|
SubG posted:That's silly even for a strawman. Why? If Italian westerns are a subset of exploitation films (which you said they were), doesn't it follow that all Italian westerns are exploitation films? And if not all Italian westerns are exploitation films (which you also said), then doesn't it follow that Italian westerns are not a subset of exploitation films? Dogs are a subset of mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. That's the logic I'm using. If it is flawed, please correct me. SubG posted:...which is to say, your argument is based on a baffling unfamiliarity with or misreading of the Hollywood Western. And Italian Westerns, for that matter. Maybe I have misread Hollywood westerns, since I've never been a huge fan of them. Despite that, I've enjoyed on some level every Italian western I've ever seen. This is probably because I've never really been that interested in the concept of the American West itself. Hollywood westerns tend to focus a lot on every aspect of the setting- land grabbers, gamblers, cattle drives, and so on. Italian westerns tend to be much more focused: they are about gunslingers. I can totally see how this makes Italian westerns more limited than Hollywood westerns. But it also makes them almost entirely free of the baggage that Hollywood westerns are saddled with (so to speak). SubG posted:Although I'm not entirely sure I want to explore what you're hiding in that phrase `real films', I'm guessing this is just a false dichotomy. My point exactly. Both terms are ridiculous. It's like the retarded "film vs. movie" thing. It seems ridiculous to me that you (SubG) can toss A Fistful of Dollars in the Exploitation Film Bin and then turn around and put The Good, the Bad and the Ugly on the _____ Film Pedestal, where "_____" is whatever you want to call movies that aren't exploitation films. Basically, the more I learn about "exploitation films" the less I like the phrase.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2008 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:I'm trying to figure out if you ever had a point to begin with, and I think the answer is no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2008 23:10
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:I'm trying to figure out if you ever had a point to begin with, and I think the answer is no. Technically, I didn't have a point of my own. I just thought that SubG's point (that Italian westerns are just exploitation films) was wrong. The stuff about Italian westerns being better than Hollywood westerns was just my personal opinion, which I opviously can't back up with facts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2008 23:36
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:Why? If Italian westerns are a subset of exploitation films (which you said they were), doesn't it follow that all Italian westerns are exploitation films? And if not all Italian westerns are exploitation films (which you also said), then doesn't it follow that Italian westerns are not a subset of exploitation films? We Are Citizen posted:
were advocating a couple posts ago (`I'd say that that makes American Westerns the ones that are really limited')? I'm really just trying to keep track of what you're trying to say here. We Are Citizen posted:It seems ridiculous to me that you (SubG) can toss A Fistful of Dollars in the Exploitation Film Bin and then turn around and put The Good, the Bad and the Ugly on the _____ Film Pedestal, where "_____" is whatever you want to call movies that aren't exploitation films. We Are Citizen posted:Basically, the more I learn about "exploitation films" the less I like the phrase.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 01:24
|
|
|
SubG posted:So your argument is based on the idea that film genres are defined by formal prepositional logic? Really? I'm saying that both are reasonable positions, depending on how you look at it. Italian westerns are more limited than Hollywood westerns in some ways, but the reverse is also true. SubG posted:I'm not doing that. You're not doing what? You're not saying that A Fistful of Dollars is an exploitation film and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly isn't? SubG posted:A less charitable person than I might suggest that you should in the future endeavour to learn the meaning of terms of art before attempting to lecture others on their use. Well, the hypothetical person that your hypothetical person is arguing with could make the counter-argument that "exploitation film" is not a term of art, but a term of disparagement for certain kinds of art. Just because I (oops, I mean, my hypothetical counterpart) was wrong about which types of movies the term "exploitation film" applied to, it is still pretty obviously a term of disparagement, used mainly for dismissing films as not worthy of criticism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 02:08
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:it is still pretty obviously a term of disparagement No it isn't. Again, you need to learn what words mean before use you them. You're a loving idiot. <--- now THAT'S a term of disparagement
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 02:29
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:Well, the hypothetical person that your hypothetical person is arguing with could make the counter-argument that "exploitation film" is not a term of art, but a term of disparagement for certain kinds of art.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 03:11
|
|
|
