Talk:The Cursed Videotape
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know that the tape is different in The Ring 2 (US), and if it exists in the other versions not covered (and is most likely different), can anyone make a description of those to add to the Tape Images section? EgyptianSushi 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I dont think the tape has changed between the two films. -- Psi edit 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I do. EgyptianSushi 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- He was referring to the promo cursed videotape that DreamWorks released prior to Rings and The Ring twO, and that the whole Rings Communities was mostly centered about. It was also available on-line on http://www.the-tape.com . Now you can get it here: http://www.obrasilero.com/ring/thetape.zip . It appeared in The Ring twO in reduced form as the images that Samara, through Aidan, showed to Rachel. And I would personally wait for The Ring 3 to be released, before trying to explain those scenes, since most of them haven't been explained yet. -- OBrasilo 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Where Can I Download the Sadako and Samara cursed videos
I tried downloading them at inteferon's viral vestibule (http://www.neodymsystems.com/ring/movies.shtml) but the link is broken. Where can I download them? P2P networks caused spywares and viruses to invade my computer, so I don't use them anymore. So where can I download them?
- http://www.obrasilero.com/ring/ (EmiOfBrie 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC))
-
- And if your don't have the XviD codec installed, but still want to see the full 4:3 uncropped version of the Ring (1998) cursed video, the .WMV version is here: http://www.obrasilero.com/ring/noroi.avi . -- OBrasilo 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Related Curses
There are other curses too, like the Cursed SWF File and even the Cursed Wiki Article. This article should mention these and other parodies.
[edit] Pictures
Maybe we could put a few pictures in, for informational purposes? Not the freaky ones, but some of the more tame-ish ones. 60.224.253.85 02:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Luis Bunuel
It says the tape of the American-Version of the movie is similar to Un chien andalou "by the French surrealist film-maker Luis Bunuel". At first, I deny that this is truth (the "Ring-tape" uses a handful or so of elements that are strongly connected to real places, persons and actions that took place in the pre-plot of the movie, while Un chien andalou is willingly unconnected to anything, just "floating images"). And, more important, Bunuel was from Spain, not France. He only emigrated to France throughout the Civil War in Spain.
- Actually, the Ring (1998) cursed video has some scenes, which are quite close to Un Chien Andalou, especially the shamblers scene is like that. -- OBrasilo 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Symbolism
I'm not familiar with the topic so I can't change anything, but I thought some of the symbolism notes for the images in the cursed tape weren't written in an encylopedic manner. -- Annie D 02:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Who even came up with this symbolism? 128.114.60.220 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] grammar
A previous user of this IP, 192.250.34.161, changed "whomever" to "whoever" in the following sentence: "The second and more disturbing skill is the feat of giving the tape its own psychic abilities to kill whoever watches it, as well as the ability to replicate its curse." The edit summary was "grammatical error--relative pronoun is subject of rel. clause".
I believe this to be an error. To show why, let's move to a sentence that is simpler but has the same disputable section:
- The tape has psychic abilities to kill whoever watches it.
We could replace the fragment "whoever watches it" with the pronoun "him" and it would make sense: ... psychic abilities to kill him. If we try replacing the fragment with "he", however, it doesn't make sense: The tape has psychic abilities to kill he. In general, trying to substitute he or him will tell you whether you should be using who or whom.
What I think the previous IP got confused with is if there was a relative clause modifying an existing object phrase. For instance, if the sentence was:
- The tape has psychic abilities to kill the person who watches it.
then I think all of us would intuitively agree that it should be "who", not "whom"; "whom" just sounds completely wrong. And it is -- because 'now the object of the sentence is "the person", and "who watches it" has become a relative clause narrowing down just who "the person" is. In the relative clause "who watches it", "who" is the subject, and so "who" (subject) rather than "whom" (object) is correct. But that's in the relative clause, which doesn't even exist in our original sentence; "whomever watches it" is the complete object phrase. -- 192.250.34.161 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)