|
kapalama posted:(BHD= Blackhawk Down?)
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
penismightier posted:What kind of lenses are they using to get this sort of flare? These would be diffraction flares. They occur naturally in still photography when the aperture is stopped down to extremes. For circumstances where more light is needed, i.e. film, you'd need a lens filter with a pattern of thin lines cut into the glass instead, like these: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Star-Spectral-Effects/ci/119/N/4256189583. The shape/number of "spikes" of the flare would be determined by the pattern cut into the glass. I assume it's the same for film as for still photography, but I could be wrong. That's my guess, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Snak posted:Three Kings stands out though in that even if the protagonists are American, they are shown as selfish ignorant jocks who have no idea or respect for what they are doing. Probably why it's not a very popular movie in the US. I'm really having trouble trying to think of any other real antiwar films here. Spy Games kind of is, but it's not about an actual war. That's major ones off the top of my head, not counting more obscure things like Dead of Night/Deathdream (1974) or A Midnight Clear (1992). And that's not even counting the common science fiction convention in which we know advanced civilizations are advanced because they've transcended war, e.g. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) or the gawdaful 2010 (1984). And then there's the whole genre of nuclear-war-is-hell apocalyptic war-as-disaster films that were popular there for awhile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
SubG posted:Dead of Night/Deathdream (1974) This movie rules so hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
penismightier posted:This movie rules so hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
All I think of when I see John Marley is a horse's head in a bed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
SubG posted:But then when we turn around and start talking about `pro-war' films we start hunting up films that support (or were made to support) specific conflicts. But a pro-a-specific-war film isn't the compliment to a anti-war-in-general film. That's true. All this war movie talk reminded me of a question. Are there many non-German films that portray some Nazis humanly/sympathetically at all? A Midnight Clear comes to mind but I don't remember to what degree it did. Also, am I the only one that ends up ultimately seeing Red Dawn as an antiwar film? Particularly Col. Ernesto Bella's narration towards the end. quote:Colonel Ernesto Bella: [writing a letter to his family back home] I can't remember what it was to be warm. It seems a thousand years since I was a small boy in the sun. How did I come to this high, desolate place where there is nothing but loneliness? So much is lost. I want to look into your eyes and forget. It all seems so far away: a warm house where my shadow never falls; your long, black hair in my hands. There is no more revolution, only you to come back to. I will post my resignation. kapalama posted:(This is not to get into a discussion about those issues, just to report on conversations I have had with non-US people. Interestingly, those same people report Australian cinema tends to the same voyeuristic tendency, which comes across as 'pro-war' as US cinema. I have not watched enough Australian cinema to comment on that.) I have heard that the US/Australia mindset is congruent on a great many things. So much so that some have favored annexation and partitioning the continent into a few states  GonSmithe posted:...the prince dude goes "Were they kissing? Touching? Fornicating?,"where he clearly mouths "loving," but, they didn't want an R rating, so they had to dub it. I recall them doing this with Sigourney Weaver in Galaxy Quest as well. It was a very obvious one so it was annoying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Also, am I the only one that ends up ultimately seeing Red Dawn as an antiwar film?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
Zogo posted:All this war movie talk reminded me of a question. Are there many non-German films that portray some Nazis humanly/sympathetically at all? A Midnight Clear comes to mind but I don't remember to what degree it did. The Longest Day did, as I recall. I haven't seen it (because I suck) but I'm pretty sure Cross of Iron did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
penismightier posted:The Longest Day did, as I recall. I haven't seen it (because I suck) but I'm pretty sure Cross of Iron did. Edit: In response to the question, Valkyrie (2008) includes several actual members of the Nazi party that I think we're supposed to like. SubG fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
SubG posted:American anti-war films? Apocalypse Now (1979), Catch 22 (1970), M*A*S*H (1970), Johnny Got His Gun (1971), Platoon (1986), Born on the Fourth of July (1989), The Deer Hunter (1978), Slaughterhouse-Five (1972), Full Metal Jacket (1987), Dr. Strangelove (1964), Paths of Glory (1957), The Big Red One (1980). I kind of meant recently. Speaking of Apocalypse Now, is Redux any good/worth watching? and yeah I wasn't counting anti-nuclear films, there are a shitton of those. Big fan of Fail Safe, myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
Snak posted:I kind of meant recently. Speaking of Apocalypse Now, is Redux any good/worth watching? It's worth watching as a curiosity and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
penismightier posted:It's worth watching as a curiosity and nothing more. So which version is THE version of Apocalypse Now? Also, are there versions of 2001? I was trying to show someone that film because it is such a touchstone to US culture references. Both Apocalypse Now and 2001 are constantly referenced in modern culture, so sometimes it is easier to show them the film than to try and explain the reference. (Do I have to completely avoid saying Japan? Because it really makes more sense to explain how it is that this person had never seen 2001, even though this person had unknowingly been exposed to the references in Family Guy, South Park, etc etc. References that I assume most Americans know of even though they might never have seen these films.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 04:59
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
