|
I remember a movie from my childhood that had a family with a friendly protective cat. It was some kind of horror movie. It has to have been from the mid to late 80's I think. The family was attacked by a horde of evil cats that wanted to kill them. They had to barricade themselves in a room and I can remember the evil leader cat ripping up a pillow or something to get in the room. I also seem to remember evil "cat people" being in this movie too. Like hybrid cat-humans. Does this ring a bell for anyone? What was this movie called? I tried google but it is failing me.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
OpusD posted:I remember a movie from my childhood that had a family with a friendly protective cat. It was some kind of horror movie. It has to have been from the mid to late 80's I think. The family was attacked by a horde of evil cats that wanted to kill them. They had to barricade themselves in a room and I can remember the evil leader cat ripping up a pillow or something to get in the room. I also seem to remember evil "cat people" being in this movie too. Like hybrid cat-humans. Does this ring a bell for anyone? What was this movie called? Cat people. http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=cat+people I thought this movie was awesome when I was a kid. And bonus Mother-son sex scene!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 09:24
|
|
|
Awesome Andy posted:Cat people. YES, I think this was it! I remember the friendly cat-girl in it too. Thank you good sir. She's like I'd gently caress you...but then I'd have to kill you! Wow, I can't believe I put the movie name in parenthesis. I just wanted to emphasize the cat-people. I guess I fail at google. OpusD fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Jan 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 09:28
|
|
|
Cat People also has a pretty great score by Giorgio Moroder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 10:37
|
|
|
Oddio posted:I recently watched Synecdoche, New York; and I'd like to read the SA discussion on it, but I cannot find it. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2944116 but I'm pretty sure it's archived. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3168853 is a shorter discussion that may not be archived.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 13:17
|
|
|
What's the Western where the town gets a new sign calling it "Hellville" or something strange? It's a very weird movie with supernatural stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
High Plains Drifter, with Clint Eastwood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
Awesome Andy posted:Cat people. Weird, I really thought it was Steven King's Sleepwalkers which oddly enough also has a mother-son sex scene (if I recall correctly).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
KasioDiscoRock posted:Weird, I really thought it was Steven King's Sleepwalkers which oddly enough also has a mother-son sex scene (if I recall correctly). And it turns out this was the movie I remember from my youth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
KasioDiscoRock posted:Weird, I really thought it was Steven King's Sleepwalkers which oddly enough also has a mother-son sex scene (if I recall correctly).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 21:13
|
|
|
Disco De Soto posted:And when they want a horse, they just tape a bunch of cats together. that's absolutely hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Perhaps a stupid question, but in Blade Runner why does Rachael ask Deckard if he's done the empathy test on himself? Does she suspect that he is a replica, and if so, why does she suspect that / how does she know that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
Regression posted:Perhaps a stupid question, but in Blade Runner why does Rachael ask Deckard if he's done the empathy test on himself? Does she suspect that he is a replica, and if so, why does she suspect that / how does she know that? I haven't seen the entire movie in years, but I believe this line comes at a point in the story shortly after Rachael herself has been tested (and it took much longer than normal, and she doesn't know what the result was). So, she is starting to question her own identity, which is a pretty frightening thing to contemplate, so it's logical that she'd rather challenge the accuracy of the Voight-Kampff test itself, and the supposed competence of the "man" who tested her. Note that earlier she also asks him if he's ever "retired" a human by mistake. I think this is enough justification for Rachael's line. Whether she actually suspects Deckard of being a replicant, I couldn't say. I would have thought she would be more concerned with her own identity than with Deckard's. Besides, I don't know if it has any bearing on the story whether she does or not. All that matters is that she puts the question out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
qntm posted:I think this is enough justification for Rachael's line. Whether she actually suspects Deckard of being a replicant, I couldn't say. I would have thought she would be more concerned with her own identity than with Deckard's. Besides, I don't know if it has any bearing on the story whether she does or not. All that matters is that she puts the question out there. Thanks for the reply, you might be right. The reason I find it important is that the question of is Deckard a replicant (if I remember correctly) is a major issue in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - and I feel this very fascinating question didn't get enough "time" in the movie, apart from that one line of Rachael's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
