|
Zogo posted:I recently watched Training Day. Was Alonzo planning to have Jake killed from the beginning or was it only because Jake was objecting to what was going on? Planning, yes. But he was hedging his bets. He wanted a new "team player" but you can't recruit for this without knowing some people won't "join the team". So like Max Zorin you have to be ready to shove people out of your blimp if they make trouble.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 09:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:So has there been many films released twice with radically different cuts? The only one I can think of are the two versions of the Exorcist prequel from a few years ago. One was a studio version, the other the origonal directors I think. The canonical example of a radically different cut is Payback with Mel Gibson. The director's cut removes or replaces almost 1/3 of the film with a completely different ending. According to legend, the reason the studio recut it was someone cut a trailer making the movie look like an action-comedy and it blew away all of the other trailers in tests. So they told the director to recut his dark and gritty movie it into an action-comedy. He refused and was replaced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 13:43
|
|
|
The Clue movie has three different final acts with different culprits, which were randomly distributed among theaters during its run. Wikipedia mentions a scrapped fourth ending in which the butler did it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The Clue movie has three different final acts with different culprits, which were randomly distributed among theaters during its run. Wikipedia mentions a scrapped fourth ending in which the butler did it. Scrapped? Every time I see that movie it had all four endings, with "Maybe this is how it went" type placards and the "but what really happened" just before the butler one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Could 70mm prints of, say, Lawrence of Arabia, be modified to play on modern IMAX screens? If no, why not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Could 70mm prints of, say, Lawrence of Arabia, be modified to play on modern IMAX screens? If no, why not? Not quite since the projectors are totally different, even if identical guage. Sony was actually considering an IMAX release at one point, but it never happened. They're completing a new 8K digital restoration, so they could use that as a source for an eventual IMAX re-release. I'd be happy to pay $15 to see that film on a huge screen. There's a clip from 2001: A Space Odyssey in the "Destiny in Space" documentary that looked absolutely stunning. The Baroness posted:Scrapped? Every time I see that movie it had all four endings, with "Maybe this is how it went" type placards and the "but what really happened" just before the butler one. That's the version put on video and shown on TV. The DVD is the first time since theatrical release that allows for either the random endings or the TV/video re-edit. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Dec 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:So has there been many films released twice with radically different cuts? The only one I can think of are the two versions of the Exorcist prequel from a few years ago. One was a studio version, the other the origonal directors I think. Dawn of the Dead comes to mind. There's the theatrical cut, the Italian cut (which cuts most of the humor, changes the score, and re-edits everything pretty drastically), and the "Film Festival" cut, which is about ten minutes longer and also has a different score. The deluxe DVD set I have includes all three cuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Not quite since the projectors are totally different, even if identical guage. Sony was actually considering an IMAX release at one point, but it never happened. They're completing a new 8K digital restoration, so they could use that as a source for an eventual IMAX re-release. I'd be happy to pay $15 to see that film on a huge screen. Goddamnit, now I need to see Playtime on an IMAX screen!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
Gaggins posted:No way to be sure. He probably would have let Jake live if Jake had been open to corruption, but he was definitely ready with the Jake-disposal back-up plan. I think Alonzo had doubts from the beginning because of Jake's boy scout morality but would have let him slide had he taken the money. Ape Agitator posted:Planning, yes. But he was hedging his bets. He wanted a new "team player" but you can't recruit for this without knowing some people won't "join the team". So like Max Zorin you have to be ready to shove people out of your blimp if they make trouble. OK that's kind of what I was thinking. I also found it humorous when he makes it back to the apartment Alonzo says, "Congratulations, you're a narc!" as if it was another test and Jake could be tricked again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
I knew about Brazil (considering its one of my favorite films), but I didn't know about Dawn of the Dead or even Payback. I always felt that the movie seemed to warble between trying to be dark and then funny. Those wacky execs. Has anyone here ever been in a focus group? I heard from a 3rd hand account that they are pretty much made up of a the kind of people you might find walking through a mall, meaning literally everybody. Sometimes I wonder how they can give you accurate results. Roping a Christian Grandmother to see Super Death Kill IV: TITS! isn't going to give you insight into what your target market wants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
In The Box, in the very last scene when the camera zooms in on the window, you see someone approach Walter and stand next to him. Who was that? I thought it was just one of the suits working for the same aliens Steward was, but I have no idea whether that's right or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 08:17
