General Movie Questions (and hopefully answers)

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

spikenigma: Nov 13, 2005; by Ralp

Where is the latest Twilight thread?

I just watched it but can't find anything on GBS or CD. It's like they've all been gassed.

I'm a boiling pot of "poor pacing!", "seriously?....seriously????" and "actually that bit was ok!"

On Topic: The Matrix. Why did the hovercraft cease to work when passing through the clouds?

spikenigma fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Aug 16, 2010

# ? Aug 16, 2010 06:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 10:35

Carthag Tuek: Oct 15, 2005; Tider skal komme,
tider skal henrulle,
sl�gt skal f�lge sl�gters gang

It was some sort of electrical storm that fried the electronics.

I think there's still a Twilight thread in the Book Barn if that works for you.

# ? Aug 16, 2010 07:32

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

I don't know how the technology in the hovercrafts works, but the crafts clearly don't function above a certain altitude. Though I guess that doesn't explain why Trinity had to restart the whole ship. You'd think the hover pods would continue to fire, just without giving enough propulsion to stay airborne. Neo says something about pumping the igniter, so maybe that's a clue to how it works.

I'm embarrassed for not know this, because I was a loving Matrix encyclopedia in 8th grade.

# ? Aug 16, 2010 07:42

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

(In Ghost Writer) I assume that we're meant to question whether or not there is any conspiracy in the first place.

# ? Aug 16, 2010 07:49

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

SubG posted:

(In Ghost Writer) I assume that we're meant to question whether or not there is any conspiracy in the first place.

I never thought it was supposed to be ambiguous. The ending spells it out too clearly for the secret message to be a coincidence. Why else would the former ghost have died under mysterious circumstances?

# ? Aug 16, 2010 07:58

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

Rake Arms posted:

I never thought it was supposed to be ambiguous. The ending spells it out too clearly for the secret message to be a coincidence. Why else would the former ghost have died under mysterious circumstances?

Because he was a drunk, and possibly mentally unstable? Did the Ewan McGregor character also die under mysterious circumstances? If so, then are we supposed to believe that there was a conspirator waiting outside, revving his engine just in case the writer wandered out in the middle of the party? And I'm not suggesting that the message was a coincidence; I think that the original writer kept digging around and finding things that convinced him of the existence of a conspiracy and he did in fact write the chapter headings that way. But the fact that the first writer believed there was a conspiracy doesn't establish that there in fact was one. I think that the actual evidence for a conspiracy is weak, and the fact that writer (and the audience) are expected to draw conclusions based on it is something I take as a deliberate parallel to the situation that Lang was in as an antecedent to the events in the film, as well as to the real-world political decisions taken by Tony Blair which were obviously an inspiration. I'm not saying that we (the audience) definitely know that there wasn't a conspiracy---but I think that we're supposed to be left in doubt. If not, then the ending is frankly baffling, and seems to be radically out of character with the rest of the film. Do you have another interpretation?

# ? Aug 16, 2010 12:13

Schweinhund: Oct 23, 2004

SubG posted:

Because he was a drunk, and possibly mentally unstable? Did the Ewan McGregor character also die under mysterious circumstances? If so, then are we supposed to believe that there was a conspirator waiting outside, revving his engine just in case the writer wandered out in the middle of the party? And I'm not suggesting that the message was a coincidence; I think that the original writer kept digging around and finding things that convinced him of the existence of a conspiracy and he did in fact write the chapter headings that way. But the fact that the first writer believed there was a conspiracy doesn't establish that there in fact was one. I think that the actual evidence for a conspiracy is weak, and the fact that writer (and the audience) are expected to draw conclusions based on it is something I take as a deliberate parallel to the situation that Lang was in as an antecedent to the events in the film, as well as to the real-world political decisions taken by Tony Blair which were obviously an inspiration. I'm not saying that we (the audience) definitely know that there wasn't a conspiracy---but I think that we're supposed to be left in doubt. If not, then the ending is frankly baffling, and seems to be radically out of character with the rest of the film. Do you have another interpretation?