Regression posted:Thanks for the reply, you might be right. The reason I find it important is that the question of is Deckard a replicant (if I remember correctly) is a major issue in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - and I feel this very fascinating question didn't get enough "time" in the movie, apart from that one line of Rachael's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
qntm posted:I haven't seen the entire movie in years, but I believe this line comes at a point in the story shortly after Rachael herself has been tested (and it took much longer than normal, and she doesn't know what the result was). So, she is starting to question her own identity, which is a pretty frightening thing to contemplate, so it's logical that she'd rather challenge the accuracy of the Voight-Kampff test itself, and the supposed competence of the "man" who tested her. Note that earlier she also asks him if he's ever "retired" a human by mistake. It's actually significantly later in the movie, when she's beginning to come to terms with being a replicant and meets Deckard at his house. And she doesn't ask because she suspects he may be one too- she wants to know if he can relate to her experience. The test is "designed to provoke an emotional response", after all; real humans should feel emotions strong enough to produce involuntary physical reactions the machine can detect and replicants are revealed by their lack thereof. Perhaps she was hoping to be told that it's completely typical to be disturbed by the experience and reassured that she's still pretty close to human after all, or use that to go back into denial, but Deckard's fallen asleep. haveblue fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jan 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
SubG posted:No, the novel doesn't suggest it even to the extent that the film does. There's a lot more exposition involving Deckard's conflicted feelings about his profession, but there's no implications beyond that. Huh, I guess I need to reread it. Interesting analysis, haveblue. Thanks all for the comments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
Regression posted:I feel this very fascinating question didn't get enough "time" in the movie, apart from that one line of Rachael's. No spoiler tags considering everything is debatable. I'm not sure which version you saw, but the movie actually spends a whole lot of time on this issue. There are visual clues, like the glow in the eyes of replicants (watch and see if this ever happens to Deckard), the infamous dream sequence (how would Gaff know?), Deckard's collection of photographs, and a whole bunch of tiny clues which are debated and argued over endlessly by fans of the film (ex: is Gaff the actual Blade Runner and Deckard his puppet?).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
I just watched Inglourious Basterds again the other day, and was wondering if it is ever explained what happens to the rest of the Basterds? Aldo and Utivich live through to the end. Omar and Donny- Kill Hitler, Go Boom. Stiglitz and Wicki- Killed in the fuckin' basement. Which leaves the following unaccounted for: PFC Gerold Hirschberg PFC Andy Kagan PFC Michael Zimmerman PFC Simon Sakowitz Did I miss something? Or are we to assume they were killed offscreen through various misadventure? Another thing my friends and I debated was Stiglitz's motivation. I was pretty sure there was no reason given for his murder-lust, apart from having unusually high levels of AWESOME in his system. I didn't miss anything there did I?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
LargeMaleDogOrHorse posted:Another thing my friends and I debated was Stiglitz's motivation. I was pretty sure there was no reason given for his murder-lust, apart from having unusually high levels of AWESOME in his system. I didn't miss anything there did I? There's a brief flashback scene in the bar where it shows him being whipped, presumably by SS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
DevilOnYourShoulder posted:There's a brief flashback scene in the bar where it shows him being whipped, presumably by SS. One of my mates raised that too, but I took it to be indicative of torture after he was captured. If the torture was his motivation, why was he tortured?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
LargeMaleDogOrHorse posted:One of my mates raised that too, but I took it to be indicative of torture after he was captured. If the torture was his motivation, why was he tortured? I was curious about that. It's not like the Nazi's didn't give people reasons to hate them. Maybe Hugo's family was killed by the SS, or he had a brother that died on the Eastern Front and he played the Nazi leadership of the army for it. There is a million different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 23:44
|
|
|
Maybe he just saw through Third Reich propaganda and objected on a moral level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 11:01
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Maybe he just saw through Third Reich propaganda and objected on a moral level. This. That's all you really need to take from it. That and he was a stone-cold, badass killer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 11:06
|
|
|
Did Danny Glover have a stroke?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
Did anyone make a thread for Legion? Does...does anyone care?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Did anyone make a thread for Legion? No. If they do care, then they really shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:No. I see all the new hits! Legion was no stupider than Book of Eli.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
