|
InfiniteZero posted:It's his day job. I think he means, why is Matt Murdoch acting as prosecuter in the beginning of Daredevil when for the rest of the movie he is a defense attorney? Also, he is prosecuting a rape case, so why does he refer to the victim as "my client"?
|
# ? Oct 15, 2008 18:21 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:22 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:I think he means, why is Matt Murdoch acting as prosecuter in the beginning of Daredevil when for the rest of the movie he is a defense attorney? Also, he is prosecuting a rape case, so why does he refer to the victim as "my client"? It's a pretty big error. He and Foggy are representing the rape victim, but any rape proceedings would be a criminal trial and therefore the prosecution would be handled by the DA. It's possible that the rape victim is suing Quesada for damages after the fact (like the civil suit against OJ filed by the Goldmans), but even then, there wouldn't be any talks of acquittals or guilty verdicts, simply liability. There's no way to explain it out of a huge scripting mistake. (Outside of that, I thoroughly enjoy the Director's Cut of the movie.)
|
# ? Oct 15, 2008 19:04 |
|
BooDoug187 posted: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. Yeah he was, he was a high school science teacher. Just in case anyone was wondering, yes, they do address the fact that he didn't have a teaching degree or anything like that. The school he got hired on to was a poor inner city one that couldn't keep a teacher at all so they deferred the degree due to experience in the field.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2008 00:36 |
|
Since I just bought a copy of The Way of the Gun (haven't seen it since it came out) I was wondering - what's Christopher McQuarrie been doing since that came out? He's credited as a writer on Valkyrie (is that ever coming out or did Tom Cruise sink that ship?) and has another movie listed in pre-production on IMDB (not that that means much, apparently) but that's it - nothing else for the last 7-8 years.
|
# ? Oct 16, 2008 06:21 |
|
BooDoug187 posted: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. I forgot about that. My comic book nerd cred is smashed. I obviously also didn't know about the whole prosecutor/defense attorney problem in Daredevil though. Not that there aren't a few other issues with that movie ...
|
# ? Oct 16, 2008 18:43 |
|
So I have been more and more interested in Oldboy and just learned that it is part of a trilogy. Is the rest of the series any good? Is there an order I should watch them?
|
# ? Oct 19, 2008 23:01 |
|
Dr. Coffee posted:So I have been more and more interested in Oldboy and just learned that it is part of a trilogy. Is the rest of the series any good? Is there an order I should watch them? You don't have to watch in any particular order. Lady Vengeance is the best of them.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2008 00:10 |
|
Dr. Coffee posted:So I have been more and more interested in Oldboy and just learned that it is part of a trilogy. Is the rest of the series any good? Is there an order I should watch them? They're a thematic trilogy, about revenge and human nature. The proper order of the trilogy, though, which seems to work best in terms of seeing the best last is Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. Edit: If you enjoy them, check out some of Park Chan-wook's other films. timeandtide fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Oct 20, 2008 |
# ? Oct 20, 2008 00:19 |
|
Thanks a lot guys. Rearranging my Netflix account now!
