|
But why would he want an apprentice that's stronger than Vader? Anakin is already talking about killing the Emperor and taking over in Episode 3, and probably would have if Obi Wan hadn't crippled him. Vader is pretty much the ideal right hand man, really - just weak enough that he's not a threat to the Emperor, but still strong enough to beat just about anyone else. Then again, I'm probably just thinking about it too hard when the answer is probably "Lucas!  "
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Aphrodite posted: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. Michael Bay answer: Shut the gently caress up. Actual answer: he's the guy trained to dismantle bombs while he could possibly be dying in a very, very bad way. And it allows for a "fish out of water" situation, creating a buddy dynamic between him and Sean Connery that's a lot more interesting than "bitter old prisoner/MI6 agent and gruff Marine".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
Ein Bear posted:But why would he want an apprentice that's stronger than Vader? Anakin is already talking about killing the Emperor and taking over in Episode 3, and probably would have if Obi Wan hadn't crippled him. Vader is pretty much the ideal right hand man, really - just weak enough that he's not a threat to the Emperor, but still strong enough to beat just about anyone else. Vader is the best apprentice for the Emperor personally, but not for the Sith. Once the Emperor dies, who the hell can Vader train as an Apprentice? He can barely use his lightsaber and his suit prevents him from using most of the cool stuff the Sith have access to. Vader would gimp the Sith forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Once the Emperor dies, who the hell can Vader train as an Apprentice? The same could be said for Yoda, who'd likely crack a hip if he'd dare flip out like he used to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
If you want the in universe answer, Palpatine was always looking for the strongest apprentice. This is how things were done in the Sith. There was two, no more, no less. He tried to take someone who was force sensative but not trained and made him strong, Darth Maul. Maul had the problem that he never fought a Jedi, just trained, so he ended up getting killed on his first outing. Then he went to a trained Jedi, Dooku, and turned him with the whole "the Jedi and Republic are corrupt and broken, we need to fix it" speech. This worked out well, because Dooku was experianced and very powerful. He was also respected and well bred, which made him ideal as the leader of the Confederacy. Though Palpatine knew that Anakin had a lot of untapped potential, so he was laying the groundwork to turn him since the beginning. When the time comes, Anakin turns, and is everything Palpatine could want. I mean, he was the hero of the war, so the public would be "Anakin says this Empire is a good deal, so I believe him!". Though when Obi-wan chopped Anakin into hamburger then BBQ'd him, Anakin's potential was greatly reduced. It was assumed that Anakin's potential power was greater than Yoda or Mace Windu, and very likely Palpatine. So rather than having a dashing hero as his apprentice, he's got a busted weezing strangle machine. When he finds out Luke is out there he's sees his ability to get what he wants. Why do the Sith only have two? Well, the EU says that Darth Revan realized that the problem with the Sith is they spent too much time fighting among themselves, because they pretty much have a Randian view of things. Darth Bane picked this up and tricked all the other sith lords to kill themselves so he could be the onyl one left. For thousands of years they laid low, until Palpatine came onto the scene and was able to manipulate everyone into giving him power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
Actually, I bet Antoine Doinel would have been a pretty good apprentice for the Emperor. The experience from that job he had where he drove little remote controlled boats around a pond would probably come in pretty handy when managing the Imperial fleet. This would be Expanded Universe of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
SubG posted:Actually, I bet Antoine Doinel would have been a pretty good apprentice for the Emperor. The experience from that job he had where he drove little remote controlled boats around a pond would probably come in pretty handy when managing the Imperial fleet. And Vader totally sucked at painting flowers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
Any time a discussion starts with the Star Wars stuff it turns from gayer to gayest. To contribute: What is the deal with prop firearms? Whenever I watch guys in a movie point semiautomatic weapons at each other and fire I wonder this. If there's no round to maintain a seal in the barrel, usually you will need a BFA or end up with the world's most awkward bolt action. I've heard of prop guns that use propane for a muzzle flash; is it as simple as "plugged barrel, blank rounds in the magazine, pyro setup hidden in the muzzle"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
CloseFriend posted:So is there a list anywhere of films that were shot mostly, if not entirely, in sequence? The only ones I know of are Deliverance, Casablanca, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, The Breakfast Club, The Maltese Falcon, and The Warriors. I'm pretty sure A Beautiful Mind was shot in sequence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted: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. Just quoting this again really quick since it was cut off by Star Wars chat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 07:07
