|
Is it true that the the Columbia mascott is based on Annette Benning? I remember hearing that somewhere. 
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
KillRoy posted:Is it true that the the Columbia mascott is based on Annette Benning? I remember hearing that somewhere. Not unless Annette Benning is immortal and was around to model for it in 1924.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
The whole thing about the Colombia logo is pretty interesting. It has a surprisingly rich history... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Pictures#The_Columbia_logo
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
Universe Master posted:Not unless Annette Benning is immortal and was around to model for it in 1924. He (probably) means the current logo, which was based actually on Jenny Joseph (not the poet). 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
I just watched El Mariachi and I swear I recognise the music from something else. Not the Latin guitars, but the electronic/ambient stuff used during the dream sequences. I want to say Day of the Dead but I saw that a LONG time ago and I think this was from something more recent. A quick search didn't turn anything up, does anybody have any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Was there ever anything akin to the video nasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty moral panic in the US? It seems like it was a curiously British phenomenon and I've always wondered if there was any kind of home video moral crusade in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
Diligent Deadite posted:Was there ever anything akin to the video nasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty moral panic in the US? It seems like it was a curiously British phenomenon and I've always wondered if there was any kind of home video moral crusade in other countries. Home video specific? I can't say so, but that was probably because we had developed a deep rich foam working ourselves up in a lather with the Hays Code for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_code Edit: I should also mention non-institutional situations like WalMart "cuts" of films and music (usually reflected in cover art and explicit language) and that whole CleanFlicks enterprise. For the former, because of their then policies, some movies were specifically crafted to have R-rated cuts so that they could be sold in their stores. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Nov 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Diligent Deadite posted:Was there ever anything akin to the video nasty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty moral panic in the US? It seems like it was a curiously British phenomenon and I've always wondered if there was any kind of home video moral crusade in other countries. This is an excellent question and I hope someone can answer it a bit better than me, but I know in the US it's quite a different setup regarding films; technically MPAA ratings on content are voluntary, but there's a long-standing consensus between the MPAA, the studios and the cinemas that films should be submitted for classification before release, and major cinema chains simply don't show unrated or even NC-17 rated films. I am fairly sure this just extended to displaying MPAA ratings on videos and major chains like Wal-Mart similarly not stocking anything un- or high-rated without any laws being passed, unlike the legal loophole in the UK that left videos out of the rating system. American moral crusaders (including Al Gore's wife) did pour a lot of energy into the Parental Advisory system of putting warnings on CD albums around the same time, though, which was a pretty entertaining historical episode in its own right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Inception : summer popcorn or something more? (IMDB users have it in the top 5 of all time, which stuns me.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 01:22
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
kapalama posted:Inception : summer popcorn or something more? IMDb users also had The Dark Knight as #1 for a while, even down-voting The Godfather just to help it, so take IMDb's Top 250 with a grain of salt. Anyway, when I think "summer popcorn" I think of utterly brainless movies like Transformers or Clash of the Titans. Inception clearly has more going on than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Inception : summer popcorn or something more? My view is that Christopher Nolan has a knack for creating movies that function as both. Like all of his films, there's tons going on below the surface, and the characters and plot are filled with small intricacies, but it's not an overtly deceptive story, like Memento or The Prestige. It can be enjoyed on the surface for its great action sequences and cool scifi concepts, but there is a far more cerebral level that the viewer can choose to explore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Inception : summer popcorn or something more? In my opinion nothing with that much dialogue can be popcorn. Whatever you take of the movie, it really couldn't be considered popcorn for being 2hrs and 30m and that much discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:In my opinion nothing with that much dialogue can be popcorn. Whatever you take of the movie, it really couldn't be considered popcorn for being 2hrs and 30m and that much discussion. Does it really have more dialogue than Independence Day, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Avatar or a dozen of other popcorn films over 2:30. I do think Inception is much better than those and has value beyond simple entertainment, but citing length and quantity of dialogue is not the way to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 02:26
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:My view is that Christopher Nolan has a knack for creating movies that function as both. Like all of his films, there's tons going on below the surface, and the characters and plot are filled with small intricacies, but it's not an overtly deceptive story, like Memento or The Prestige. It can be enjoyed on the surface for its great action sequences and cool scifi concepts, but there is a far more cerebral level that the viewer can choose to explore. I guess I kind of did not see it as having that other level... School me please? Loved Memento (and I really loved the fact that the DVD could be set up to watch the movies in linear fashion which was an incredible use of the DVD technology.) Part of my difficulty is watching whatshisname from Titanic is always a little painful. In Gilbert Grape, he was awesome, but he has just simply been hard to watch in anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 03:47
|
|
|
