|
Binowru posted:I thought the message of Fight Club was that Tyler Durden was full of poo poo, and the problem was that the movie's target audience (18-25 year old males) took the opposite opinion. Yeah pretty much. Fight Club is pretty much about fascism and how it rises. Tyler finds a bunch of people that are miserable and relates to them by telling them he understands them. He then gives them a solution to their problems which is totally wrong and batshit insane. Project Mayhem are pretty much shown as mindless drones by the end. The movie itself calls them Monkeys. You are not supposed to agree with Tyler. He's a charming and persuasive mother fucker, but that's the point. That's how things like that rise. With one guy who can actually convince people that if they do the crazy poo poo he wants, their problems will be solved. Edit: Even if you ignore all that, it's still not a movie about taking about the establishment. On the surface it's a love story. Basically everything the main character does is to admit that he likes Marla. axelblaze fucked around with this message at 01:05 on May 6, 2011 |
#
?
May 6, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
axleblaze posted:Yeah pretty much. Fight Club is pretty much about fascism and how it rises. Tyler finds a bunch of people that are miserable and by relates to them by telling them he understands them. He then gives them a solution to their problems which is totally wrong and batshit insane. Project Mayhem are pretty much shown as mindless drones by the end. The movie itself calls them Monkeys. You are not supposed to agree with Tyler. He's a charming and persuasive mother fucker, but that's the point. That's how things like that rise. With one guy who can actually convince people that if they do the crazy poo poo he wants, their problems will be solved. That was astoundingly well-stated.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
I know it's quite a change of subject, but what do you guys think of scenes of making out and sex in movies? I'm asking because we watched My Name is Joe during class today and it was rather awkward during the makeout- and sexscenes. I suppose maybe you'll call it immature to find it awkward, but that's just how it is. There are very few sex scenes that I remember having enjoyed seeing, and those have only been because yay tits. I guess sex scenes are in there because of two reasons: 1. to flesh out character relationships 2. because the movie is going for a realistic angle and doesn't want to spare any details (bit of doubt on this one). 1. I can see why the interaction during various intimate scenes could flesh out relationships, but I wonder: if the scenes are not enjoyed by the audience (Which I believe they generally aren't), is it worth it having them in the movie to flesh out the relationship? Could the same effect not be achieved through dialog or other forms of cinematic storytelling that lets the viewer know that this couple banged? 2. Same as above really, if the scene isn't enjoyed by the audience, should it be in the movie? Now, I have bit of a paradox, because while typing that, I realized that I think rape scenes and such are more fair to have in movies than scenes of lovemaking, because they show an act that is obviously incredibly traumatic and is generally a large part of the plot. You could maybe say the same about lovescenes, but here is where I hit a brick wall. I don't think I'm a weirdo who enjoys rape scenes, so please don't accuse me of that. I don't know why I feel this way though, I just feel like a scene that has the content of a rape is so relevant to the story that it is justified in being in the movie, while a scene of lovemaking is generally not necessary for me.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I'm not really a huge fan of the movie, but I didn't see the ending as contradicting the rest of its point so much as acknowledging how complicated race relations and racism are. Seeing as the alternate ending shows Edward Norton shaving his head again, I think the filmmakers were very confused about their message in general. It's the same problem I have with Crash. It doesn't say anything about race relations nor truly explore the nuances, it just sort of shouts, "Racism exists, guys!" Both films are so goddamn hamfisted that even if they had something to say, I could hardly take it seriously. Sure, the best way to paint the drama of race relations is with a basketball scene with ridiculous music.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
"Racism exists" is kind of a strong message to make in "post racism" America though. It also showed different aspects and consequences of racism in modern america which, while not Pulitzer Prize levels of insight, were OK I thought. I thought the movies bad parts were some of the acting, the cinematography and sets and production values in general.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
Regarding sex scenes: 1. I don't think it's different than analyzing whether to add any other scene. I'd do the whole "is it essential to moving the story forward" mantra, but that mantra is one of those rules that is meant to be broken. Basically if the sex scene's additions to the movie outweigh the cost of its length, it is probably worth it. For the record, I find many, many scenes in many, many movies fail that simple little equation. As I said, sex scenes are no different. 2. Sex scenes are, however, awesome for film students. We had a smoking hot girl in our class who was also extremely fun and laid back (sort of that perfect dream girl). She seemed to be slightly into me at one point, and thankfully we decided to sit next to each other for our classes. Cue The Marriage of Maria Braun, which has a lot of (damned fine) sex and nudity scenes. If it wasn't for those scenes, I would never have realized that said smoking hot chick had some serious baggage. In that movie, and every other movie I ever watched with her in the remaining three years of school, she covered her eyes in every single sex scene. My friend did end up dating her for a couple of years, and it did not end well. Poor guy. Poor girl. Lucky loving me! Thank you sex scenes!!!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
Sex scenes really have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the relationship can be expressed without one - but, like, look at Terminator 1. Reese has such an aching, desperate love for Sarah that we need to see it consummated to get enough closure to move onto the next phase in their relationship.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Sex scenes really have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the relationship can be expressed without one - but, like, look at Terminator 1. Reese has such an aching, desperate love for Sarah that we need to see it consummated to get enough closure to move onto the next phase in their relationship. I'm sorry, when I think of Terminator 1 the first sex scene that comes to mind is the dude pumping away while the bored chick zones out to her walkman.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
Well, that too is essential. Also, that guy is a stone badass. "Don't make me bust you up, man!"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
If you want some ham-fisted race relation poo poo, Higher Learning is the way to go. Great unintentional comedy, as is the case with pretty much any John Singleton movie.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
