|
caiman posted:
Just 2/3?
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 02:30
|
|
Fact: roughly 2/3 of the lines delivered in that movie don't actually make any sense.
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
I'm curious about the music In Shutter Island, when our main man leo meets the 'interesting defense mechanisms' german doctor, and Mahler's music is in the background, Leo seems to imply that the music is associated with german nationalism, specifically nazi nationlism., it spurs a lot of prejudicial tension in the scene, he uses it in part to conclude the doctor is a former nazi. We find the doctor is of course, not a nazi experimenter, but why does the film use Mahler in this purpose? Shouldn't it have been Wagner or something... Is this a clever way to show the broken logic of the main character? Mahler was, after all, banned by the nazi party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
ethanol posted:I'm curious about the music In Shutter Island, when our main man leo meets the 'interesting defense mechanisms' german doctor, and Mahler's music is in the background, Leo seems to imply that the music is associated with german nationalism, specifically nazi nationlism., it spurs a lot of prejudicial tension in the scene, he uses it in part to conclude the doctor is a former nazi. During that scene, he has a flashback to WW2 when he was part of a unit liberating a Nazi deathcamp. He goes into a building and finds the commandant had attempted suicide, though screwed it up and only shot himself through the cheek (if I remember right, Teddy kicks the gun away from the man, letting him suffer as he slowly bleeds to death). There is a record playing in the commandant's office, presumably the same exact song playing when he meets up with the doctor. So he's associating what he saw in the extermination camp and the wounded commandant with the man in front of him. Even if Mahler was banned, I'm sure a camp commandant would have the clout or at at least the resources to get whatever records he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
The movie: Liar Liar with Jim Carrey. There's the whole scene with Carrey beating himself up to get out of being in court for the rest of the day so his son's birthday wish can wear off and he can go back to lying again (son wished that his dad couldn't tell a lie for one day, which hinders Carrey's job as a lawyer). The bailiff finds him all hosed up and brings him back into the courtroom convincing the judge that he was seriously beaten up by someone in the bathroom. The judge asks him what his assailant looked like, to which Carrey responds with a detailed description on the fly. Did Carrey somehow not lie to the judge about being beaten up? Or is this just a continuity fuckup? He beat himself up, but said someone else did so, which is a lie that he couldn't have told that one day, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
He described himself without naming himself. It's misdirection without actually lying, which is something a lawyer would be good at. I think his description was along the lines of "a desperate man at the end of his rope, tall, lanky, dark hair, in his 30's." Which does describe the man who beat him, himself.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:He described himself without naming himself. It's misdirection without actually lying, which is something a lawyer would be good at. Yeah, it wasn't exactly a lie because he physically described himself. The movie made it a point that Carrey has SOME control over what he can say, the only restriction being it can't be a flat-out lie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:He described himself without naming himself. It's misdirection without actually lying, which is something a lawyer would be good at. This is an excellent answer and I'm surprised I didn't make the connection. I honestly thought his description had something to do with the man who walked in on him in the bathroom, but he really was describing himself without naming himself. I also realized that Carrey had some control over what he could say without it being a lie, but again, I just never made the connection to that, either. Thanks, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
In inception, DeCaprio's wife think she's stuck in a dream and has to kill herself. If she was in a dream, wouldn't someone in real life eventually wake her up? She couldn't be stuck for long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
hayden. posted:In inception, DeCaprio's wife think she's stuck in a dream and has to kill herself. If she was in a dream, wouldn't someone in real life eventually wake her up? She couldn't be stuck for long. If I remember correctly, it's because they were so many levels down that seconds in the real world were months and years in the dream world. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
Yes, time gets elongated in a dream, moreso the deeper they go into dreams within dreams. Inception posted:Yusuf: Brain function in the dream will be about twenty times to normal. When you enter a dream within that dream, the effect is compounded: it's three dreams, that's ten hours times twen... In the limbo level it would be possible to mentally live an entire life and beyond in a normal period of sleep, which happened to Mal and Cobb, though Mal got the bad end of the deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
Well even then, her concern was that being stuck in her dream meant her kids were going to be without them. No matter how long she's stuck in limbo, her real life is still waiting right there for her. I don't understand why she was so bothered by essentially getting to live extra long. Also I figured the limit was like three levels, so worst case scenario she's there for like a few decades? The stability of the dream world would also suggest that she's only one, maybe two levels deep at most.
