|
I've always been kinda bummed out that The Departed never shifted any of its popularity onto Infernal Affairs 
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Szmitten posted:I've always been kinda bummed out that The Departed never shifted any of its popularity onto Infernal Affairs
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 15:30
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Yeah, me too. They both do some things better than the other, people should really see both. IA2 was pretty good, too. I wouldn't bother with the third, though, because it has a few ideas but is ultimately... daft. Even watching the whole trilogy in chronological order, some stuff in IA3 doesn't even make a lick of sense. Is there any part 3 of a crime trilogy that isn't a let down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 15:42
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Is there any part 3 of a crime trilogy that isn't a let down? Police Academy III.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:I've always been kinda bummed out that The Departed never shifted any of its popularity onto Infernal Affairs I completely agree. Most people still don't know it's an adaptation. For me, THE DEPARTED is like one big mobile phone commercial, with all the texting and phone calls and whatnot. That scene in INFERNAL AFFAIRS with the guy and the window - just amazing! Such a great film!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:I completely agree. Most people still don't know it's an adaptation. Really? That's how you describe The Departed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:Really? That's how you describe The Departed? I actually describe is as an inferior remake of an awesome original film that stands on it's own and didn't need to be remade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Probably because The Departed is one of the best adaptations of an Asian or eastern movie. Unlike all those lovely "J-horror" remakes, The Departed was actually adapted rather than just copied. It meshes so well with American culture that you'd never guess the story came from China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
Come to think of it, did the opening credits of The Departed say "Based upon the film Infernal Affairs" or anything like that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Is there any part 3 of a crime trilogy that isn't a let down? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425379/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Come to think of it, did the opening credits of The Departed say "Based upon the film Infernal Affairs" or anything like that? There are no opening credits to The Departed. It's the studio logo, and then "Boston: Some Years Ago."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:There are no opening credits to The Departed. It's the studio logo, and then "Boston: Some Years Ago." Yeah, the title is literally like 20 minutes into the movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Is there any part 3 of a crime trilogy that isn't a let down? Until First Strike came out, Supercop from Jackie Chan's Police Story would count.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:
Aliens wasn't shot on Super 35. Back in 1986, you would only use Super 35 if you wanted an aspect ratio of ~2.39.1~ and didn't want to shoot anamorphically. Super 35 requires some modification to the camera in order to center the lens over the negative, it requires custom ground glass, and it wasn't very common in 1986. These days, some shows are shot for 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 (vs. 2.39:1) on 3-perf Super 35- the last "film" job I had did this and it is becoming very common - but back then it wouldn't have been done. And actually had he shot Aliens with a Super 35 camera it would show less grain than it does since the 1.85 extraction area from Super 35 is a bigger area than 1.85 matted Academy. In other words, bigger negative = less grain. Of course, I have no connection to the film, but this stuff is my bread and butter so my guess is somewhat educated. Now, if you want to talk about why Terminator 2 is grainy? The answer is Super 35 in that case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:I actually describe is as an inferior remake of an awesome original film that stands on it's own and didn't need to be remade. The original still stands on it own (whatever that means) and nothing 'needs' to be remade. The Departed is its own film and didn't hurt Infernal Affairs at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:The original still stands on it own (whatever that means) and nothing 'needs' to be remade. To keep this thread from derailing any further, might I suggest we move this to the DEPARTED thread? Because my response could be long and I don't want to distract from the point of this thread. I have a question, to actually add something to this thread: Is it necessary to watch the Bond films in any kind of order, or should I just start with the "best" ones and go from there? Is there an actual continuity to the series?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
I've only seen a handful of Bond films, out of order, and it doesn't seem like there is much of a continuity at all, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Is it necessary to watch the Bond films in any kind of order, or should I just start with the "best" ones and go from there? Is there an actual continuity to the series? I think the only ones where continuity really matters are Casino Royale>Quantum of Solace. We'll see if this trend continues or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Is it necessary to watch the Bond films in any kind of order, or should I just start with the "best" ones and go from there? Is there an actual continuity to the series? No there is very little continuity in the Bond films. But you probably want to see Live or Let Die before The Man with the Golden Gun because Sheriff Pepper will make more sense...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 05:52
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Is it necessary to watch the Bond films in any kind of order, or should I just start with the "best" ones and go from there? Is there an actual continuity to the series? Quantum of Solace was a direct sequel to Casino Royale, so you should watch those two in order if you haven't seen them. The rest of the series has a pretty loose continuity (Joe Don Baker shows up as two different people during the series for crying out loud), though there's some minor connections. A few minor characters reappear, and the Connery films actually have a little more continuity than the rest because the same villain appears for a few different films. Overall though you can watch them in any order and enjoy them just fine. The Bond films aren't exactly masterpieces of subtle storytelling so you won't ever be confused as to what is going on. I will say that the beginning of Diamonds Are Forever doesn't make much sense unless you've seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But you can spare yourself the trouble and just not watch Diamonds Are Forever at all, or just stop watching after the opening credits (it's the worst Connery Bond film). I guess the opening of For Your Eyes Only is a pretty direct reference to OHMSS too. Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Is it necessary to watch the Bond films in any kind of order, or should I just start with the "best" ones and go from there? Is there an actual continuity to the series? The ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is referred to several times through the series, the events of Dr. No are referred to briefly in From Russia With Love, Bond meets Blofeld face to face for the first time in You Only Live Twice, and Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace go together, but other than that there is very little continuity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 10:11