csidle posted:I know it's quite a change of subject, but what do you guys think of scenes of making out and sex in movies? I'm asking because we watched My Name is Joe during class today and it was rather awkward during the makeout- and sexscenes. I suppose maybe you'll call it immature to find it awkward, but that's just how it is. There are very few sex scenes that I remember having enjoyed seeing, and those have only been because yay tits. I guess sex scenes are in there because of two reasons: 1. to flesh out character relationships 2. because the movie is going for a realistic angle and doesn't want to spare any details (bit of doubt on this one). I think--like you said--they can tell us about the characters and what they're thinking and how they're responding to a significant moment in their lives. Sex scenes we see are usually the first time two characters sleep together or signs of some significant change in a relationship. If something is important for the characters, we learn something about them by watching them go through it. The sex scene also shows us that the act of sex is important to the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Sex scenes really have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the relationship can be expressed without one - but, like, look at Terminator 1. Reese has such an aching, desperate love for Sarah that we need to see it consummated to get enough closure to move onto the next phase in their relationship.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
SubG posted:I think both the obligatory '80s action film romance and the obligatory '80s action film sex scene are used as cleverly in The Terminator (1984) as they ever were. And in general I think that the narrative is really tight and well executed. I mean we're introduced to the whole narrative conceit involving time travel and killer robots and all that horseshit with virtually no exposition in the entire film, and the majority of what exposition we get is presented as character beats well after we've already met them. Yeah, it's an amazingly tight script, particularly for a debut. We get a single written hook over some evocative footage, then we don't learn anything else about who's who and what they're doing for another half hour at least. I wish I could remember the first time I saw it, because there's a wonderful sense of mystery to it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
James Cameron is (or was, I guess I haven't really followed him lately) a rather astute director. Terminator 1, 2, and Aliens are so far ahead of the curve of action movies, it's pretty incredible. On the surface, they're popcorn movies, but under the surface they have pretty powerful themes that allow you have some more cerebral discussions than you ever thought you could about a movie called "The Terminator". Now Commando - that's completely loving mindless. I'm trying to think of a movie that meets the requirements, but I think the best movies don't take themselves too seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
penismightier posted:American Beauty says is that living in suburbia will sap your soul and crush your spirit, and also that wives are harpies and mean guys are probably gay. And it also uses blowing paper bags as philosophy. SkunkDuster posted:Did Ginger (Stone) have any bearing at all on the main plot of the movie? I read somewhere that De Niro was screaming and lambasting Stone throughout the films shooting.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Zogo posted:And it also uses blowing paper bags as philosophy. They were plastic, it's completely different.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
Not to be the guy who only focuses on plot issues in Sci-fi movies, but the sex scene in Terminator is also, you know, absolutely vital to the plot. It sort of drives home the point about being unable to change the past or future when the dude your traveling into the past to keep from being born is fathered by a time traveler.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 10:37
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Now Commando - that's completely loving mindless. Commando is THE archetypal action film, and is consequently loaded with significance. 'Popcorn movie' vs 'movie that has themes' is such a false dichotomy anyways that I don't even know where to start.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 11:01
|
|
|
There's no such thing as a mindless film.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 11:07
|
|
|
There are films that aren't worth the effort though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Some movies only have a mind because they borrowed one from an astute viewer.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:There was some thread about bad actors or something and somebody mentioned that they felt that Sharon Stone completely ruined Casino. I don't think it was a problem with her acting, but in the character and whole subplot. It seems to me the whole love story could be completely removed and trim an hour of useless crap to cut the movie down from three hours to a more accessible two hour experience. If you take her out the whole film falls apart. The conclusion would literally not have happened without her, nor the main point of the film--she's the Eve in the Mob's Eden.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
Does that make James Woods the forbidden fruit?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:If you take her out the whole film falls apart. The conclusion would literally not have happened without her, nor the main point of the film--she's the Eve in the Mob's Eden. How would things have been any different? The only result I can see from her character is De Niro was out a couple million. It seems to me that the fate of the casino, the mob, and the Santoro brothers were all a result of things that had nothing to do with Stone.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:How would things have been any different? The only result I can see from her character is De Niro was out a couple million. It seems to me that the fate of the casino, the mob, and the Santoro brothers were all a result of things that had nothing to do with Stone. Probably, in that the dipshit underboss in KC whose name I can't remember was holding court in a bugged shop, but I suppose that you could argue that Sam's car wouldn't have been rigged to blow if he never finds out that Nicky and Ginger are screwing, so in that it is important.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:Seeing as the alternate ending shows Edward Norton shaving his head again, I think the filmmakers were very confused about their message in general. Considering Kaye, the writer/director, was shut out of the edit and Norton took over it's not surprising the message seems confused. It then spirals out of control and Kaye buses in a rabbi, a priest and a monk to be exact to a meeting to demand to be able to redesign the film completely with the help of a poet. He eventually asked for his name to be changed to Humpty Dumpty on the credits when they refused, and then sued the union when they refused that request.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 06:11
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:Does that make James Woods the forbidden fruit? I think he'd be the serpent, actually. That's a much better analogy than I would have thought. I don't know if I feel any sympathy towards her character though, she just revels in destroying her life (metaphorically and literally) so much. Who calls their pimp on their wedding day? Tacky. Edit: And in a turn for the  the imagery used by the skinheads in the American History X has been appropriated by real life skinheads. I would chide them for missing the message, but gently caress man the movie shows tolerance and personal growth rewarded by a bullet to the gut. It intended a "The cycle of violence isn't that easy to break" message, but it's too easy to take away the "See? we were right!" vibe.