hayden. fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jul 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Well even then, her concern was that being stuck in her dream meant her kids were going to be without them. No matter how long she's stuck in limbo, her real life is still waiting right there for her. I don't understand why she was so bothered by essentially getting to live extra long. Also I figured the limit was like three levels, so worst case scenario she's there for like a few decades? The stability of the dream world would also suggest that she's only one, maybe two levels deep at most. When they left the dream-state, Mal had trouble reconciling reality. She thought she was still dreaming. That's why she killed herself. She didn't see the kids as her kids, so much as her subconscious projections of her kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Well even then, her concern was that being stuck in her dream meant her kids were going to be without them. No matter how long she's stuck in limbo, her real life is still waiting right there for her. I don't understand why she was so bothered by essentially getting to live extra long. Also I figured the limit was like three levels, so worst case scenario she's there for like a few decades? The stability of the dream world would also suggest that she's only one, maybe two levels deep at most. She didn't want to live an entire life before she could see her children again. Remember she doesn't think she's killing herself. Yeah the worst case scenario is only "a few decades" but why live through that if you can just pinch yourself to wake up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
What movie is this?  Judging from Mifune on horseback with a spear, I'd say the Hidden Fortress but it's never been known in Spanish as the 'soldiers of the sun'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
Two Questions: 1) This was just re-ignited by the Inception talk above: Before Mal kills herself she trashes the hotel room across from the ledge she jumped off of. If I recall correctly, the hotel and jump ledge were a major avenue (Read: 4 lanes of traffic) apart from each other. So Leo's dumb-poo poo lawyer doesn't point out the logical leap it would take to fling a fighting 150lb woman across at least 2 lanes of traffic? 2) Just finished watching Aliens (director's cut) with the wife and she pointed out a very good question. The alien hive/crashed ship is discovered by Newt's parents. Her dad gets facehugged and starts the whole chain reaction of destruction/hot and cold running aliens. Let's assume that the colony is overrun in a matter of one week, leading to radio silence and the marines being shipped off to help. Since the colony is not just across the street, Ripley and crew have to go into cryo-sleep, which means that it would probably take quite some time to get there. So, the question is, how is it that Newt is roughly the same age as when we first see her, once the marines arrive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:2) Just finished watching Aliens (director's cut) with the wife and she pointed out a very good question. The alien hive/crashed ship is discovered by Newt's parents. Her dad gets facehugged and starts the whole chain reaction of destruction/hot and cold running aliens. Let's assume that the colony is overrun in a matter of one week, leading to radio silence and the marines being shipped off to help. Since the colony is not just across the street, Ripley and crew have to go into cryo-sleep, which means that it would probably take quite some time to get there. So, the question is, how is it that Newt is roughly the same age as when we first see her, once the marines arrive? The colony could be a few weeks' travel away. Not far enough for her to noticeably age, but far enough that it's more practical to put the crew into cryosleep than let them sit around being bored and consuming resources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Two Questions: The answer is either: A) Set design does not take precedence over narrative structure. They decided the scene would be better if Mal was across the street and this isn't really important. B) Leo is still in a dream in what he thinks is the real world; his mind didn't even consider this detail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
I remember it only being a tiny alley between the windows. It's not so strange to have a hotel that wraps around like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
Bobfromsales posted:I remember it only being a tiny alley between the windows. It's not so strange to have a hotel that wraps around like that. I think I like that answer better. It would also explain why no one noticed a woman out on a ledge over a "busy" street.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
I just got Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans from Netflix. What's the difference between the Movietone version and the "European Silent Version"? And which one should I watch?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
caiman posted:I just got Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans from Netflix. What's the difference between the Movietone version and the "European Silent Version"? And which one should I watch? Different camera angles, different aspect ratios, different negatives. I watched the Movietone version. I haven't really heard a consensus answer. I asked the same question a while ago and don't remember any answers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
The Movietone version is the original US release from the "A" negative. It's 99.99% complete with only a few missing frames. The aspect ratio is 1.20:1 because all US prints had the sound-on-film Movietone orchestral score by Hugo Risenfeld. While it's editorially complete, the best existing film elements are less-than-pristine 35mm acetate duplicate negatives. The HD transfer was made from the restoration negative made from the 4th generation positive made from the dupes. Fox did have the audio restored, though. The "European" version is missing about a reel's worth of footage throughout the film and is probably from the "B" negative. It's 1.33:1 because it's from a nitrate 35mm print. Obviously, the image quality is much better. The DVD and Blu editions add an edited version of the Movietone soundtrack to fit this version. Overall, the US cut is the best to see - I actually believe the degraded image adds to the film. If you see the UK Blu-Ray (region free), it looks surprisingly good in 1080p. The HD encode lets the grain and flicker breathe a lot better since DVD can't handle degraded images nearly as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
Perfect. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The colony could be a few weeks' travel away. Not far enough for her to noticeably age, but far enough that it's more practical to put the crew into cryosleep than let them sit around being bored and consuming resources. Paraphrased from memory: Ripley: How long after we're declared overdue can we expect a rescue? Hicks: 17 days Hudson: 17 days? I hate to rain on your parade, but we're not going to last 17 hours! Ripley: This little girl lasted longer than that with no food and no training. So I would guess Newt only aged about 3-4 weeks from the beginning of the movie to the arrival of the Marines. Skunkduster fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Two Questions: 1. The hotel is U-shaped around a driveway to the parking garage or something. 2. I seem to recall the cryo tubes have something to do with their method of FTL, which is why they have androids on the ships..Something like how being awake during FTL, you experience the hundreds of years it would take the ship to travel there normally. I honestly don't recall where I read/heard that, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
You know that iconic prison escape scene when the escapees are fleeing along a prison wall avoiding the searchlights, when suddenly one is caught in the beam and freezes? What the hell is that from? I know it's been riffed on a thousand times, but I'm hard pressed to think of any specific examples, let alone the originator.