kapalama posted:I guess I kind of did not see it as having that other level... School me please? It's just all the little intricacies of the characters, why they act the way they do, how the dreams work, why the dream sequences play out as they do, etc. There are many details not made explicit that give a heightened understanding of the story. However, if you don't like Leonardo Dicaprio, we'll just have to agree that we have vastly different tastes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Part of my difficulty is watching whatshisname from Titanic is always a little painful. In Gilbert Grape, he was awesome, but he has just simply been hard to watch in anything else. If you seriously can't get over Leonardo Dicaprio starring in Titanic over 13 years ago, and discount all the awesome movies he has been in over the last 5 years, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:It's just all the little intricacies of the characters, why they act the way they do, how the dreams work, why the dream sequences play out as they do, etc. There are many details not made explicit that give a heightened understanding of the story. However, if you don't like Leonardo Dicaprio, we'll just have to agree that we have vastly different tastes. (I don't like DiCaprio but I can live with him. I am just completely conscious of him ACTING in his roles for whatever reason. Never saw Titanic, so it's not that.) See for me, the details were actually the problem. I get the whole magic bullet thing, but this movie took it to such ridiculous extremes that it really got in the way. The van driver had one head move that he made identically ten straight times to dodge bullets. The weightless motion was all wrong. The characters were made massless, rather than weightless, which matters when the whole point of slamming the elevator was to 'kick'. The rolling of the van did not wake anyone when other kicks did. It seemed like almost anything that could otherwise be interesting was made sloppily because if you actually spend any time thinking about it, the flaws just leap out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 06:04
|
|
|
kapalama posted:
Jesus Christ. If these things bothered you, how do you enjoy anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 06:43
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Jesus Christ. If these things bothered you, how do you enjoy anything? You must not have read the Inception thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Does it really have more dialogue than Independence Day, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Avatar or a dozen of other popcorn films over 2:30. I do think Inception is much better than those and has value beyond simple entertainment, but citing length and quantity of dialogue is not the way to prove it. I really do think it has far more dialogue. Especially when you consider so much of the dialogue happens without the punctuation of comic relief of your typical Bruckheimer movie. That's coupled with how much of the dialogue is kind of necessary to make sense of what happens later. I mean, ID4 really only needs people to understand the "virus upload, shields down" stuff because the rest is pretty above board combat/disaster survival and one nifty speech. Armageddon is not far off of Inception in terms of how much they talk about what's going to happen (via the NASA briefings) and they're pretty necessary to understand what they're drilling, but it is again coupled with comic relief constantly as a relief valve for people with short attention spans. Avatar doesn't have a lot of dialogue at all, really. If you imagine watching any of these 2.5hr movies with the sound off, which one would you be more lost on? I think a popcorn movie is pretty much the kind of movie that you could be watching dubbed in a foreign language and lose nothing other than verbal humor. But popcorn movies often do as much physical humor so that's not a tremendous loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 06:58
|
|
|
kapalama posted:The weightless motion was all wrong. The characters were made massless, rather than weightless, which matters when the whole point of slamming the elevator was to 'kick'. The rolling of the van did not wake anyone when other kicks did. They were in a dream. There's really no precedent that everything would work the way it does in the real world. They made a point in that it doesn't really follow logic a la the never ending staircase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
kapalama posted:The weightless motion was all wrong. The characters were made massless, rather than weightless, which matters when the whole point of slamming the elevator was to 'kick'. The rolling of the van did not wake anyone when other kicks did. I don't think movies are for you, mate
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:Is it true that the the Columbia mascott is based on Annette Benning? I remember hearing that somewhere. They did change it for one movie - What Planet Are You From? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oArmUUgdZ1k Here's the standard one to compare it to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIknlub6lEc
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
quote doesn't equal edit
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 07:24
|
|
|
Toy Story 3 Apparently, Mr. Potato Head's body doesn't matter, as he has a tortilla and a cucumber as a body at some point outside of his usual potato body. And the body parts don't have to be attached to the same body, or any body for that matter, to function. So, what part of Mr. Potato Head is actually alive? What body part houses his mind/brain? Is his mind/brain just some sort of omnipresent thing that can be wherever it needs to be, and even be in more than one place at a time? How come no other toy (other than Mrs. Potato Head) can move body parts independent of their body? Is he God? Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
I guess it's because he was designed to be modular. The spirit of the toys' design seems to play a big part in what they can do and how they act. Since his constituent parts can all work separately and really far apart I guess his consciousness is just... Everywhere. Or nowhere. Doesn't matter, it's probably not housed by any one piece. Other toys have kind of had that, though. The toys that Sid mangled and put together seemed to function with transplanted heads and limbs and poo poo, buuuut more like whatever the new head was controlled the rest. From what we saw. I don't think you're supposed to think this much about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
He's actually The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Toy Story 3 God this makes Toy Story seem so creepy. That being said, remember all the toys that Sid(?) cobbled together in the first movie? They were just bits and pieces of other toys, even made of stuff like wheels and arms with no apparent heads (the fishing pole with legs), and they were all still "alive". Ughghghg. Zombie toys. I imagine the only real "death" a toy can have is to be completely ground up/disintegrated and destroyed. And maybe toys like Mr. Potato head, with naturally detachable limbs, have more "life" distributed to every body part, whereas something more all-inclusive like Woody would be constructed and operate more comparably to an actual human being. edit: beaten 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Inception : summer popcorn or something more? Read the IMDB boards then come back. Nothing will stun you after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