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:In The Box, in the very last scene when the camera zooms in on the window, you see someone approach Walter and stand next to him. Who was that? I thought it was just one of the suits working for the same aliens Steward was, but I have no idea whether that's right or not. Just a suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 09:11
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I knew about Brazil (considering its one of my favorite films), but I didn't know about Dawn of the Dead or even Payback. I always felt that the movie seemed to warble between trying to be dark and then funny. Even though I didn't know the history behind I always knew that there was something wrong with Payback as there is a pretty clear demarcation between "Revenge Drama" and "Action Comedy." The most obvious bit of studio fudging in it has to be how part way through the movie the dog gets shot and is pretty obviously dead but then comes back later just with a bandage around its middle and they act like it was no big deal. Another set of movies that got focused grouped to death are both Men in Black films. Although as far as I know there isn't any way to see the original versions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 12:48
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Has anyone here ever been in a focus group? I heard from a 3rd hand account that they are pretty much made up of a the kind of people you might find walking through a mall, meaning literally everybody. Sometimes I wonder how they can give you accurate results. Roping a Christian Grandmother to see Super Death Kill IV: TITS! isn't going to give you insight into what your target market wants. From all the focus groups I've been in (usually for consumer products but sometimes for commercials or TV pilots) the people running the shows are always professional, intelligent, supervised, and very wary of leading the conversation towards any particular opinion even though they probably have incentive to do so with their clients looking on. The market research people tend to be pretty savvy. The problem is with the participants in the focus group. But in my experience it isn't that they pull people only out of Wal-Mart's Hall of Shame, it's that most people just aren't very good at focusing in on what it is about something they like or dislike. Anyone can tell you they like a movie, or a person, or a meal, but breaking down their thoughts into articulate evaluations will leave them stumped. How many people can actually turn "Best Harry Potter novel ever!" into a book report? Plus, you put them into a room with a bunch of strangers, and even though they're often getting paid to speak up, it's like being in grade school where the teacher sometimes has to goad and prod the students into sharing their opinions. The scariest or most unfortunate part of the whole process is that people can generally like what is presented to them, but whether they don't want to sound unoriginal or too easily pleased, they can find things to pick apart about whatever it is they're presented with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Even though I didn't know the history behind I always knew that there was something wrong with Payback as there is a pretty clear demarcation between "Revenge Drama" and "Action Comedy." The most obvious bit of studio fudging in it has to be how part way through the movie the dog gets shot and is pretty obviously dead but then comes back later just with a bandage around its middle and they act like it was no big deal. Do you have any information on the original versions? I thought the first was a pretty good film, I'd love to know what it was meant to be like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Even though I didn't know the history behind I always knew that there was something wrong with Payback as there is a pretty clear demarcation between "Revenge Drama" and "Action Comedy." The most obvious bit of studio fudging in it has to be how part way through the movie the dog gets shot and is pretty obviously dead but then comes back later just with a bandage around its middle and they act like it was no big deal. Well, the first MIB was great, while the second was immediately unnecessary and a desolate wasteland of unfunny garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Do you have any information on the original versions? I thought the first was a pretty good film, I'd love to know what it was meant to be like. Here's what IMDB has to say which I've mostly heard about from a different source (news stuff from when the movie originally came out) "The climax was going to be a humorous existential dialogue between agents J and K and the Bug, but the studio called for a more action-packed climax, so it was changed to the Bug getting blown up. Originally there were going to be two huge alien spaceships looming over Earth: an Arquillian ship and a Baltian ship, with representatives of both species staking claim of the galaxy. Mr. Rosenberg (the "little dude in the big dude's head") was a Baltian (confirmed by the novelization of the film), while the tall alien (Carel Struycken) he met at the restaurant was an Arquillian (and is so listed in the end credits). After some choice editing and rewriting, Rosenberg became an Arquillian. During the shoot, there was a script revision which changed the role of the 'Universe' in the movie. Fortunately, some creative tricks could be used to avoid having to re-shoot several scenes. For instance, the dialogue between Rosenberg and the tall man in the diner was originally in English (and they were adversaries), but their lines were simply dubbed in an alien language that could be subtitled with the desired explanation. New lines were also written for Frank the Pug, whose scenes had to go through post-production anyway. Director Barry Sonnenfeld could be heard on the DVD bonus material jokingly advising fellow directors to include a talking dog into every movie, which makes it easy to change