|
twistedmentat posted:Actually, turn this double post into a question. Because at some point it's worth it to NOT be watching that movie any more. I've walked out of a ton of films and wish I'd walked out of more. But most of those were festival duds and when I had a job watching every single studio movie that came out.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Unfortunately I'm in the same boat. Was still probably better than Rollerball though. Being hosed with a steam powered cheese-grater dildo is better than Rollerball.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 12:50
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I've walked out of two movies, both at a discount theater, so I lost a combined total of 5 dollars. The movies were A Haunting in Connecticut and The Spy Next Door. The first was because I was bored, the second was because I felt like it was actively draining my intelligence. Ironically, I sat through all of Old Dogs at the same theater. It was like a train wreck, I literally couldn't look away. Can I ask what drew you to go see these movies at all in the first place? I've never walked out of a movie, but I usually only go to movies I know I'll probably like in the first place. It seems pretty easy to recognize which movies are going to be huge turds these days without having to spend money and go to the theater to find out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 13:41
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Probably because there's not a lot worth putting out yet and the majority of 3-D releases now are 2-D post-converted if they're not animated. Yea, its what? Monster House, Monsters Vs Aliens, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and something else that i can't remember. I get guys every once and a while that are incensed that they spend like 5 grand on a tv/brd player and TV and have nothing they can watch with it. I hope the re-release of Avatar will have a 3d disk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Actually, turn this double post into a question. It's not a question of rights, the discs and televisions are produced by for the most part completely separate entities. The electronics industry is rushing 3D tech out the door and don't particularly care that you have nothing 3D to show on it once you get it home. Most BR players aren't even capable of playing 3D right now, the PS3 was only patched to allow it in September.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Klungar posted:Can I ask what drew you to go see these movies at all in the first place? I've never walked out of a movie, but I usually only go to movies I know I'll probably like in the first place. It seems pretty easy to recognize which movies are going to be huge turds these days without having to spend money and go to the theater to find out. My friend and I make it a sort of ritual to see awful movies. I know it's weird, but we do enjoy it on a certain level. It's not the "Hey, I like these bad movies, I'm ironic" thing, more of a "Can't wait to see how badly this movie crashes and burns." They're just usually not so bad that I have to walk out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Somehow, I've never seen Alien before. I'm about to sit down and watch the Blu Ray that just came out, should I be going Theatrical or Director's Cut for my first viewing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
Theatrical.Ridley Scott posted:I cut those scenes out for a reason back in 1979. For marketing purposes, this version is being called "The Director's Cut."
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Yea, its what? Monster House, Monsters Vs Aliens, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and something else that i can't remember. I get guys every once and a while that are incensed that they spend like 5 grand on a tv/brd player and TV and have nothing they can watch with it. On the flip side, the people with the cash to buy a high-end 3-D system will probably not be too interested in older films. I'm sure there's exceptions (doctor thodt  ), but more people will buy Alice in Wonderland than the original House of Wax.Avatar was amazing in IMAX 3-D, but it's just as good of a film in 2-D. It doesn't depend on 3-D to be an exciting, entertaining fantasy. Then I realize that good 3-D is about subtlety, which sort of cancels out the need to pay a surcharge. It's dumber when you pay extra for a 2-D film converted to 3-D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
I still think that 3D won't really go anywhere until it starts getting curious and experimental. A 3D Soderbergh film, for example, would probably be a marvelous experience, or a small chamber drama, even, with more subtle 3D (it always seems, in modern 3D films, that the distances between objects is huge and exaggerated, like it has to be like a punch to your eyeballs or it isn't worth the sixteen dollar ticket). Even purely experimental 3D art films would advance the field, because at least it would begin to establish new ideas and rules, rather than another big blockbuster with things popping out and ostentatious fly-throughs of canyons. What would Sven Nykvist have made of 3D, or Cassavetes? Maybe something watchable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
I can't wait to see what Scorsese's going to do with 3D. Aronofsky was going to shoot that Robocop remake in 3D until that project fell through as well. Personally I'm totally fine with 3D so long as it's driven by the filmmakers. I understand the criticisms and complaints about it, especially when studios are forcing directors to post-convert their films, but if a filmmaker wants to tell their story in 3D who is going to tell them they're wrong? Mark Kermode, that's who.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
*raises hand* Is there a b-movie thread around here somewhere? I mean that in the general sense of direct-to-video, exploitation flicks, Roger Corman, genre films, even movies that aren't strictly defined as b-movies but kind of have a similar feel or riff on b-movies in some way. What I'm actually looking for are b-movies that actually have genuinely awesome things going for them that their mainstream bigger-budget counterparts lack, aside from the cheese/over-the-top violence/sex factor, whether that be unconventional storytelling, strangely effective if technically less flashy special effects, poignant emotional scenes that somehow work despite all the batshit insanity going on... Maybe something like Last Woman On Earth that should be absolutely terrible but has a screenplay by Chinatown's Charles Townsend beating under the wonky acting and zero budget. Or maybe the Larry Cohen/Michael Moriarty quadrilogy, which features some fairly unique plotting, snarky social commentary and Moriarty proving four times over that he is probably an alien in human flesh. A thread about movies that look "so bad they're good", but in reality are simply combining "bad" and "good" in interesting ways, or might end up being just plain "good". Maybe that's too specific to warrant its own thread but maybe somebody here knows the kind of movie I'm talking about. If not, pretend I made some kind of comment about a 3D Schizopolis claiming my future movie ticket when it is released in theaters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 23:23
