|
bobkatt013 posted:He also was partly responsible for the Watergate break in. The Nixon administration's paranoia of Hughes is one of the weirdest aspects of a weird, weird presidency. They seriously thought he was some malevolent puppet master for... something when in reality he was just doing random crazy things. Edit: this is a bad start for a new page  Rake Arms posted:I mean, look at lines like, "You should be more interested in science, Jake. You know why? Because your face is perfect." How the gently caress was Mark Wahlberg supposed to deliver that? When I got to the scene where Zooey Daschenel explained to the little girl how she's afraid of people or large spaces or whatever I realized this must be a movie about aliens pretending to be people. The line-reading was so awkward I almost turned it off right there. Dr Monkeysee fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Feb 13, 2011 |
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Where is the Big Mommas thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Just watching 'The Happening'... Hands down my favorite part of that movie is when Mark Wahlberg is talking the old lady and it seems like he just gives up trying to take the part seriously. It seems like he can barely keep straight a face while delivering his lines. edit: apparently I'm not the only one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rq-7zEVuwI
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Snak posted:I guess this is the place for this: No, you aren't alone, a lot of fools think this. That aside, the reason I like Lynch so much is because he's so unpretentious. Elliptical and obtuse, yes. Pretentious? To me, a pretentious director uses surreal or disorienting imagery in an obvious and unimaginative way. I haven't ever thought Lynch was showing off, being pompous or condescending.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
The only time I felt Lynch was phoning it in was with his playstation comercial, talking duck and all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Snak posted:And also, people who are fans of him, can you tell me what you like about him? The best way I can describe it is that some of his films are just off-kilter, ambiguous and constructed in a way that makes me feel like I'm a five year old again watching films for the first time and being amazed. This makes him extremely unique. Grand Theft Autobot posted:Where is the Big Mommas thread? I remember making a thread to announce that Big Momma's House 2 was the most successful February release of all-time. This has probably been broken by another film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
Snak posted:I guess this is the place for this: There was a Lynch thread a while back (not sure if it's fallen back into the archives now) that went fairly well, it covered a lot of ground ranging from personal experiences to analysis. It would at least give you a variety of answers to "what you like about him". Edit: Aha, found it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3352872 Aorist fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Feb 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
In The Godfather, Part II, what exactly was Fredo's role in what happened at the start? Did he just let the hitmen into the compound? He tells Michael at the end that he didn't know what they were planning but that seems just ludicrous, so was he lying then? And did he actually kill the hitmen (right after the attempt Michael hypothesizes that the hitmen are already dead, killed by whoever was their contact on the inside, and sure enough they find the corpses. But that seems to require a will to act/competency that's beyond Fredo). I get the idea of what happened but the details are lost on me. I probably didn't need to spoiler-tag that but figured I would just to be safe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:In The Godfather, Part II, what exactly was Fredo's role in what happened at the start? Did he just let the hitmen into the compound? He tells Michael at the end that he didn't know what they were planning but that seems just ludicrous, so was he lying then? And did he actually kill the hitmen (right after the attempt Michael hypothesizes that the hitmen are already dead, killed by whoever was their contact on the inside, and sure enough they find the corpses. But that seems to require a will to act/competency that's beyond Fredo). Having just watched it a week ago, I'm pretty sure that they never explicitly answer any of those questions, and at least some of that is purposely ambiguous (like exactly what Fredo knew). According to Wikipedia, the sequel novels that came out a couple years ago attempt to flesh those details out a little more, but Puzo and Coppola had nothing to do with those books. Just for the sake of argument, I'd say the answer to who killed the hitmen is probably Johnny Ola, since he seems to be the only major underling of Hyman Roth we are ever introduced to. Otherwise, it's someone we never really see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
Okay, here's my question: What the hell is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ETQTNK37y4 And why didn't I know about it before!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
Gotta do a paper about Battleship Potemkin with "at least one citation from an authoritative source to support any part of your analysis", are there any good, wide-ranging (All of the class's essays are gonna require this) sites for movie articles/ deconstruction?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
MadDuck posted:Okay, here's my question: Wow, no wonder the band tried to erase that from memory. Colossus is still the best roller coaster at Magic Mountain 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
AceO posted:Gotta do a paper about Battleship Potemkin with "at least one citation from an authoritative source to support any part of your analysis", are there any good, wide-ranging (All of the class's essays are gonna require this) sites for movie articles/ deconstruction? Google Books is your friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