I figured the death at the end was just an accident, not a murder.

If there was no conspiracy why does the wife get seemingly upset when he hands her the note? I don't see anything baffling about the end at all.

# ? Aug 16, 2010 17:09

ZenMaster: Jan 24, 2006; I Saved PC Gaming

Schweinhund posted:

I figured the death at the end was just an accident, not a murder.

If there was no conspiracy why does the wife get seemingly upset when he hands her the note? I don't see anything baffling about the end at all.

Agreed, her reaction and subsequent attempt to chase him down was a bit odd, plus after Ewan met with the professor he was followed by two mysterious men who seemed intent to do him harm.

# ? Aug 16, 2010 18:37

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

ZenMaster posted:

Agreed, her reaction and subsequent attempt to chase him down was a bit odd, plus after Ewan met with the professor he was followed by two mysterious men who seemed intent to do him harm.

After he me with the professor, he saw a car behind him, spazzed out, managed to `lose' them by simply accelerating, and didn't see them again. The two guys followed him after he stole the manuscript---after being specifically informed that security was high around the ms. If instead of being flunkies sent to retrieve the manuscript (or keep tabs on an employee who's started to behave erratically) they're assassins, they're the worst assassins in the world, as they fail to re-acquire the writer even though he holes up at a motel not fifty yards from where they lost him.

And Mrs Lang's reaction makes sense regardless of the internal motivations we attribute to her; she could simply be upset that this guy, who has personal and compromising information on her---because she'd been candid with him, and because she had, you know, slept with him---was effectively threatening to spread a malicious rumour about her, which is something she'd naturally want to avoid regardless of whether or not it was true. Seriously, she's just seen her husband called before a war crimes tribunal, then be assassinated, and now a guy she's been working with---not to mention loving---suddenly threatens to make politically incendiary allegations against her, at a public press event, and you think it only makes sense that she freaks out if she's a CIA agent?.

But seriously, if you think the end is merely an accident, how do you put that in the context of the rest of the film? What do you think Polanski is trying to say by ending the film like that?

# ? Aug 16, 2010 19:52

Schweinhund: Oct 23, 2004

SubG posted:

But seriously, if you think the end is merely an accident, how do you put that in the context of the rest of the film? What do you think Polanski is trying to say by ending the film like that?

Well he has to end it some way. The "Hollywood" way would be to have some dramatic scene where she gets arrested or jumps out a window. And I doubt he'd want to end it like that.

Also since the politician is obviously based on Tony Blair, it leaves open the (far-fetched) idea that maybe this really is based on truth, since obviously TB has never been exposed as a CIA agent. Sort of like putting the Ark in the warehouse at the end of Indy Jones 1.

And I don't buy the wife explanation. There wasn't any hint of her being confused in her reaction, like there would be if she was accused of something outrageous and untrue. Where when he accused Lang of the same thing, it was clear from his reaction that he really wasn't with the CIA.

Schweinhund fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Aug 16, 2010

# ? Aug 16, 2010 21:06

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

Schweinhund posted:

Well he has to end it some way. The "Hollywood" way would be to have some dramatic scene where she gets arrested or jumps out a window. And I doubt he'd want to end it like that.

I'd buy this argument more if it was just some typical Hollywood thriller. But if we're to assume that Polanski is a competent, veteran filmmaker and he doesn't just throw things into a film just for the hell of it, then any analysis has to account for the narrative reason for something like this. Particularly since it's literally the end of the film. And if we take everything else at a surface reading, then we find ourselves having to believe in a grand political conspiracy that Polanski chooses to resolve literally by accident. I'd be willing to accept this if there was anything else in the narrative that would make this make sense---if throughout the narrative there were all kinds of similar accidents at crucial plot turning points. But in your reading you have to accept that the other things that might have looked like accidents---like the first writer's death---were premeditated acts by the conspiracy. Then of course when you see the accident at the end, your first inclination is to immediately try to attribute it to the same conspiracy. But that, I think we agree, simply doesn't make sense. And if we accept that, we have to ask why Polanski would design the end of the film that way, if not to immediately cause us to ask questions about the similar conclusions we'd been coming to about events throughout the film.