|
|
|
I think 3D will have to overcome the same hurdles as sound and color, where it eventually stops being gimmick and becomes part of the actual artistry of the film. Think about Rear Window and the way it plays with depth. We've got James Stewart's apartment, the courtyard, the various other apartments, the alley, a busy street, and the diner across the street, all meticulously layered at precise distances from the viewer. Now imagine a picture with as much care toward depth shot with modern 3D technology. It wold be mind blowing. Imagine something like Blade Runner in 3D, with the flying car actually hovering in front of the audience and the colossal cityscape extending infinitely into the distance. Sooner or later, a contemporary filmmaker is going to shoot something amazing in 3D, not because of the tech's popularity, but because the addition of an extra dimension will be integral to the cinematography. I too can't wait to see what Scorsese has in store, and I'd also love to see filmmakers like Darren Aronofsky, Danny Boyle, or Christopher Nolan compose their work in three dimensions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I still think that 3D won't really go anywhere until it starts getting curious and experimental. A 3D Soderbergh film, for example, would probably be a marvelous experience, or a small chamber drama, even, with more subtle 3D (it always seems, in modern 3D films, that the distances between objects is huge and exaggerated, like it has to be like a punch to your eyeballs or it isn't worth the sixteen dollar ticket). Even purely experimental 3D art films would advance the field, because at least it would begin to establish new ideas and rules, rather than another big blockbuster with things popping out and ostentatious fly-throughs of canyons. What would Sven Nykvist have made of 3D, or Cassavetes? Maybe something watchable. Soderbergh has been talking about his 3D Musical of Cleopatra with Cathrine Zeta Jones for a while now. I hope we get to see it one day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Considering the 3D trend with blockbuster movies, I wonder if Aronofsky will end up doing his Wolverine movie with 3D cameras. Nolan seems pretty intent on not doing 3D and instead shooting IMAX (which is another format that I'd love to see get bigger, so to speak), but I'm pretty sure Warner Bros. is pushing for the next Batman to be in 3D. One thing's for sure, Cameron has said he's going to work exclusively in 3D for the rest of his career. Avatar was an interesting experiment with the technology so I'm really looking forward to what he does next, especially if he decides to shoot at 48 or 60 FPS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
Unless 3d can get rid of the stupid glasses and a premium added to the price, it will stay a gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Unless 3d can get rid of the stupid glasses and a premium added to the price, it will stay a gimmick. The glasses are definitely a major roadblock for 3D. I have a feeling that 3D on a smaller scale--laptops, computer monitors, etc.--will be improving faster than it will at the theater level. And really, the best way to do no-glasses 3D right now is on something like a laptop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:Same thing, except it was " Spice World" for me. I have seen Spice World multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I have seen Spice World multiple times. Me too. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Theatrical. Awesome, thanks. What about the other three films? Is there a general consensus on which are the best cuts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
For the first viewing of Aliens, go with the Theatrical cut. The Extended cut is pretty good but can seem a bit long for first time viewers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 13:44
|
|
|
Ein Bear posted:Awesome, thanks. What about the other three films? Is there a general consensus on which are the best cuts? 1: theatrical 2: theatrical 3: extended 4: crap either way
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
Noxville posted:1: theatrical Aliens directors cut. It doesn't take anything away and adds a bunch of awesome. gently caress the haters!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
Trump posted:Aliens directors cut. It doesn't take anything away and adds a bunch of awesome. gently caress the haters! It takes away plenty of the suspenseful buildup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
Trump posted:Aliens directors cut. It doesn't take anything away and adds a bunch of awesome. gently caress the haters! I don't think the debate over the directors cut of Aliens is really about "hating" or even whether or not the extra scenes are "awesome" but rather that the added stuff further messes with the pacing of an already dangerously longwinded film, especially for the action genre. It works perfectly really -- on first viewing, you watch the regular version and if you decide to come back for more, you go for the extra stuff. On first viewing, however, it could seem needlessly long. EDIT -- Criminal Minded just summed it up better in one sentence really. Further evidence to my point about longer not necessarily being better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
Yeah, the director's cut is really one you should watch second since it really messes with the pace on a first viewing but is fine the second time through. Same as with Cameron's T2 director's cut, actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 15:52
|
|
|