the plot while filming." I was misremembering with 2 though as they made changes because the original ending involved the World Trade Center so they had to completely scrap that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:"The climax was going to be a humorous existential dialogue between agents J and K and the Bug, but the studio called for a more action-packed climax, so it was changed to the Bug getting blown up." Good choice. The movie needs an action climax and it sounds like it would have been as awful as Matrix Reloaded "conversation" ending. Especially if the existing description of the bug was in the original script because he was hardly established as a big thinker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:What are some of the hidden gems on the lovely Canadian Netflix? Here's a wesbite that shows you everything that's available on the Canadian version: http://instantwatcher.com/genres/523
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Dancing Potato posted:Here's a wesbite that shows you everything that's available on the Canadian version: Thanks for this!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
My question regards the Godfather films. Before this past week I had seen most of the first movie if I pieced together everything I had seen from the million times I've watched it on TV. I hadn't seen more than a few scenes of the other two. I recently finished my finals and rewarded myself by breaking out the box set I bought months ago. I watched the first and enjoyed it, having seen most of it. I watched the second and thought it was amazing. I'm dying to watch the special features but they are separated by film. Not wanting to spoil the third movie with the special features, I feel I need to watch the third next. Why do people hate it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Lao Tsu posted:Why do people hate it? It's just bad, man. Sofia Coppola is horribly miscast in a very central role, the plot is lame, there's no memorable scenes (I'll give them "they pull me back in" as a great line, though). It doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
penismightier posted:It's just bad, man. Sofia Coppola is horribly miscast in a very central role, the plot is lame, there's no memorable scenes (I'll give them "they pull me back in" as a great line, though). It doesn't work. Bummer. I was having a ton of fun watching 1 and 2 in succession.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
Lao Tsu posted:Why do people hate it? Yeah, he hit the nail on the head. Outside of almost a singularly good line, there's so, so very little in it that meets the quality of the first two. There are a lot of repeated concepts, plots, and characters in the third so you lack the refreshing nature of seeing both prequel and sequel elements from GF2. The new character casting is very underwhelming with Andy Garcia trying too hard on a bad character who is worse than his incarnations from the other GF movies. Bridget Fonda is, as always, a pretty girl who should not be given dialogue. Sofia is even more awful, which would not be so bad if her character were not more central (luckily much better behind the camera in later years). Unfortunately, coming off a series of films that were both epic but also focused stories, GF3 just isn't about anything really. It's just events with characters you're familiar with. Very disappointing but you really can't expect that a decade and a half later they could have put something together that stylistically and thematically could match up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
And yet, wasn't Part III nominated for Best Picture the year it came out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:It's just events with characters you're familiar with. And for some reason every time Coppola invokes the earlier two films, it makes me grate my teeth. The big opera set-piece that's obviously `quoting' the death of the five families is pretty much the definition of `just going through the motions', when it should be (and is, at least structurally) the centerpiece of the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Binowru posted:And yet, wasn't Part III nominated for Best Picture the year it came out? On it's own it really isn't a bad movie, it just can't live up to the legacy established by its predecessors so naturally everyone says it's lovely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Binowru posted:And yet, wasn't Part III nominated for Best Picture the year it came out? I think that was mostly on the strength of the brand / director. In fact, the familiarity with and goodwill garnered by the first two GF movies makes the 3rd seem better than it is - i.e., subpar instead of flat out bad and confusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 23:48
|
|
|
SubG posted:Yeah, and they're often pulled out of nowhere so that they feel entirely tacked on for the `oh yeah, that guy' moment---like the reappearance of minor characters from the Sicily sequence of the first film---or if they aren't out of place, they end up being called upon by the plot to do things which seem wildly implausible or out of character (Connie's transformation into an elderly femme fatale sticks out here). Connie I did not mind as she has been poo poo on her whole life and decided to do something about it. Also I got it as Michael started to trust her more after Fredo's death. Also the unnecessary incest in the film just weirded me out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 23:57
|
|
|