ReverendSasquatch fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jul 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
ReverendSasquatch posted:You know that iconic prison escape scene when the escapees are fleeing along a prison wall avoiding the searchlights, when suddenly one is caught in the beam and freezes? What the hell is that from? I know it's been riffed on a thousand times, but I'm hard pressed to think of any specific examples, let alone the originator. A nous la liberte has a scene kind of like this. Pretty sure I've seen it in some other 30s films too, but they're not coming to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
ReverendSasquatch posted:I know it's been riffed on a thousand times, but I'm hard pressed to think of any specific examples, let alone the originator. The Great Escape comes to mind. It's even in the movie poster. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4079387904/tt0057115
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
I got around to watching X-Men First Class and have some questions. First, how close is the film to the original comic series? Was most of it made just for the movie? Second, how did Charles end up meeting Wolverine after he told him to "go gently caress himself"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
I have a dumb question. I notice that in just about every movie that has a car with a gearshift on the steering column that its ALWAYS in "park" whether or not the person is driving it. It bothers me so much that I end up staring at the gearshift and missing dialogue and other stuff in the scene if they are driving. Is it something like the Wilhelm scream or that picture of the same lady in the newspaper where the director does it on purpose?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
Billy Tully posted:I have a dumb question. I notice that in just about every movie that has a car with a gearshift on the steering column that its ALWAYS in "park" whether or not the person is driving it. It bothers me so much that I end up staring at the gearshift and missing dialogue and other stuff in the scene if they are driving. Is it something like the Wilhelm scream or that picture of the same lady in the newspaper where the director does it on purpose? It's probably because during driving scenes, they put the car on a trailer or they're green-screening it or whatever to give the illusion of movement without any actual movement. Example: in Pulp Fiction, the opening scene with Jules and Vince has them in a car that's on top of a trailer that's just carrying the car while they mimic driving.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
Nuked posted:I got around to watching X-Men First Class and have some questions. First, how close is the film to the original comic series? Was most of it made just for the movie? Second, how did Charles end up meeting Wolverine after he told him to "go gently caress himself"? FC is a weird amalgam of comic stories and stuff thrown together to make a movie. Yes, Charles and Magneto did work together at first and then split over the future of Mutants. In the comics, the split occurs previous to the formation of the X-Men. The X-Men's first real outing as a group was in response to Magneto attacking a nuclear base. However, the first X-Men comics were published in the 60s so the setting is somewhat appropriate but more a stylistic choice by the filmmakers. Also, the Hellfire club was introduced much later in X-Men comics history and their motivations weren't at all like the movie presented them as. However, their powers are pretty much the same. The movie is supposed to be a prequel to the first X-Men movie but neglects some connects (I re-watched X-Men after seeing FC). Charles stated Eric helped him build Cerebro which we don't really see in FC. Also, the scene in the bar is supposed to be just fun. In X-Men 2, Charles alludes to Wolverine's forgotten past to both Eric and Stryker. But in X-Men, Charles doesn't say that he knows Wolverine, just gives him a couple of leads on his lost past.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:It's probably because during driving scenes, they put the car on a trailer or they're green-screening it or whatever to give the illusion of movement without any actual movement. Example: in Pulp Fiction, the opening scene with Jules and Vince has them in a car that's on top of a trailer that's just carrying the car while they mimic driving. Oh yea, I figured the car wasn't moving for (a lot of) the shot(s) but it happens so often in movies (and TV) I don't understand why they couldn't simply put the parking brake on and move the shift lever down. It happens so much it seems like it has to be done on purpose. It is so obvious when they do the shot going through the windshield and its sticking up above the dash. I can't be the only one that notices just because I'm into cars, anyone that has driven an automatic transmission with the stick on the column has to know that that is the "park" position and the car isn't going anywhere when its there. I also notice that the rear view mirror is always missing but that makes sense for the through-the-windshield shots so that its not in the way of the actors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Billy Tully posted:I have a dumb question. I notice that in just about every movie that has a car with a gearshift on the steering column that its ALWAYS in "park" whether or not the person is driving it. It bothers me so much that I end up staring at the gearshift and missing dialogue and other stuff in the scene if they are driving. Is it something like the Wilhelm scream or that picture of the same lady in the newspaper where the director does it on purpose? Can you recall one of the movies? I thought of one music video with a clear shift into "DRIVE." This should ease some of your pain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC_sm2eC08s The car is 1974 Cadillac Eldorado convertible. PS this video does have one humorous gaffe however. Zogo fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Jul 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