Noxville posted:Yeah, the director's cut is really one you should watch second since it really messes with the pace on a first viewing but is fine the second time through. Same as with Cameron's T2 director's cut, actually. Cameron prefers the theatrical cut of T2, and rightfully so. But I will always be conflicted with Aliens. It's probably because the first version I saw was the extended cut so I can't watch the theatrical without noticing what's missing, but I still like the extended cut more. Yes, it completely fudges the pacing in the first half, and I'm all about economical storytelling, but the theatrical cut removes a lot of the character beats that feel pretty essential to me. James Cameron doesn't have a subtle bone in his body so it seems a disservice to cut down on what he was doing with his characters. I don't think either cut of the film is ideal. The extended cut is too long but the theatrical cut loses too many good scenes. Really, I just want to see a hybrid between the two that leaves out unnecessary material like visiting the colony before Ripley and the marines arrive, but keeps in those character moments. Without that stuff it doesn't have the resonance for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I have seen Spice World multiple times. How does it hold up on repeat viewings? My brain shut off around the time the breakdancing aliens showed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
I like the Aliens Director's cut. The only thing I would excise though is the early Colony scene. The stuff with Ripley you can keep, and I guess the sentry gun scene isn't bad either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
Trump posted:Aliens directors cut. It doesn't take anything away and adds a bunch of awesome. gently caress the haters! It was interesting but I liked the way the theatrical left it ambiguous as to how long the colonists had been cocooned. Months or years? But in the extended it's like they found Ripley floating in space JUST as the aliens attacked again 57 years later? It bothered me Noxville posted:Yeah, the director's cut is really one you should watch second since it really messes with the pace on a first viewing but is fine the second time through. Same as with Cameron's T2 director's cut, actually. I really didn't like the T2 directors cut at all. It chopped up some of my favorite scenes into insignificance. One of the only movies I always recommend extended over theatrical is The Abyss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It was interesting but I liked the way the theatrical left it ambiguous as to how long the colonists had been cocooned. Months or years? But in the extended it's like they found Ripley floating in space JUST as the aliens attacked again 57 years later? It bothered me It can be no more than several months at the very most and probably no more than a couple of weeks, given that there is a girl who could be no more than 8 running around who clearly remembers everything. Also, wet donut room, and at least one of the other colonists is alive when they arrive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:How does it hold up on repeat viewings? My brain shut off around the time the breakdancing aliens showed up. I can say in all seriousness that it's not as good as Josie and the Pussycats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:How does it hold up on repeat viewings? My brain shut off around the time the breakdancing aliens showed up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvK0IZVpbOE Oh McNulty, the depths from which you have risen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
Zogo posted:It was interesting but I liked the way the theatrical left it ambiguous as to how long the colonists had been cocooned. Months or years? But in the extended it's like they found Ripley floating in space JUST as the aliens attacked again 57 years later? It bothered me Did you miss the important plot point where they sent the colonist to the ship based off Ripley's data?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It can be no more than several months at the very most and probably no more than a couple of weeks, given that there is a girl who could be no more than 8 running around who clearly remembers everything. Also, wet donut room, and at least one of the other colonists is alive when they arrive. Yea, it's still improbable even in the theatrical edition but we're never sure if all the colonists were rounded up in a couple of days..some of those colonists could've hidden for a while. The girl looked dirty enough like she had been scrounging around for a very long time. It took most of the intriguing ambiguity away. But it's like they get out of the CEO meeting and the aliens instantly launch a revenge attack because Ripley woke up and made a boardroom deal. PS wet donut room? bobkatt013 posted:Did you miss the important plot point where they sent the colonist to the ship based off Ripley's data? I must have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Did you miss the important plot point where they sent the colonist to the ship based off Ripley's data? I also think there's a little implied condescension toward the audience. I think the parallel drawn between Ripley protecting Newt and the alien queen protecting her eggs is pretty unsubtle, but the director's cut has to throw in a needless backstory motivation---via blank exposition---to make it even less subtextual. You see this sorta thing in the utility drama inserted into things like disaster films. The protagonist's comically overdramatic motivation in I Am Legend (2007), the father's motivation in The Day After Tomorrow (2004), everybody's motivations in Spielberg's War of the Worlds (2005)...all of this poo poo is the insistence upon character development rather than character development itself, and I think it weakens the narrative rather than strengthening it as appears to be intended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I can say in all seriousness that it's not as good as Josie and the Pussycats. Yeah, I actually told someone that Spice World is for people who haven't seen Josie and the Pussycats. They're both much better than you have any reason to expect but you really can't go back once you've seen Josie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 15:54
|
|
|
Yeah, Josie is a legitimately funny movie and I'm surprised more people haven't seen it given the obscure crap that's dredged up here from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
I have to admit I enjoyed Spice World. Something put me off of Josie and the Pussycats but with people saying it's good I'll have to watch it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
ZombieParts posted:I have to admit I enjoyed Spice World. Something put me off of Josie and the Pussycats but with people saying it's good I'll have to watch it again. It's better than people usually expect. It's certainly better than Spiceworld.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 18:28
|
|