SubG posted:This hypothetical person really should listen to my advice about figuring out what a term means before lecturing on its use. I'm trying to figure out what exploitation films are. I thought I had it after reading the Wikipedia article on the subject, but that article must have been wrong if you insist that "exploitation film" is not a term of disparagment, since the article states that "Exploitation film is a type of film that eschews the expense of quality productions in favor of making films inexpensively, attracting viewers by exciting their more prurient interests." That right there draws a dichotomy between "exploitation film" and "quality production." And if the term "exploitation film" isn't necessarily a bad thing, why did you feel the need to exempt those Italian westerns you liked (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West) from your earlier claim that Italian westerns were [a subset of] exploitation films? I'm not trying to call you on anything, I genuinely want to understand your position. Since this is the General Movie Questions thread, I'll ask: What, exactly, is an exploitation film, and what conotations does that phrase carry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 04:14
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:I'm trying to figure out what exploitation films are. I thought I had it after reading the Wikipedia article on the subject, but that article must have been wrong if you insist that "exploitation film" is not a term of disparagment, since the article states that "Exploitation film is a type of film that eschews the expense of quality productions in favor of making films inexpensively, attracting viewers by exciting their more prurient interests." That right there draws a dichotomy between "exploitation film" and "quality production." We Are Citizen posted:And if the term "exploitation film" isn't necessarily a bad thing, why did you feel the need to exempt those Italian westerns you liked (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West) from your earlier claim that Italian westerns were [a subset of] exploitation films? This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking either film. I mean ask any longtime reader of CineD...with the exception of NeuroticErotica I'm probably the person who can be found most frequently lauding exploitation films and various other genre flicks (Troma films, Hammer films, Full Moon flicks, Shaw Brothers films, blacksploitation films, luche films, and so forth).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 11:27
|
|
|
SubG posted:This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking either film. I mean ask any longtime reader of CineD...with the exception of NeuroticErotica I'm probably the person who can be found most frequently lauding exploitation films and various other genre flicks (Troma films, Hammer films, Full Moon flicks, Shaw Brothers films, blacksploitation films, luche films, and so forth). Huh. In that case, I guess I don't really have anything to argue with you about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 22:41
|
|
|
This may be better asked in the marvel thread, but its huge, and it is a general question, but did Marvel sign away the film rights to All Xmen, Fantastic Four, Spider and so on characters to other studios, so they would will not be able to include any characters from those series in any of their own movies?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2008 17:51
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:This may be better asked in the marvel thread, but its huge, and it is a general question, but did Marvel sign away the film rights to All Xmen, Fantastic Four, Spider and so on characters to other studios, so they would will not be able to include any characters from those series in any of their own movies? FOX owns the X-Men film rights for the foreseeable future. I believe Sony recently re-upped with Marvel to retain the Spider-Man rights for another decade. I'm not sure about Fantastic Four. The Daredevil rights are either soon to revert or have already reverted to Marvel Studios.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2008 18:02
|
|
|
Timby posted:FOX owns the X-Men film rights for the foreseeable future. I believe Sony recently re-upped with Marvel to retain the Spider-Man rights for another decade. I'm not sure about Fantastic Four. The Daredevil rights are either soon to revert or have already reverted to Marvel Studios. Hrm, well at least that means is possible for Dr Doom to appear properly in an Avengers movie in the future. Its intresting how in the extras for Iron Man, they talk about how Doom is the perfect Enemy for Iron Man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2008 20:24
|
|
|
Just watched Dangerous Liasons, and Im just trying to make some sense of things. Was Valmont's motivations true in that he was genuinely attracted to the Marquis de Merteuil? Maybe Im just being an internet tough guy but how is Glenn Close in any way attractive? Or was it rather he was just set on keeping his reputation and I guess saving face by "winning"? Same with Marquis de Merteuil, is she genuinely attracted to Valmont or again, shes just being herself and playing him for her aristocratic games? I missed the first bit of the movie (I came in when he heard that Madame de Tourvel had heard from her friend of Valmont's bad reputation, and he was angry at that). Wikipedia says that Valmont was Merteuil's "partner", does wikipedia mean lover? husband? friend? If it was lover then why was he so keen about their attraction and his need for the one night with her, same with husband.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2008 04:13
|
|
|
According to Cruel Intentions, Ryan Phillipe and Sarah Michelle Gellar were half-siblings, and Ryan Phillipe initially only wanted Reese Witherspoon on the bet that he would be able to sleep with Sarah Michelle Gellar but soon he found true feelings for Reese Witherspoon until Ryan Phillipe died and Reese Witherspoon got her revenge on Sarah Michelle Gellar by handing out copies of the journal that had all the secrets!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2008 04:54
