|
We Are Citizen posted:So do you think it is possible for Hollywood to make a good movie about terrorism that isn't racist? If so, how? If not, then how is it fair to call most Hollywood terrorism movies racist if they are already as non-racist as it is possible for them to be without sucking? It's possible, but it's probably at best a gamble. Action movies are tough to give characters any depth or provide diversity. They kind of have to go with the main cast of white guys, their black friend, and the woman (maybe two women). What I think has to happen first is the "Arab For No Reason" characters to pop up from time to time. It's kind of the precusor for any minority group. Black people used to only be in films as criminals or part of a "black story". Then they started to just show up, "Black for no reason". Of course, then they became Black Characters like in 80s horror films so they could be sassy before being dead. But the principle applies. What would be kind of interesting would be a movie set in the middle east cast with mostly arab characters. Maybe a cops vs crooks epic ala Heat but given their unique flavor. But that'd be a hard sell, a gamble. So I think it's possible, even inevitable (given enough time), but I'd say we're in an arab-sploitation phase of cinema. With some luck, we're in a late period of that phase.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2008 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:What I think has to happen first is the "Arab For No Reason" characters to pop up from time to time. How would that be any any different from the "good one" cliche that you were talking about earlier? I guess the stumbling point for me is that I don't think a movie about heroic characters (of any race) fighting evil Middle Easterners is automatically racist. And this holds true, I think, for both "serious" movies like The Kingdom and action fluff movies like True Lies. On a related note, would you classify Full Metal Jacket as racist? How about We Were Soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2008 23:57
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:How would that be any any different from the "good one" cliche that you were talking about earlier? The "good one" basically plops the one good character amongst a sea of evil stereotypes. The "Arab for no reason" wouldn't be competing against all the negative stereotypes, he just be a charcter not "terrorist until proven otherwise". I think a good litmus test is to ask yourself if they appear to be fighting "Evil Middle Easterners" or if they appear to be fighting "Middle Easterners". As a rule of thumb, if the only reason you add that adjective is your own personal sense of political correctness you might want to ask what's been given to suggest that they're at all different from the entire Middle Eastern population. True Lies is not a bad example, really. I love the film but it's hardly a film to cherish for diversity. It does have a version of the "good one" in Faisal, but otherwise, is there anything to suggest that Harry not simply shoot any other Middle Eastern characters on sight? I mean, they're all terrorists and the bad guy is basically described as even worse than the average terrorist. Great film, great action, not very progressive racially. With regard to FMJ, it's a war film and broadly portrays the vietnamese as combatants (or whores). Could one infer that all Vietnamese were in the conflict? Perhaps, but only so far as you could assume all Americans were also. We Were Soldiers attempted (to varying levels of success) to show glimpses of the other side. Again, one might consider it as inferring that all Vietnamese were in the military but considering it was a conflict between the Americans and Vietnam, I don't think it was racist in portraying Vietnamese people being in the NVA. Perhaps I misunderstanding what you mean by asking me about those two movies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 00:38
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:at[/i] but given their unique flavor. But that'd be a hard sell, a gamble. Could you explain what you mean by this further? The current cycle of Middle-Eastern villains is nothing like Blaxploitation, which didn't refer to the exploitation of black characters or cast members, but was a spin off of exploitation cinema as a whole, so I don't really see a comparison until "Muhammed takes Manhattan" shows up on Broadway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 02:13
|
|
|
quote:True Lies is not a bad example, really. I love the film but it's hardly a film to cherish for diversity. It does have a version of the "good one" in Faisal, but otherwise, is there anything to suggest that Harry not simply shoot any other Middle Eastern characters on sight? I mean, they're all terrorists and the bad guy is basically described as even worse than the average terrorist. Great film, great action, not very progressive racially. The reason I picked those two movies was, Full Metal Jacket is probably the most cynical Vietnam War movie and We Were Soldiers is one of the most romantic. Full Metal Jacket doesn't seem to regard any character save Joker, either American or Vietnamese, with anything except bemused detachment. Soldiers, by contrast, shows the American characters as being almost endlessly noble, and although it made some attempts to humanize the NVA, basically just used them as "people Mel Gibson shoots." I would say that Soldiers is racist in the same way old movies about cowboys killing Indians were racist. They were, but mainly due to lazyness of storytelling and shallowness rather than hatred. Full Metal Jacket, I wouldn't call racist at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 03:45
