|
The zach and miri thread reminded me of a question: For ages, Kevin Smith owned the rights to Green Hornet and was trying and trying to get a studio to greenlight the flick with Jason Lee as the lead, but no one would. Last I had heard he was going to go ahead with the movie, as to not lose the rights, with someone like Jimmy Fallon as the lead. Cut to now, Seth Rogen has the rights. Did a deal go down during Zach and Miri?
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2008 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Ichi the Killer: So... what was the deal with Karen? Was she really raped, or was that a fake memory? If she was really raped, does that mean that she was the same girl from Ichi's fake memory? Or was Ichi's memory fake? Casino Royale: What happened to Felix Leiter? Why doesn't he capture Le Chiffre as planned? When Vesper gets word that he has made contact with Le Chiffre, is she telling the truth, and Le Chiffre just escaped, or was she lying? And if she was lying, then why didn't Leiter make contact? Also, was Mathis guilty or not? Or is that to be dealt with in the sequel?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2008 05:47
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:
Well, Felix didn't txt Vesper that they had taken Le Chiffre, it was Mathis. As Mathis was working for the bad guys (at least taking Le Chiffre's word, which he had no reason to lie), it would not be hard to imagin that Vesper was known to him, and there for they set it up so Bond would come after her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2008 18:58
|
|
|
I originally posted this in the "Help me understand David Lynch topic," but that was probably a stupid idea and would only derail the thread. So: Regarding Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me... Is the David Bowie dream scene supposed to say something about the plot? It totally confused me. I shut the movie off and plan to watch it again as I'm under the assumption I must've missed something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2008 19:09
|
|
|
A friend of mine lives in China and she needs to do a report about movies produced in Hollywood about China or Chinese people over the past hundred years. Does anyone know where I can find a list of movies like this? Thanks a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2008 03:57
|
|
|
Why don't you just do an IMDb search for keyword China and USA as the country of origin?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2008 04:12
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:Ichi the Killer: From what I can remember she was never raped, and wasn't the girl Ichi remembers. She was another pawn in the old man's game, who had had a false memory implanted. Just like like Ichi, whose memory of the girl was fake, as you say. Karen does say at one point "You'd never hypnotise me, would you?" or something along those lines, but it's pretty clear he has I hope I'm not remembering that all screwy. It's been a while since I seen it, but I have seen it loads
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2008 14:51
|
|
|
Satch posted:The zach and miri thread reminded me of a question: Jason Lee was never going to be the lead while Kevin Smith was attached. Maybe you're thinking of Smith's other failed project; the remake of "Fletch." Kevin Smith never owned the rights to anything. He was given a shot by whichever studio owns the Green Hornet copyrights to develop a movie, but then pulled out because he felt it was "outside his directorial comfort zone" or something. Seth Rogen doesn't own any of the rights now either. He landed a deal to develop a Green Hornet movie and (unlike Smith) actually produced a script. So that may move forward in the next year or so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2008 18:15
|
|
|
bows1 posted:A friend of mine lives in China and she needs to do a report about movies produced in Hollywood about China or Chinese people over the past hundred years. Does anyone know where I can find a list of movies like this? Thanks a lot. Not sure about such a list, but 'Broken Blossoms' is an essential place to start. "Why are you so kind to me, yellow man?" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0009968/ A lot of recent Wuxia stuff has American producers or American involvement, but I'm not sure that's what you mean. EDIT: if her report doesn't mention 'Big Trouble in Little China', it's worthless 
Disco Pope fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Sep 10, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2008 20:18
|
|
|
