|
twistedmentat posted:7The book is pretty clear on most of the weird stuff in the movie. Dave travels though a series of star gates and passes though a galactic grand central station. The Monolith evolves him as it is programed to do, and creates the star child, who proceeds to dedicative all the nukes in orbit. Or isn't that 2010? That's 2010. The book of 2001 ends in about the same place the movie does. The book of 2010 includes the adventures of Starchild Bowman around the solar system, messing up nukes in Earth orbit and spying on the Jupiter ecosystem before it gets exploded.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Man those books sound way less interesting in the movie. Whats wrong with a little ambiguity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
You also have to keep in mind that every book retconned the previous book and the movies, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
It's still a lesser fall from grace than what happened to the Rama series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
I'm watching Blade Runner Final Cut, and once again I'm confused about the scene when Deckard is analyzing the photo in that machine. At the end of the scene when he is super zoomed in and sees the girl, is he actually changing the viewing angle? If not that, then something weird with perspective is going on. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
Its crazy impossible future technology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
poonchasta posted:I'm watching Blade Runner Final Cut, and once again I'm confused about the scene when Deckard is analyzing the photo in that machine. At the end of the scene when he is super zoomed in and sees the girl, is he actually changing the viewing angle? If not that, then something weird with perspective is going on. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I once read that the idea what the camera actually took a 3d image, and there for had depth that could be read by the photoscanner machines. I guess that makes as much sense as anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:7The book is pretty clear on most of the weird stuff in the movie. Dave travels though a series of star gates and passes though a galactic grand central station. The Monolith evolves him as it is programed to do, and creates the star child, who proceeds to dedicative all the nukes in orbit. Or isn't that 2010? No, you were right, the grand central station/inverted space was in 2001 and on the last page the star child deactivates nukes on the orbital station.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
I guess this is as good as place to ask this (unless there's a old Alfred Hitchcock megathread that I'm not seeing, in which case I would be happy if someone could point me to it). I have recently re watched Rear Window (it's fantastic), and couldn't help but wonder what was up with the "fast forwarding" of the final scenes, specifically when Jeffries is dangling from the window and the cops grab the killer. It just doesn't feel right, and looks pretty weird. At first I thought it was just a way to convey some excitement, and that the best way the director thought to do it (with the more limited means back then) was to put that part in fast-motion. Then I realized how dumb that was, since this is loving Hitchcock we're talking about, and if he did it, he must have had a good reason for it. Just wondering if anyone has read some of his interviews or something and knows the thought process behind that decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Mean Bean Machine posted:I guess this is as good as place to ask this (unless there's a old Alfred Hitchcock megathread that I'm not seeing, in which case I would be happy if someone could point me to it). I have recently re watched Rear Window (it's fantastic), and couldn't help but wonder what was up with the "fast forwarding" of the final scenes, specifically when Jeffries is dangling from the window and the cops grab the killer. It just doesn't feel right, and looks pretty weird. I noticed it after seeing it at least 3-4 times... It certainly worked to add to the frenzy of the moment. My opinion is that the speed-up was intentional to create a feeling of disorientation, along with the shot from above with Jeffries falling. It's almost subliminal because the shots go by so quickly. On that subject, I love the gross "crushing celery + squishing melon" sound put in as Jeffries hits the pavement, breaking his legs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
So I'm hoping someone on here might be able to fill me in on this question but I just finished watching a movie last night called 'Otis' and for the life of me couldn't figure out if the pizza guy the kid filled with buckshot was Otis . I remember one of the characters asking if it was and then just immediately cutting to credits and it just seemed like such a poo poo, poo poo ending to an otherwise bland movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
Niggurath posted:Otis...bland movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Okay, I was wondering about Zombie movies. When the zombies are eating people, what is it? I know in some they look like they real raw meat. Especially in older ones, like Night Of The Living Dead. I heard a story that in Day of The Dead, when one of the guys gets torn apart, his intestines are sausage links, but because they were bad, they smelled really bad, so when the actor got torn up, him wincing on camera is from the smell. But I find it hard to believe that actors would be willing to chow down on raw meat for scenes. Or even allowed by unions and working standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 05:47
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Zardoz is one of the few movies I would totally support getting re-made, because it has some genuine good ideas and could make some great sci-fi. The society in Ĉon Flux reminds me a lot of the society in Zardoz. Although Ĉon Flux doesn't touch on many of the allegories and themes as strongly and overtly as Zardoz does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 05:53
|
|
|
Why the hell is Armageddon in the Criterion Collection?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 09:07
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Why the hell is Armageddon in the Criterion Collection? Because that's them covering the Hollywood Blockbuster genre and the money they make from it covers the losses of the other DVDs
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 09:11