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:What I think has to happen first is the "Arab For No Reason" characters to pop up from time to time. A good example of this would be Alexander Siddig in the movie Doomsday. He plays the Prime Minister of England but nobody even brings up that he's Arabic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 04:13
|
|
|
So a while back there was this thread about pictures of great directors, and there was this one really cool picture of a director holding up a filmstrip and looking at it with sunglasses on and a cigarette in his mouth. I forget who it was (I keep thinking it was Fellini but I'm not sure) and if anyone remembers this picture and can tell me who it was or better yet post the picture here, that would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 06:15
|
|
|
blindhaberdasher posted:So a while back there was this thread about pictures of great directors, and there was this one really cool picture of a director holding up a filmstrip and looking at it with sunglasses on and a cigarette in his mouth. I forget who it was (I keep thinking it was Fellini but I'm not sure) and if anyone remembers this picture and can tell me who it was or better yet post the picture here, that would be cool. Jean-Luc Godard: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 06:24
|
|
|
ClydeUmney posted:Jean-Luc Godard: Thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 06:25
|
|
|
Diligent Deadite posted:Could you explain what you mean by this further? The current cycle of Middle-Eastern villains is nothing like Blaxploitation, which didn't refer to the exploitation of black characters or cast members, but was a spin off of exploitation cinema as a whole, so I don't really see a comparison until "Muhammed takes Manhattan" shows up on Broadway. We're exploiting them in their own way. Let's face it, exploitation films are about stereotypes and base emotions. Women are victims and raped, black people are abused/abusive and violent, and rednecks are ignorant and cannibals. This flavor simply has them as violent extremists down to the women and child. I choose to brand it a "-sploitation" phase because I think it's the same pattern. It's building and fostering those stereotypes to feed those base emotional feelings. Whereas others might work on anger or sexuality or domination, this one builds on xenophobia and fear. I don't imagine you could argue against arab characters existing only as terrorists or potential terrorists, could you? I mean, almost to a one (although if I've missed good Arab characters in Hollywood filmmaking I'm more than open to seeing them). Didn't the two "good one" arab characters in The Siege end up with one being the bomber and locked up with the rest of them? Now, I would enjoy seeing filmmakers embrace the stereotypes and twist the exploitive nature in a good way. Much as I imagine SA would hate this, a Bad Boys but with Arabs, where they toy with the racial stereotypes under the guise of an action set piece movie. Arab main characters killing white guys and you cheering the arab characters on. Obviously Bad Boys is a post-Blaxploitation evolution, but it paints an interesting picture of what could happen in the future. We Are Citizen posted:I would say that Soldiers is racist in the same way old movies about cowboys killing Indians were racist. They were, but mainly due to lazyness of storytelling and shallowness rather than hatred. Full Metal Jacket, I wouldn't call racist at all. I don't know that I'd agree with that. Old westerns had a wide range but the Indians were often scalp-hunting engines of destruction. We Were Soldiers struck me as more even both in the brief glimpses into the NVA side but also they didn't really touch on popular stereotypes of the Vietnamese. They were all vietnamese, sure, but they were generally uniformed members of their nation's army and acted accordingly. I can't really say it struck me as being racist, certainly not in the sense as older films. I think we're of similar mind with regard to FMJ though. muscles like this? posted:A good example of this would be Alexander Siddig in the movie Doomsday. He plays the Prime Minister of England but nobody even brings up that he's Arabic. Good call.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 07:24
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:A good example of this would be Alexander Siddig in the movie Doomsday. He plays the Prime Minister of England but nobody even brings up that he's Arabic. I never clicked onto this at all as he was always so pale on Star Trek. He must have gotten a lot more sun since then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 08:25