# ? Aug 16, 2010 22:38

Honest Thief: Jan 11, 2009

Is there a site, or some kind of essay, that compiles all the satire from robocop on Reganism? Not being American, I don't have the full notion of what Reganism entails so some of the satire to me was more of the american way than on actual policy.

# ? Aug 17, 2010 20:54

GORDON: Jan 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Honest Thief posted:

Is there a site, or some kind of essay, that compiles all the satire from robocop on Reganism? Not being American, I don't have the full notion of what Reganism entails so some of the satire to me was more of the american way than on actual policy.

Just keep in mind that not all satire is honest.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 04:34

Wild T: Dec 15, 2008; The point I'm trying to make is that the only way to come out on top is to kick the Air Force in the nuts, beart it savagely with a weight and take a dump on it's face.

I don't think the satire was aimed specifically at Reagan, as much as it lampooned the excesses of American culture that took off in the 70's and 80's and the yuppie lifestyle in particular. Things like the 6000SUX (a car that's advertised solely on it's huge size and gets "really lovely gas mileage"), corporate executives jockeying for position while a colleague's corpse is still steaming in the background, privatization of every industry into a profitable venture to include fundamentally respected instituions like the police, etc.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 05:27

Uncle Boogeyman: Jul 22, 2007

Wild T posted:

I don't think the satire was aimed specifically at Reagan, as much as it lampooned the excesses of American culture that took off in the 70's and 80's and the yuppie lifestyle in particular. Things like the 6000SUX (a car that's advertised solely on it's huge size and gets "really lovely gas mileage"), corporate executives jockeying for position while a colleague's corpse is still steaming in the background, privatization of every industry into a profitable venture to include fundamentally respected instituions like the police, etc.

I recently rewatched Robocop, and man, Miguel Ferrer does not get nearly enough credit. If someone asked me for one fictional character that personified the phrase "sleazy 1980s excess," I would show them Miguel Ferrer's character in that movie.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 05:42

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

LtKenFrankenstein posted:

I recently rewatched Robocop, and man, Miguel Ferrer does not get nearly enough credit. If someone asked me for one fictional character that personified the phrase "sleazy 1980s excess," I would show them Miguel Ferrer's character in that movie.

"LtKenFrankenstein, BUBBY! I'm you're White Knight if you're looking for sleazy 1980s excess!"

# ? Aug 18, 2010 06:00

Uncle Boogeyman: Jul 22, 2007

LesterGroans posted:

"LtKenFrankenstein, BUBBY! I'm you're White Knight if you're looking for sleazy 1980s excess!"

Yeah, well,

The old man thought he was pretty '80s, Dick.

Point taken, though. Those two should've done a buddy pic together.

Also, both of them get murdered in cold blood shortly after doing a bunch of cocaine. Truly men of their time.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 06:08

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

LtKenFrankenstein posted:

Best idea ever

poo poo yes, drinking cokes and having their bitches leave.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 06:12

...of SCIENCE!: Apr 26, 2008; by Fluffdaddy

Honest Thief posted:

Is there a site, or some kind of essay, that compiles all the satire from robocop on Reganism? Not being American, I don't have the full notion of what Reganism entails so some of the satire to me was more of the american way than on actual policy.

A good example might be Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense program: Reagan personally pushed for millions to be spent on space-based lasers that could shoot down incoming missiles despite pretty much every expert in the field telling him that the technology to do so didn't exist and wouldn't exist for decades, which was a huge slap in the face because he cut social programs in the name of "smaller government" and then turned around and wasted taxpayer money on a sci-fi pipe dream. Compare this to Robocop, where the cops are so poorly-paid they're striking and so under-staffed two cops have to single-handedly catch an entire crew of bankrobbers, yet OCP is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on things like ED-209 and Robocop himself while refusing to help out the actual police force.