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Okay, I was wondering about Zombie movies. When the zombies are eating people, what is it? I know in some they look like they real raw meat. Especially in older ones, like Night Of The Living Dead. I heard a story that in Day of The Dead, when one of the guys gets torn apart, his intestines are sausage links, but because they were bad, they smelled really bad, so when the actor got torn up, him wincing on camera is from the smell. Its my understanding that they use pig organs. And the zombies eating them are crazy fans willing to eat raw pig organs for a chance to get on screen in a Romero movie. And from IMDB: The blood and entrails used in the disemboweling of Capt. Rhodes were real. Pig intestines and blood were procured form a nearby slaughterhouse and used to make the scene. During filming the refrigerator housing intestines and blood was unplugged by custodial staff, and the entrails started to spoil causing most of those involved to become physically sick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I often find myself defending Tarantino when people say "He just copies other artists." Fist, he openly acknowledges the filmmakers he borrows from, and second can you really say that Kill Bill is exactly like *insert movie here*? Sure, you can note the similarities to Lady Snowblood or Death Rides a horse, but can you really say that there are any movies out there that achieve the same style as Kill Bill? How about Inglourious Basterds? No, because the key to his style is that it's reflexive. Like a Warhol painting, a Tarantino film takes this and that from pop culture and puts a new spin on it to get you thinking about it in a different way. I think my problem with Tarantino is that he knows all this poo poo but hasn't internalized his influences. I feel like the reason he gets away with it is because whatever he's referencing, you probably haven't heard of it or seen it before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
I still maintain Armageddon is far from the worst movie in the Criterion Collection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I still maintain Armageddon is far from the worst movie in the Criterion Collection. It is bad in a good way though. It is the type of movie I could put on in the background while doing some work and never feel like I am missing much of anything when I turn around every 10 minutes and watch for five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 21:10
|
|
|
Judakel posted:It is bad in a good way though. It is the type of movie I could put on in the background while doing some work and never feel like I am missing much of anything when I turn around every 10 minutes and watch for five minutes. But is that really the kind of movie that belongs in the Criterion Collection?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
Judakel posted:It is bad in a good way though. It is the type of movie I could put on in the background while doing some work and never feel like I am missing much of anything when I turn around every 10 minutes and watch for five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
I watched Kick-rear end last night, and it got me thinking; how often do films use pieces of music from another film's score? I'm sure it must happen a decent amount, but I'm drawing a complete blank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Akuma posted:I watched Kick-rear end last night, and it got me thinking; how often do films use pieces of music from another film's score? I'm sure it must happen a decent amount, but I'm drawing a complete blank. However, I'm pretty sure it's more common in trailers, like how The Imperial March found its way into the trailer for It's Complicated 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
Akuma posted:I watched Kick-rear end last night, and it got me thinking; how often do films use pieces of music from another film's score? I'm sure it must happen a decent amount, but I'm drawing a complete blank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
Binowru posted:But is that really the kind of movie that belongs in the Criterion Collection? Why not? The action blockbuster is a perfectly valid subset of cinema.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:01
|
|
|
SubG posted:Every Tarantino film with a score.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Why not? The action blockbuster is a perfectly valid subset of cinema.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Why not? The action blockbuster is a perfectly valid subset of cinema. Alright, so why isn't Mad Max 2 a Criterion film? Or, as long as we're naming bad films, why is Armageddon Criterion but not ID4? It's a pretty good question that I don't think has ever been explained adequately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
I imagine that a lot of it has to do with what they could get the rights for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Armageddon is still a pretty piss-poor example of the action blockbuster. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but what about a Criterion version of Minority Report? That's a sterling example of the action blockbuster. That definitely seems way more appropriate than Armageddon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
Parachute posted:That definitely seems way more appropriate than Armageddon. 1) There was an Armageddon Criterion before Minority Report was even in theaters. 2) I doubt Criterion could get the rights to a Spielberg movie (although they did get Close Encounters on laserdisc) Anyway, if we're talking about a film to represent the typical blockbuster -- lots of big stars, big explosions, cheesy rock soundtrack, "turn your brain off" fun -- Armageddon is a better fit. FitFortDanga fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:1) There was an Armageddon Criterion before Minority Report was even in theaters. The Rock is a really good example of the genre though. Much love to The Rock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
Action blockbusters come and go these days, though, there's very few modern titles with lasting power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Doesn't count! Too obvious! Or how about when a composer quotes his own music, like Jerry Goldsmith using part of his score from Patton (1970) as the theme for Bruce Dern's character in The 'Burbs (1989)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:39
|
|
|
Akuma posted:I watched Kick-rear end last night, and it got me thinking; how often do films use pieces of music from another film's score? I'm sure it must happen a decent amount, but I'm drawing a complete blank. They're a bit older, but Night of the Living Dead and Teenagers from Outer Space use the same score.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
SubG posted:Every Tarantino film with a score. In fact, the only original score in any Tarantino movie is a handful of short pieces by Robert Rodriguez and RZA in Kill Bill. Though I have to say, Tarantino is a genius at recycling scores, especially Morricone. It's like all the music from Death Rides a Horse and Navajo Joe were just waiting for Kill Bill to be made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Though I have to say, Tarantino is a genius at recycling scores, especially Morricone. It's like all the music from Death Rides a Horse and Navajo Joe were just waiting for Kill Bill to be made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:I felt the same thing about White Dog. Huh. White Dog was such a better movie before I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
FishBulb posted:White Dog was such a better movie before I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 00:06
|
|