|
|
|
In the 2007 movie of "I Am Legend" I'm wondering what was one of the major complaints about the movie. It sort of created an atmosphere to sympathize with the main character, though I never read the book I can't really comment on how it doesn't stay true to the book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
Ularg posted:In the 2007 movie of "I Am Legend" I'm wondering what was one of the major complaints about the movie. It sort of created an atmosphere to sympathize with the main character, though I never read the book I can't really comment on how it doesn't stay true to the book. I'm trying to suss out a question here, but my problems with the movie stem mostly from the (theatrical) second half where all of a sudden the infected go from learning and building tools to mindless monsters. The "original" ending wasn't that much better but it at least made sense thematically with the rest of the movie. The ending as is is obviously tacked on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 07:44
|
|
|
Ularg posted:In the 2007 movie of "I Am Legend" I'm wondering what was one of the major complaints about the movie. It sort of created an atmosphere to sympathize with the main character, though I never read the book I can't really comment on how it doesn't stay true to the book. The only thing the movie and book have in common are the name, and that fact that there are vampires. It's been awhile since I read the book, so I'll kind of wing it. You should pick it up though, it's a great read and most editions come with a bunch of Matheson's short stories included. In the book, Neville is an older white man living in suburban Los Angeles. During the day he spends his time hunting vampires, dragging them out into the light and repairing his house. Every night a gang load of vampires show up and try and kill him. He constantly boards his windows, puts up garlic everywhere, etc. After awhile, he decides to try and find the cause of the infection and finds out it's a bacteria of some kind. He meets a girl who seems to be the only other survivor besides himself. who he falls in love with. They fight about whether killing the vampires is moral or not, and after he takes some blood samples he realizes she's one of the infected. She was wearing some kind of sunblock I think. He gets captured and sent to vampire prison. He realizes that the vampires have started their own society, and that he is the monster that they fear. He's the last surviving human, and the vampires view him as a predator who goes around in the day and kills them. That's what was so great about the book; it turned the vampire story on it's head and made a human a monster who hunted and killed the "normal" people in society. That's where the name of the book comes from. He realizes that he's now a legend, like he once viewed the vampires. The last line was something like " I am the monster who is feared, I am Legend". Instead of a vampire stealing away in the night, it's a human dragging vampires into the daylight. From what I remember from the film, Will Smith lives in New York, hunts deer in Times Square, is some sort of blood scientist, and then finds a village of human survivors. The book dealt with themes of isolation, maintaining ones humanity in the face of great tragedy and horror, and what exactly makes a society a society. The movie was just kind of exposition between CGI vampire fights with a happy, focus group approved ending.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 07:53
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:The only thing the movie and book have in common are the name, and that fact that there are vampires. I didn't like the book much, but I'm just now going through the movie that I haven't watched in a year. I'm around the part where Neville meets other people. From your description (and spoiler) the book actually seems very interesting. I watched the animated comics that is on the DVD. One of them is about a family in India that takes shelter in a vault during the riots and when the infection starts to spread.After the initial introduction, one of the characters, the daughter of the family, sneaks out to find her lover. It is assumed that her lover is infected, and despite the warnings from her father, she goes to meet him, telling her lover that they will meet again soon. Obviously it didn't work out, she was locked outside of her vault by her family. Long Story short: She becomes infected, family lets her in and you see from the infected point of view humans as shaded monsters, screaming at the infected. Other than that, I really couldn't see the resemblance of the movie from what you described of the book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
Ularg posted:I didn't like the book much, but I'm just now going through the movie that I haven't watched in a year. I'm around the part where Neville meets other people. So wait, did you read the book or not? It sounds like you didn't, but you said that "I didn't like the book much."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 09:09
|
|
|