Robocop tooling around in a crappy squad car is pretty much the perfect metaphor of the conflict.

LesterGroans posted:

LtKenFrankenstein posted:

These guys are great, but the rear end in a top hat from the EPA in Ghostbusters is probably my favorite because the idea of the EPA as a villainous entity is so ridiculously 80s.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 17:19

morestuff: Aug 2, 2008; You can't stop what's coming

...of SCIENCE! posted:

These guys are great, but the rear end in a top hat from the EPA in Ghostbusters is probably my favorite because the idea of the EPA as a villainous entity is so ridiculously 80s.

I thought about him, but he's more of an 80s pompous rear end than a tribute to 80s excess.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 17:35

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

LtKenFrankenstein posted:

Yeah, well,

The old man thought he was pretty '80s, Dick.

Point taken, though. Those two should've done a buddy pic together.

Also, both of them get murdered in cold blood shortly after doing a bunch of cocaine. Truly men of their time.

Did anyone think that the "bitches leave" chicks weren't that good looking, or have disposable women just gotten that much better looking since the 80's?

# ? Aug 18, 2010 19:54

Cacator: Aug 6, 2005; You're quite good at turning me on.

...of SCIENCE! posted:

These guys are great, but the rear end in a top hat from the EPA in Ghostbusters is probably my favorite because the idea of the EPA as a villainous entity is so ridiculously 80s.

The EPA were also the villains in the Simpsons movie.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 20:00

cloudchamber: Aug 6, 2010; You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine

I watched the Man Who Wasn't There last weekend and one things been bothering me since. At the end of the movie Crane explains that he's being paid two cents a word to write his story for a magazine and that he may have said too much in places.
What I don't get about this is that hes about to be executed so why would he care how much money hes going to make? Is this some kind of dark joke or is there some other reason for this?

# ? Aug 18, 2010 22:49

Uncle Boogeyman: Jul 22, 2007

Armyman25 posted:

Did anyone think that the "bitches leave" chicks weren't that good looking, or have disposable women just gotten that much better looking since the 80's?

Well, you know, they were coke whores. You get what you pay for.

# ? Aug 18, 2010 23:03

Voodoofly: Jul 3, 2002; Some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help

cloudchamber posted:

I watched the Man Who Wasn't There last weekend and one things been bothering me since. At the end of the movie Crane explains that he's being paid two cents a word to write his story for a magazine and that he may have said too much in places.
What I don't get about this is that hes about to be executed so why would he care how much money hes going to make? Is this some kind of dark joke or is there some other reason for this?

I think the short answer is (1) yes it is a dark joke, and (2) it is a dark joke that it is sort of at the core of absurdism, which heavily, heavily influenced The Man Who Wasn't There.

I'm not in any way qualified to explain all of the tenents of the absurdist (and related) movements, and while I really, really love Camus' writing, I'm also no expert on him. Here is my very, very, oversimplistic illustration of the absurdism elements of the ending:

1. Is it absurd to try and earn more money right before your execution? Of course (lets assume the money can't go to some other person/charity/whatever).
2. Is it only abusrd because you know you will die imminently, and your death is out of your control? Probably.
3. Is it then absurd to ever earn money, when you might die any second? Perhaps.
4. If you can die at any time, and that death is probably out of your control, is there any reason to do anything? I don't know.
5. In that case, does anything matter at all? Was Cain any more absurd for worrying about money at that point than any other time in his life? He obviously went through life with very little purpose or plan, and didn't seem to find much enjoyment in it, so why not try to fleece a few extra bucks for your story?

Again, way, way oversimplified, and despite all the other points, it is also a (drat funny to me) dark joke.

