|
I've been trying to find this out without exposing myself to spoilers through sifting through Wikipedia and some reviews but I couldn't find a conclusive answer: should I watch Apocalypse Now first and then Apocalypse Now Redux or vice versa? Or will Apocalypse Now Redux on its own cover all of the bases?
|
#
?
May 13, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
oceanside posted:I've been trying to find this out without exposing myself to spoilers through sifting through Wikipedia and some reviews but I couldn't find a conclusive answer: should I watch Apocalypse Now first and then Apocalypse Now Redux or vice versa? Or will Apocalypse Now Redux on its own cover all of the bases? Theatrical version first.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
oceanside posted:I've been trying to find this out without exposing myself to spoilers through sifting through Wikipedia and some reviews but I couldn't find a conclusive answer: should I watch Apocalypse Now first and then Apocalypse Now Redux or vice versa? Or will Apocalypse Now Redux on its own cover all of the bases? I believe the popular consensus is that Redux is terrible beyond the level of being an interesting curiosity to fans of the original.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
oceanside posted:I've been trying to find this out without exposing myself to spoilers through sifting through Wikipedia and some reviews but I couldn't find a conclusive answer: should I watch Apocalypse Now first and then Apocalypse Now Redux or vice versa? Or will Apocalypse Now Redux on its own cover all of the bases? The bonus material is interesting to watch, but weakens the film when watched as a whole.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Like they said, theatrical first. There are new portions of Redux that I wish were in the original, but those are far outweighed by the those portions of Redux which, while perhaps interesting, really break the flow and pace of the film.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
And just don't even pickup that bootleg workprint copy, it's even worse than redux.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I believe the popular consensus is that Redux is terrible beyond the level of being an interesting curiosity to fans of the original. That's just crazy talk. I've only seen redux and while the the plantation scenes are out of place they don't suddenly turn it into a terrible movie, just a less great movie. I probably should watch the original version.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
What's the worst movie that has grossed the most money? I know this is subjective, so let's use Metacritic and/or Rotten Tomatoes as the guide for what qualifies as a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:What's the worst movie that has grossed the most money? I know this is subjective, so let's use Metacritic and/or Rotten Tomatoes as the guide for what qualifies as a bad movie. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. 835 million world-wide gross, 20% on Rotten Tomatoes.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:What's the worst movie that has grossed the most money? I know this is subjective, so let's use Metacritic and/or Rotten Tomatoes as the guide for what qualifies as a bad movie. Off the top of my head I'll go with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
I really like Peter Dinklage, but I've only ever seen him in The Station Agent, Death at a Funeral, and now Game of Thrones - what else has he had a decent role in that isn't just playing "the dwarf"?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I really like Peter Dinklage, but I've only ever seen him in The Station Agent, Death at a Funeral, and now Game of Thrones - what else has he had a decent role in that isn't just playing "the dwarf"? He's really funny in The Baxter, though only in it briefly. And he's good in Find Me Guilty and Elf too. All small roles, no pun intended. Alright gently caress it, pun intended.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I really like Peter Dinklage, but I've only ever seen him in The Station Agent, Death at a Funeral, and now Game of Thrones - what else has he had a decent role in that isn't just playing "the dwarf"?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
Quantify! posted:He always plays a dwarf, at least in every role I've seen him in. Oh sure, I don't mean where it isn't referenced at all or doesn't inform his character, I just mean roles where he wasn't simply cast because the script called for a short guy but something where he really gets to act beyond that. Though I'd love for him to get more work outside of roles that were written for a little person.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Oh sure, I don't mean where it isn't referenced at all or doesn't inform his character, I just mean roles where he wasn't simply cast because the script called for a short guy but something where he really gets to act beyond that. Though I'd love for him to get more work outside of roles that were written for a little person. He had a decent role in Penelope, which is a merely OK movie. What struck me when I was watching it was that his height was, IIRC, never referred to in the movie and was only used for a couple sight-gags. The entire role could've been given to a normal person and nothing in the script would need to be changed.