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:We're exploiting them in their own way. Let's face it, exploitation films are about stereotypes and base emotions. So, I've got some questions about the terminology you're using here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that blaxploitation and other films were intended to target their specific "blank-sploitation" audiences. Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is considered by some to be the founder of the "blaxsploitation" genre, and its pretty explicit in its appeal to a black community, not to whites looking to characterize the community in one way or another. Wikiepdia favors the following definition: quote:Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect of the product. In this case, the exploitation of blacks comes from a cheap movie that targets their interests. In the case of Arabs, I think you're missing the bigger picture here. I think in many cases, terrorists are filling the place of the Nazis of older films; generically "evil" characters that can be dispatched without much sympathy from the audience. Arabs in these films aren't uniformly evil in the same way that those who are ethnically German aren't uniformly evil. They just fulfill a filmic shorthand. Do you read, say, Indiana Jones as a film that demonizes a race? I'd argue not, but you could make that point. I'm not saying that these portrayals are completely fair. I know that they're not, nor can they totally be. Ascribing a bigger picture to a lot of these movies that we're talking about is probably a foolish pursuit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 08:41
|
|
|
morestuff posted:So, I've got some questions about the terminology you're using here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that blaxploitation and other films were intended to target their specific "blank-sploitation" audiences. Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is considered by some to be the founder of the "blaxsploitation" genre, and its pretty explicit in its appeal to a black community, not to whites looking to characterize the community in one way or another. I agree about the terrorists/Nazis, but I think the main difference is that Raiders of the Lost Ark was made nearly 40 years after that regime was destroyed and that in some cases Hollywood seems to go over the top to spread love for the military at all costs(in Rules of Engagement, even before the final plot twist is revealed, the movie tries to manipulate the viewers into wondering why those bad civilian men are blaming a military officer for deaths that resulted from his command to open fire on civilians, and the order itself is done with a line that sounds far too much like a one-liner for comfort). I'd give The Kingdom more of a pass since it at least tries a "We're not so different after all!" tolerance message, as hammy as it may seem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 09:25
|
|
|
blindhaberdasher posted:So a while back there was this thread about pictures of great directors, and there was this one really cool picture of a director holding up a filmstrip and looking at it with sunglasses on and a cigarette in his mouth. I forget who it was (I keep thinking it was Fellini but I'm not sure) and if anyone remembers this picture and can tell me who it was or better yet post the picture here, that would be cool. I do this too — I keep thinking Fellini looked a lot cooler than he actually did. This is one of the nice parts about being able to cast a surrogate in your place. For comparison, here's a photo of Marcello Mastroianni looking totally badass in 8 1/2:  And here's a photo of Fellini:  I wish I could cast someone to play me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 10:05
|
|
|
morestuff posted:So, I've got some questions about the terminology you're using here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that blaxploitation and other films were intended to target their specific "blank-sploitation" audiences. morestuff posted:In the case of Arabs, I think you're missing the bigger picture here. I think in many cases, terrorists are filling the place of the Nazis of older films; generically "evil" characters that can be dispatched without much sympathy from the audience. Arabs in these films aren't uniformly evil in the same way that those who are ethnically German aren't uniformly evil. They just fulfill a filmic shorthand. There seems to be a feeling like if it's lazy or easy it isn't really racist, but it's one of the easiest ways that racism propogates. Nazis were very common as bad guys not only because it's easy to hate them, but because nobody will ever complain about it. Germans won't say "stop picking on us" because they've been cowed as a nation because of their actions in the war. Think about The Last Crusade, where Elsa (who is in my book tied for best female counterpart to Indy) is the only German character to not be an evil nazi...whoops, she's evil. But it's Nazis and Germans won't complain. Trying to say "it's innocent" or "they didn't mean it" or whatever doesn't mean it isn't racist. The fact that it's automatic for them to go "need a Terrorist = Arab" isn't because they're trying to be mean or are all hick redneck racists (see what I did there), it's because the racism is so ingrained that it's automatic. Just like black guy=clutch purse or German = Nazi. Should Indy movies be chided for their non-progressive stances? No, they're a throwback to a time where storytelling was loaded with it. Just like Jonny Quest and the newest King Kong are wonderfully racist because it's such a perfect reflection of classic high adventure where natives are evil savages deserving of being smited by white fists. Just like Quentin Tarantino movies aren't (in my opinion) deserving of chiding for their exploitation attributes because that's a conscious goal and he's naked about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 10:06