Pyramid Head posted:I originally posted this in the "Help me understand David Lynch topic," but that was probably a stupid idea and would only derail the thread. So: Sorry I can't source this, because I've read a lot on Fire Walk With Me and apparently the scene with Bowie's character was all that remains of a subplot that was supposed to flesh out some of the mythology surrounding the Black Lodge and related supernatural aspects, as well as introducing and disappearing another character (much like Chris Isaak's FBI agent) who could potentially come back for what was optimistically intended to be a series of films. What actually happened is even most of the stuff even left in the script relating to Bowie got cut out, but you can see it here. I'm sure you can find whatever I read if you comb Google enough, but I think I remember right. To be frank I wouldn't overstress interpretation of the scene (which is as cryptic as it gets) or anything else involving the supernatural mythology: it's not handled very well and all Lynch really manages is to contradict a lot of what was shown in the TV series. The scene does start to hint at a much more ambiguous and complex relationship between the 'good' and 'bad' spirits and the nature of their interaction with the regular characters, which is developed somewhat as the film progresses. FWWM is a very flawed work but the central plot of Laura Palmer's last days (which is about to kick in) should be a salvageable viewing experience, especially to fans of Twin Peaks or Lynch in general. I'm saying all of this assuming you have seen all of the TV series, as the 'prequel' label is misleading. Don't even bother with FWWM until you have seen it. And even then don't feel obligated to watch it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2008 22:19
|
|
|
BobbyHorsepower posted:Jason Lee was never going to be the lead while Kevin Smith was attached. Maybe you're thinking of Smith's other failed project; the remake of "Fletch." You know what, you're entirely right. I was thinking of Fletch. Thanks for exposing my dumbness
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2008 01:25
|
|
|
In the first scene of Boondock Saints, the preacher is talking about the idleness of good men. The two brothers get up and kiss the statue and walk out (the visiting minister or whatever tries to stop them but is stopped..). They walk outside and they look at eachother and say "I think he is beginning to get it". What just happened? space-man fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Sep 11, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2008 21:51
|
|
|
space-man posted:In the first scene of Boondock Saints, the preacher is talking about the idleness of good men. The two brothers get up and kiss the statue and walk out (the visiting minister or whatever tries to stop them but is stopped..). The priest was talking about fearing the indifference of good men, and not just fearing evil. In other words - we should be afraid of the evil caused by good people who DON'T do anything to stop evil through their indifference. He used the real-life example of Kitty Genovese to illustrate this - no one helped her even though she got stabbed to death in public. There were plenty of people who heard her screaming and could have done something. The brothers were commenting on the fact that he understands that point, as opposed to just preaching against evil in general. Just talking about not doing evil is one thing - it's another thing to act to prevent evil from being done instead of standing by and letting it happen. Encryptic fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Sep 11, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2008 22:13
|
|
|
I get that. I mean why were they allowed to walk up there without being stopped. The way they comment seems to imply that the preacher is beginning to understand their actions (ie the minister understands why they kill mobsters), but this makes no sense unless this takes place later chronologically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2008 22:19
|
|
|
space-man posted:I get that. OK - I see. Not sure about the altar thing - guess it's supposed to be implied that they're well-known for being religious or something before the killing sprees, so it's OK if they walk up there. Agent Smecker (Willem Dafoe's character) tells the cops at the police department "the general consensus from the neighbors is that they're angels" after bitching the cops out for leaking the story about the dead Russians in the alley. I suppose it's not implausible to posit that they already had the concept of "fearing the indifference of good men" in their minds before the priest gave his sermon about it - it wasn't until the Russians muscled in on their local bar that they got the inspiration to act on it, it seems. And here I have no idea why I'm reading so deeply into loving Boondock Saints of all movies. Encryptic fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Sep 11, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2008 22:35
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:And here I have no idea why I'm reading so deeply into loving Boondock Saints of all movies. Yeah, I think the answer here is "because the director/writer thought it would look cool."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2008 22:59
|
|
|
Thanks, I guess its one of those small things thats always bugged me... also whats wrong with Boondock Saints? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2008 23:03
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Yeah, I think the answer here is "because the director/writer thought it would look cool." From the Overnight documentary, that sounds pretty much how Troy Duffy made the movie. "Does it look cool? Do it. I'm going to go to the bar and get drunk."