|
# ? Oct 20, 2008 00:59 |
|
FitFortDanga posted:You don't have to watch in any particular order. Lady Vengeance is the best of them. While I enjoyed Lady of Vengeance, and its quirky sense of humor (the only one of the three with a defined sense of humor), personally Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance I thought was the best. As time has gone on though, I actually think Oldboy while still a good movie is probably my least favorite of the three. I pretty much enjoy all of Park's films even I'm a Cyborg, but that's OK.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2008 15:44 |
|
Encryptic posted:I watched There Will Be Blood again recently and it occurs to me: What exactly happened during the oil rig fire scene? Binowru posted:I think the oil was shooting out of the ground so fast that it caused enough friction against the rocky ground to ignite. There's a similar phenomenon where fire hoses will actually catch fire if the water pressure gets high enough. When your drilling for oil or gas, you can get what is called a kick where gas is coming from formation/ground into your well at a very high pressure. Now we use rotary drilling with a "mud" in the well to help control pressure, think like a drill bit on a hand drill. Gas is also a product of the processes that create oil. It was such a high pressure underground that it just made a really loud noise when it came out that made him deaf. In that type of situation any little spark can catch the gas on fire and make it explode.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2008 06:13 |
|
KaLogain posted:When your drilling for oil or gas, you can get what is called a kick where gas is coming from formation/ground into your well at a very high pressure. Now we use rotary drilling with a "mud" in the well to help control pressure, think like a drill bit on a hand drill. Gas is also a product of the processes that create oil. It was such a high pressure underground that it just made a really loud noise when it came out that made him deaf. In that type of situation any little spark can catch the gas on fire and make it explode. Heh - I actually forgot I had even posted this. Thanks for the answers, both of you.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2008 06:18 |
|
Encryptic posted:Heh - I actually forgot I had even posted this. Thanks for the answers, both of you. BTW, oil and gas aren't in the ground as a big pool, they are in between particles of material, like sand grains and fractures in the rock. Of course it could happen that it seeps into a some sort of cave or something but I haven't heard of that.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2008 07:07 |
|
It's like you're a petroleum engineer or something.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2008 16:44 |
|
Holy cow, I just looked at his Imdb profile, just for the hell of it...quote:Alexander Siddig That's a mouthful.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2008 17:54 |
|
There Will Be Blood: What is the significance of the title? I mean, there was blood, so it is technically accurate, but what does it mean? Is it something boring, like blood being a metaphor for oil or oil being a metaphor for blood or something stupid like that? Or is Paul Anderson just a really big fan of the Saw movies?
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 03:14 |
|
Isn't it from a poem? Edit: Lord Byron http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/lord_byron/quotes
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 03:21 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:There Will Be Blood: What is the significance of the title? I mean, there was blood, so it is technically accurate, but what does it mean? Is it something boring, like blood being a metaphor for oil or oil being a metaphor for blood or something stupid like that? Or is Paul Anderson just a really big fan of the Saw movies? I think it's fairly obvious, both as a literal statement (which makes a grimly hilarious punchline to the movie), and more broadly about how the "progress" of industry carries a human cost.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 04:47 |
|
h_double posted:I think it's fairly obvious, both as a literal statement (which makes a grimly hilarious punchline to the movie), and more broadly about how the "progress" of industry carries a human cost. There also seems to be a Biblical meaning to it - though I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be sure. I'm in the middle of watching Unforgiven and I was thinking - what are some other "must-see" Westerns out there? I've seen a number of the well-known ones and enjoyed them (Tombstone, Dances With Wolves, Leone's Man With No Name trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, etc.) but I know there's others out there that are well-regarded.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 18:25 |
|
Encryptic posted:I'm in the middle of watching Unforgiven and I was thinking - what are some other "must-see" Westerns out there? I've seen a number of the well-known ones and enjoyed them (Tombstone, Dances With Wolves, Leone's Man With No Name trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, etc.) but I know there's others out there that are well-regarded. I'm certainly not an expert on classic Westerns, but I really like the modern, gritty Westerns like The Proposition and the series Deadwood.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 19:27 |
|
feedmyleg posted:I'm certainly not an expert on classic Westerns, but I really like the modern, gritty Westerns like The Proposition and the series Deadwood. Yeah, I forgot to mention I've seen The Proposition and liked that as well. I've also seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - great movie. Been meaning to get a hold of Deadwood on DVD - I've heard enough about it to figure I'd probably like it. I didn't get HBO until well after the series ended.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 19:38 |
|
Encryptic posted:There also seems to be a Biblical meaning to it - though I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be sure. The Wild Bunch is pretty great and fits right in with the type of movie you've been talking about (later period, revisionist westerns). Some more traditional westerns that might be worth checking out are The Searchers, High Noon, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and (depending on your categorization) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Your mileage will probably vary on the last four, though.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 19:51 |
|
Encryptic posted:I'm in the middle of watching Unforgiven and I was thinking - what are some other "must-see" Westerns out there? I've seen a number of the well-known ones and enjoyed them (Tombstone, Dances With Wolves, Leone's Man With No Name trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, etc.) but I know there's others out there that are well-regarded.