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:That's hardly true. Blaxploitation plays on stereotypes and base emotions just like any other exploitation genre. The difference being that they cast themselves as heroes, but it is still fueled in the same way as all of the other exploitation genres. They still are drug fueled, violent, jive talking toughs who hate whitey (who is universally evil). Like I mentioned, I'm more than happy to get corrected on this. What falls under the exploitaiton genre has always been a little obscure to me. That said, is Melvin Van Peebles exploiting his race because his film fulfills all of the above criteria? Or does the fact that his film was hailed by Huey P. Newton and embraced by a militant black community change that? It's been a while since I've seen Sweetback, but I recall the main character being extremely sexualized, growing up in a whorehouse. There's even a pretty affecting scene in How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your rear end that portrays the importance of this scene to Melvin, pushing his son and even cutting his hair off to get the shot. If a white man had written that scene, it'd probably be pretty offensive. I don't mean to get into a "shades of racism" discussion here, but your argument practically demands it.  quote:There seems to be a feeling like if it's lazy or easy it isn't really racist, but it's one of the easiest ways that racism propogates. Nazis were very common as bad guys not only because it's easy to hate them, but because nobody will ever complain about it. Germans won't say "stop picking on us" because they've been cowed as a nation because of their actions in the war. First off, Marion Ravenwood is far and away the best female counterpart to Indy. Also, saying that she's tied for first (out of three) is basically just saying "Hey, Willie sucked." Which I think we can all agree on. Second, I think if writers, directors and studios portray Arabs as terrorists they're likely doing so in a misguided attempt to provide commentary on our times. It's definitely not fair to portray all terrorists as Arabs, but fear of extremists based in the Middle East is certainly a hot topic that could be explored in fiction. It's often not subtle, but 90% of everything is poo poo. Also, I think that if anything, the portrayal of Arabs in Hollywood films has gotten better since Sept. 11. I've been wracking my brain trying to think of films that explicitly portray terrorists; even the films mentioned before this post in the thread have all been pre-Sept. 11 (with the exception of Syriana, which, although you've argued that it's a racist movie, it's at least seemingly well-intentioned). quote:Should Indy movies be chided for their non-progressive stances? No, they're a throwback to a time where storytelling was loaded with it. Just like Jonny Quest and the newest King Kong are wonderfully racist because it's such a perfect reflection of classic high adventure where natives are evil savages deserving of being smited by white fists. Just like Quentin Tarantino movies aren't (in my opinion) deserving of chiding for their exploitation attributes because that's a conscious goal and he's naked about it. This just seems like cherrypicking. I mean, how are some things "wonderfully racist" and not worthy of chiding, but you off-handedly dismiss films that include a "good Arab" as a weak prop of semi-racist screenwriters? How is it that films that are "perfect reflections" of a racist past, without any revisionist commentary, are somehow morally superior to films that at least try to make a concession to a balanced perspective? Well, maybe not morally superior, but as you say, worthy of chiding vs. not worthy of chiding? This is the part of the post where I say that I'm not a conservative blowhard, have Arab friends, etc. I'd hate to think I'm coming off as insensitive or assholish, I just disagree with what you're saying. morestuff fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Oct 11, 2008 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 11:42
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Should Indy movies be chided for their non-progressive stances? No, they're a throwback to a time where storytelling was loaded with it. Just like Jonny Quest and the newest King Kong are wonderfully racist because it's such a perfect reflection of classic high adventure where natives are evil savages deserving of being smited by white fists. Just like Quentin Tarantino movies aren't (in my opinion) deserving of chiding for their exploitation attributes because that's a conscious goal and he's naked about it. So... the Indy movies are racist, but... it's the good kind of racism? I don't understand this at all. My mind is literally boggling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 12:15
