|
Toebone posted:I get the feeling he was asking more about obviously promotional stuff that has nothing to do with the film, like Limited Edition Star Wars Coca-Cola and Shrek Pancakes and IHOP and stuff like that. Soundtracks and novelizations don't seem quite as blatant.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
SubG posted:Okay, so a tie-in novelisation isn't a tie-in? Then how about the Charlie Chaplin merchandise produced by Essanay starting in the teens? If not that, then what about things like the Royal Doulton figurines produced for Disney films since at least the '40s? Yea, that would be more like what I was looking for. As was said, soundtracks and novelizations aren't on the same level as Cars ice cream sandwiches. And that's pretty cool they made Chaplin related stuff way back in the early days of Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:In 1980, Baskin-Robbins had a cross-promotion with the Village People movie Can't Stop the Music. I believe the flavor was "Can't Stop the Nuts" (can I get a double scoop with extra irony, please?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
I just noticed that John McTiernan came out with Predator, Die Hard, and The Hunt for Red October in the span of roughly 3 years. Each one of those films are arguably the greatest films of their sub-genres. That's extremely impressive. Can anyone think of other directors that came out with 3 very important and iconic films in roughly 3 years? I'm trying to think of some and I'm blanking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:I just noticed that John McTiernan came out with Predator, Die Hard, and The Hunt for Red October in the span of roughly 3 years. Each one of those films are arguably the greatest films of their sub-genres. That's extremely impressive. Nope, can't think of any. Edit: Still trying still drawing a blank. Maybe, Oops false alarm too bad Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
I don't know why I never realized these were made so close to each other. The fact that North by Northwest and Vertigo are technicolor and Psycho is black and white throws me off I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:I just noticed that John McTiernan came out with Predator, Die Hard, and The Hunt for Red October in the span of roughly 3 years. Each one of those films are arguably the greatest films of their sub-genres. That's extremely impressive. The Hunt for Red October is the greatest submarine film ever? Really? Also: The Godfather, The Conversation, and Godfather 2 were all done within 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Surprised you didn't pick three John Ford films, penismightier
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
I'll do it: Stagecoach (1939) The Grapes of Wrath (1940) How Green Was My Valley (1941) There's a few borderline classics in between those also
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:I just noticed that John McTiernan came out with Predator, Die Hard, and The Hunt for Red October in the span of roughly 3 years. Each one of those films are arguably the greatest films of their sub-genres. That's extremely impressive. Ingmar Bergman: Wild Strawberries (1957) The Seventh Seal (1957) The Virgin Spring (1960) Nicholas Ray: Johnny Guitar (1954) Rebel Without a Cause (1955) Bigger Than Life (1956) Howard Hawks: Bringing Up Baby (1938) Only Angels Have Wings (1939) His Girl Friday (1940)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
Hahah, clearly John McTiernan of all loving people stands on the shoulders of Titans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
I give up, this is too hard Seriously, though. I could do this all day. While some great directors take years between movies others are workaholics and for those you easily find 3 classics in 3 or 4 years. Godard, Truffaut, Buñuel, Peckinpah, Preston Sturges, Lubitsch, Woody Allen, Lang. That's just off the top of my head with directors whose films would be pretty recognizable by most people. penismightier posted:The Hunt for Red October is the greatest submarine film ever? Really? Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 05:16
|
|
|
One could argue that Das Boot has a twist ending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 05:43
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:One could argue that Das Boot has a twist ending. But it's not set during the cold war. Make a sub genre specific enough and every decent film is arguably the greatest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 06:41
|
|
|
That must be how Predator is apparently the pinnacle of its genre as opposed to Aliens or Terminator or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
Yall hatin'. I just wanted to open a discourse on directors that nailed the 3-in-a-row wam bam pow. A fun thing devolved into a pissing contest. Forget I even brought it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 08:01
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:That must be how Predator is apparently the pinnacle of its genre as opposed to Aliens or Terminator or something. I prefer 'Predator' to 'Aliens'. There, I said it. I think 'Aliens' is certainly better made than 'Predator' is, but I just find 'Predator' a lot more entertaining to watch. I've tried reasoning it to a friend before, but the whole Aliens experience just leaves me somewhat cold. I should really revisit it soon and who knows, it might finally click for me, but right now I'd take Arnolds overtly macho tale of Gay men battling womanhood anyday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 09:50
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Ingmar Bergman: I give Bergman a lot of poo poo, but gently caress that's a great run. I didn't realize they were that close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 18:07
