General Movie Questions (and hopefully answers)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > General Movie Questions (and hopefully answers)

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

fenix down posted:

This has probably been asked before, but has there ever been a remake of a movie or TV show that rose above the source material or got good reviews?

The recent Battlestar Galactica TV remake was almost universally regarded as superior to the original.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 16:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 10:05

NGL: Jan 15, 2003; AssKing

fenix down posted:

This has probably been asked before, but has there ever been a remake of a movie or TV show that rose above the source material or got good reviews?

The only one I could think of was The Man Who Knew Too Much - but it doesn't seem like that one would count.

BSG was mentioned, but there's also The Fly and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I could see a good case being made for MASH and the first two Addams Family movies. Also, the two Clone Wars animated series are far superior to the Prequel Trilogy (but not the Original).

# ? Jul 2, 2010 17:08

FishBulb: Mar 29, 2003; Marge, I'd like to be alone with the sandwich for a moment.

Are you going to eat it?

...yes...

Sorcerer is better than Wages of Fear. Yeah I made a whole thread about it deal with it.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 17:10

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

NGL posted:

I could see a good case being made for MASH

MASH was a movie before it was a TV show.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 17:12

NGL: Jan 15, 2003; AssKing

FitFortDanga posted:

MASH was a movie before it was a TV show.

It certainly was. With Donald Sutherland and a lyrical version of Suicide is Painless.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 17:16

penismightier: Dec 6, 2005; What the hell, I'll just eat some trash.

FitFortDanga posted:

The Thing is generally considered to be better than The Thing From Another World although I don't know if it was well-received at the time.

The Thing remake was not well-received when it came out, people either hated it or didn't go see it because E.T. was playing next door.

And it's totally not better than the original. "An intellectual carrot? The mind boggles!"

# ? Jul 2, 2010 17:20

fenix down: Jan 12, 2005

Thanks guys. I like to imagine there were people pissed off when John Huston's Maltese Falcon was coming out. "Why would you remake a classic like Maltese Falcon?" And then they saw it and went :aaa:

NGL posted:

BSG was mentioned, but there's also The Fly and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I could see a good case being made for MASH and the first two Addams Family movies. Also, the two Clone Wars animated series are far superior to the Prequel Trilogy (but not the Original).

I would argue against the Addams Family movies being better than, but they were enjoyable.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 18:19

doctor 7: Oct 10, 2003; In the grim darkness of the future there is only Oakley.

fenix down posted:

This has probably been asked before, but has there ever been a remake of a movie or TV show that rose above the source material or got good reviews?

The only one I could think of was The Man Who Knew Too Much - but it doesn't seem like that one would count.

Man on Fire.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 18:45

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

The movie of "The Fugitive" was probably better than the original.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 18:45

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD: Sep 14, 2007; everything is yours

Little Shop of Horrors is an easy one.

The Thin Red Line is arguably a remake.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 19:06

Uncle Boogeyman: Jul 22, 2007

The 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead received positive reviews overall. There are even some who prefer it to the original, which I can understand even if I don't agree.

Also, does A Fistful of Dollars count? I love Yojimbo, but Fistful is easily a classic in its own right.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 19:07

Dr_Amazing: Apr 15, 2006; It's a long story

All that talk of Hitchcock zooms made me think of another one. What's that effect where a character is stumling around drunk and their head stays perfectly in frame but the backround is swaying around wildly? It looks like they must have a camera just strapped onto them inches from their head. Is that how they film it?

# ? Jul 2, 2010 19:43

NeuroticErotica: Sep 9, 2003; Perform sex? Uh uh, I don't think I'm up to a performance, but I'll rehearse with you...

Dr_Amazing posted:

All that talk of Hitchcock zooms made me think of another one. What's that effect where a character is stumling around drunk and their head stays perfectly in frame but the backround is swaying around wildly? It looks like they must have a camera just strapped onto them inches from their head. Is that how they film it?

It's called SnorriCam

# ? Jul 2, 2010 19:45

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

NeuroticErotica posted:

It's called SnorriCam

I think Spike Lee is under some sort of contractual obligation to use this at least once per film.