morestuff posted:So wait, did you read the book or not? It sounds like you didn't, but you said that "I didn't like the book much." Wow, I was thinking "I didn't like the ending much" and wrote book, holy hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 09:13
|
|
Wild T posted:Any time a discussion starts with the Star Wars stuff it turns from gayer to gayest. They make a lot of prop guns that have a sealed or partially blocked barrel that retain a realistic look while allowing the weapon to cycle with a blank.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 14:37
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:Just quoting this again really quick since it was cut off by Star Wars chat. I'd have to watch it again, but I thought the implication was that she might have burns we can't see; i.e., in more private areas (breasts / buttocks / vagina?) making the whole thing even creepier than it already was. How did she get those burns -- did someone give them to her, and if so was it voluntary or no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
A minor question about The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: When Tuco and Blondie arrive at the Union prison camp, during roll call, Tuco turns to Blondie and says something like, "Hey Blondie, isn't that Angel Eyes?" I understand that Angel Eyes recognizes them from earlier in the movie when he witnesses their Dragonheart routine, but how does Tuco know Angel Eyes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
I've always assumed that they all knew each other either by reputation or some prior association. They're all conmen and killers, those types typically hear things and know people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 02:35
|
|
|
I just rented a movie from my local library called Ripley's Game starring John Malkovich. A little research shows that it was based on the same series of novels that The Talented Mr. Ripley came from, which I've never seen. Apparently The Talented Mr. Ripley comes first chronologically. Is there any reason to watch that one first, or the two films more or less completely stand alone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 07:32
|
|
|
Elijya posted:I just rented a movie from my local library called Ripley's Game starring John Malkovich. A little research shows that it was based on the same series of novels that The Talented Mr. Ripley came from, which I've never seen. Apparently The Talented Mr. Ripley comes first chronologically. Is there any reason to watch that one first, or the two films more or less completely stand alone? There's one with Barry Pepper as well, and maybe another, and they all stand alone. But don't expect the more "mature" Ripley from Game in Talented.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
Darko posted:There's one with Barry Pepper as well, and maybe another At least two others: Wim Wenders' The American Friend (with Bruno Ganz and Dennis Hopper) Rene Clement's Purple Noon (same as Talented Mr. Ripley but Clement changed the ending)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 11:19
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Rene Clement's Purple Noon (same as Talented Mr. Ripley but Clement changed the ending) What was different about the ending?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 11:51
|
|
|
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? You should read The Myth of Sisyphus while or after reading The Stranger; it's an essay which clarifies greatly the philosophical point(s) Camus was trying to make in his fiction, as well as a stunning piece of writing. You should also read Caligula because it's like the raddest French-language play ever. Incidentally, there's a Visconti adaptation of The Stranger, but it's kind of disappointing since it's very literal and doesn't seem to convey quite the same sense of absurdity and pointlessness of existence and whatnot. lost in postation fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Aug 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 12:14
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:What was different about the ending?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 13:22
|
|
|
lost in postation posted:You should read The Myth of Sisyphus while or after reading The Stranger; it's an essay which clarifies greatly the philosophical point(s) Camus was trying to make in his fiction, as well as a stunning piece of writing. You should also read Caligula because it's like the raddest French-language play ever. Have to second The Myth of Sisyphus, but I think after the Stranger is better - you can form your own opinions then realize how little you managed to pick up in the deceptively simple story. Also, I think you meant Visconti's The Stranger. Would you find existence pointless when Anna Karina was in your bed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
Elijya posted:I just rented a movie from my local library called Ripley's Game starring John Malkovich. A little research shows that it was based on the same series of novels that The Talented Mr. Ripley came from, which I've never seen. Apparently The Talented Mr. Ripley comes first chronologically. Is there any reason to watch that one first, or the two films more or less completely stand alone? It's fine to watch it stand alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Also, I think you meant Visconti's The Stranger. Would you find existence pointless when Anna Karina was in your bed? Yeah, Visconti, not Fellini. I don't even know how I managed to get them mixed up. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Wikipedia tells me it's implied he gets caught. Yep. That being said, apart from the last 10 seconds, Purple Noon is spectacular - a great little piece of suspense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