Well, based on the reaction on CD thus far, I kinda doubt a Legion thread would make it past two or three pages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
I'm wondering if anyone has recommendations for books (or films for that matter) on filming techiniques. While I'm not planning on doing any directing myself, I'd really like to learn more about cinematic storytelling and its conventions. I saw Film Directing Shot by Shot in a bookstore, and it looked like it had a lot of good information and plenty of graphical demonstrations. Has anyone read this or any other book they'd recommend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Caddrel posted:I'm wondering if anyone has recommendations for books (or films for that matter) on filming techiniques. While I'm not planning on doing any directing myself, I'd really like to learn more about cinematic storytelling and its conventions. It's probably not exactly what you're looking for but In the Blink of an Eye by famed editor Walter Murch is a really easy read and it talks a lot about how editing is used for storytelling, which honestly sometimes is more important than what was actually shot. A story can completely change from it's original intention in the editing stages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Well, based on the reaction on CD thus far, I kinda doubt a Legion thread would make it past two or three pages. Dammit man, we have to try!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 02:37
|
|
|
I was watching Aliens on the weekend and was wondering about why it looks the way it does. The way it's filmed and lit, it looked more like a low-budget TV movie than an actual film released in cinemas. Especially an early scene where that armoured tank thing is revealed, it looked more like a prop than an actual functional vehicle. Can anyone explain this? I know it's directed by James Cameron, was it a stylistic choice of his, or is it the norm for a sci-fi/action film from the 1980s?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 11:07
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Did anyone make a thread for Legion? I'm thinking about seeing it. I'm a sucker for Biblical Apocalypses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 14:07
|
|
|
Creature posted:is it the norm for a sci-fi/action film from the 1980s? It's this. Aliens was seven years before Jurassic Park, it was all practical effects and there was no digital compositing or anything fancy like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
Creature posted:I was watching Aliens on the weekend and was wondering about why it looks the way it does. The way it's filmed and lit, it looked more like a low-budget TV movie than an actual film released in cinemas. Especially an early scene where that armoured tank thing is revealed, it looked more like a prop than an actual functional vehicle. You're kidding right? The film has bar none some of the best practical effects ever committed to film. The entire end fight was done with two life sized puppets and to me never once look anything but completely believable. If you're referring purely to the lighting and "look" then i guess its a subjective thing as i never once thought that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:If you're referring purely to the lighting and "look" then i guess its a subjective thing as i never once thought that. Agreed, i don't see anything wrong with the "look" and to be honest in the environment that its set in (terraformed planet) I think bright sunshine would of looked out of place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
Creature posted:I was watching Aliens on the weekend and was wondering about why it looks the way it does. The way it's filmed and lit, it looked more like a low-budget TV movie than an actual film released in cinemas. Especially an early scene where that armoured tank thing is revealed, it looked more like a prop than an actual functional vehicle. You're not going to get much of a response with hyperbole (seriously, I've seen everything Sci-Fi throws out on Saturday evenings and they don't aspire to reach that bar). Low budget TV movie, seriously? More to the point, the film is a mix of practical miniatures and life size mockups. I know the lifesize stuff of the APC was built on an aircraft carrier utility vehicle. For a lot of the rest you're looking at the old school bigatures and optical compositing. It's got rough edges like most special effects but many consider it to be quite convincing even by modern standards. It doesn't change them being special effects though so they might not be totally convincing to more modern eyes. I make it a point to appreciate different levels of appreciation but you've honestly got the only severely negative opinion of special effects in Aliens I've ever come across.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
^^^ Some people are either too young to have even seen sfx in Aliens as good at the time or they've just been spoiled by movies like Avatar and District 9. Speaking of which...NeuroticErotica posted:Problem is Blomkamp in his shorts has shown amazing prowess for effects, but doesn't tell a story in any of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
hog wizard posted:I was browsing through the thread from page 1, noticed that it was from a long time ago and just wanted to post this. There should be a thread for "old posts that are now seen as hilariously wrong." The Star Trek thread, the Avatar thread(s), and the Transformers 2 thread would be absolute gold mines for that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 17:15
|
|