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:That's hardly true. Blaxploitation plays on stereotypes and base emotions just like any other exploitation genre. The difference being that they cast themselves as heroes, but it is still fueled in the same way as all of the other exploitation genres. They still are drug fueled, violent, jive talking toughs who hate whitey (who is universally evil). I don't know if I agree with that, but it depends upon the film. Blaxploitation could often be quite positive as at the time the genre went super-nova, the movie brats were beginning to popularise a brand of cerebral, down-beat, post-Vietnam cinema. So-called exploitation pictures at the time had pro-active heroes who took control of the decaying urban landscapes round them (even if they were, like you correctly state, violent). Seriously, watch 'The French Connection' then watch 'Shaft' and think about who can really navigate New York most successfully in those films. As for 'Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song', I'm not sure how fair it is to lump it in with Blaxploitation, even if it did spawn the genre. It's shot like a guerilla porno art documentary and has some quite clever things to say about genre and form (Sweetback forsaking the city for desert, dressing in Old-West style garb and embodying both the 'savage' and the 'outlaw' before disappearing into legend, for example). To cut a long story short, SSBS wasn't really exploitative of its cast or audience, unless you count a couple of heavy sex scenes as enough to qualify it as exploitation. On the whole, I agree with you, but I think ideas like casting Middle-Eastern actors in a Bad Boys style action movie isn't the best route, but I understand what you're trying to say and I'd like to see that day too. What about some of the great films that are coming out of the Middle-East or from Middle-Eastern artists that are great in their own right? 'Pesepolis' springs to mind if you haven't already seen that. It was well received and had a pretty good American cast for the English dub.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 12:42
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:I never clicked onto this at all as he was always so pale on Star Trek. He must have gotten a lot more sun since then. Even when he was listed in the credits as Siddig el Fadil? He changed his screen name because he learned that people in Hollywood had problems pronouncing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 14:33
|
|
|
And the characters name was Bashir.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 14:45
|
|
|
morestuff posted:That said, is Melvin Van Peebles exploiting his race because his film fulfills all of the above criteria? Or does the fact that his film was hailed by Huey P. Newton and embraced by a militant black community change that? This is a fair avenue of discussion. Stereotypes are not just perpetuated from without, they just as often preserved and even encouraged from within. This seems to be a sticking point in a lot of racism discussions, that it only counts if done by someone outside of that group. By taking existing stereotypes and placing them in a different context, they could make them an attribute of sorts. So instead of the sex, drugs, and violence that permeated black characters before the civil rights movement, now it was sex, drugs, and violence against The Man and used for the community. That these stereotypes can be embraced doesn't invalidate it, just retasks it for another purpose more in line with "beneficial" stereotypes like Asians being good at math. What makes it somewhat novel is that the stereotypes being perpetuated aren't what would traditionally be considered positive but were of value to a persona of a prickly black culture that wouldn't be oppressed. So in answer to your question, I'd say yes he is exploiting both the stereotypes and the racial issues. And it's also done in a way that is arguably a positive in the views of some. quote:First off, Marion Ravenwood is far and away the best female counterpart to Indy. Also, saying that she's tied for first (out of three) is basically just saying "Hey, Willie sucked." Which I think we can all agree on. quote:This just seems like cherrypicking. I mean, how are some things "wonderfully racist" and not worthy of chiding, but you off-handedly dismiss films that include a "good Arab" as a weak prop of semi-racist screenwriters? How is it that films that are "perfect reflections" of a racist past, without any revisionist commentary, are somehow morally superior to films that at least try to make a concession to a balanced perspective? Well, maybe not morally superior, but as you say, worthy of chiding vs. not worthy of chiding? What if, during The Lake House, Keanu Reeves goes off saying "niggers! niggers!" or there was a rape scene in the middle of True Lies. It wouldn't fly at all, whereas it is used with some enthusiasm in Pulp Fiction and The Hills Have Eyes. Those films are dyed in the wool callbacks to their exploitive roots and are celebrated for the way in which they do so. It's because of those roots that behavior and activity which would be condemned in other circumstances. King Kong can have some wildly offensive savages because that's the kind of movie it is patterned on, an old pulpy adventure epic in darkest africa. I mean, they literally exist to kill and sacrifice. And I think it's beautiful in capturing that effect from an old Big Book of High Adventure I read as a kid. It may feel like cherry picking, especially for films outside of traditional exploitation (like horror films), because few in Hollywood are brave enough to touch back on those roots. Consider that QT seems able to draw on that but they weren't brave enough to do it with the remake of Shaft. It was made the safest way possible and couldn't even be considered a blaxploitation movie. quote:This is the part of the post where I say that I'm not a conservative blowhard, have Arab friends, etc. I'd hate to think I'm coming off as insensitive or assholish, I just disagree with what you're saying. But it also feeds that persona. It does so because it's so effective and satisfying. Hollywood feeds off the culture and in turn feeds it. It was influenced by the rampant crime in the 70s and helped build a sense of violent crime at every turn in the public consciousness. It led to great filmmaking while at the same time building a lot of negative stereotypes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2008 21:57