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Yall hatin'. It's not a bad question or anything, you just framed it in a funny way by starting with three movies from a director who had a run of above-average action films in the late 80s, then saying you were drawing a blank with any other directors who had similar hot streaks. penismightier posted:I give Bergman a lot of poo poo, but gently caress that's a great run. I didn't realize they were that close. The Kurosawa run that Peaceful Anarchy posted is pretty amazing too, though I guess not at all surprising given the number of classics he directed from the late-40s through the mid-60s. Yojimbo - Sanjuro - High and Low is an amazing streak too. And I guess someone would argue it doesn't count because three of the movies are ostensibly one series, but Sergio Leone strung together 4 of the most important westerns of all time in 5 years with the Dollars Trilogy + Once Upon a Time in the West. Another personal favorite streak of mine is Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and Silent Movie (bonus points for the first two movies coming out in the same year).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:The Kurosawa run that Peaceful Anarchy posted is pretty amazing too, Every time Kurosawa's name comes up, I think about how no one in Japan has seen his movies. I wonder if the US are just the most movie oriented people or what. Are Bergman and Fellini forgotten in their modern cultures?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 19:14
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
I'd be willing to bet that the average American hasn't seen a lot of classic American movies. If you're not interested in film beyond the superficial level I don't see anyone making the effort to spend the time watching movies that came out 60 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Kurosawa wasn't even that popular in Japan in his own time. His movies were considered too Western.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
I find Bergman films really boring. Well put together and everything from an artistic standpoint, but just really boring. Please don't tell me I don't "get it". Movie nerds have been telling me that for ages, and I don't really care if it "get it" or not. I'd rather watch an Eisenstein or Lang film than a Bergman film if you want to get all spegy about great directors. Anyways, I was watching Blade Runner last night, and I never clued in on Zhora being the kill-bot, and Pris being the Hooker-bot, but Zhora is working as the stripper, and Pris goes after Decker with ninja moves. Did they mess up on the descriptions or do all Replicants have crazy martial arts abilities? For some reason i was reminded of this. At the end of Spun, the trailer blows up that the Cook goes into. Did it blow up due to the inherent dangers of cooking meth, or was there a bomb in the bag his was given by his boss?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:For some reason i was reminded of this. At the end of Spun, the trailer blows up that the Cook goes into. Did it blow up due to the inherent dangers of cooking meth, or was there a bomb in the bag his was given by his boss? Man, sometimes goons have the craziest interpretations of things... No bomb, but there's debate on whether the cook blew himself up with the meth after the whole drowning puppies speech
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Man, sometimes goons have the craziest interpretations of things... Why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:21
|
|
|
quote:Did they mess up on the descriptions or do all Replicants have crazy martial arts abilities? Did you notice how Pris doesn't make a very good killbot? She gets the drop on Deckard, tries a few moves that don't work while she has him pinned, then busts out some crazy acrobatics that accomplish nothing but give Deckard an opening to shoot her. All the replicants are strong and agile by human standards but they do have different skillsets. I'm not sure about Zhora, but maybe she just got some tips from Pris and being a stripper is not very complicated. She handled Deckard just fine when her cover was blown, but decided to run instead of murdering him after he was down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Anyways, I was watching Blade Runner last night, and I never clued in on Zhora being the kill-bot, and Pris being the Hooker-bot, but Zhora is working as the stripper, and Pris goes after Decker with ninja moves. Did they mess up on the descriptions or do all Replicants have crazy martial arts abilities? Pris' function is actually listed as "Military/Leisure", so she probably has some combat abilities too. Her being a leisure replicant is supposed to be shown by the way she latches onto Sebastian. Also, don't forget that Zhora kicks the crap out of Deckard when he comes to confront her at the strip club. I have the book Future Noir which goes into detail about pretty much every moment of the movie, and it doesn't mention the roles of the two replicants being switched around in the dialogue (which I thought was possible at first, given the mess that the whole writing and editing process of the movie was). Schlitzkrieg Bop fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Pris' function is actually listed as "Military/Leisure", so she probably has some combat abilities too. Her being a leisure replicant is supposed to be shown by the way she latches onto Sebastian. Also, don't forget that Zhora kicks the crap out of Deckard when he comes to confront her at the strip club. Yea, that's where the confusion came from, as they both are shown to both have combat abilities and the combat one is shown to be the stripper. And yea, Zhora really effortlessly takes out Deckard, but just stuns him. Though I would choose to think that this is because she knows if she takes out a Blade Runner, the cops will put even more heat on them. But as Haveblue points out, Pris doesn't do a very good job. Heh, it's nice to have a different question about Blade Runner. A friend of mine says that EVERYONE is a Replicant, except Tyrell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
Anyone visit https://www.spill.com ? It's noti working for me today, the background is coming up but nothing else, was wondering if it's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:I just noticed that John McTiernan came out with Predator, Die Hard, and The Hunt for Red October in the span of roughly 3 years. Each one of those films are arguably the greatest films of their sub-genres. That's extremely impressive. Fellowship of the Ring (2001) The Two Towers (2002) Return of the King (2003) 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Heh, it's nice to have a different question about Blade Runner. A friend of mine says that EVERYONE is a Replicant, except Tyrell. Oddly in the original script, the Tyrell we see for most of the movie was to be an impostor, and Batty would find out after he killed the fake Tyrell that the real Tyrell had been dead for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Anyone visit https://www.spill.com ? It's noti working for me today, the background is coming up but nothing else, was wondering if it's just me. I just clicked on that link and it worked fine. May just be you (however, I am in America, so it might be your side of the world, too).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Oddly in the original script, the Tyrell we see for most of the movie was to be an impostor, and Batty would find out after he killed the fake Tyrell that the real Tyrell had been dead for a long time. That's pretty cool. And makes perfect sense within the context of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