Apocalypse Now theatrical release is what you want. There's no alt cut of 2001, so any copy should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
SubG posted:Coburn et al are Wehrmacht, but I don't think any of them are actually Nazis except the one who gets his nards chomped (who isn't presented sympathetically even beyond that). Valkyrie and there was also that one Nazi in Pianist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
There's an alternate extended cut of 2001, but it's stuck in the vault indefinitely. Rightfully so, since it sounds like most of the cut footage would bog it down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:18
|
|
|
Snak posted:I kind of meant recently. The Thin Red Line
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:There's an alternate extended cut of 2001 Why does everyone keep assuming the cut footage would have been re-inserted?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Why does everyone keep assuming the cut footage would have been re-inserted? I'm so glad I'm not the only one annoyed by this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
It's the first premiere/roadshow cut, technically, not something that's just the existing cut with footage added back. Sort of like the 5 hour bootleg of Apocalypse Now isn't even a true cut, but rather a rough assembly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
Probably because thats what they've been doing lately. But the restored footage in something like Metropolis adds to the film by giving characters motives that were missing, or completely reinserting lost characters. I picked up Event Horizon on BR because it was really cheap and I remember enjoying it back when it first came out, but I remember when it came out people either hated it or loved it. Its been out over a decade, and has a consensus formed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
SubG posted:Nope. That's cool dude, I think I misread your post a bit. I completely agree with the observation that 'pro-war' seems to connote being pro-some specific war, whereas anti-war films are usually thought of as anti-war in general. A lot of films seem to accept the idea of war in general but that no one would call 'pro-war.' quote:There's certainly sometimes an attempt to portray the `other side' as human in anti-war films, but not always. In two of the three films I listed, for example, we never meet an enemy soldier. On the other hand there are films like La Grande Illusion (1937) which very much make a point of drawing parallels between the characters on either side of the conflict. That said, Renoir's film isn't political in the sense that it is uninterested in the political differences between France and Germany, and it makes no attempt to depict any of the horrors of war in any direct way, and instead presents the First World War as pointless and somewhat ridiculous. I was just going over a few things I could think of I've seen often. Politics is a weird question. When I say political I mean only that anti-war films are often concerned with power structures and the machinations of power, though it's fair to say few iconic anti-wa' films are focused on ideology or geopolitics (we can go through All Quiet on the Western Front without having any idea why the war started in the first place, which is somewhat the point). Pro-war films can be intensely ideological, but usually not it a way that looks at the machinations of power (and that's where we get egotistical kings and mad-bastard generals and dumb bureaucracy and that sort of thing). I think there are very few films about geopolitics in general, or at least few about real geopolitics ('historical dramas,' I guess; does Star Wars or something count as being 'about geopolitics?' It becomes really grey when we start talking about non-realistic settings). I've got to confess I can't go much farther with All Quiet because I saw it a long time ago and I've got it and the book tied together in my head. There was certainly a scene with a wounded French soldier in one of them. But certainly it's not universal. I'm not presuming to set down any rules either, though, just trying to scrape out a few ideas on the subject. Kieselguhr Kid fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I'm so glad I'm not the only one annoyed by this. It still pisses me off that MGM reinserted the extant footage from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly with no option to watch the American cut on their remastered DVD/blu-ray.  gently caress you MGM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 07:36
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:It still pisses me off that MGM reinserted the extant footage from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly with no option to watch the American cut on their remastered DVD/blu-ray. See also: Amadeus: Director's Cut
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
I know a bunch of people who demand the 'real' version and seem to assume that 'missing footage' means 'footage missing from the film' as opposed to 'footage that has gone missing.' It can be kind of interesting to see but I don't think I've ever seen a deleted scene I felt should've remained.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
It's such a shame that since the popularity of extended editions, any and all still existing, unused footage is fair game for an "extended cut". It's downright disrespectful to the editing process idea that "more scenes means more authentic version of the movie" edit: to clarify, I love learning about the movie making process, so I welcome access to the footage, but I think that selling it as a version of the movie is dumb. Snak fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 09:29
|
|
|
Snak posted:It's such a shame that since the popularity of extended editions, any and all still existing, unused footage is fair game for an "extended cut". It's downright disrespectful to the editing process idea that "more scenes means more authentic version of the movie" The worst example of this I ever saw was Tropic Thunder's DVD release. As far as I know, the only version ever released on DVD was an extended cut that adds 20-30 minutes of footage to the first act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 10:54
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:See also: Amadeus: Director's Cut I've only ever seen the Director's Cut and would be weirded out to see it with scenes missing. It would be like watching the not-extended editions of LOTR to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 12:42
