|
Dr. Coffee posted:Also the Coens are waiting for Tuturro to age a little bit more but they are very interested in making a sequel about Fink dealing with the red scare in the 60's. This would be incredible. Where did you hear that?
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
I'LL SHOW YOU THE STATE OF THE LINK! http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/09/21/coen-brothers-want-john-turturro-to-get-old-for-barton-fink-sequel-old-fink/
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 06:27
|
|
|
Dr. Coffee posted:I'LL SHOW YOU THE STATE OF THE LINK! I'm curious... Why would MTV, of all people, report this? None of their audience gives two shits about the Coen bros. or a sequel to Barton Fink, as made apparent by the zero comments made in the past five months. Or does the MTV website operate completely independent of the actual TV network?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:I'm curious... Why would MTV, of all people, report this? None of their audience gives two shits about the Coen bros. or a sequel to Barton Fink, as made apparent by the zero comments made in the past five months. They talked to them at an event (TIFF) and just reported what they said. It's not that difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 10:12
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I just can't get past the way you mix aesthetic preferences with special effects, which I don't think is right. Without wanting to get into too much unnecessary bloviation about critical theory, here's a broad, general claim: there is no such thing as a purely uninflected image. What I mean by that is that there is no way of presenting an image (in general, but let's just talk about film here) without it carrying some sort of connotations which are not inherent in the image itself but are a product of how and to whom it is presented. This sounds like a bunch of light, airy abstraction (not to say bullshit), but just stay with me for a minute. Look at, say, a page of comics. It's pretty easy to see that there are a lot of things there that we understand purely by convention: what order to view the panels in; the difference between a speech bubble and a thought bubble; certain kinds of lines drawn around an object imply motion (something being fast or vibrating or whatever); words which appear in bold, stylised lettering near actions represent noises; and so forth. None of these things are inherent in the comic medium. There are other way the same things could be represented, and the same elements of style could be used to represent completely different things. It would just confuse the gently caress out of a reader, because they're used to a conventional mode of representation in comics. My point is that this is equivalently true in film. Things like eyeline shots, cross-cutting, fades, non-diagetic sound, Dutch angles, and so forth are all things which we understand by convention and are not things which are inherent in the medium. So how we understand these things, and how we interpret what they're intended to literally mean in terms of the narrative and what we take them to imply or connote are a product of the images and sounds in conjunction with the body of convention by which we have acquired our understanding of the grammar with which all these elements are used. With me so far? My point in sorta belabouring this point is to illustrate that while the construction of a film can consist of a lot of stylistic choices, these choices do not exist in a vacuum. These choices are made, realised, and appreciated in terms of---can only be in terms of---the broader conventions of the medium. A lot of the examples I've used here are a lot more dramatic than what we've been talking about in re special effects. In particular most of the examples I've given have involved how different elements of the narrative presentation relate to each other---how one image is related to another, or how a sound is related to an image or event, and so forth. So I'm not saying it's exactly the same thing with what we're talking about. But I am saying that when you look at a particular stylistic choice---like Lucas deciding whether to have a laconic mountain of a Jabba or a twitchy cartoon earthworm---that this isn't a choice that's being made or which can be understood in a void, as an independent choice isolated from all the other, similar choices being made about how other alien critters and whathaveyou are being represented in other contemporary films. I think that there are directors (and other people in filmmaking) that do make stylistically inventive choices, and choices that play against the grain of convention. But that doesn't divorce them from that convention, nor does it do anything to weaken the influence of those conventions on film as a whole. And note that this does not entail a belief that a bunch of art directors or whatever need to sit around and say, `Well, this is what the institutional version of an alien is, and that's influenced by recent CGI effects, so let's try to make our alien look more like a recent high-end CGI effect'. Just like you don't have to believe that Disney illustrators and animators understood neoteny (except intuitively) and nevertheless can believe that neoteny had a lot to do with the development of the designs of their characters. Or without all the  : I'm not mixing aesthetic choices with special effects; I'm saying that special effects are necessarily aesthetic choices. And, further, that the current special effects aesthetics are dominated by elements of style that come from and are particularly suited to modern CGI effects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 09:30
|
|
|
