|
haveblue posted:He looks pretty messed up after the Batwing crashes. I think there was some blood. Dick and ball torture.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
codyclarke posted:What are some action movies where the hero isn't physically injured once in the entire movie? Steven Seagal's Fire Down Below is probably the best example of this. It's been a while since I've seen them, but I don't offhand recall Ripley or Sarah Connor getting injured in their first movies. Though to be fair, Sarah Connor wasn't the hero there. In the sequels, Ripley is unclear if you consider the whole dying thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
Wild T posted:I don't remember the hero ever being injured in Equilibrium. His neck was grazed by a bullet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 14:01
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:It's been a while since I've seen them, but I don't offhand recall Ripley or Sarah Connor getting injured in their first movies. Though to be fair, Sarah Connor wasn't the hero there. In the sequels, Ripley is unclear if you consider the whole dying thing. Linda Hamilton gets a huge chunk of shrapnel in the leg at the end of the first Terminator movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:For the record, this question is not inspired by the fact that a guy named ServoMST3K posted: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_hollywood_economist/2005/07/the_vanishing_box_office.html Also MST3K usually scrapes from the bottom of the cinema barrel, so I don't know if it's safe to generalize that all films from the 50s and 60s are that low-budget and scientifically backwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:What are some action movies where the hero isn't physically injured once in the entire movie? Steven Seagal's Fire Down Below is probably the best example of this. Do you mean never even hit, or not shown with any actual injury (lasting or not)? haveblue posted:He looks pretty messed up after the Batwing crashes. I think there was some blood. Imprisoned and tortured for months has gotta be up there, and he definitely gets roughed up a lot through frequent beatings. The very first movie had him in the undignified position of having to crawl through burning-hot ducts, and since then he's been shocked, neck-screwed, stretched, nearly G-LOC'd, and poisoned, and those are just a few off the top of my head. Though there's something to be said for how quickly he recovers - he's usually ok by the end of the scene and definitely ok by the end of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Do you mean never even hit, or not shown with any actual injury (lasting or not)? Well in Fire Down Below, I don't think Steven Seagal gets hit even once. I watched it last night and I don't remember him getting hit once, so if he did, he didn't even flinch or anything. People would grab him, but that's about it. Basically he just deflected people the whole time, and didn't suffer a single injury, even a slight cut. That happens in other Seagal movies too, but never as blatantly as this one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Imprisoned and tortured for months has gotta be up there, and he definitely gets roughed up a lot through frequent beatings. The very first movie had him in the undignified position of having to crawl through burning-hot ducts, and since then he's been shocked, neck-screwed, stretched, nearly G-LOC'd, and poisoned, and those are just a few off the top of my head. Though there's something to be said for how quickly he recovers - he's usually ok by the end of the scene and definitely ok by the end of the movie. He was hospitalized for a while after having his testicles tortured to a pulp. I wanna say he broke his arm in Tomorrow Never Dies, too. Rake Arms fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Sep 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:He was hospitalized for a while after having his balls testicles to a pulp. I wanna say he broke his arm in Tomorrow Never Dies, too. Also hospitalized in Die Another Day after being scorpion-tortured, although that movie shouldn't be brought up ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
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). This is from a while back but just wanted to chime in w/ my thoughts. Sex in movies is really effective at one thing - showing the awkwardness or lustful or uncomfortable aspects of sex (across a huge spectrum, of course, from two virgins trying to figure it out, to Last Tango in Paris, and all the way to rape). I basically never feel like it comes across as romantic or sexy. Indeed, the two most romantic movies of all time -- Before Sunrise and Before Sunset -- have but a single kiss between them. Another pair of incredibly romantic movies (though in a more bittersweet vein) -- In the Mood for Love and 2046 -- have one extraordinarily intense kiss and that's it. Indeed, the director of those films, Wong Kar Wai, is a master of making you feel the protagonist's longing or lust or love without having to resort to showing you sex or boobs or even physical contact. In short, less is more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
I think Titanic's sex scene is super duper romantic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
quote:if the scenes are not enjoyed by the audience (Which I believe they generally aren't) That's a shaky premise! I know a lot of people (mostly women) who look forward to those scenes like I would an action scene. I don't think conveying romance or tenderness with a makeout/sex scene is some holy grail - it's been done before. I think your reaction might speak a bit to your own sensibilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Imprisoned and tortured for months has gotta be up there, and he definitely gets roughed up a lot through frequent beatings. The very first movie had him in the undignified position of having to crawl through burning-hot ducts, and since then he's been shocked, neck-screwed, stretched, nearly G-LOC'd, and poisoned, and those are just a few off the top of my head. Though there's something to be said for how quickly he recovers - he's usually ok by the end of the scene and definitely ok by the end of the movie. I think The World Is Not Enough is the only one where an injury he takes during the cold opening lasts throughout the entire movie (dislocated shoulder).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