I remember when The General's Daughter came out there was a trailer for it where John Travolta's character asks "What's worse than rape?!" The line popped into my head today outta nowhere, after not thinking about the movie since it came out. I'm now overcome with the desire to know what's worse than rape. I looked up the response to the answer online, and here's what it said: "When you find that out you'll have all the answers." Can someone who has seen this movie let me know whether he was just being cheeky with that response, or what? Is the question ever answered? What the hell is going on? Someone spoil me on this movie. I don't wanna have to sit through it, I hear it's a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:I remember when The General's Daughter came out there was a trailer for it where John Travolta's character asks "What's worse than rape?!" I just read the wikipedia summary, which you may want to as well for more details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General%27s_Daughter ) but the answer seems to be: The girl was gang raped as a cadet, and they couldn't find the assailants. Her father, who was in charge of academy, covered it up so there wouldn't be a scandal, because basically it would have made the school and him look bad, and he had political aspirations. The girl ends up getting into hardcore sex, and re-enacts her rape for her dad so he'll feel bad but ends up dying. Elijya fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Aug 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 07:32
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:The General's Daughter So to answer your question, he's either referring to the betrayal by her father, or the massive scandal she would be willing to cause if it was revealed the daughter of one of the most powerful military figures in the country has slept with half her base, and was pushed to it by her father. Alris fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Aug 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 08:01
|
|
|
I just watched The Departed the other day and it was a really phenomenal movie, but what I didn't understand was Why Frank was talking to the FBI. What was he telling them and what did he have to gain from it? Oh also, how did the other crooked cop at the end know that Castigan and Sullivan were even in the building much less on their way down in the elevator?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
Karmine posted:I just watched The Departed the other day and it was a really phenomenal movie, but what I didn't understand was Why Frank was talking to the FBI. What was he telling them and what did he have to gain from it? Frank was getting protection from the FBI in exchange for talking to him. That's the reason they'd never been able to build a case against him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:Frank was getting protection from the FBI in exchange for talking to him. That's the reason they'd never been able to build a case against him. This is taken from the real life inspiration for Frank, Whitey Bulger, who did the exact same thing. In fact I think I read the reason Whitey is still at large today is because someone in the FBI tipped him off shortly before he was supposed to be arrested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
There are three versions of Mr. Arkadin that I see available. Has anyone seen all three? Which one should I watch?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
I just rewatched The Godfather Part II and I had a question. During the Senate hearings, they bring in Frank Pentangeli's brother, which instantly makes Pentangeli disavow any incriminating knowledge he has on Michael. Did they ever make it explicit why the mere presence of his brother caused him to do this? Like did they threaten to kill him or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Binowru posted:I just rewatched The Godfather Part II and I had a question. During the Senate hearings, they bring in Frank Pentangeli's brother, which instantly makes Pentangeli disavow any incriminating knowledge he has on Michael. Did they ever make it explicit why the mere presence of his brother caused him to do this? Like did they threaten to kill him or something? It's not made explicitly clear in the movie but yeah I think that it was a veiled threat against family members or something. This theory is reinforced by the fact Michael gets Tom Hagen to talk Frankie into killing himself in the bathtub after, specifically so that his family will be protected. I have to ask though, is it normal for guys to remain in Witness Protection even after pulling a stunt like Frankie's? I mean, the real Henry Hill got kicked out because he was dealing drugs still on the side (and also because he kept revealing his identity after Goodfellas came out) but still, his testimony actually worked. I guess I've just seen Godfather II too many times and am starting to make unnecessary nitpicks. grading essays nude fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Aug 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 04:52
|
|