is Legendary
Richard Pryor was Legendary
George Carlin was Legendary
Sam Kinison was Legendary
Steve Martin (before The PP movies) is Legendary
Billy Connolly is Legendary
Bill Hicks was Legendary
Jackie Mason is Legendary
Chris Rock is Legendary
Brendon Burns is Legendary
Doug Stanhope is Legendary

Dangerfield... sorry no.

 

[Uncanny Antman]

Jackie Mason is Legendary

Which is ironic, because he's easily my most hated element of the terrible Caddyshack II.

 

[nOmArch]

Still much funnier than rodney though... (imo obviously )

 

[nOmArch]

To say Dangerfield was never funny is a strong slap in the face and a huge insult to one of the most legendary comics there was.

Lenny Bruce was Legendary
Bill Cosby (back in the day and before mainstream television) is Legendary
Richard Pryor was Legendary
George Carlin was Legendary
Sam Kinison was Legendary
Steve Martin (before The PP movies) is Legendary
Billy Connolly is Legendary
Bill Hicks was Legendary
Jackie Mason is Legendary
Chris Rock is Legendary
Brendon Burns is Legendary
Doug Stanhope is Legendary

Dangerfield... sorry no.

just to clarify i think looking at that list its painfully obvious why i dont like RD, not to say hes a bad stand up or anything just that after listening to the above guys its pretty hard to listen to RD let alone anyone else for that matter.

football (both kinds) bores the shit out of me as well so what do i know?

 

[tranzor]

it is kind of funny we are all discussing the film becasue the very first thing that popped up on my comp when I signed online today was this:

Caddyshack: where are they now
http://www.moviefone.com/insidemovi...009/07/06/caddyshack-cast-where-are-they-now/

 

[nOmArch]

those then and now shots are scary.

 

[Adabisi]

I usually wouldn't bother commenting on a review, but this one cracked me up:

I'm sorry, ADABISI, but this has got to be one of the meanest fanedits I've ever read about.

Read about. Hmmm. I guess you don't technically need to have watched it to criticize it, but it doesn't hurt. And I didn't realize an inanimate object like a fanedit could be mean, but carry on.

Reducing Rodney Dangerfield's presence in this movie has got to be one of the biggest mistakes anybody has made as far as fanedits are concerned.

Fair enough.

I have to agree with tranzor: hating Rodney Dangerfield and say that he's not funny and never was is almost the same as saying that you don't like comedy,

I still don't quite understand how not liking one comedian equates to not liking the entire concept of comedy. Your review made me laugh, if that counts.

which proves that you obviously have certain taste in comedy that YOU think is actually funny

Yes, you're right. I admit it. I have a certain taste in comedy.

Besides, Bill Murray's had funnier roles than the one he had in this movie,

So?

and Chevy Chase, well, I'm sure he's had some funny moments, too.

Yeah, I heard he made a few other movies...

But with all that aside, it's alright for you to not like Dangerfield,

Thanks.

but you shouldn't hate anybody, living or dead.

Thanks Dr. Phil.

I know because I, myself, used to hate John Ritter, but now I don't anymore.

WTF?

I just think Ritter seemed more of a TV actor than a movie actor, but other than that, I'm okay with Ritter, now.

It's nice to hear that you've patched things up with him.

In conclusion, I think that this fanedit's a clear insult to Rodney Dangerfield and Rodney Dangerfield fans everywhere.

At least you didn't miss the point.

 

[boon23]

well, this guy has obviously no idea, what a fanedit is. I think a faneditor can dislike whatever actor or scene and create whatever version of a movie he pleases. If he had watched it and commented on what he saw: good. But this way these are meaningless words IMO. Don't bother about it, Adabisi.
I can remove this comment, if you want to, because I consider it unfitting for FE.

 

[Adabisi]

well, this guy has obviously no idea, what a fanedit is. I think a faneditor can dislike whatever actor or scene and create whatever version of a movie he pleases. If he had watched it and commented on what he saw: good. But this way these are meaningless words IMO. Don't bother about it, Adabisi.
I can remove this comment, if you want to, because I consider it unfitting for FE.

Trust me, the comment didn't bother me at all. I just thought it was interesting in it's absurdity. I certainly won't ask you to remove it. Even if he did watch it, going into it with those preconceived notions wouldn't change his review.

 

[Uncanny Antman]

'Interesting absurdity' ...I like that. For further chuckles, check out his 'review' of my Wonka edit. Another one he just read the details of, then lists over and over again why the idea is bad. ...And apparently, removing the song and dance numbers from the beginning removes 'realism'.

 

[boon23]

I can repeat the offer for wonka as well: this comment serves no purpose and can be easily removed, if you want me to.