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Gone Baby, Gone was amazing. Any recommendations for similar mood films? (Also 'The Town' was good for completely different reasons. Ben Affleck has found his true calling.) Before The Devil Knows Your Dead would be right up your alley.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
On the topic of different cuts, I have only ever seen Apocalypse Now: Redux, and never the theatrical version. I found the film far, far too long and it never moved me very much. I thought there were some good parts of it, but I would never rate it at higher than, say, 7/10 or so. The first time I simply fell asleep and missed a portion of the movie, and on the second viewing I ended up having to watch it over two sessions. There's not really any question in this post, but it just occurred to me over this past page, that I guess I should watch the theatrical cut. In general, when I am digging up a movie to watch it, I'll always go for the extended or director's cut. It seems like those would be the most perfect versions of the films, but is that not usually the case? If there is an older movie that you guys haven't seen, how would you decide which version to watch?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Before The Devil Knows Your Dead would be right up your alley. Thanks for the tip. I appreciate the answer to an amazing vague question!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Kingdom of Heaven is a good argument for an extended/director's cut
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
People still argue over which version of Blade Runner is the best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
csidle posted:If there is an older movie that you guys haven't seen, how would you decide which version to watch? I just do some research and go from there. I don't think there's a single better way to go. Some directors get their movies cut for a good reason and other times the studio butchers a perfectly good film. Apocalypse Now, for example, I would argue is actually better in the original theatrical cut. Redux is fine (great even) but it does really slow the film down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
csidle posted:In general, when I am digging up a movie to watch it, I'll always go for the extended or director's cut. It seems like those would be the most perfect versions of the films, but is that not usually the case? If there is an older movie that you guys haven't seen, how would you decide which version to watch? If I can't gleam which version to watch from reading up on it I'd ask in Cinema Discusso. It varies from film to film but a lot of the time things that have been cut from films have been cut for good reasons, like they kill the pace or dilute the movie's themes. I'd tend to watch director's cuts of films where final cut has been taken from the director and original cuts when they were happy with the film they put out at the time, but even then a director can be totally misguided as to the best qualities of his film so that's not set in stone. Apocalypse Now is one of my favourite films and Redux has a lot of good stuff in it but it's not one you should watch without already being familiar with the original film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Where did all the American Football pads come from in the Mad Max movies come from? This is important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:I just do some research and go from there. I don't think there's a single better way to go. Some directors get their movies cut for a good reason and other times the studio butchers a perfectly good film. Apocalypse Now, for example, I would argue is actually better in the original theatrical cut. Redux is fine (great even) but it does really slow the film down. NOw that I am all turned around on Apocalyps Now. Is Redux is the one that has the scene talking to the French Colonialists? Or do both Redux and Theatrical Cut have that scene? (Apocalypse Now is one of those films that I have watched under the influence of substances because 'they' said that that is how you are supposed to do it, which makes remembering, for me, sometimes hazy.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
kapalama posted:NOw that I am all turned around on Apocalyps Now. Is Redux is the one that has the scene talking to the French Colonialists? Or do both Redux and Theatrical Cut have that scene? The scene with the French Colonials and the one part where they trade fuel for some time with the playboy bunnies were both added to the Redux cut.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
csidle posted:It seems like those would be the most perfect versions of the films, but is that not usually the case? If there is an older movie that you guys haven't seen, how would you decide which version to watch? When I've seen a movie in theatrical and then later in an extended/director's cut I usually prefer the theatrical. However, I tend to watch the extended cut if I've never seen something before. When the option of having watermarks in the deleted/extended scenes is available I'll turn that feature on. bobkatt013 posted:Valkyrie and there was also that one Nazi in Pianist. The Nazi in the Pianist seemed like an opportunist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Zogo posted:When I've seen a movie in theatrical and then later in an extended/director's cut I usually prefer the theatrical. However, I tend to watch the extended cut if I've never seen something before. From his Wikipedia page quote:Hosenfeld befriended numerous Poles and even made an effort to learn their language. He also attended Holy Mass (Latin rite), received Holy Communion, and went to confession in Polish churches, even though this was forbidden by official Nazi decree. His actions on behalf of Poles began as early as autumn 1939 when he allowed, against regulations, Polish POWs access to their families and even pushed (successfully) for the early release of at least one.[2] During his time in Warsaw, he used his position to give refuge to people, regardless of their background (he gave refuge to at least one politically persecuted anti-Nazi ethnic German as well), who were in danger of persecution—even arrest by the Gestapo, sometimes by getting them the requisite papers and jobs at the sports stadium that was under his oversight.[3]
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2011 05:18
|
|