fenix down posted:Also MST3K usually scrapes from the bottom of the cinema barrel, so I don't know if it's safe to generalize that all films from the 50s and 60s are that low-budget and scientifically backwards. I can't pinpoint why some films from that era look dumb in every way and then others are tolerable and can still be taken seriously. I just saw Forbidden Planet for the first time in a long while and it doesn't seem to be chintzy. SubG posted:I think it hasn't happened, and you just have conditioned blindness to the modern version. In sixty years, the futures of The Matrix (1999), Minority Report (2002), A.I. (2001), Ultraviolet (2006), and so on will be just as glaringly dated as Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956) looks to you today. That's a good point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
SubG posted:I think it hasn't happened, and you just have conditioned blindness to the modern version. In sixty years, the futures of The Matrix (1999), Minority Report (2002), A.I. (2001), Ultraviolet (2006), and so on will be just as glaringly dated as Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956) looks to you today. Sixty years is extremely generous, already the Matrix looks about as gauche as KoRn doing a dubstep album.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Sixty years is extremely generous, already the Matrix looks about as gauche as KoRn doing a dubstep album. I still really enjoy the Matrix, if only because Agent Smith is now the essential G-Man in my mind. Really Hugo Weaving is the only reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:In short, less is more. DNS posted:That's a shaky premise! I know a lot of people (mostly women) who look forward to those scenes like I would an action scene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I still really enjoy the Matrix, if only because Agent Smith is now the essential G-Man in my mind. Really Hugo Weaving is the only reason. I love the Matrix but the only movie more 90's is Reality Bites. vvv not at all, that's why I like it so much now vvv HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
is it weird to think The Matrix has actually improved over time just because of how much of a time capsule it ended up being?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:is it weird to think The Matrix has actually improved over time just because of how much of a time capsule it ended up being? No, because I think that's kind of what the Wachoswski's were going for. The whole idea of the Matrix itself is essentially an artificial recreation of society around 1999, suspended out of time in an insular bubble that the characters re-enter. It's purposefully 90s-esque within the narrative, and that in turn helps the film itself to function in a similar way. It's like what Zemeckis did in Back to the Future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
Are there any good Colin Clive films I should check out (assuming I can track any of them down)? Frankenstein and Bride of... are two of my favorite films of that era for sure. A shame he didn't have a great deal of on-screen roles before his demise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I love the Matrix but the only movie more 90's is Reality Bites. That makes sense since it cribbed so heavily from The Invisibles, which is one of the ultimate 'of its moment' 90s time capsules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
The Invisibles, The X-Files and Deus Ex were pretty much the distillation of my pop-culture interests in 1999.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
I just had this brilliant idea (I'm just loving around and not actually serious, but I am curious): How hard would it be to break into Hollywood behind the scenes as a script doctor? It occurs to me that I love movies (like everyone in CD) and I hate seeing movies that could have been so much better if the script was good (again, like a lot of people in CD). I'm just curious if there's actually like a market for script doctoring and a lot of well-known movies actually got tweaked by some random guy working behind the scenes. I heard Tarantino supposedly did an uncredited rewrite of Crimson Tide and I've been told Christopher McQuarrie has done a bit of that as well since he dropped off the map for a while until Valkyrie came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 06:16
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:I'm just curious if there's actually like a market for script doctoring and a lot of well-known movies actually got tweaked by some random guy working behind the scenes. Script doctors are usually people who have already proven themselves as screenwriters, and are usually Oscar-winners. It's a "slumming it" job that pays in the millions and usually only lasts a few weeks. Good luck breaking in! By the way, these script doctors usually only write what the producers/studio tell them to. There's very little actual creative input involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Script doctors are usually people who have already proven themselves as screenwriters, and are usually Oscar-winners. It's a "slumming it" job that pays in the millions and usually only lasts a few weeks. Good luck breaking in! Heh, yeah. I figured it was pretty much like that and not like they bring in some guy who magically fixes poo poo. I wasn't actually serious but it was a brilliant idea nonetheless. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 06:36
|
|
|
If you're interested in screenwriting watch "Tales from the Script" to get an idea on how thankless a job it is. The general pattern is one writer will write something that gets optioned then have parts rewritten by others who are usually under the direction of the studio. Scriptwriting is likely the most saturated area of the industry as it's a no cost venture with programs like Celtx free to use and every man and his dog dreams of writing the next Shawshank Redemption. The result is we get six scripts from you that make us wonder why you haven't been locked in a mental ward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:I just had this brilliant idea (I'm just loving around and not actually serious, but I am curious): How hard would it be to break into Hollywood behind the scenes as a script doctor? It occurs to me that I love movies (like everyone in CD) and I hate seeing movies that could have been so much better if the script was good (again, like a lot of people in CD). I'm just curious if there's actually like a market for script doctoring and a lot of well-known movies actually got tweaked by some random guy working behind the scenes. I heard Tarantino supposedly did an uncredited rewrite of Crimson Tide and I've been told Christopher McQuarrie has done a bit of that as well since he dropped off the map for a while until Valkyrie came out. Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Movies-Fun-Profit-Billion/dp/1439186758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317447555&sr=8-1 It's a very good resource for exactly what you'd like to do. But a lot has to come before you're given 'punch up' work, such as writing a spec script to prove you can write. It's a very common job, though. Most Hollywood screenplays have way more writers than you'd ever believe. And most Hollywood screenwriters do uncredited rewrites. A few off the top of my head: M. Night did one for She's All That, Noah Baumbach did one for that new movie Tower Heist. But a lot of the time the job isn't at all about making a script better. The genesis of a script is often whim-based and unpredictable, as you'll read in the book. The majority of movies are bad not because the screenwriters working on them can't write, but because the people in charge generally don't give a poo poo. Just read the book though, it lays everything out way better than I could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Movies-Fun-Profit-Billion/dp/1439186758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317447555&sr=8-1 I had no idea they wrote a book! Thanks for the heads up, that should be a fun read! I know so many burned out screenwriters, it's not even funny. It's one of the most miserable jobs in Hollywood, on par with PAs (though the compensation for writers is usually better).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 06:55
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:I had no idea they wrote a book! Thanks for the heads up, that should be a fun read! Yeah, I was going to say that's loving awesome that they wrote a book. Definitely going to buy it. I was going to order some stuff off Amazon anyway so I might as well get bumped to free shipping at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 08:33
|
|
|
Are there any other movies that do blue skies/white cloud chapter breaks other than My Blue Heaven and Magnolia? I think it's a really cool motif.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
I watched MASH recently and also the extras. Ring Lardner, Jr. was the screenwriter for this and Altman basically discarded his writing for the film itself. And then Lardner ended up winning Adapted Screenplay Oscar in 1970. Any similar instances of this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
On tv, Harlan Ellison won the 1968 Writer's Guild of America Award for an episode of Star Trek that he disowned because of how substantially it was changed during production. I think he sued the studio to get his name taken off of it, but he's also a total crackpot so the changes might not be that significant. Also, the Oscar Lardner got might have been for the script he wrote and not for the movie as it was made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 04:46
|
|
|
Harlan Ellison's controversy section on Wikipedia is amazingly long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:On tv, Harlan Ellison won the 1968 Writer's Guild of America Award for an episode of Star Trek that he disowned because of how substantially it was changed during production. I think he sued the studio to get his name taken off of it, but he's also a total crackpot so the changes might not be that significant. Ellison won for the original version that he wrote, not the script that actually made it to the air. One of his biggest problems with the change was that the episode made it seem like anti-war protests were a bad thing. Also that they took out a character moment where Spock calls Kirk "Jim" and the way they changed it from Kirk letting the woman die to needing Spock to stop him from saving her. In other more recent Harlan Ellison news, he's suing the people behind the new Justin Timberlake movie "In Time" saying they ripped off his short story "Repent Harlequin, said the Tick Tock Man." I've read the story and they don't seem similar at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:Are there any good Colin Clive films I should check out (assuming I can track any of them down)? Frankenstein and Bride of... are two of my favorite films of that era for sure. A shame he didn't have a great deal of on-screen roles before his demise. Haven't seen any other Colin Clive films, but you might want to check out some James Whale films too since he directed both of those. I've watched a bunch of his movies and they've always stood to me out as being very good movies and having less dated sensibilities than a lot of 30s movies (beyond just being pre-code). One good horror movie of his I liked a lot is The Old Dark House. And a couple others you might want to check out, although I haven't actually seen them yet: Invisible Man and Journey's End, which is a WW1 movie that was Colin Clive's first movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
Is there a "technical" name for that cliched female vocal "Aaaaaahhhhhhaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhh" recording that gets played over dramatic moments in a lot of movies (LOTR, Gladiator, etc.)? It's not annoyingly over-used, but I wonder if The Godfather established the cliche by playing opera over the montage of people getting killed towards the end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
Encryptic posted:Is there a "technical" name for that cliched female vocal "Aaaaaahhhhhhaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhh" recording that gets played over dramatic moments in a lot of movies (LOTR, Gladiator, etc.)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Haven't seen any other Colin Clive films, but you might want to check out some James Whale films too since he directed both of those. I've watched a bunch of his movies and they've always stood to me out as being very good movies and having less dated sensibilities than a lot of 30s movies (beyond just being pre-code). One good horror movie of his I liked a lot is The Old Dark House. And a couple others you might want to check out, although I haven't actually seen them yet: Invisible Man and Journey's End, which is a WW1 movie that was Colin Clive's first movie. Awesome, thanks. I've heard scattered praise for James Whale over the years but never really looked into his other output.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Not quite sure if this answers your question, but in classical music the term for it is a vocalise (rhymes with peace), most often used as a vocal exercise but also as a stand-alone piece ala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZIQ2pHaJ1I Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about - that Lisa Gerrard-style female vocalist that's not actually "singing" but just vocalizing over the big dramatic moment in Gladiator or whatever. I figured there was a name for it besides "cliched dramatic soundtrack vocalist" or something. Thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2011 17:22
|
|