Cacator posted:On it's own it really isn't a bad movie, it just can't compare to the legacy of its predecessors so naturally everyone says it's lovely. There's nothing inherently wrong with this as a narrative gimmick---we like characters who change and there's nothing saying all bad guys have to be bad guys. But the first two films are memorable in part because they present such a plausible descent into evil in the first place. Michael starts out as the stereotypical clean-cut, all-American nice guy. We can identify with him. We find him admirable. And when terrible things happen around him, we initially (probably) feel that his responses are admirable---when he first starts getting into the family business to protect his father, it's in a way that most viewers look at an would hope or imagine that they'd do the same thing in the same circumstances. This is a great narrative gimmick---throughout most of the first film in particular we find ourselves thinking that Michael is a good man surrounded by evil men. But by the end of the second film most audiences, I think, would look at Michael and think to themselves that here is an unequivocably evil man. This is a really great narrative feat. The problem with the plot of the third film is that there is absolutely no comparable arc for Michael's redemption. I mean it completely makes sense as an additional place for the narrative to go---all else being equal I'd say the first two films make a single narrative that doesn't need amending, but if it is going to be amended, a story of redemption is pretty much what you'd need to do. But whereas the earlier films follow a sort of grimly inevitable downward spiral, everything in the third installment feels like it's happening entirely by narrative insistence. Michael decides to be redeemed entirely because the grand narrative arc requires him to seek redemption. I think a lot of other nonsense---out-of-place cameos and miscast daughters and so on---would get a pass if the central conceit didn't feel so much like a transparent contrivance but was instead as character-driven as the first two films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Al Swearengen was only completely horrible in the first couple of episodes until Cy Toliver was introduced. He was ten times worse then him. Also the first season had him euthanize the priest. Also the last episode was mostly about him loosing the last thing he had left - his family. That is why the last scene is awesome Michael dying alone.
bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Dec 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Adding to the Godfather part 3 discussion. At that point Copolla was in dire straights from previous films not making money back so in order to get a surefire hit he picked up Paramount's long standing agreement to make a third Godfather. The rushed script development time (six weeks as opposed to Copolla wanting six months) and loosing Robert Duvall and Winnona Ryder all contriubuted to a film that really feels like everyone was just doing it out of obligation. Copolla felt the story had been told and tied up by Godfather part 2, he agrees there's no where else for Michael to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 01:37
|
|
|
Alright so The Man who Came to Dinner was just on TCM and seems to have gotten pretty good reviews but something is nagging me about it. The film is basically 2 hours of a rich white entitled jackass author dicking around these people who were gracious enough to invite him to dinner. He slips on their steps, threatens to sue them (for 150k in 1941 dollars) so now he gets to stay in their house for at least a month, brings all these exotic animals into their house, snatching away the love of his assistant's life and stealing their butler. At the end of all this he gets away with it, slips on their steps and has to stay in their house again. This guy could not have been more of an utter dick to these innocent people and yet people seem to be lining up to suck his dick over it, am I the only person who just seems to be annoyed that the movie is about him dicking over people for no reason?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
I remember watching Inception in the theaters awhile back, and I just remembered there was a small plot point I missed: What had happened that Architect who Cobb and Arthur were working with in the beginning of the film? (the one that Ellen Page eventually replaced) Last I recall he was being taken away by Saito, but I didn't catch the dialog that mentioned what his fate was. (or why he was being taken away in the first place) itrorev fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Dec 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
itrorev posted:I remember watching Inception in the theaters awhile back, and I just remembered there was a small plot point I missed: Saito was giving the dude to the company they failed (Cobol.) The same one that was after Cobb later. muscles like this! fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Dec 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
This is kind of a weird, specific question but it would be really helpful if somebody knew the answer. Does anybody remember what food they ate in Airplane! that made them all sick (I know it was fish but I don't remember if they mentioned a specific kind) and what Ted Striker ate that didn't make him sick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
FortCastle posted:This is kind of a weird, specific question but it would be really helpful if somebody knew the answer. Does anybody remember what food they ate in Airplane! that made them all sick (I know it was fish but I don't remember if they mentioned a specific kind) and what Ted Striker ate that didn't make him sick. The choices were steak or fish, no specifics. Dr. Rumack: "Yes, I remember, I had the lasagna."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
FortCastle posted:This is kind of a weird, specific question but it would be really helpful if somebody knew the answer. Does anybody remember what food they ate in Airplane! that made them all sick (I know it was fish but I don't remember if they mentioned a specific kind) and what Ted Striker ate that didn't make him sick. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
Trout, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
In Zero Hour, the movie that Airplane is a parody/remake of, it's grilled halibut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 00:50
|
|