Edit: What was the first use of the more general moving point-of-view shot? I can think of scattered examples---the beginning Dark Passage (1947) and driving sequence in Gun Crazy (1950)---and I think of very early examples of static POV shots (like the 1931 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde).

SubG fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 2, 2010

# ? Jul 2, 2010 19:50

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

SubG posted:

I think Spike Lee is under some sort of contractual obligation to use this at least once per film.

This. I haven't seen all of When the Levees Broke, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he used that shot in it.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 20:05

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD: Sep 14, 2007; everything is yours

I think the only time it truly worked for me in a Spike Lee film was Malcolm X. Every other time, it's just seemed showy and off-putting.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 20:07

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

SubG posted:

Edit: What was the first use of the more general moving point-of-view shot? I can think of scattered examples---the beginning Dark Passage (1947) and driving sequence in Gun Crazy (1950)---and I think of very early examples of static POV shots (like the 1931 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde).

There's Lady in the Lake, which came out a few months before Dark Passage. There's probably an earlier example, though.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 20:25

Honest Thief: Jan 11, 2009

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I think the only time it truly worked for me in a Spike Lee film was Malcolm X. Every other time, it's just seemed showy and off-putting.

What about the Inside Man, when Denzel gets so angry he just seems to glide to the bank doors

# ? Jul 2, 2010 20:27

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

FitFortDanga posted:

There's Lady in the Lake, which came out a few months before Dark Passage. There's probably an earlier example, though.

Yeah, that's what I figure. I mean you could argue the final shot (in most prints of) The Great Train Robbery (1903) is a POV shot (albeit a static one).

There are motion POV shots in Vertov's Chelovek S Kino-Apparatom/Man With A Movie Camera (1929), aren't there?

# ? Jul 2, 2010 20:36

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

SubG posted:

There are motion POV shots in Vertov's Chelovek S Kino-Apparatom/Man With A Movie Camera (1929), aren't there?

While I'm not sure exactly what shots you're referring to, I would consider that to be debatable since there are no real subjective characters in Man With a Movie Camera. Unless you consider the camera a character, and that's a whole other can of worms.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:02

Peaceful Anarchy: Sep 18, 2005; sXe
I am the math man.

SubG posted:

and I think of very early examples of static POV shots (like the 1931 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde).

That sequence isn't static :confused:

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:03

Eggnogium: Jun 1, 2010; Never give an inch! Hnnnghhhhhh!

FitFortDanga posted:

While I'm not sure exactly what shots you're referring to, I would consider that to be debatable since there are no real subjective characters in Man With a Movie Camera. Unless you consider the camera a character, and that's a whole other can of worms.

I'd like to briefly open that can of worms. Can someone explain to me what "camera as a character" means? I've always seen it as a hack phrase used by pretentious movie critics, but maybe I just don't understand the nuance. And I don't mean in out-there movies like Man With a Movie Camera (never seen it but I'm familiar with the premise), I mean in movies that are more or less traditional in their narrative techniques.

Here's a good example where I have no idea what it means. (Ctrl+f for "camera is a character")

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:11

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

Eggnogium posted:

I'd like to briefly open that can of worms. Can someone explain to me what "camera as a character" means? I've always seen it as a hack phrase used by pretentious movie critics, but maybe I just don't understand the nuance. And I don't mean in out-there movies like Man With a Movie Camera (never seen it but I'm familiar with the premise), I mean in movies that are more or less traditional in their narrative techniques.

Here's a good example where I have no idea what it means. (Ctrl+f for "camera is a character")

I'm not terribly qualified to comment on this, but basically it means the camera has an agenda or a viewpoint of its own, distinct from simply providing a "neutral" vantage point for the action or representing the view of one of the actors.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:21

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

That sequence isn't static

Isn't it? I haven't seen the film in years but that's how I was remembering it.

FitFortDanga posted:

While I'm not sure exactly what shots you're referring to, I would consider that to be debatable since there are no real subjective characters in Man With a Movie Camera. Unless you consider the camera a character, and that's a whole other can of worms.

I don't think you normally expect a POV shot to be literally from the point of view of one of the characters. The in-car camera shot in Gun Crazy is behind both of the characters (the camera being in the back seat), for example.