 

[JasonN]

well, this guy has obviously no idea, what a fanedit is. I think a faneditor can dislike whatever actor or scene and create whatever version of a movie he pleases. If he had watched it and commented on what he saw: good. But this way these are meaningless words IMO. Don't bother about it, Adabisi.
I can remove this comment, if you want to, because I consider it unfitting for FE.

Or... you could just give Adabisi and UA the same advice that you gave me when I made a recent counter-arguement to a negative review of one of my edits:

people have opinions, JasonN. Grow your balls back (since they exploded in another post) and live with it like everybody else does.

you can defend (here on the forum) however you please. But I am sure you have also realized that it's not satisfying. The final truth always is: you made it for yourself and you like it. That must be good enough.
Movies do not need explanations and if they do they are not good movies. People tend to watch everything differently and are entitled to their (sometimes weird) opinions.
So all I am actually saying is that it makes not much sense to battle against windmills.

 

[boon23]

J, do you really want to keep on whining about that? Because it was something completely different.

 

[JasonN]

J, do you really want to keep on whining about that? Because it was something completely different.

To be completely honest, I don't see how it's different:

- uKER gave a negative review of one of my edits in which he made a list pointing out what he hated about it. Like Adabisi, I made a counter-argument list about uKER's negative points. In that instance, you told me to get over the fact that people are going to have different opinions than me regarding my edits and that their opinions (even if they are negative) are acceptable.

- Rkerekes13 gave a review of UA's Wonka edit which pointed out what the reviewer found to be negative aspects of the edit that he didn't care and why he believes that removing songs ruined the movie for him. It was a negative review - abit, it did give some positive points to the edit which the reviewer liked, but it was a negative review, nontheless. Yet for that instance, you stated that his review "serves no purpose and can be easily removed".... why? Rkerekes13 gave his opinion on the edit (which he didn't like) and gave his reasons why he thought that way.

I am simply repeating the advice that you gave me to other editors:
"People have different tastes. People have different opinions about what makes a good movie than you. People aren't going to like everything that you edit. Deal with it."

 

[TMBTM]

Problem with Rkerekes13 is that he only seams to read about the changes and give a review without actualy watch the edit. At least that's what I understand from what he says.

 

[Adabisi]

J, do you really want to keep on whining about that? Because it was something completely different.

To be completely honest, I don't see how it's different

The main difference is the uker gave your edit a negative review based on specific things that he didn't like after he actually watched at least some your edit. Rkerekes13, on the other hand, gave a nonsensical rant about how I've destroyed the fabric of space and time by removing Rodney Dangerfield from Caddyshack without actually watching it.

 

[JasonN]

The main difference is the uker gave your edit a negative review based on specific things that he didn't like after he actually watched at least some your edit. Rkerekes13, on the other hand, gave a nonsensical rant about how I've destroyed the fabric of space and time by removing Rodney Dangerfield from Caddyshack without actually watching it.

Odd, I didn't read any physics equations or Steven Hawking quotes in that review.

In my eyes, a review is a review whether he actually watched all/part of the film or just read another review's summery - if he didn't like your editing decisions, that's his choice and he has a right to express it.

 

[boon23]

J, do you really want to keep on whining about that? Because it was something completely different.

To be completely honest, I don't see how it's different:

- uKER gave a negative review of one of my edits in which he made a list pointing out what he hated about it. Like Adabisi, I made a counter-argument list about uKER's negative points. In that instance, you told me to get over the fact that people are going to have different opinions than me regarding my edits and that their opinions (even if they are negative) are acceptable.

- Rkerekes13 gave a review of UA's Wonka edit which pointed out what the reviewer found to be negative aspects of the edit that he didn't care and why he believes that removing songs ruined the movie for him. It was a negative review - abit, it did give some positive points to the edit which the reviewer liked, but it was a negative review, nontheless. Yet for that instance, you stated that his review "serves no purpose and can be easily removed".... why? Rkerekes13 gave his opinion on the edit (which he didn't like) and gave his reasons why he thought that way.

I am simply repeating the advice that you gave me to other editors:
"People have different tastes. People have different opinions about what makes a good movie than you. People aren't going to like everything that you edit. Deal with it."

the comments in both cases were the same stupid comments as on piratebay about people ranting about fanedits which they did not watch, just judging from the info. In your case the person did not like your fanedit after watching it. Big difference to me.
You always had a difficulty with anyone not liking your fanedits, but this discussion here is about useless comments, which I don't mind removing as they have no value at all.
Demonoid had a nice function to complain about useless rants that worked really well. And I am willing to provide the same help.