|
|
|
Cacator posted:According to Cruel Intentions, Ryan Phillipe and Sarah Michelle Gellar were half-siblings, and Ryan Phillipe initially only wanted Reese Witherspoon on the bet that he would be able to sleep with Sarah Michelle Gellar but soon he found true feelings for Reese Witherspoon until Ryan Phillipe died and Reese Witherspoon got her revenge on Sarah Michelle Gellar by handing out copies of the journal that had all the secrets!! They were step-siblings which makes everything better but yea otherwise that sounds right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2008 19:42
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:This may be better asked in the marvel thread, but its huge, and it is a general question, but did Marvel sign away the film rights to All Xmen, Fantastic Four, Spider and so on characters to other studios, so they would will not be able to include any characters from those series in any of their own movies? Before Marvel created their own studio, they pimped the rights to all their characters out to other studios. Fox's bid on XMen was a huge gamble at the time (even though they were the most popular comic series, superhero movies to that point had been putrid). When XMen hit Sony bid on Spiderman (and Hulk, I think) and the deluge began. It was only recently that Marvel decided to create their own movie production/studio since, IIRC, other studios were not treating their characters well and movies were coming out too few and far between. This has lead to mixed results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2008 22:42
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any movies, or scenes that are shot in first person? My friend wrote a script from completely first person and is looking for ideas on how to shoot it. Clips of the scenes would be great, but if not just the names and we can rent them. P.S. something besides Being John Malcovich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 22:51
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Does anyone know of any movies, or scenes that are shot in first person? Yes, The Lady and The Lake is in first person: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039545/ http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4AKDw2hwi5I Also check out the opening of John Carpenter's Halloween http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lFILFAaE39U EDIT: poo poo! Also check out the UK Sit-Com 'Peep Show'. That's entirely in first person too: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WLf2HLmFBT8 Disco Pope fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Nov 6, 2008 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 22:54
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Does anyone know of any movies, or scenes that are shot in first person? There's a pretty good segment in Doom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 23:01
|
|
|
Diligent Deadite posted:Yes, The Lady and The Lake is in first person Thanks for reminding me about this, I remember reading about this in a film textbook 10 years ago and I've always meant to check it out. It have any value beyond the novelty factor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 23:19
|
|
|
The entire first half of Dark Passage is filmed first person. It gets old quick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 23:29
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Thanks for reminding me about this, I remember reading about this in a film textbook 10 years ago and I've always meant to check it out. It have any value beyond the novelty factor? It's quite hokey, but it's an entertaining yarn on its own (it's a sanitised version of a Raymond Chandler novel). If you usually like film noir, you can certainly do worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 23:39
|
|
|
Darth Ballz posted:Before Marvel created their own studio, they pimped the rights to all their characters out to other studios. Fox's bid on XMen was a huge gamble at the time (even though they were the most popular comic series, superhero movies to that point had been putrid). When XMen hit Sony bid on Spiderman (and Hulk, I think) and the deluge began. It was only recently that Marvel decided to create their own movie production/studio since, IIRC, other studios were not treating their characters well and movies were coming out too few and far between. This has lead to mixed results. Marvel Film Studio has only released two films Iron Man and Hulk and both did very good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 23:44
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:The entire first half of Dark Passage is filmed first person. It gets old quick. I saw a bit of that once. I kept having Half-Life 2 flashbacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 00:18
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Does anyone know of any movies, or scenes that are shot in first person? The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 03:56
|
|
|
Russian Ark would have to be the dominant example, being that it's completely first person and ninety minutes long (and unbroken).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 04:37
|
|
|
Isn't the crucifixion scene in The Last Temptation of Christ first person? I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 18:57
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Does anyone know of any movies, or scenes that are shot in first person? Strange Days has many scenes like that. Here's the opening sequence for a decent example. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qU14evKo-v4&feature=related Not a bad film once you get through the wall of exposition at the start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 19:53