In Man With A Movie Camera I was thinking of the sequence where the two cameras, both in cars, are filming each other.

The reason I started thinking about it was that Johnnie To has done a couple of things like SnorriCam but different, often involving multiple characters on a platform that's moving with the camera. There's an (awkward) example of this in (if I'm remembering it correctly) Hak Se Wui/Election (2005) where there are two guys at a table in a restaurant and as they're negotiating their big important Triad deals, they and the table are on some sort of swing arrangement with the camera, so the restaurant in the background is sorta rocking in the background. I remember the shot better than the film, because it was really distracting---in general as a `hey, dig me!' sorta shot, but also because all the poo poo on the table wasn't stabilised or anything, so everybody's drinks were sloshing around and so forth.

Anyway, I was thinking that the SnorriCam shot as such can't predate the steadicam, but the general idea (camera on a moving platform with one or more of the actors) has to go back further.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:23

Peaceful Anarchy: Sep 18, 2005; sXe
I am the math man.

SubG posted:

Isn't it? I haven't seen the film in years but that's how I was remembering it.

Starts a minute in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-FHqEi_LE It's a great sequence.

SubG posted:

but the general idea (camera on a moving platform with one or more of the actors) has to go back further.

I just watched Wings and there's a shot where two characters are on a swing and the camera moves with them. I'm not sure if this is what you mean.

Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jul 2, 2010

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:28

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

SubG posted:

I don't think you normally expect a POV shot to be literally from the point of view of one of the characters. The in-car camera shot in Gun Crazy is behind both of the characters (the camera being in the back seat), for example.

Well now I'm getting confused. Isn't "literally from the point of view of one of the characters"... the definition of a POV shot? I'll have to pop in Gun Crazy later, I remember the scene but not the particulars of the shot. But what specifically makes it a POV shot and not just a camera inside the car?

SubG posted:

In Man With A Movie Camera I was thinking of the sequence where the two cameras, both in cars, are filming each other.

Ah, I don't remember that. I've been holding out on rewatching MWAMC in the hopes of a Blu-Ray release.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:30

NeuroticErotica: Sep 9, 2003; Perform sex? Uh uh, I don't think I'm up to a performance, but I'll rehearse with you...

SubG posted:

I think Spike Lee is under some sort of contractual obligation to use this at least once per film.

Spike actually uses a different method - Under a snorricam the camera moves with every step the actor takes - left right left right, etc.

Spike sits them down on a dolly that has a camera mounted to it so that they glide instead of move with the camera.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I think the only time it truly worked for me in a Spike Lee film was Malcolm X. Every other time, it's just seemed showy and off-putting.

I thought it was great in 25th Hour

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:31

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

I just watched Wings and there's a shot where two characters are on a swing and the camera moves with them. I'm not sure if this is what you mean.

Ray does that in Charulata too (and also Teen Kanya IIRC). Now I'm wondering if he got the idea from Wings.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:35

Peaceful Anarchy: Sep 18, 2005; sXe
I am the math man.

FitFortDanga posted:

Ray does that in Charulata too (and also Teen Kanya IIRC). Now I'm wondering if he got the idea from Wings.

Isn't there also a shot like this in Renoir's Partie de Campagne? I'm sure there are other films with such shots between 1927 and 1964 that are more likely to have influenced Ray.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:43

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

NeuroticErotica posted:

Spike actually uses a different method - Under a snorricam the camera moves with every step the actor takes - left right left right, etc.
Spike sits them down on a dolly that has a camera mounted to it so that they glide instead of move with the camera.

Is that uncommon? Before the internet was around as a font of all wisdom I actually assumed that this was usually the case; in fact when I first saw it assumed that's what Scorsese did for the `Rubber Biscuit Shot' in Mean Streets (1973) and for the longest time I was trying to figure out how he handled it when Keitel keels over at the end.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

I just watched Wings and there's a shot where two characters are on a swing and the camera moves with them. I'm not sure if this is what you mean.

Yeah, that sort of thing. I don't really have a thesis I'm working here. It's one of those things that seems like a really obvious (if easily overused) element of the grammar of narrative film. Just wondering how far back it goes and if it's one of those things that was thought of very early on and then was more or less not used for years.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:43

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

Isn't there also a shot like this in Renoir's Partie de Campagne?