Feel free to ask if you want more.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 20:33 |
|
The remake of 3:10 to Yuma is worth a look (it's better than the original) and then there's the classic How the West was Won (just re-released on Blu-Ray and gorgeous looking). I'm trying to think of some others that haven't been mentioned, but I'll have to think about that.
|
# ? Oct 23, 2008 20:47 |
|
Encryptic posted:There also seems to be a Biblical meaning to it - though I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be sure. I didn't know that, but a quick search reveals it's from Exodus 7:19: "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'" (from the New American Standard Bible) A very fitting image. Encryptic posted:I'm in the middle of watching Unforgiven and I was thinking - what are some other "must-see" Westerns out there? I've seen a number of the well-known ones and enjoyed them (Tombstone, Dances With Wolves, Leone's Man With No Name trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, etc.) but I know there's others out there that are well-regarded. SubG's list should keep you busy for a while (and contains a couple that are new to me); without getting too far into modern/revisionist westerns, I'll mention High Plains Drifter, a Clint Eastwood film from 1973, that was really the first "dark" western (John Wayne wrote Eastwood a letter to complain about the film's portrayal). It has all the stylistic trappings of a classic western but manages to be pretty radical and surreal at the same time. h_double fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Oct 26, 2008 |
# ? Oct 26, 2008 01:04 |
|
Encryptic posted:I'm in the middle of watching Unforgiven and I was thinking - what are some other "must-see" Westerns out there? I've seen a number of the well-known ones and enjoyed them (Tombstone, Dances With Wolves, Leone's Man With No Name trilogy, The Magnificent Seven, etc.) but I know there's others out there that are well-regarded. You've got a good list going, I just want to add that the Italians did Westerns better than the Americans. So you might wanna check out Death Rides a Horse, too. (and big ups on Django, it's hugely important)
|
# ? Oct 26, 2008 02:06 |
|
NeuroticErotica posted:You've got a good list going, I just want to add that the Italians did Westerns better than the Americans. The Hollywood Western has, or has had, pretty much everything American film has ever had. The Italian Western has always been a subgenre ghetto of exploitation cinema. The Italians do exploitation better than Hollywood does---but then again pretty much everybody does exploitation films better than mainstream Hollywood does.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2008 02:36 |
|
SubG posted:Well, the Italians did a certain kind of Western better than Hollywood did. But in the spaghetti Western the American West is really just a canvas on which chaotic amorality can be displayed. The American Western---even the Hollywood studio Western---offers a far broader view. Ford's idealism, Hawks' mythmaking, Fuller's ambivalence, Ray's...however you want to characterise Johnny Guitar (1954), and so on. And that's not even touching the whole let's-do-the-whole-thing-over-with-us-as-the-bad-guys thing that characterises post-studio era Westerns. Or Western kitsch (Zachariah (1971), say). I don't think you are really being fair (I mean, between Sergio Leone and John Ford, who would you really reduce to being an exploitation filmmaker?), but you're right about one thing: the Italian Westerns used the American West as a canvas to tell stories on, whereas the American Westerns tend to focus on actually telling stories about the American West. I'd say that that makes American Westerns the ones that are really limited.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2008 02:48 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:(I mean, between Sergio Leone and John Ford, who would you really reduce to being an exploitation filmmaker?)
|
# ? Oct 26, 2008 04:52 |
|
SubG posted:Er, neither. But of the two Leone. No question. What's your point? Wait, so Sergio Leone, a man famous for directing Italian westerns (which according to you are a subset of exploitation films), is not an exploitation director? You'll have to explain that one. Anyway, I was all ready to type out a big explanation of how John Ford was an exploitation filmmaker, but then I checked the Wikipedia entry for "Exploitation film" and I guess I was wrong about what exploitation films are. I'd considered them to be any films that were made very quickly and cheaply in order to exploit audience interests, (by which definition Ford would certainly qualify), but according to Wikipedia, the term "exploitation film" refers specifically to films that exploit the audience's taste for sex or violence. So I guess you win this round.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2008 05:41 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:Wait, so Sergio Leone, a man famous for directing Italian westerns (which according to you are a subset of exploitation films), is not an exploitation director? You'll have to explain that one. So I'll grant you that he made one or maybe two films that we can comfortably call exploitation films. So if you ask me to call him or John Ford (who made no films that could by any stretch of the imagination be called exploitation films) an exploitation filmmaker I'd pick Leone. But I wouldn't say without qualification that Leone is an exploitation filmmaker. We Are Citizen posted:Anyway, I was all ready to type out a big explanation of how John Ford was an exploitation filmmaker, but then I checked the Wikipedia entry for "Exploitation film" and I guess I was wrong about what exploitation films are. I'd considered them to be any films that were made very quickly and cheaply in order to exploit audience interests, (by which definition Ford would certainly qualify)[...].