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Does anyone know of any movies, or scenes that are shot in first person? Horror movies are full of first person scenes. Try "The Blair Witch Project" or "Cloverfield" or "Diary of the Dead". [REC] is also all in first person. For a comedic take, check out the scenes from The Breather's perspective in "Student Bodies". Come to think of it, if anything, there are far too many horror films that use this gimmick now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 23:05
|
|
|
At the beginning of the Departed, it shows Costello and his cronie shooting a man and woman. I assumed it was the father and daughter from the scene before hand, but upon rewatching it, they look completely different. Does it ever say who they are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2008 03:42
|
|
|
Cabin Fever Just saw it yesterday. What is the point of the ending? Why did a group of black kids go into the store and start looking at a scoped rifle? How did that relate to anything in any way? Why a rifle, why black kids? Why did the "hero" boy hit the young cop with a piece of wood? Because he forgot to call a tow truck? He tried to kill him with a log to the head because he forgot to call a tow truck? Seriously, explain this movie. I don't even care about "PANCAKES!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2008 04:03
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Cabin Fever Old Guy Store Owner said earlier in the movie that that gun was "For the niggers!" At the end, he gives the gun to one of the black dude's and says "What's up my friend of the family? Here's your gun, got the action working smoother (or something)." The movie is claimed to be an intentional comedy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2008 04:15
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Does anyone know of any movies, or scenes that are shot in first person? I remember the death scene towards the end of The Professional/Léon was in first person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2008 04:58
|
|
|
'Cabin Fever' is a very funny film I thought. It's more twisted comedy than straight up Horror. For the guy that asked about Christopher McQuarrie earlier in the thread. Basically he spent all that time being a script doctor. It's pretty much a given that he did work on all Bryan Singer's films and was just employed as a general re-writer. They also earn a fortune from it (See also, Frank Darabont and yes it's true, Carrie Fisher).
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2008 14:41
|
|
|
DOOKIE ROPES YO posted:Old Guy Store Owner said earlier in the movie that that gun was "For the niggers!" At the end, he gives the gun to one of the black dude's and says "What's up my friend of the family? Here's your gun, got the action working smoother (or something)." Oh, well the TV edits must have cut that word and, thus, made the film make no sense. So, why did he hit the cop in the head with a log?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2008 19:24
|
|
|
The Exorcist Just finished watching it for the first time I would hate to miss some deeper meaning with the ending. The film ends with the detective entering into a conversation with the singing priest almost verbatim with how he chatted with the boxing priest halfway through the film. Cop asks priest if he wants to see a movie. Cops explains how he loves films and gets good tickets all the time. A title and leading actors are described. Priest states that he already saw it. Cop is disappointed in a passive agressive way. He also mentions that the singing priest is 'another one', or something along those lines. This seems rather mundane, but the way they highlighted it in the movie made it seem so drat important. I really want to know what this has to do with the larger story. Also, what is the significance of the silver medallion? I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but I was too scared to correctly analyze it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2008 06:51
|
|
|
Dr. Coffee posted:This seems rather mundane, but the way they highlighted it in the movie made it seem so drat important. I really want to know what this has to do with the larger story. I can't help directly, but I suggest you watch The Exorcist 3. Those two are the main characters, and George C. Scott gives a great performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2008 06:57
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:At the beginning of the Departed, it shows Costello and his cronie shooting a man and woman. I assumed it was the father and daughter from the scene before hand, but upon rewatching it, they look completely different. It's supposed to be them, who else would it be? I remember in the Departed thread that people argued incessantly over this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2008 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Dr. Coffee posted:The Exorcist Did you watch the "director's" cut? I don't think the film originally ended that way. Ebert thought it was a pretty pointless change, and it might make you feel better about over-analyzing something that didn't seem to be much desired in the first place: quote:4. The original ending of "The Exorcist" shows Regan and her mother leaving their house for the last time. "She doesn't remember any of it," her mother tells Father Dyer. Regan greets him politely, focuses on his Roman collar and suddenly hugs him. They get in the car, which begins to pull away, and then stops so that Chris can give the priest Father Merrin's medal, found in Regan's room. His hand closes over it. The car drives away. The priest looks down the fatal stairs below Regan's bedroom window. He turns away. Music and fadeout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2008 23:27
|
|