Will there ever come a time with technology when all movies will be preserved perpetually at their utmost quality? Also, fully standardized with languages (each disc/media would hold every language track/subtitle option). I started pondering this question when I realized my frustrations (reading the Godzilla megathread) that many of the films aren't available in the proper format with English subtitles. I know Criterion's mantra is to preserve "important classic and contemporary films." Which is excellent but it also excludes the vast majority of films. Will there ever be a Criterion-like company for every film that is released? If they released a Godzilla Eclipse I'd be tempted but I don't think that it falls under Criterion's jurisdiction. I guess my question is related to the technological singularity as well (cursorily at least). Ray Kurzweil would probably posit that future AI would be capable of restoring and preserving films better than humankind and pushing it to the absolute measurable limits of sound and visual quality. Philosophically I don't think any film should be destroyed or lost forever. So while I won't be touting someone buying Mac and Me or Theodore Rex blu-rays with three hours of supplements I would be disheartened if they were expunged from history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Future of movies It's an interesting thing, but I say, yes and no. Yes, I believe that someday, with the rate of computing power and storage growing as fast as they are, all movies and television will be available. Most likely in a digital/cloud format where you could get access to anything at anytime. For a price. The "no" part comes in where you bring in other languages. I doubt that anyone will spend the time, money and effort needed to translate Kangaroo Jack into say, Swahili. There's no money in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:The "no" part comes in where you bring in other languages. I doubt that anyone will spend the time, money and effort needed to translate Kangaroo Jack into say, Swahili. There's no money in it. What if it became trivially cheap someday? Think of how Google translates (albeit badly right now) pages into other languages in no time. We're still far away from translating audio on the fly but it has to be a possibility eventually. I have seen a few DVDs with 8 or 9 subtitle options. Blu-rays may have more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
The trouble with long-term information storage is that while we can preserve data pretty well at this point, the data still needs to be interpreted, and interpreters are very much at the whim of the fast-changing world of hardware and software. You can pick up a LaserDisc that plays as well as it did thirty years ago, but without a compatible decoder it's only a paperweight. We could back up every DVD on the market today and preserve them for 50 years, but being able to translate that information back into moving pictures would mean recreating an old-rear end decoding system in a wildly different technical environment, when it's much more feasible for business to keep rolling out new systems to match the evolution of hardware and software, and only carrying over the content they can sell. Everything may go the way of the cloud, but the method of delivery and the format of the movies will keep changing, and the stuff that isn't profitable will fall by the wayside, just like it did with the move from VHS to DVD, and is doing with the move from DVD to Blu-ray. The documentary Into Eternity looked at the information storage problem with regards to preserving the technical documentation for a nuclear waste vault for future generations, if you're interested. It's more grandiose than Herzog, but it's worth a watch. Zogo posted:What if it became trivially cheap someday? Think of how Google translates (albeit badly right now) pages into other languages in no time. Replace "movie" above with "language", and you see how big the problem is. A language can change a lot over fifty years, especially the language of a smaller group under first-world influence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
Zogo posted:
What I think I observed was that in the beginning some DVDs had as many as 20 subtitles, covering nearly every major language, and the same went for Blu-rays (but I'm not too sure about that) so they probably just put as many subtitles on one disc so they wouldn't have to produce different discs while the tech was still expensive and once things got profitable enough, they'd introduce regionally subtitled discs to prevent gray market imports or something. It depends on the publisher, and possibly on licenses, which invariably gently caress up chances of having every subtitle available everywhere because the license sometimes just isn't worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Blu-Rays aren't really a preservation medium - only uncompressed digital files and original film elements, depending on the way a film was shot. A lot of films are safely preserved, but inaccessible in their preserved incarnation or not at all. UCLA restored The Quiet Man from the original negatives years ago, but the only video master in existence is from a print made in the 1980s. Song of the South was restored in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 19:16
|
|