|
That's clearly a Hot Dog phone Newman is using, not a Hamburger. Site, owned.  On the for real tip, though, I really like that Blog and I've put it in my favorites for easy access and linked numerous people to it because there are some really neat comparisons made. This page for instance, is full of great ones; http://shotcontext.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
Yeah there are some really cool ones on that blog, some are real stretches (or maybe the still image doesn't communicate the full context well enough). There are a lot of obvious ones missing though, they did the altered perspective for Predator but not Silence of the Lambs? Also I'm waiting for the Warriors/Yojimbo ending fight comparison, haven't seen it yet.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
So send me links to those pictures. I don't own The Warriors. Secks, you're an rear end. I've debated putting text into it but I decided not to because I don't think it's necessary. ROTJ/Hidden Fortress tied up are very similar scenes, from one movie that is an acknowledged major influence on another. If there's some you don't get, watch the loving movies, instead of assuming there's nothing there. penismightier fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
I had a hard time finding the Yojimbo clip, but it's at the end in this compilation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JzsKlpp4IE and the scene from The Warriors (about 3:30 in) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzC3qmbr_8Q
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
Thanks. I'll get at that tonight.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
The Machine posted:I think the blog is a fascinating read. I don't get why people have to be all dickish and aggressive towards a blog of movie stills. There's some interesting connections in the visual language, chill out holmes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
penismightier posted:So send me links to those pictures. I don't own The Warriors.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
PM me. If you don't have PMs, and Prof. Clumsy doesn't mind, mention it in the General Chat thread or even the comments on the site.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Can someone explain this Metropolis poster to me? http://www.posterrevolution.com/gallery/item.cfm?ID=641322 It's apparently the premiere dates in Tokyo and Antwerp, but why is it French? Tokio 20-22, Rue Verlat - Anvers-Sud Du 16 au 22 Decembre 1927: Guichet ouv.: 7 h. 15 Seance 8 h. 15
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
fenix down posted:Can someone explain this Metropolis poster to me? http://www.posterrevolution.com/gallery/item.cfm?ID=641322 My guess is that the theatre was called Tokio, and it's in French because a significant number of people in Antwerp in the 20s spoke French. Edit: A little googling confirms this is the case. Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jun 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:My guess is that the theatre was called Tokio, and it's in French because a significant number of people in Antwerp in the 20s spoke French.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
I was looking at movies available on archive.org and stumbled on this list of the 40 greatest movies available for free and the description for Brother From Another Planet included the phrase "another example of a copyright notice being left off the print, so it immediately fell into the public domain" is that true? If I'm a movie studio or whatever and gently caress up by not including a copyright on my print, the whole movie becomes public domain? I only have a hazy understanding of copyrights for writing, but my understanding is that barring some other agreement, the creator of a work has an automatic copyright.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 07:54
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I was looking at movies available on archive.org and stumbled on this list of the 40 greatest movies available for free and the description for Brother From Another Planet included the phrase "another example of a copyright notice being left off the print, so it immediately fell into the public domain" is that true? If I'm a movie studio or whatever and gently caress up by not including a copyright on my print, the whole movie becomes public domain? I only have a hazy understanding of copyrights for writing, but my understanding is that barring some other agreement, the creator of a work has an automatic copyright. This always weirded me out too. The same thing happened to Night of the Living Dead. Doesn't seem like it makes any sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 08:01
|
|
|
Romero should have taken a picture of the negative and mailed it to himself and put it in a vault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 11:39
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:...the description for Brother From Another Planet included the phrase "another example of a copyright notice being left off the print, so it immediately fell into the public domain" is that true? If I'm a movie studio or whatever and gently caress up by not including a copyright on my print, the whole movie becomes public domain? That's how it used to work. Before 1989, if you did not include a copyright notice on your work claiming the copyright, it was automatically in the public domain. You also had to register it to claim copyright past a very short period of time which few people did. These were both inconvenient for our corporate overlords so they cut checks until it was changed. Today, every stupid little scribble you create is protected by the full force of the US government from infringement until 70 years after your death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 11:53
|
|
|
And when it gets closer to 2036 Disney will get it changed again as they will fight to the death to keep Mickey Mouse from the public domain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 12:05
|
|
|
Even if it's free, you get cases like The Lodger... Public domain version:  Restored version on DVD:  While it's nice to think that public domain opens up possibilities, it does come at a price. As much as Disney likes to keep Mickey Mouse nailed down as copyrighted, they have spent millions restoring, preserving, and remastering their films that would have been public domain by now. I don't think many outlets for public domain material would be keen on giving Steamboat Willie a 2K digital restoration like Disney allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Even if it's free, you get cases like The Lodger... Restoration my rear end. The hacks at BFI got rid of her soul patch in that shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:While it's nice to think that public domain opens up possibilities, it does come at a price. So your example of public domain coming at a price is a public domain film that's been restored by a non profit cultural institution? There's plenty of stuff in studio vaults just rotting away because of a lack of commercial demand. If my options are only a fraction of stuff gets restored by companies making judgments on what's the most profitable or only a fraction of stuff gets restored by institutions focusing on perceived artistic merit then I'll take the second even if neither is an ideal situation. Plus with public domain status looming companies may get off their rear end and release stuff if they know they have a short window to do so, rather than postponing things indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