|
|
|
I looked around but I couldn't find a "Help me identify this film!" thread, so I hope it's OK to ask here. Does anyone know the source of this gif?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2008 13:23
|
|
|
Just got my special edition of The Abyss, and having never seen it before was wondering which version would be best for first viewing, theatrical edition or the extended edition?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2008 08:35
|
|
|
miffu posted:Just got my special edition of The Abyss, and having never seen it before was wondering which version would be best for first viewing, theatrical edition or the extended edition? I think The Abyss is one of those movies that has somewhere close to near unanimous support for the DC version. I suppose if you want to replicate the feeling we got watching it theatrical before the DVD release, you could go that route. But I'd say you're better off watching the theatrical version as a curiousity afterwards. It is shorter, but even short Cameron films are long and I don't think it would make up for the story differences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2008 14:12
|
|
|
The long version is a vastly superior film. I'd rank the theatrical cut as a 2.5/4, with the extended cut as 4/4.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2008 15:17
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I think The Abyss is one of those movies that has somewhere close to near unanimous support for the DC version. Are there any films that are ruined or diminished by a director's cut? Might be good to know in the future to know which ones to avoid. Personally, I didn't care for Apocalypse Now: Redux, except as a curiosity. And while I enjoy the director's cut of Aliens, if I was showing it to a person for the first time, I'd probably show them the theatrical. The DC tends to drag a bit. Also, the only version I've ever seen of Almost Famous was the Untitled version, which a few people swore to me was the only way to see it. I hated that flick, but don't think my problems with it have much to do with the length. Could be wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2008 18:07
|
|
|
There are lots of "unrated" cuts, especially for comedies, that I don't like. Especially when they mess with the pacing. It's kind of unfortunately when it happens especially to films I almost know by heart as the new scenes stand out and if they don't deliver a laugh it's like a dead fish in the room, like with Dumb & Dumber. I also don't really care for the DC of Natural Born Killers. Many of the additions are gore and I strangely found the way the theatrical did it to be in better service of the story and theme. There was profound violence all through the thing, but it always had a kind of TV reenactment lack of goriness to a lot of it. For whatever reason, Oliver Stone didn't have squibs popping out of people quite often (like when Balthazar Getty gets killed after having sex with Mallory) and I thought it worked excellently and made the brief bits of gore in the TC more effective against the surreal nature of the violence. Battle Royale also isn't served well by the additions in the DC. The additional scenes are paced badly and slow down a film that should have momentum. Also, the DC of Payback should be considered a different film, much like the Exorcist Prequel. I wouldn't say avoid the DCs, but see the Theatrical first to be able to appreciate the difference. In both cases, I think the TC is superior to the DCs. Although in the Exorcist's case, Renny Harlin's film is far from a good movie. It's just that the original intent was well meaning but poorly handled and delivered. That's just a mess all around. Just my opinion though, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2008 18:42
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Are there any films that are ruined or diminished by a director's cut? Might be good to know in the future to know which ones to avoid. I wish there was some version of Aliens that kept the sentry gun scenes/Ripley's character development from the Director's Cut, but subtracted all the exposition on the colony prior to the space marines' arrival. It's a visually cool sequence, but it just kills so much of the suspense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2008 18:47
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:There are lots of "unrated" cuts, especially for comedies, that I don't like. Especially when they mess with the pacing. The Apatow movies suffer from this. The 40-Year-Old Virgin gets a little long on DVD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2008 19:12
|
|
|