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Oh sure, I don't mean where it isn't referenced at all or doesn't inform his character, I just mean roles where he wasn't simply cast because the script called for a short guy but something where he really gets to act beyond that. Though I'd love for him to get more work outside of roles that were written for a little person. He plays "the dwarf" in Living in Oblivion but it's supposed to be satirizing movies that call for dwarf parts. It's actually a really hilarious part. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4je71Tz_9IE Binowru fucked around with this message at 08:07 on May 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I really like Peter Dinklage, but I've only ever seen him in The Station Agent, Death at a Funeral, and now Game of Thrones - what else has he had a decent role in that isn't just playing "the dwarf"? I know this is a film discussion area, but he had a great arc as a nanny on NIP/TUCK on FX. He was also a scientist on a TV show called THRESHOLD. I'm pretty sure his role in UNDERDOG didn't have much to do with his size, but I never endured that p.o.s. so I couldn't tell you for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 16:41
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:I know this is a film discussion area, but he had a great arc as a nanny on NIP/TUCK on FX. He was also a scientist on a TV show called THRESHOLD. Threshold was halfway decent and I really liked that as far as I remember no one cared or mentioned that his character was a little person. He was a genius scientist on a team of genius scientists, his size never really came up.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
I'm just curious about certain crediting conventions - this comes into TVs too; can anyone tell me the vague reasons for credits appearing a certain way? For example: "Introducing . . . Actor Name" denotes a newcomer, right? Are there any good stories about actors fighting about who is billed first, as imagine this is quite a common occurence and probably gets sorted out before the actor signs a contract? I know I've seem films too where the actor most prominently credited is a bit part or not the lead. The one that puzzles me most I think is from TV more than cinema though, when they name a specific character played by an actor, but they only do that for one actor. The one I can think of at hand is "With John Mahoney as Martin", in Frasier. I just assume this is because the actor is notable in some way; if so I wonder if it's again a contractual thing the actor wants. Why is this done, and what are well-known examples of it?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
ZoDiAC_ posted:I'm just curious about certain crediting conventions - this comes into TVs too; can anyone tell me the vague reasons for credits appearing a certain way? There's a lot to be said about it and wikipedia has the answers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billing_(filmmaking)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
ZoDiAC_ posted:Are there any good stories about actors fighting about who is billed first, as imagine this is quite a common occurence and probably gets sorted out before the actor signs a contract? Another interesting part of billing is the order & size at which names and faces appear on movie posters, where big, to the left and top right is considered the most prestigious. I imagine this is why so many posters are little more than pictures of the actor's faces over some vague background, in order to settle a contract issue. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/339/in-tv-and-movie-credits-what-do-star-co-star-guest-star-etc-mean I liked the way Forbidden Kingdom dealt with having two A-listers of equal standing:
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
lenin posted:I liked the way Forbidden Kingdom dealt with having two A-listers of equal standing:
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
csidle posted:Jackie Chan stands out way more than Jet Li on that. The best part is neither of them is the main character of that movie. The protagonist(actor OR character) didn't even make it onto the poster.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
csidle posted:Jackie Chan stands out way more than Jet Li on that. The name does, but Jet Li's picture stands out more, both because of the pose and the colour contrasts.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
ZoDiAC_ posted:Are there any good stories about actors fighting about who is billed first, as imagine this is quite a common occurence and probably gets sorted out before the actor signs a contract? Paul Newman and Steve McQueen in The Towering Inferno. Both wanted top billing and no agreement could be reached so their names were displayed at the same time during the opening credits. I think it was Newman who was also obsessed with the lines of dialog and demanded that McQueen not have more lines. McQueen's character is a firefighter who doesn't show up until halfway through the movie, and Newman's character is in it from the beginning. As a result, Newman uses up most of his screen time during the first part of the movie. McQueen was also going to be in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid but they couldn't decide who got top billing between he and Newman and so he left the project.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:I think it was Newman who was also obsessed with the lines of dialog and demanded that McQueen not have more lines. McQueen's character is a firefighter who doesn't show up until halfway through the movie, and Newman's character is in it from the beginning. As a result, Newman uses up most of his screen time during the first part of the movie. They aren't technically actors, but the same thing happened with Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. As a result, they both appear in the same (single) scene and are always onscreen simultaneously. They even maintained this in the pan and scan editing for the home video release- their total screen time is still the same even though it's no longer contemporaneous.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Robert Zemekis must have been a loving wizard back then to get Warner Bros. and Disney to agree to appear on screen together.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:Robert Zemekis must have been a loving wizard back then to get Warner Bros. and Disney to agree to appear on screen together.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