That's pretty horrific. They just age and fall apart and don't die until they ground up into little pieces? And if they don't they could like for thousands of years until they wear down to nothing? Not nice. From what I can remember we've only seen two things that definitely kill them: getting blown up, and incinerated. It's pretty horrible to think that they watched one of their own kind get completely obliterated by an exploding rocket. Yet the toy in question still didn't break "character."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Other toys have kind of had that, though. The toys that Sid mangled and put together seemed to function with transplanted heads and limbs and poo poo, buuuut more like whatever the new head was controlled the rest. From what we saw. redjenova posted:That being said, remember all the toys that Sid(?) cobbled together in the first movie? They were just bits and pieces of other toys, even made of stuff like wheels and arms with no apparent heads (the fishing pole with legs), and they were all still "alive". From what I can remember (I'll watch them all again this week), Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head are the only two that can do this. I may be mistaken, though. The rest of the toys have an obvious mind-body thing going, but the Potato Head family... they're different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
Akuma posted:I guess it's because he was designed to be modular. The spirit of the toys' design seems to play a big part in what they can do and how they act. Since his constituent parts can all work separately and really far apart I guess his consciousness is just... Everywhere. Or nowhere. Doesn't matter, it's probably not housed by any one piece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Akuma posted:I guess it's because he was designed to be modular. The spirit of the toys' design seems to play a big part in what they can do and how they act. Since his constituent parts can all work separately and really far apart I guess his consciousness is just... Everywhere. Or nowhere. Doesn't matter, it's probably not housed by any one piece. This is why, as horrible as it was, the "Let's Sperg About Movies Thread" shouldn't have been gassed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
haveblue posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Yeah but adding the consciousness element changes things quite a bit. In the end we can't know because we have too many questions. Can he use another eye? What if it was an official replacement eye made for Potato Heads? Not that we need to know. It's like he can possess anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Regardless of the parts, they still had a "body" and a "head" (or something that acted as such), and we couldn't see that their body parts worked detached from the rest. I guess so, but thinking specifically about that fishing-pole-with-legs thing: (this is the closest I could GIS it... heh)  It doesn't have any form of head really at all. And I seem to vaguely remember bits and pieces like arms and such crawling around Sid's floor. But if they were taken apart and then reassembled into some "new" creature that still had the ability to move around and be "alive", especially apparently headless like this one (meaning it's not like the new head is what has control over the new body)... It's not exactly like Mr. Potato Head because he retains his consciousness as it were, but then again he still has all the vital pieces--his mouth, eyes, etc. and Sid's weird toys didn't. I think the consciousness/life of a piece is, most of the time, just inherent to the pieces of that toy. Although yeah, I don't think we were ever meant to think too much about this. Haha.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
^^^ With Sid's toys one piece became dominant over the others when they were transplanted. With the Potato Heads they can exchange parts and still control them. I don't know, the only thing not his own that we've seen him use is a new body, and all that did was be acted upon by the limbs. I was thinking more about the nature of the toys; if it's some official replacement part, is it imbued with life by virtue of being a toy (part) and activate as his when it becomes his? We've seen the two heroes both lose limbs and lose the ability to use them until they were fixed; but would it have worked if they were new parts? What if all the stuffing in Woody's arm was replaced? Or the hand? This is the Ship of Theseus. With our Lord God Potato Head it's a whole different ballgame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Yeah but adding the consciousness element changes things quite a bit so it's less a philosophical question and more a pragmatic one. In the end we can't know because we have too many questions. Can he use another eye? What if it was an official replacement eye made for Potato Heads? Not that we need to know. There's a variant of the Ship of Theseus where you replace neurons in the brain with electronic circuits one at a time, but I can't find it because I don't know it's official name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Akuma posted:^^^ With Sid's toys one piece became dominant over the others when they were transplanted. With the Potato Heads they can exchange parts and still control them. I think the big difference here is that Sid's toys were systematically broken down and jury rigged together--Mr. Potato Head's gimmick is detachable/interchangeable pieces. It almost makes sense that Mr. Potato Head's "self" is all the other pieces besides his plain potato head, since without his eyes/mouth/whatever, it's just a hollow faceless lump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:That's something I haven't thought of. He can use anything as a body, does that mean he can use anything as a body part as well? Could he take the eye from a completely different doll, plug it into his potato body, and use it? Would he even need to plug it into his potato body, since we've already determined it's unnecessary for him to live? They're all ghosts or elementals essentially. Mr. Potato Head brings up the Ship of Theseus paradox more obviously, but where is Woody's brain? Or Buzz's? None of them have actual physical minds so their consciousness is entirely metaphysical. 9 can be seen as the product of someone who had these same questions about where the souls of the Toy Story characters came from and decided to make a movie about the answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 17:38
|
|