I was thinking of that too, but I believe the camera is static in that shot.

# ? Jul 2, 2010 21:47

Peaceful Anarchy: Sep 18, 2005; sXe
I am the math man.

FitFortDanga posted:

I was thinking of that too, but I believe the camera is static in that shot.

I just looked it up on youtube and it seems to switch perspectives, the camera is static then there's a cut away and when it cuts back it moves with the swing. Regardless, that shot is much more similar to the one in Charulata than the one in Wings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKHr2li4Awk#t=6m20s

# ? Jul 2, 2010 22:56

Magic Hate Ball: May 6, 2007; ha ha ha!
you've already paid for this

There's something amazingly charming about the idea of the swing being an icon of romanticized lust. It reminds me of this painting. There need to be more period films about the kinds of people in that painting.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 00:34

Zogo: Jul 29, 2003

fenix down posted:

This has probably been asked before, but has there ever been a remake of a movie or TV show that rose above the source material or got good reviews?

The Odd Couple Movie from the 60s and the subsequent popular 70s TV show.

Both versions of Cape Fear are popular.

Then there is I Am Legend novel. And the three movies that followed: The Last Man on Earth was in 1964 then came The Omega Man in 1971 (my favorite) and I Am Legend in 2007.

Another is Point of No Return vs La Femme Nikita

And the Land of the Lost was on par with at least the early 90s version. I haven't seen too much of the original TV show.

FitFortDanga posted:

The Fly
Gaslight

I liked the updated versions of these as well.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 00:38

Factor Mystic: Mar 20, 2006; Baby's First Post-Apocalyptic Fiction

Finally got around to watching Death Proof all the way through. Great, weird flick. Simultaneously both a girls' movie and a guys' movie... or maybe just a girls' movie in guy clothes. Or vice versa. I don't know. I liked it.

What was up with the text that Jungle Julia was sending/receiving at the bar in the first segment? At first I just thought she was texting her no-show boyfriend or something, but then the lesbians showed up, but I didn't catch any of their names. What was going on?

Also I prefer to think that Kurt Russell was playing himself, and Death Proof might actually have just been a Kurt Russell documentary.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 06:51

The Duke: May 19, 2004; The Angel from my Nightmare

Factor Mystic posted:

What was up with the text that Jungle Julia was sending/receiving at the bar in the first segment? At first I just thought she was texting her no-show boyfriend or something, but then the lesbians showed up, but I didn't catch any of their names. What was going on?

It was her no-show boyfriend, I believe the mention him and his falikiness in one of the conversations in the car earlier in the movie.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 07:18

FitFortDanga: Nov 19, 2004; Nice try, asshole

SubG posted:

There are motion POV shots in Vertov's Chelovek S Kino-Apparatom/Man With A Movie Camera (1929), aren't there?

I'm in the middle of Saga of Gosta Berling (1924) and there's a motion POV shot in that. About halfway through, when Marianne is chasing the carriage.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 08:25

AlternateAccount: Apr 25, 2005; FYGM

Factor Mystic posted:

Finally got around to watching Death Proof all the way through. Great, weird flick. Simultaneously both a girls' movie and a guys' movie... or maybe just a girls' movie in guy clothes. Or vice versa. I don't know. I liked it.

NO, you don't leave cheerleader Mary Elizabeth Winstead with some hillbilly halfway through never to be seen again. Epic unrecoverable failure.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 10:00

Rake Arms: Sep 15, 2007; It's just not the same without widescreen.

I loved Death Proof, but I'm afraid to watch it again now that I've fallen hopelessly in love with Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 10:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 10:05

Criminal Minded: Jan 4, 2005; Spring break forever

Dr_Amazing posted:

All that talk of Hitchcock zooms made me think of another one. What's that effect where a character is stumling around drunk and their head stays perfectly in frame but the backround is swaying around wildly? It looks like they must have a camera just strapped onto them inches from their head. Is that how they film it?

That's exactly how Scorsese did it in Mean Streets with Harvey Keitel.

# ? Jul 3, 2010 10:48

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > General Movie Questions (and hopefully answers)

«‹›497 »