|
# ? Oct 27, 2008 19:53 |
|
SubG posted:Leone's films were not, by and large, exploitation films. Per un Pugno di Dollari (1964) (A Fistful of Dollars) looks, feels, and was produced very much in the style of the typical spaghetti Western, and is a film you could call an exploitation film without blushing. But by the end of the Man With No Name trilogy, Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo (1966) (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) is called a spaghetti Western by convention but it's a (comparatively) high-budget film with an actively anti-exploitation mood. His later Western films...the comedies and C'Era una Volta il West (1968) (Once Upon a Time in the West) are called spaghetti Westerns entirely by virtue of the fact that they're Italian-made films set in the American West; they have virtually nothing to do in terms of style, theme or production methods with exploitation films. And of course Once Upon a Time in America (1984) isn't a Western (like his earlier films, not discussed here). This is what I'm saying: Leone made Italian westerns. Not only that, he made the Italian westerns, the three films that spawned and are representative of the entire subgenre. So if Leone's Italian westerns aren't exploitation films, how can you say that Italian westerns are a subgenre of exploitation films, rather than of westerns in general? [edit: I misread your post. I thought you were saying that none of the Man With No Name films were exploitation films, which I would have agreed with. So instead I'll ask: what, exactly, was A Fistful of Dollars exploiting? What made it an exploitation film instead of just another action movie set in the American west? I can see calling later Italian westerns like Django exploitation films, since they were mostly exploiting American audiences newfound taste for violent Italian westerns like A Fistul of Dollars. But I don't think that makes Dollars itself an exploitation film.] quote:I think you don't understand either what kind of films Ford made, or how the studio system worked in general...or I suppose possibly both. Maybe I don't, because I don't understand how William Beaudine cranking out three or four generic westerns every year makes him an exploitation filmmaker, but John Ford cranking out three or four generic war movies every year doesn't. Is it just because Ford was a great director who made genuinely great films every now and then, whereas Beaudine was a hack? We Are Citizen fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Oct 27, 2008 |
# ? Oct 27, 2008 21:01 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:I'll ask: what, exactly, was A Fistful of Dollars exploiting? What made it an exploitation film instead of just another action movie set in the American west? It was an unlicensed remake of a Kurosawa samurai flick made in the wake of the success of The Magnificent Seven (also a Kurosawa remake), which was released I think one year earlier. Maybe that makes it an exploitation film, maybe not, but either way, it's a pretty drat inspired movie.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2008 03:10 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:This is what I'm saying: Leone made Italian westerns. Not only that, he made the Italian westerns, the three films that spawned and are representative of the entire subgenre. So if Leone's Italian westerns aren't exploitation films, how can you say that Italian westerns are a subgenre of exploitation films, rather than of westerns in general? Spaghetti Westerns are a subgenre of exploitation film. Sergio Leone made Spaghetti Westerns. Not all of Leone's films are exploitation films. The End. We Are Citizen posted:So instead I'll ask: what, exactly, was A Fistful of Dollars exploiting? What made it an exploitation film instead of just another action movie set in the American west? We Are Citizen posted:Maybe I don't, because I don't understand how William Beaudine cranking out three or four generic westerns every year makes him an exploitation filmmaker, but John Ford cranking out three or four generic war movies every year doesn't. Is it just because Ford was a great director who made genuinely great films every now and then, whereas Beaudine was a hack? So I guess a summary thus far would be:
|
# ? Oct 28, 2008 10:46 |
|
Dvlos posted:While I enjoyed Lady of Vengeance, and its quirky sense of humor (the only one of the three with a defined sense of humor), personally Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance I thought was the best. As time has gone on though, I actually think Oldboy while still a good movie is probably my least favorite of the three. Just an aside, but I think 'I'm A Cyborg...' is a great movie. Apparently Park's intention was to make a movie for his teenage daughter that wouldn't be patronising as gently caress, and I think he more than achieved that. Don't forget about Joint Security Area, either. It takes a long time to properly get into 'Park-mode', but when it does it's heartbreaking and I learned a lot about Korea's political situation too.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2008 16:59 |