Was the German that the group took prisoner, made him dig graves then let go, the guy that slides the knife into the Jewish Americans chest then walks by Upham crying on the stairs and the guy that kills Tom Hanks then gets shot by Upham the same guy? I always thought that he walked by him crying because Upham saved him and tried to help him dig and stuff, but someone just told me he is a different person and I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
the prisoner shoots Tom Hanks, the knife guy is a separate dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Is it generally accepted that in The Innocents the governess was in the wrong on the existance of ghosts? That the children were twisted maybe by someone else, or maybe they were like that from the get-go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 12:03
|
|
|
penismightier posted:PM me. If you don't have PMs, and Prof. Clumsy doesn't mind, mention it in the General Chat thread or even the comments on the site. I don't mind you using the general chat thread for this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I was looking at movies available on archive.org and stumbled on this list of the 40 greatest movies available for free and the description for Brother From Another Planet included the phrase "another example of a copyright notice being left off the print, so it immediately fell into the public domain" is that true? If I'm a movie studio or whatever and gently caress up by not including a copyright on my print, the whole movie becomes public domain? I only have a hazy understanding of copyrights for writing, but my understanding is that barring some other agreement, the creator of a work has an automatic copyright. This blog doesn't have Charade on the list. Another casualty of no copyright notice which instantly put it in the public domain, even though I think it lists the year it was made, but Universal Pictures didn't include the word "copyright" or the © symbol in front of the year. Yeah, yeah, the Criterion Blu-ray, but this is a good way for people to see it and realize how great it is enough to buy said Blu-ray. Worked for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
Is there a name for the shot in movies where the car swerves right while the camera moves left?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Probably not, there are a ton of cinematographic moves that are instantly recognizable but aren't really labeled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Is there a name for the shot in movies where the car swerves right while the camera moves left? Dyslexic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
There should be an image blog for this kind of thing. Like the thing where the camera's focused on a group of people and then someone interrupts close up in front of the camera. Fellini does that a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:There should be an image blog for this kind of thing. Like the thing where the camera's focused on a group of people and then someone interrupts close up in front of the camera. Fellini does that a lot. Aguirre has a really memorable example of this. Mostly memorable because OH GOD KINSKI, WHAT'S UP WITH YOUR FACE?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:Is there a name for the shot in movies where the car swerves right while the camera moves left? The Kansas City Shuffle?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Romero should have taken a picture of the negative and mailed it to himself and put it in a vault. What happened there was that the title changed, and the producers neglected to include a notice on the new title card. My understanding is that this makes the movie public domain but not the IP. Anyone who has a print of NOTLD can show it anywhere for profit or no, but the actual right to create derivative works is still Romero and Russo's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
Strange question. Some girls just got on the bus and sat behind me, and were talking about some hypothetical "live forever" situation and how, actually, it would suck. Then one of them says "It's like that man in The Green Mile." "The black one?" "No, the one that got his wee-wonk fixed. He lives forever, with that mouse." What? Did I just miss that part of the film? The adventures of Everliving Tom Hanks and his Immortal Mouse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 08:43
|
|
|
Akuma posted:Strange question. Some girls just got on the bus and sat behind me, and were talking about some hypothetical "live forever" situation and how, actually, it would suck. Then one of them says "It's like that man in The Green Mile." "The black one?" "No, the one that got his wee-wonk fixed. He lives forever, with that mouse." Via Wikipedia (spoilers, obviously): quote:Elaine questions his statement that he had a fully grown son at the time and Paul explains that he was 44 years old at the time of John's execution and that he is now 108 and still in excellent health. This is apparently a side effect of John giving a "part of himself" to Paul. Mr. Jingles, Del's mouse resurrected by John, is also still alive—but Paul believes his outliving all of his relatives and friends to be a punishment from God for having John executed. Paul explains he has deep thoughts about how "we each owe a death; there are no exceptions; but, Oh God, sometimes the Green Mile seems so long." After Elaine's funeral, Paul is left wondering, if Mr. Jingles has remained alive for all of this time being but a mouse, how long will it be before his own death?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 08:45
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I'd completely forgotten that. I mean I haven't seen it in years but still. Thanks for clearing that up!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
Wolfman (with Benecio Del toro) - sorry, I can't remember the characters names. Why did Emily Blunt have to kill del Toro? The protagonist was a warewolf for two nights a month and presumably could be locked in a cage. Like his father did to himself for 25 years. Additional, in the flashback Anthony Hopkins was holding his dead wife, and an old style razor can be seen and her cut wrists. But I thought he killed her as a warewolf? spikenigma fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 10:01
|
|
|
Was Sucker Punch just a really lovely movie or did I not "get" the movie?
hog wizard fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
Did Nina in "Black Swan" stab Winona Ryder (Beth Macintyre) or did Beth really do it to herself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
hog wizard posted:Was Sucker Punch just a really lovely movie or did I not "get" the movie? Probably both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Sizzlechest posted:Did Nina in "Black Swan" stab Winona Ryder (Beth Macintyre) or did Beth really do it to herself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
hog wizard posted:Was Sucker Punch just a really lovely movie or did I not "get" the movie? literally the worst movie ever
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 19:25
|
|