I'd have to give the opposite view of Payback, in that it's "Straight Up" cut is much more interesting and to the point: Gibson still comes off as likable in a despicable sense but while staying as a not so nice guy, there's no randomly added villain or extra plot points (which kind of take away from the effect of the film). Hell, they even change camera angles and lighting between versions, with the DC being much more moody and atmospheric. For other good director cuts, there's Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Dark City, Kingdom of Heaven, and Brazil. I'm sure there's more, but I can't think of them at the moment. From what I've heard, you're right in that Apocalypse Now: Redux is more of an interesting alternative version than a better one. However, I've heard there's something like three or four cuts, with the original version of the movie being 4 or 5 hours long. Edit: Almost forgot, but pretty much everything Sergio Leone did has a superior DC. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly's case it's only about 10 minutes more so it doesn't drastically change the film; however, they're pretty good scenes that add even more character to it. Once Upon a Time in America though is completely incomprehensible and often hilarious without the extra footage: it's a film taking place over 50 years and with multiple plots, and the studio thought it'd be a good idea to trim it from 227 minutes to 139, the 227 minute version easily being a classic. I believe Once Upon a Time in the West was only 160 minutes in the theatrical version, too, but the standard DVD has the full 180 minutes. The thing about Leone is that while his shots are slow, adding to time, they never really seem like that on screen--his movement makes the film seem even bigger than it is, turning Eastwood or Bronson into monolithic men that tower over the viewer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2008 06:15
|
|
|
I never really consider the final cut of Brazil as the "director's cut" since Gilliam won over in the end and that was what was released in theatres. There's differences between the American and European cut but they are very slight, and I've never seen the studio edit aired on TV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2008 06:21
|
|
|
morestuff posted:The Apatow movies suffer from this. The 40-Year-Old Virgin gets a little long on DVD. I don't think the inserted scenes in the Superbad DVD really do anything aside from break up the flow of the surrounding scenes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2008 06:28
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:I looked around but I couldn't find a "Help me identify this film!" thread, so I hope it's OK to ask here. Does anyone know the source of this gif? That's Memories of Matsuko, a movie I need to finish watching.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2008 08:08
|
|
|
morestuff posted:For comparison, here's a photo of Marcello Mastroianni looking totally badass in 8 1/2... Not to mention that Mastroianni was pretty much the hottest man in Italian cinema at the time (  ); it'd be like Ridley Scott making a movie about making movies with Brad Pitt playing his director-surrogate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2008 11:01
|
|
timeandtide posted:From what I've heard, you're right in that Apocalypse Now: Redux is more of an interesting alternative version than a better one. However, I've heard there's something like three or four cuts, with the original version of the movie being 4 or 5 hours long. The 5-hour cut is just the first assembly. It's just whatever takes were needed to construct a very rough cut of what would match the shooting script. That's usually what happens. You're basically looking at something only making sense to the filmmakers. The 2-disc SE has some clips from the workprint and it's pretty much like watching paint dry.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2008 13:29
|
|
|
parasyte posted:That's Memories of Matsuko, a movie I need to finish watching. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2008 07:40
|
|
|
So why is Matt Murdoch acting as a prosecutor is Daredevil?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2008 08:51
|
|
|
LDJohnson posted:So why is Matt Murdoch acting as a prosecutor is Daredevil? It's his day job. Superheroes tend to have high profile day jobs. To my knowledge, there has never been a superhero who destroys super beings from alternate dimensions at night but teaches middle school during the day. There should be though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2008 16:40
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:It's his day job. Superheroes tend to have high profile day jobs. To my knowledge, there has never been a superhero who destroys super beings from alternate dimensions at night but teaches middle school during the day. There should be though. I thought for awhile Spider-man was a high school teacher, before the whole Civil War thing, and really his other day job of being a freelance photographer was also low profile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2008 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Even when he was listed in the credits as Siddig el Fadil? He changed his screen name because he learned that people in Hollywood had problems pronouncing it. Never saw any credits with that name listed, at least on Deep Space Nine. I guess i just didnt really think about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2008 17:20
|
|