When did the "Shaky Camera= Real" idea appear and why won't it go away?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 06:48
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
kapalama posted:When did the "Shaky Camera= Real" idea appear and why won't it go away? Well the Bourne films shot it into mainstream action films. The form has been around for ages, really, but rarely utilized. I think it's something that works wonderfully if it's handled well, but 70% of the time it isn't. When it adds to the intensity it's great, but when you look at the fight scenes in the newer Batman films it's just boring because you can't see anything. My question is: people complain that shaky-cam gives them nausea. Are they literally getting nauseous or are they just whining because they find the action hard to follow? I just can't fathom how you'd get headaches or nausea from that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Well the Bourne films shot it into mainstream action films. The form has been around for ages, really, but rarely utilized. I think it's something that works wonderfully if it's handled well, but 70% of the time it isn't. When it adds to the intensity it's great, but when you look at the fight scenes in the newer Batman films it's just boring because you can't see anything. They're actually nauseous. It's a standard kind of motion sickness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Well the Bourne films shot it into mainstream action films. The form has been around for ages, really, but rarely utilized. I think it's something that works wonderfully if it's handled well, but 70% of the time it isn't. When it adds to the intensity it's great, but when you look at the fight scenes in the newer Batman films it's just boring because you can't see anything. I used to think people were bullshitting about this, but the part in Cloverfield where they are running up the side of a building that's been knocked down made me queezy, so now that I've experienced it briefly myself, I tend to believe people about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Well the Bourne films shot it into mainstream action films. The form has been around for ages, really, but rarely utilized. I think it's something that works wonderfully if it's handled well, but 70% of the time it isn't. When it adds to the intensity it's great, but when you look at the fight scenes in the newer Batman films it's just boring because you can't see anything. It does not add anything to a scene. It is a completely stylistic choice. Human vision automatically stabilizes views, so it is not like it makes it more like reality, it just becomes more like another movie. The difference between this and the Matrix effect (which is also unrealistic), is that the Matrix effect expands vision. Shaky cameras just impede it. Watching movies on a laptop that use this makes me slightly physically ill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
kapalama posted:When did the "Shaky Camera= Real" idea appear and why won't it go away? Probably since it's association with WW2 newsreels. What makes it "real" is that you're in with the action and have no time to setup a tripod. Or the other factor is because you cannot see everything clearly it creates tension as you try and focus on something, combine that with fast cuts and your brain is left bewildered to what's happened. Put that in context with something like a fast murder and it creates a sense of shock. The idea with Batman and Bourne is you're supposed to be getting an idea of how nasty is it to be assaulted by them, if you can't see it coming I'm sure the guy on the receiving end can't as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 08:30
|
|
|
Kentucky Shark posted:Having just watched it a week ago, I'm pretty sure that they never explicitly answer any of those questions, and at least some of that is purposely ambiguous (like exactly what Fredo knew). According to Wikipedia, the sequel novels that came out a couple years ago attempt to flesh those details out a little more, but Puzo and Coppola had nothing to do with those books. That was kind of my impression, but I wasn't sure if I was missing something since so much of the plot is unspoken and inferred from deciphering the lies/reading between the lines. This might be an "amateur filmgoer" opinion but rewatching it tonight, I can't help but feel the movie would be much stronger if the scenes from the two timepoints were separated instead of intertwined. The Michael scenes are engaging and complex enough that it feels deflating every time we jump back to the past, and (from what I can tell) there aren't strong thematic ties between particular scenes where it's meaningful to watch Vito do something after you've seen Michael do something else. I get that there's the overarching theme of Vito building the Family to support his family and friends, while Michael destroys his family and friends to strengthen the Family. But it seems belittling to assume that the viewer requires constant back-and-forth scenes to remind them of that. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Feb 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
It also helps that cameras got smaller and lighter, especially in the last twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 09:30
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:It also helps that cameras got smaller and lighter, especially in the last twenty years. Steadicam mounting was also developed in the last twenty/thirty years, which has to be specifically counteracted to get the shot to look shaky. It is really irritating when it is done on static indoor shots like it is a silly advertising affectation that leached from Dockers commercials to scenes between people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