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 01:54
|
|
|
In There Will be Blood was Daniel using his pipeline to siphon oil directly from the Bandy tract? Or were the surrounding derricks draining the oil out from underneath it? If the latter is true, did he plan to do that from the start, explaining why he dismissed the Bandy tract near the beginning of the film?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 03:28
|
|
|
space-man posted:Thanks, I guess its one of those small things thats always bugged me... also whats wrong with Boondock Saints? Everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 03:29
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:In There Will be Blood was Daniel using his pipeline to siphon oil directly from the Bandy tract? Or were the surrounding derricks draining the oil out from underneath it? If the latter is true, did he plan to do that from the start, explaining why he dismissed the Bandy tract near the beginning of the film? Not directly. Imagine that there's a large pool of oil that was underground, under both pieces of land. The derricks that he placed on his own land were tapping the entire oil patch, as I understand it. If only there was some easier way of explaining this...possibly involving some sort of frozen beverage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 03:31
|
|
|
There Will Be Blood /\/\/\/\ This is true, remember he needed The Bandy Tract primarily to move his pipeline through the mountains. Also, he employed the same idea in the beginning. He chose not to work with the large family that actually found the oil because he knew he could go to a more easily manipulated neighboring farm and still get all the oil
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 03:41
|
|
|
morestuff posted:If only there was some easier way of explaining this...possibly involving some sort of frozen beverage. Right, but I wasn't sure if the "straw" was part of the derrick or part of the pipeline. I get it now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 06:47
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Right, but I wasn't sure if the "straw" was part of the derrick or part of the pipeline. I get it now. Wasn't my intention to be demeaning, sorry if it came off that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 06:58
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Wasn't my intention to be demeaning, sorry if it came off that way. No worries, man. I just wanted to make sure my question was clear. I've got another one, though. In The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, why did Blondie do the whole rock thing? If he withheld the information, nobody would have been able to kill him. Of course, neither Angel Eyes nor Tuco could outdraw him, but it seems like a big risk to take. Then again, if Blondie had lost the final standoff, Angel Eyes would have turned over the rock to find nothing. That would be a very nice "gently caress you" from beyond the grave. Not that it isn't one of the most badass scenes of all time, I was just wondering if Blondie had anything to gain from writing the name on the rock. Rake Arms fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Sep 12, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 07:04
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Not sure about the altar thing - guess it's supposed to be implied that they're well-known for being religious or something before the killing sprees, so it's OK if they walk up there I think one of the guys up by the altar starts to get up to stop them, but another stops him. So they had to have been known to do that. Makes sense, given the deep Irish Catholic upbringing. It was just their way of worshipping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 07:28
|
|
|
space-man posted:Thanks, I guess its one of those small things thats always bugged me... also whats wrong with Boondock Saints? Goons have a habit of cherishing certain things (like Boondock Saints, Family guy etc..) above and beyond the call of duty and then a year later making GBS threads on them in an avalanche of bandwagoning. Its a decent stylistic action flick which is a bit of fun to watch. Nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 08:18
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:From the Overnight documentary, that sounds pretty much how Troy Duffy made the movie. "And we are loving doing something that has never loving been done, and those fuckers just don't loving understand and neither do you fuckers and Harvey Weinstein and fuckity gently caress gently caress." Goddamn I loved Overnight. It should have been called Schadenfreude: The Movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 08:18
|
|
|
space-man posted:Thanks, I guess its one of those small things thats always bugged me... also whats wrong with Boondock Saints? It's a fun popcorn flick and Willem Dafoe is loving hilarious, but it's not some incredibly deep meditation on vigilante justice or something. It's still incredible how Troy Duffy managed to run everything into the ground by being a jackass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 17:36
|
|
|