Voodoofly fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 18, 2010

# ? Aug 18, 2010 23:04

Synnr: Dec 30, 2009

Another stupid Fight Club question from me, but I thought it it in another thread:

Is there somewhere that talks about the film techniques/technology behind specific films? Or does Fincher talk about cameras, etc on one of the commentary tracks? Something about the visuals seems really crisp (poorly worded but I'll figure out a better way to put it) and detailed. I don't think it was recent enough to use digital cameras to get different visuals like Mann does in Miami Vice and that ilk.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 17:00

axelblaze: Oct 18, 2006; Congratulations The One Concern!!!

You're addicted to Ivory!!

_{and...oh my...could you please...

oh my...}; Grimey Drawer

Synnr posted:

Another stupid Fight Club question from me, but I thought it it in another thread:

Is there somewhere that talks about the film techniques/technology behind specific films? Or does Fincher talk about cameras, etc on one of the commentary tracks? Something about the visuals seems really crisp (poorly worded but I'll figure out a better way to put it) and detailed. I don't think it was recent enough to use digital cameras to get different visuals like Mann does in Miami Vice and that ilk.

The special edition has some really thorough behind the scenes stuff that shows how they shot some of the crazier shots. The short of it is that most of the shots are just all CG-I and they move enough that it's hard to notice.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 17:39

Synnr: Dec 30, 2009

axleblaze posted:

The special edition has some really thorough behind the scenes stuff that shows how they shot some of the crazier shots. The short of it is that most of the shots are just all CG-I and they move enough that it's hard to notice.

Well I mean, I get there was a decent amount of CG to pull off some of the shots, but I assume some of what I'm thinking of was done with just a change in focus. I didn't mean just funkier scenes but overall. For instance, the drunken golfing scene or the bit right after they beat the poo poo out of each other and he drops the beer.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 17:43

axelblaze: Oct 18, 2006; Congratulations The One Concern!!!

You're addicted to Ivory!!

_{and...oh my...could you please...

oh my...}; Grimey Drawer

Synnr posted:

Well I mean, I get there was a decent amount of CG to pull off some of the shots, but I assume some of what I'm thinking of was done with just a change in focus. I didn't mean just funkier scenes but overall. For instance, the drunken golfing scene or the bit right after they beat the poo poo out of each other and he drops the beer.

Yeah, just track down the especial edition DVD. It has like 4 commentary tracks for fucks sakes.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 17:46

Synnr: Dec 30, 2009

axleblaze posted:

Yeah, just track down the especial edition DVD. It has like 4 commentary tracks for fucks sakes.

Well then alright.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 17:49

cloudchamber: Aug 6, 2010; You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine

Voodoofly posted:

I think the short answer is (1) yes it is a dark joke, and (2) it is a dark joke that it is sort of at the core of absurdism, which heavily, heavily influenced The Man Who Wasn't There.

I'm not in any way qualified to explain all of the tenents of the absurdist (and related) movements, and while I really, really love Camus' writing, I'm also no expert on him. Here is my very, very, oversimplistic illustration of the absurdism elements of the ending:

1. Is it absurd to try and earn more money right before your execution? Of course (lets assume the money can't go to some other person/charity/whatever).
2. Is it only abusrd because you know you will die imminently, and your death is out of your control? Probably.
3. Is it then absurd to ever earn money, when you might die any second? Perhaps.
4. If you can die at any time, and that death is probably out of your control, is there any reason to do anything? I don't know.
5. In that case, does anything matter at all? Was Cain any more absurd for worrying about money at that point than any other time in his life? He obviously went through life with very little purpose or plan, and didn't seem to find much enjoyment in it, so why not try to fleece a few extra bucks for your story?

Again, way, way oversimplified, and despite all the other points, it is also a (drat funny to me) dark joke.

Thanks, I've been meaning to read some Camus for a while. Is The Stranger a good place to start, I've heard a lot of the films based on it?

# ? Aug 19, 2010 21:53

Voodoofly: Jul 3, 2002; Some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help

cloudchamber posted:

Thanks, I've been meaning to read some Camus for a while. Is The Stranger a good place to start, I've heard a lot of the films based on it?