I don't find Lynch pretentious, but if you want to see him at his least "arty" and obscure, try The Straight Story. No tricks, no obscurity - just a straight story, magnificently told. It illustrates his sheer talent very well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 12:46
|
|
|
You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 12:54
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style? The only time I've ever been annoyed with it was at the start of Batman Begins since it made it kind of hard to follow the fight. Other than that I'm perfectly fine with it. I've never understood the complaints about the Bourne films as I never had any problems with those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
kapalama posted:It does not add anything to a scene. It is a completely stylistic choice. Human vision automatically stabilizes views, so it is not like it makes it more like reality, it just becomes more like another movie. You understand how silly that sounds, right? Shaky cam definitely adds to (or takes away from, depending on your view of it) a scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style? I like "shakey-cam" fine when it's used well, but this is rarely the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style? It's only annoying to me when used outside of live action since it adds another layer of disconnect (non-existent cameras are shaking?) and seems very lazy. Edit: For example any of the fights in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS1iYemxNFE&feature=related Lobok fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Feb 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Snak posted:Does anyone else really hate David Lynch and think his movies are complete pretentious poo poo? I would argue that they're not really pretentious at all because if they were, Lynch would give a poo poo if people didn't understand his films. He doesn't give a poo poo though. One of the reasons he's consistently interesting is probably because he isn't trying to meet anybody's particular expectation. Snak posted:I've heard that Twin Peaks is really good and still plan to watch it, but Mullholland Drive pretty much put me off David Lynch forever. That's too bad because not all of his films are like Mullholland Dr. Have you seen his more accessible films like Blue Velvet or even The Straight Story? Snak posted:I'm not too stupid to "get" him, i just think he sucks. Am I alone? Lynch isn't mainstream so there are plenty of people who hate him. Snak posted:And also, people who are fans of him, can you tell me what you like about him? - Lynch films make me think - most Lynch films are like cinematic puzzles (Mullholland Dr is probably the best example here) - Lynch's short films are just as engaging as his feature films without the necessary time investment (I love The Grandmother) - Lynch's films can normally be torn apart with meta-analysis - Lynch's films are fearless - Lynch's films are the scariest loving films I've ever seen because he scares my psyche instead of going for a jump scare or just a gross out - Eraserhead helped to define the arthouse midnight movie - Lynch is a cool guy in interviews - Lynch's influence has been enormous and he's inspired some incredible filmmakers (see - Guy Maddin) I could go on and on. Snak posted:This post may come off as a little confrontational, but I really just don't get it and need either confirmation or enlightenment. Sometimes you won't like stuff other people do. It's not a big deal. You might come back to Lynch in a few years and everything will click. Maybe not. Again, not a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
There was some "shakey-cam" in the beginning of Citizen Kane, during the "News on the March!!" segment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style? It usually doesn't bother me, but I really hated it in the opening car chase of Quantum of Solace. I literally could not tell what the hell was going on. It was all shaky camera, real close-up shots of cars and fast cuts. It's a Bond movie, I want to see a big shot of a car chase. Not side panels and tires.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style? Nope, I love it. Applied well, it's exciting and dynamic. Applied poorly, it's just a cover for a director not knowing what the gently caress they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Nope, I love it. Applied well, it's exciting and dynamic. Applied poorly, it's just a cover for a director not knowing what the gently caress they're doing. Agreed. You could say that about most techniques.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
I got no problem with shakey-cam, it's when it's used in conjunction with quick cutting that it gets annoying. I hated some of the action scenes in the recent Batman flicks for exactly this reason. Conversely, I'm fine with the Borne series and never really had an issue with those.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 19:42
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Sometimes you won't like stuff other people do. It's not a big deal. You might come back to Lynch in a few years and everything will click. Maybe not. Again, not a big deal. Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style? I like handheld and I hate the term shakey-cam
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:I like handheld and I hate the term shakey-cam Yeah, I hate the term too, hence the quotes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
"Handheld" and "shakey-cam" aren't even the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
It was pretty effective when the Joker used Shaky Cam in that video where he interrogated the Batman copycat in The Dark Knight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:You know, with all this complaining about "shakey-cam", I wonder if I'm the only person on Earth who is actually very fond of that particular style? Still it seems like a good way to save money on using dollys, tracks, cranes and all sorts of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2011 21:22
|
|