|
SubG posted:Because I don't have some addlepated notion that statements about Westerns in general, Italian Westerns in particular, or Italian Westerns made by Sergio Leone need to follow some absolutist stricture as decreed by We Are Citizen. How about this: Once Upon a Time in the West is a western. Once Upon a Time in the West was made in Italy. Once Upon a Time in the West is not an exploitation film. Therefore, not all Italian westerns are exploitation films. The End. quote:It was made dirt cheap and featured what was for the time sensational violence. That's pretty much the definition of an exploitation film. It's also a fairly well-made film, although neither as original nor as technically accomplished as Leone's later films. So budget is the issue? William Beaudine's films weren't any less mainstream than Ford's, they just had lower budgets. Hell, A Fistful of Dollars was a mainstream film. Westerns were extremely popular when Dollars was released, and although it was a slightly revisionist take on the genre, it was a huge success.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2008 23:31 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:How about this: Once Upon a Time in the West is a western. Once Upon a Time in the West was made in Italy. Once Upon a Time in the West is not an exploitation film. Therefore, not all Italian westerns are exploitation films. The End. We Are Citizen posted:So budget is the issue? William Beaudine's films weren't any less mainstream than Ford's, they just had lower budgets. Hell, A Fistful of Dollars was a mainstream film. That's not to say A Fistful of Dollars wasn't successful---it was made for next to nothing and made far more than it cost to produce. But I guess I'm again at somewhat of a loss to figure out what you're actually trying to argue. You seem to be all over the place and are often arguing from miscomprehension of the subject matter. Are you still objecting to my original comments that Italian Westerns didn't have the breadth of expression that Hollywood Westerns have, or are you just trying to quibble minutiae to save face after having to admit to having no idea what an exploitation film is?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2008 00:35 |
|
SubG posted:Okay, sure. What's your point? It seems to me that "Italian westerns are a subset of exploitation films" and "All Italian westerns are exploitation films" mean basically the same thing, and that the first statement can't be true if the second is false. SubG posted:Are you still objecting to my original comments that Italian Westerns didn't have the breadth of expression that Hollywood Westerns have Yes. To be specific, my argument was that Italian westerns were less limited than American westerns, since Italians westerns weren't usually about the American West the same way American westerns were. I'm not saying that Italian westerns were by and large better films than American ones though, because that would be ridiculous. I probably should have dropped the argument as soon as you clarified that you didn't include The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West in your statements about Italian westerns, since I agree that almost all Italian westerns not made by Leone were exploitation films with less breadth of expression than American westerns. The only thing left to argue about is whether A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More count as "real films" or "exploitation films."
|
# ? Oct 29, 2008 06:26 |
|
We Are Citizen posted:It seems to me that "Italian westerns are a subset of exploitation films" and "All Italian westerns are exploitation films" mean basically the same thing, and that the first statement can't be true if the second is false. We Are Citizen posted:Yes. To be specific, my argument was that Italian westerns were less limited than American westerns, since Italians westerns weren't usually about the American West the same way American westerns were. We Are Citizen posted:The only thing left to argue about is whether A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More count as "real films" or "exploitation films."
|
# ? Oct 29, 2008 11:02 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 16:22 |
|
drat, guess I opened up a big here with an innocent question about Westerns. Thanks for the helpful suggestions, though.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2008 17:39 |