What's with Cleopatra? I read a book all about big disaster films that ruined or almost ruined studios, and besides Heaven's Gate, it's considered the worst studio blunder. But I've also found that it's also considered a great film anyways, a sweeping epic on the level of Gone With the Wind or Ben Hur.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:What's with Cleopatra? I read a book all about big disaster films that ruined or almost ruined studios, and besides Heaven's Gate, it's considered the worst studio blunder. For the longest time it was the most expensive movie ever made and it was solely due to Elizabeth Taylor. It was originally only supposed to cost $2 million and ended up nearly breaking the bank at Fox for $44 million (in 1963 dollars.) They had to shut down production, scrap a ton of sets and then move the entire thing to Italy because she got sick early in filming. Then there was the whole Richard Burton scandal where they met on set and had a very public affair. So basically initial perceptions were pretty tainted toward the movie but it seems that people have mellowed toward it over time as some of the things became less important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 07:06
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:For the longest time it was the most expensive movie ever made and it was solely due to Elizabeth Taylor. It was originally only supposed to cost $2 million and ended up nearly breaking the bank at Fox for $44 million (in 1963 dollars.) They had to shut down production, scrap a ton of sets and then move the entire thing to Italy because she got sick early in filming. Then there was the whole Richard Burton scandal where they met on set and had a very public affair. Yea, according to Wikipedia, adjusted for today's dollars it's the second most expensive movie in history after PotC 3. Though it's amazing that the drat thing cost that much and most of that is behind the scenes stuff. Fox put all its eggs in one basket with Taylor and refused to remove her in favor of Marilyn Munroe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
So, I just recently watched 2001 again. I've always enjoyed it, but more for its cinematography, atmosphere and just generally memorable scenes and characters rather than the actual plot and purpose. Whenever I try to think about the actual movie as a story, I can't reconcile the two parts. There's one plot about the monolith and a separate story about the crew dealing with HAL. I can't understand how these two things relate. I can understand the actual plot, that is the logical progression of events, but thematically these two parts seem completely unrelated. The monolith story is about the evolution of man and the HAL story is a story about the folly of placing too much trust in technology. I feel like the HAL story could be a standalone movie, and in fact is the meat of this movie. But the events of the HAL story are absolutely irrelevant to the monolith story. The crew could have made it all the way to the monolith with no computer malfunction and it would've been the same story. So I guess my question is, what is the point of the entire HAL portion of the movie?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 09:11
|
|
|
2001 is really more of an anthology film, except the separate segments have more to do with one another than usual. And yes, they would have made it to the monolith, indeed, but it might have ended differently. Bowman goes alone because Poole (and everyone else) dies because HAL can't handle keeping a secret. What if the entire crew had gotten there intact? Would they have all gone through the monolith together?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 09:36
|
|
|
It's meant to be a kind of "man overcomes the tools he became a slave to to eveolve to the next level" sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 12:05
|
|
|
I always thought that the monolith was meant to spur on/represent the evolution of man, particularly regarding tools. When it first shows up, weapons are invented; the next shot is of a satellite armed with nuclear warheads. Second time it shows up it's followed by the invention/introduction of HAL, a being fabricated by mankind that can outsmart any human, a cold, calculating being that is greater than its creators. The last one stands for rebirth, but I haven't quite figured it out entirely, yet. edit: Of course, I COULD have it all wrong, but from what I remember (especially as described in the book) the monolith is an alien (maybe from Jupiter, maybe from God, who knows, is there even a difference) structure used to essentially find out is anyone there, and if so can they reach the point of evolution where tey can make contact with the creators. Hence the subtitle of 2010, hence the rest of this wall of text, and hence the best science fiction movie ever made. SEX HAVER 40000 fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Feb 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 12:10
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:It's meant to be a kind of "man overcomes the tools he became a slave to to eveolve to the next level" sort of thing. This is essentially my interpration of the film. The whole movie is about the evolution of man, and the role of technology in this evolution. It starts with the apes powerless, then shows how the invention of tools allows them to conquer their environment. Then, in the space scenes, we see how technology masters the humans, and they become complacent, boring and passionless. The importance of the HAL segment is that it shows the struggle against and the defeat of the technology that is stifling humankind. It is only when Dave has recaptured his humanity that he can advance and be reborn as a (symbolic) giant space baby. Without the HAL segment, the main point of the evolutionary narrative would dissapear, and it would become something like: "In order to evolve, mankind must touch large black slabs and go through trippy wormholes."