I started with the Stranger, and I think it is probably as good a place as any to start. You will definitely notice some similarities to The Man Who Wasn't There / almost all of the Coen's work.

# ? Aug 19, 2010 22:15

Power of Pecota: Aug 4, 2007; Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!

In After Hours, is there any plausible reason for Marcy having the second-degree burn ointment? She clearly didn't have any burns, but she specifically picks it up when she goes to freshen up in her apartment.

# ? Aug 20, 2010 08:09

Ein Bear: Mar 26, 2010; Oh Sirrah, how deliciously absurd!

In Return of the Jedi, why exactly does the Emperor want Luke to turn to the dark side and be his apprentice? He already rules the Galaxy, what does he have to gain by turning Luke? If anything, it seems that having a super-powerful evil apprentice is a liability, the guy's just going to stab you in the back.

# ? Aug 21, 2010 22:21

CoolZidane: Jun 24, 2008

Ein Bear posted:

In Return of the Jedi, why exactly does the Emperor want Luke to turn to the dark side and be his apprentice? He already rules the Galaxy, what does he have to gain by turning Luke? If anything, it seems that having a super-powerful evil apprentice is a liability, the guy's just going to stab you in the back.

The only thing better than one Darth Vader is two Darth Vaders.

# ? Aug 21, 2010 22:24

Tender Bender: Sep 17, 2004

Ein Bear posted:

In Return of the Jedi, why exactly does the Emperor want Luke to turn to the dark side and be his apprentice? He already rules the Galaxy, what does he have to gain by turning Luke? If anything, it seems that having a super-powerful evil apprentice is a liability, the guy's just going to stab you in the back.

Like you said he already rules the galaxy. Twisting someone to the dark side is really the only way left for him to grow more powerful. It's implied that Jedi/Sith/Etc value the Force and mastering it holds an allure beyond military tactics and logic. He clearly doesn't really care about the material aspects of being all-powerful, he just sits in a dark room and thinks about the force all day.

# ? Aug 21, 2010 22:36

feedmyleg: Dec 25, 2004

Ein Bear posted:

In Return of the Jedi, why exactly does the Emperor want Luke to turn to the dark side and be his apprentice? He already rules the Galaxy, what does he have to gain by turning Luke? If anything, it seems that having a super-powerful evil apprentice is a liability, the guy's just going to stab you in the back.

I always figured it was because he needed to train an apprentice to take over for him after he's gone. Now that he know's his current apprentice, who is extremely powerful in the force but crippled physically, has an able-bodied young, impressionable son (who, you can retcon in post-prequels, was the same age as when Palpatine corrupted his father), why not have Luke take his father's place at his side?

# ? Aug 21, 2010 22:48

Sizzlechest: May 7, 2007

Luke was/will be more powerful than Vader. He was trading up.

# ? Aug 21, 2010 22:56

muscles like this!: Jan 17, 2005

Ein Bear posted:

In Return of the Jedi, why exactly does the Emperor want Luke to turn to the dark side and be his apprentice? He already rules the Galaxy, what does he have to gain by turning Luke? If anything, it seems that having a super-powerful evil apprentice is a liability, the guy's just going to stab you in the back.

Vader was old and busted while Luke was the new hotness.

Also having a Jedi run around the galaxy isn't a good idea, considering how he ends up bringing down the Emperor and Vader.

# ? Aug 21, 2010 23:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 10:35

Aphrodite: Jun 27, 2006

In The Rock, what the hell do they need Goodspeed to go for when all he ends up actually doing is holding things really carefully and removing guidance chips? Any of the Seals would have steady enough hands to do it.

CoolZidane posted:

The only thing better than one Darth Vader is two Darth Vaders.

Luke's actually meant to kill Vader to become the Emperor's apprentice, or something.

Aphrodite fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Aug 21, 2010

# ? Aug 21, 2010 23:32

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

«‹›497 »