This is a small question, but I recently re-watched Dr. No. The one thing I still can't figure out is when Bond and Honey are in that apartment on Crab Key, why their coffee was drugged. It's made so ominous when they find out their coffee is drugged. Dr. No himself later shows up in shadow to look Bond over while he's unconscious, but it just seemed so pointless.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:This is a small question, but I recently re-watched Dr. No. The one thing I still can't figure out is when Bond and Honey are in that apartment on Crab Key, why their coffee was drugged. It's made so ominous when they find out their coffee is drugged. Dr. No himself later shows up in shadow to look Bond over while he's unconscious, but it just seemed so pointless. I don't think there's a clear explanation. I just always figured that a) Dr. No wasn't going to see them for a while anyway, so why let them possibly be a nuisance in the meantime and b) Dr. No wanted to size Bond up before they actually "met".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Why did netflix streaming decide to start carrying so many softcore porn vampire movies?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
935 posted:Why did netflix streaming decide to start carrying so many softcore porn vampire movies? Female viewership?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
935 posted:Why did netflix streaming decide to start carrying so many softcore porn vampire movies? Because they're cool  Really I like this genre a lot, it's an interesting mix of European arthouse aesthetics and, well, lesbian vampires or whatever. Edit: I'm talking about movies by Jean Rollin and the like, I don't know if there's been a recent resurgence of softcore vampire movies.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Space Cooter posted:Edit: I'm talking about movies by Jean Rollin and the like, I don't know if there's been a recent resurgence of softcore vampire movies. Too late, you already said you like softcore vampire movies. You can't take that poo poo back. (For the record, that movie was literally the second result when i searched for the word "vampire." What the gently caress, Netflix?)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
935 posted:Why did netflix streaming decide to start carrying so many softcore porn vampire movies? Distributor cut them a deal.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Too late, you already said you like softcore vampire movies. You can't take that poo poo back. Nooo. Nooooo! I didn't mean... that!!! 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I don't think there's a clear explanation. I just always figured that a) Dr. No wasn't going to see them for a while anyway, so why let them possibly be a nuisance in the meantime and b) Dr. No wanted to size Bond up before they actually "met". Thanks. It makes sense; it was always just kinda weird how they're given all this attention and then... drugged coffee.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Thanks. It makes sense; it was always just kinda weird how they're given all this attention and then... drugged coffee. It's really one of the best "captures" of the Bond franchise. Over the course of that part of the movie, he's accommodated, pampered, questioned, roughed up, told of the bad guy's plan, and unlike other foolish villains, Dr. No drugs Bond to apparently keep him out of trouble. It was missing only a seduction of the villainess and a challenge/game to hit all the notes. It's also one of the better escapes too, because while it may not have been Bond's most ingenious plan, he had to work for it physically more than most.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
lenin posted:Another interesting part of billing is the order & size at which names and faces appear on movie posters, where big, to the left and top right is considered the most prestigious. I imagine this is why so many posters are little more than pictures of the actor's faces over some vague background, in order to settle a contract issue. But it also has that all too common result where they put the names next too the wrong actors.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
I saw Thor yesterday, and I have a question about the presentation. The options were CC, D, D3, and DI3. I asked about the CC and the ticket lady said "there's no words, it's just regular" which I assumed meant 35mm, so I picked that one. So if it was filmed in 35mm, do they then convert it to a digital print, then convert it to a 3D, then finally convert it to Imax 3D? Or are they able to make the 3 digital prints at the same time? I looked at this and it didn't really clear things up -> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/technical
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 18:02
|
|