bows1 posted:A friend of mine lives in China and she needs to do a report about movies produced in Hollywood about China or Chinese people over the past hundred years. Does anyone know where I can find a list of movies like this? Thanks a lot. Here are some American movies about China and Chinese-Americans - some I've actually seen, and some I've Wikibrowsed and IMDB-browsed for: 1) The Joy Luck Club 2) Mulan 3) The Good Earth (this one has white actors playing Chinese people - very controversial today!) 4) The Last Emperor 5) Chan Is Missing 6) The White Countess 7) The Keys of the Kingdom 8) Several films about Fu Manchu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Manchu), another product of anti-Chinese sentiment in the US. 9) Empire of the Sun 10) The Painted Veil 11) Seven Years in Tibet 12) Big Trouble in Little China 13) Shanghai Express 14) And finally, there are plenty of Hollywood-produced martial arts films, many of which also deal with Chinese culture and its interactions with American culture. Just look up Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, or Jet Li and see which of their films were produced in Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2008 21:33
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:No worries, man. I just wanted to make sure my question was clear. Sure, but Blondie couldn't have taken the gold either without Tuco or Angel Eyes killing him for it, if not there then somewhere down the road, so they were at an impasse. The standoff was a way to settle the dispute that would seem fair to Tuco and Angel Eyes. However, Blondie had the advantage of knowing Tuco's gun was unloaded and he wasn't a threat. Blondie didn't win because he was a quicker draw necessarily - I would say the entire point of the film is that the three had virtually identical gunfighting skill - he won because his opponents had their attention divided between two targets, whereas Blondie knew all he had to do was blast Angel Eyes. That's why Blondie's the only confident one in the fight's buildup, and why he suggested it to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2008 00:07
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:"And we are loving doing something that has never loving been done, and those fuckers just don't loving understand and neither do you fuckers and Harvey Weinstein and fuckity gently caress gently caress." You forgot to smack talk Tarantino. But yea, it showed that Duffy is just some jackass who was way too full of himself. Actually, speaking of that, was the reason Duffy made zero money save his advance from Boondock Saints because he pretty much just hosed off any business meetings and didn't bother reading any contract? That's how i remember it from the doc, but someone recently told me that was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2008 03:55
|
|
|
I'll try to ask it here since this is a movie question. In the movie Tekkon Kinkreet, near the end the mob guy who was leaving town with his pregnant girlfriend, was he really killed or was that a "vision" the Minotaur was showing Black as what his power could be if he embraced the darkness?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2008 23:59
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Actually, speaking of that, was the reason Duffy made zero money save his advance from Boondock Saints because he pretty much just hosed off any business meetings and didn't bother reading any contract? That's how i remember it from the doc, but someone recently told me that was wrong. I'm pretty sure he made no money because he opted for a larger piece of the theatrical gross instead of a piece of the home release. This really hosed him in the rear end since Boondock Saints had a very tiny theatrical release (wasn't it like 10 theaters) and blew up on DVD. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Sep 14, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2008 00:51
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:I'm pretty sure he made no money because he opted for a larger piece of the theatrical gross instead of a piece of the home release. The movie would have been wide release if it wasn't for the Columbine massacre, but then again even if it was wide release I doubt it would have been a major blockbuster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2008 01:28
|
|
|
I saw a synopsis for a new movie on DarkHorizons and can't find it in the archives. It was recently announced so maybe one of you guys have an idea of what I am talking about. The movie follows Charles Dickens (at least I am 80 percent sure it is him) as he writes his final book and fights monsters or something. Sorry for the lack of info, but if I had more I am sure I would know the title. EDIT: Found it, http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080904j.php Drood. NickThorn fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Sep 14, 2008 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2008 03:31
|
|
|
Has anyone ever bothered to catalog the recommendations from various threads? I reactivated my Netflix account and want to start renting some horror movies, but I don't want to poo poo up CineD with yet another "Recommend some horror movies!" thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2008 21:14
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Not directly. Imagine that there's a large pool of oil that was underground, under both pieces of land. The derricks that he placed on his own land were tapping the entire oil patch, as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2008 21:27
|
|
|
I saw the "milkshake" analogy more as a general "hah, I was pretty much stealing his oil, gently caress you" than as a detailed logistical explanation for how it happened. But, yeah, it wasn't entirely clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2008 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
morestuff posted:I saw the "milkshake" analogy more as a general "hah, I was pretty much stealing his oil, gently caress you" than as a detailed logistical explanation for how it happened. But, yeah, it wasn't entirely clear. The milkshake line comes from congressional testimony in the Teapot Dome scandal. P.T. loved the line, but thinks it's a horrible way of explaining things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2008 06:49
|
|