I just saw Hellraiser (1987). I missed a few minutes of the beginning, so I have a question. Why does she help the guy out? Unless I missed something, we are expected to believe he was SO GOOD IN BED that she would murder multiple people for a zombie should could have easily outrun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:And yea, Zhora really effortlessly takes out Deckard, but just stuns him. Though I would choose to think that this is because she knows if she takes out a Blade Runner, the cops will put even more heat on them. Or alternatively she only stuns him because he's a replicant and can absorb a lot of physical damage. The only Blade Runner in the film is Gaff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Cupid Painted Blind posted:I just saw Hellraiser (1987). I missed a few minutes of the beginning, so I have a question. Probably, this is a Clive Barker joint. As for 'Blade Runner', I hate the idea that Deckard is a replicant because it really makes no sense at all. To believe he's a replicant you have to believe that there's this massive conspiracy to stop him from knowing that he is one. From looking at the behind the scenes stuff it seems that Scott decided he was in editing, and threw it in there not because it makes any sort of sense, but because it's a cool idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Probably, this is a Clive Barker joint. Someone once said in these forums (I forget who, just raise your hand if it was you) that the question 'could Deckard be a replicant?' is a very intriguing and thought provoking one. However, just saying 'he IS a replicant' is stupid. It doesn't make any sense, given all the facts given about replicants. There would have to be an absolutely huge conspiracy, it doesn't make sense that he'd be weaker than the other replicants and feel pain, his personality is too human (far more human than the replicant with implanted memories), and there's no way the authorities would leave him unmonitored for one minute of the day if this were the case. It just doesn't make any sense, and to me, always sounded like something the director decided after the movie was finished. As a final nail in the coffin, the author of the original story, Phillip K. Dick, has him test himself at the end, and he discovers that he is human. The fact, however, that he actually begins to question whether or not he's human or a replicant comes from him finally growing to empathize with the replicants. He realizes that they're not alien or inferior, but just as real as any human being. As a man who prides himself in being able to tell the difference between a replicant and a human, he's no longer sure, even to the point that he can't be sure about himself. That said, it wouldn't make any sense if he was a replicant, which is why I don't like the theory. It takes a brilliant and beautiful masterpiece, and distorts its wonderful ending into a senseless 'M. Night Shamalamadingdong' twist. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
Blompkin posted:Shamalamadingdong Can we not do this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Can we not do this? ProfessorClumsy posted:M. Night Shyamalan. That's how it's spelled. It isn't funny to deliberately misspell it, so don't bother. It makes you look retarded when you accidentally misspell it, so Google it if you're uncertain. For posterity: S-H-Y-A-M-A-L-A-N.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Blompkin posted:It doesn't make any sense, given all the facts given about replicants. There would have to be an absolutely huge conspiracy, it doesn't make sense that he'd be weaker than the other replicants and feel pain, his personality is too human (far more human than the replicant with implanted memories) What if he's a newer model or a prototype like Rachael? Why does it have to be a huge conspiracy? Blompkin posted:and there's no way the authorities would leave him unmonitored for one minute of the day if this were the case. That's why Gaff is with him all the time. I believe that Gaff is the Blade Runner and that Deckard is his tool he uses for the investigation. Blompkin posted:It just doesn't make any sense, and to me, always sounded like something the director decided after the movie was finished. As a final nail in the coffin, the author of the original story, Phillip K. Dick, has him test himself at the end, and he discovers that he is human. Right, but the book isn't the movie and vice versa. In the movie, Deckard very specifically avoids the question of whether he ever tested himself. Blompkin posted:The fact, however, that he actually begins to question whether or not he's human or a replicant comes from him finally growing to empathize with the replicants. He realizes that they're not alien or inferior, but just as real as any human being. As a man who prides himself in being able to tell the difference between a replicant and a human, he's no longer sure, even to the point that he can't be sure about himself. Also true, but there are some other incidents that lead Deckard to question his own origin -- especially in his interaction with Gaff, who very importantly teases Deckard about the unicorn dream. Blompkin posted:That said, it wouldn't make any sense if he was a replicant, which is why I don't like the theory. It takes a brilliant and beautiful masterpiece, and distorts its wonderful ending into a senseless 'M. Night Shamalamadingdong' twist. I think it's even better that the film leaves it open ended and it's so much better than a Shyamalan twist because it works on several levels and it doesn't punch you in the stomach or even really matter that much to the rest of the film as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2010 20:01
|
|