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 14:43
|
|
|
Skittle Prickle posted:This is essentially my interpration of the film. The whole movie is about the evolution of man, and the role of technology in this evolution. It starts with the apes powerless, then shows how the invention of tools allows them to conquer their environment. Then, in the space scenes, we see how technology masters the humans, and they become complacent, boring and passionless. The importance of the HAL segment is that it shows the struggle against and the defeat of the technology that is stifling humankind. It is only when Dave has recaptured his humanity that he can advance and be reborn as a (symbolic) giant space baby. Maybe HAL was the next evolutionary step and was supposed to be the one to reach the monolith and be reborn. Way to gently caress it up, Dave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
This is probably one of those questions that have dogged movies for ages, but did the scientists die when they approached the monolith on the Moon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:This is probably one of those questions that have dogged movies for ages, but did the scientists die when they approached the monolith on the Moon? I don't think so. The monolith just sent out a high frequency radio signal that caused a loud ringing in their communicators. Besides, wasn't Dr. Floyd with them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I don't think so. The monolith just sent out a high frequency radio signal that caused a loud ringing in their communicators. Besides, wasn't Dr. Floyd with them? When the sound is heard, they all clutch their helmets and fall to the ground. I checked Wikipedia, and Dr Flyod is Roy Schneider's character in 2010, so clearly he didn't die. Kinda neat that the original Monolith was clear. Thinking about that how much less impressive it would have been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
I'm surprised nobody brought this up yet: http://www.kubrick2001.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
Which scene in The Passion of the Christ contains muppets? edit: I haven't seen the entire movie, maybe about 60% of it, but in the credits a "muppeteer" is mentioned. He's on the IMDB page for this movie also. Doesn't a muppeteer do stuff with muppets? Where are the muppets in this movie? reference: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2619270/ Teriyaki Hairpiece fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Feb 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2010 06:36
|
|
|
Jim Caviezel is not actually real, Mel Gibson didn't think it was appropriate to actually pick a real person as being able to adequately represent Jesus Christ onscreen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Which scene in The Passion of the Christ contains muppets? Didn't someone drop a body or skeleton off a hill at one point? That's all I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
Elmo was the stunt double for Caviezel during the scourging scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 05:23
|
|
|
I was working in a movie theater when I saw the credits for Passion of the Christ (way back in 04) and noticed that working on the movie was a "muppeteer" . I used to point it out to people overwhelmed with emotion who were left in the theater at the end. However, I never actually questioned the idea of muppets in that movie until the last year or two, when I saw the part of it that I saw. I thought, someone on this forum has to know where the muppets were, they just have to! So it's a six-year old question in my mind. I guess it won't be resolved. I cannot at all think where muppets would have been appropriate in that movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I was working in a movie theater when I saw the credits for Passion of the Christ (way back in 04) and noticed that working on the movie was a "muppeteer" . I used to point it out to people overwhelmed with emotion who were left in the theater at the end. However, I never actually questioned the idea of muppets in that movie until the last year or two, when I saw the part of it that I saw. I thought, someone on this forum has to know where the muppets were, they just have to! So it's a six-year old question in my mind. I guess it won't be resolved. I cannot at all think where muppets would have been appropriate in that movie. Just checked the credits on IMDB. Lo and behold, you're right: quote:Philip Farah .... muppeteer
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 06:43
|
|
|
I really hope someone gets to the bottom of this. I mean, it's not just a puppeteer. It specifically says muppeteer. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the term "Muppet" used exclusively for creatures designed by Jim Henson's company? Muppets. In The Passion of the Christ. loving Muppets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
Bambi posted:Just checked the credits on IMDB. Lo and behold, you're right: Phillip Farah is linked in my drat post. Come on, now. I also hope we will get to the bottom of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I really hope someone gets to the bottom of this. I mean, it's not just a puppeteer. It specifically says muppeteer. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the term "Muppet" used exclusively for creatures designed by Jim Henson's company? Hahaha, Crucify Me Elmo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
In a deleted scene Statler and Waldorf criticize the beating as taking too long and not having enough variety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
I went to a Q&A where Caviezel talked about his role. Some of the long shots used a full scale puppet. Also, Mel would wear a clown nose while directing to lighten the mood during the more intense scenes. Caviezel would listen to music with headphones between takes while on the cross for the crucifixion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I went to a Q&A where Caviezel talked about his role. Some of the long shots used a full scale puppet. Also, Mel would wear a clown nose while directing to lighten the mood during the more intense scenes. Caviezel would listen to music with headphones between takes while on the cross for the crucifixion. I wonder if he was listening to this: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
Just watched the Prestige... Is there a reason why the Christian Bale twin who didn't love their wife had to take turns seeing her with the one who did? Couldn't he have just chilled around town in his Fallon disguise?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Which scene in The Passion of the Christ contains muppets? Apart from the mention above of Jesus being a full sized puppet sometimes, I think that weird loving baby thing that Satan had at one point in the film was a puppet too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
Web Jew.0 posted:Just watched the Prestige... It's too impractical. Imagine if the one who doesn't like her has to appear as himself somewhere else shortly after being with her. You'd either have two of the same guy at similar times or they'd have to switch roles very quickly. . Or their schedules would revolve around her and she'd have become more important than their insane Machiavellian scheming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:It's too impractical. Imagine if the one who doesn't like her has to appear as himself somewhere else shortly after being with her. You'd either have two of the same guy at similar times or they'd have to switch roles very quickly. . Or their schedules would revolve around her and she'd have become more important than their insane Machiavellian scheming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Apart from the mention above of Jesus being a full sized puppet sometimes, I think that weird loving baby thing that Satan had at one point in the film was a puppet too. If this is true, then, not a puppet, a muppet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
Maybe he hid a muppet in a crowd scene somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Maybe he hid a muppet in a crowd scene somewhere. Considering Mel Gibson's fondness for the Jewish culture, it was probably Miss Piggy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
I just don't see any logical reason to have a muppet in any part of that movie. Is there someone we could email?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Considering Mel Gibson's fondness for the Jewish culture, it was probably Miss Piggy. Gonzo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Nuke Goes KABOOM posted:Gonzo. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 02:08
|
|