|
|
|
Doctor No and From Russia With Love loosely follow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 14:55
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Quantum of Solace was a direct sequel to Casino Royale, so you should watch those two in order if you haven't seen them. The rest of the series has a pretty loose continuity (Joe Don Baker shows up as two different people during the series for crying out loud), And Charles Gray in You Only Live Twice, and then again in Diamonds are Forever. quote:I will say that the beginning of Diamonds Are Forever doesn't make much sense unless you've seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But you can spare yourself the trouble and just not watch Diamonds Are Forever at all, or just stop watching after the opening credits (it's the worst Connery Bond film). I guess the opening of For Your Eyes Only is a pretty direct reference to OHMSS too. I always thought that Diamonds are Forever was pretty good. I think it's stigmatized because of the ridiculousness of the plot, along with the fact that it's one of the first movies that nails the Bond formula. But since it stars Sean Connery, all is forgiven. Edit: Ok, fixed the Blofeld actor. mojo1701a fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 15:54
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:And Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice, and then again in Diamonds are Forever. Charles Gray played Blofeld in Diamonds are Forever and played Henderson, Bond's Japan contact in You Only Live Twice. I don't recall Donald Pleasence was in DAF, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:No there is very little continuity in the Bond films. Is Sheriff Pepper the one who says "What the hell's ailin' you, boy?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:But since it stars Sean Connery, all is forgiven. But more specifically it stars a tired, phoning-it-in Sean Connery who doesn't give a poo poo. It's easily one of the worst performances as Bond in any single movie in the entire series.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
therattle posted:Is Sheriff Pepper the one who says "What the hell's ailin' you, boy?" Probably. He is a ridiculous good ol boy charicature. I loving love the Roger Moore Bond movies. They don't give any fucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
Is Sheriff Pepper in Diamonds Are Forever? He gets chased around Las Vegas by a similar character but apparently that was someone else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Is Sheriff Pepper in Diamonds Are Forever? He gets chased around Las Vegas by a similar character but apparently that was someone else? Nope, he first appears in Live and Let Die as a the local sheriff, and then he's on vacation in Thailand in Man With The Golden Gun. I'll buy you a delicatessen.....in stainless steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel! And yea, I like Diamonds are Forever, bond seems very at home in rat pack vegas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:And Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice, and then again in Diamonds are Forever. Neither I nor IMDb remember him being in that movie. And I didn't mean to say Diamonds are Forever is terrible, but it's probably in the bottom third of Bond series all in all. You aren't missing much if you don't watch it, except for a pretty good theme song. There's actually a little more continuity than in the Sean Connery era films than there would be later, mostly because SPECTRE shows up in five of them. But it's not like you'll be totally confused if you watch them out of order or anything (except maybe the stuff that happens in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Charles Gray played Blofeld in Diamonds are Forever and played Henderson, Bond's Japan contact in You Only Live Twice. I don't recall Donald Pleasence was in DAF, though. Kentucky Shark posted:Neither I nor IMDb remember him being in that movie. And I didn't mean to say Diamonds are Forever is terrible, but it's probably in the bottom third of Bond series all in all. You aren't missing much if you don't watch it, except for a pretty good theme song. What? Oh, goddamnit. My bad, it was Charles Gray. I don't know why I mixed the two of them up. They didn't even look similar as Blofelds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
Diamonds Are Forever is a Moore Bond film that just happens to star Sean Connery. The presence of Judi Dench in the new Craig movies fucks up the continuity a little bit, because it means she's been M since Bond started out. But in Goldeneye you get all sorts of references to her being new in the job. [/sperg]
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
walkenator posted:Diamonds Are Forever is a Moore Bond film that just happens to star Sean Connery. Except that the new movies aren't part of the same continuity at all so it doesn't matter. Yeah it's weird they decided to keep one actress around in the same role, but she's the best person to ever play the role so why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
walkenator posted:The presence of Judi Dench in the new Craig movies fucks up the continuity a little bit, because it means she's been M since Bond started out. But in Goldeneye you get all sorts of references to her being new in the job. [/sperg] There is no continuity between Goldeneye and the new films. It's a reboot that just happened to carry over one of the actors. edit: son of a bitch
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
But there isn't really any strict "continuity" in the Bond films (except the last two) so there is absolutely no reason to care about that at all. Bond continuity is like, occasionally references and call backs or characters that appear in more than one film. Making it more than that is pointless and nerdy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
James Bond is just a code name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Except that the new movies aren't part of the same continuity at all so it doesn't matter. Yeah it's weird they decided to keep one actress around in the same role, but she's the best person to ever play the role so why not? I know, I'm bitching because I disagree and think Dench should have been retired with the reboot. Ever since she got captured in The World Is Not Enough she comes off as a soap character to me rather than the mysterious yet awesome bureaucrat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 00:44
|
|
|
Nuke Goes KABOOM posted:James Bond is just a code name. He's a clone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Double post
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:He's a clone. He's an immortal that happens to go under periodic facial reconstruction surgery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 02:59
|
|