Full Battle Rattle fucked around with this message at 07:22 on May 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
Kwik posted:Probably, in that the dipshit underboss in KC whose name I can't remember was holding court in a bugged shop, but I suppose that you could argue that Sam's car wouldn't have been rigged to blow if he never finds out that Nicky and Ginger are screwing, so in that it is important. I thought about that part with the car, but Nicky had said to Ginger previously that there is no way he was going to kill his best friend for her. At the time he said this, I believe he knew that Sam already knew about their affair. I assumed the car bomb was because Sam wasn't willing to go along with Nicky's plans to take over as the boss of the whole Kansas City mob. Either way, Sam lived and Nicky never went on to try it again, so the end result was a loss of one car and a ruined leisure suit.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
I once saw a webpage that was just a massive archive of movie commentaries sans picture. You could listen to the commentary by itself, and it was amazing. I have since lost this website and efforts to rediscover it have been fruitless. Can anyone grant my wish to find it again?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
aga. posted:Considering Kaye, the writer/director, was shut out of the edit and Norton took over it's not surprising the message seems confused. It then spirals out of control and Kaye buses in a rabbi, a priest and a monk to be exact to a meeting to demand to be able to redesign the film completely with the help of a poet. He eventually asked for his name to be changed to Humpty Dumpty on the credits when they refused, and then sued the union when they refused that request. It's worth adding to your point that Edward Norton is notorious pain in the rear end and obnoxious backseat driver on every film he makes. It's why he won't be Bruce Banner again, and why some in Hollywood won't work with the guy. The last big name director that Norton worked with was Spike Lee in 2002. Hopefully he does indeed get cast in Wes Anderson's next movie, and like Franco or Baldwin before him, experiences a career revival after some time spent in the wilderness.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
I assumed everyone knew that by now! I did originally mention it but after I went back and reread some of the details it didn't seem entirely fair to Norton as it was also down to producer meddling and the director going overboard.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Sex scenes really have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the relationship can be expressed without one - but, like, look at Terminator 1. Reese has such an aching, desperate love for Sarah's tits that we need to see Sarah's tits. You forgot an important part. Two of them, actually.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
In The Emperor's Club, was Bell cheating on the qualifying quizzes at all?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:There was some thread about bad actors or something and somebody mentioned that they felt that Sharon Stone completely ruined Casino. I don't think it was a problem with her acting, but in the character and whole subplot. It seems to me the whole love story could be completely removed and trim an hour of useless crap to cut the movie down from three hours to a more accessible two hour experience. Almost of that stuff was in the book and Gerry (Ginger) was one of the three main characters. Even the way the film is narrated is based on the way the book is narrated. scary ghost dog posted:I once saw a webpage that was just a massive archive of movie commentaries sans picture. You could listen to the commentary by itself, and it was amazing. I have since lost this website and efforts to rediscover it have been fruitless. Can anyone grant my wish to find it again? I have never heard of this but I'd also like to know the answer to this qurstion.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I once saw a webpage that was just a massive archive of movie commentaries sans picture. You could listen to the commentary by itself, and it was amazing. I have since lost this website and efforts to rediscover it have been fruitless. Can anyone grant my wish to find it again? listentoamovie.com has what you're looking for!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
Really doubtful, but is there any way that an early draft of Superbad is out there? I know a lot of early drafts of scripts exist out there, and I love the idea that the first draft of Superbad was written when Seth and Evan were 15. I want to see how it compares to the final movie. If not, is there a good interview or anything that talks about the early drafts?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Dancing Potato posted:listentoamovie.com has what you're looking for! That's pretty nifty, but he specified commentaries. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
Trump posted:That's pretty nifty, but he specified commentaries. Under the movies tab, there are lots of commentaries!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Under the movies tab, there are lots of commentaries!  First folder... Sorry about that
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Dancing Potato posted:listentoamovie.com has what you're looking for! You are the best. The very best.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2011 10:13
|
|