|
Do the books or EU or anything explain what Ripley's and Kane's jobs were in Alien? Ripley had her pilots license revoked in Aliens, so does that imply she was the co-pilot and third in command behind Kane? I haven't watched Alien in a while, so I might have forgotten something, but why was Kane, the second in command, out poking around the eggs instead of Ash, who was the science officer?
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
Kane was the Science Officer, (mysteriously replacing the previous one at the last minute) and Ripley was the 1st officer, or second in command of the Nostromo.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Are you getting Kane and Ash mixed up? I'm just going from wikipedia, but it says that Kane was the XO, Ripley was the warrant officer, and Ash was the science officer. That would put Ripley 3rd or 4th in command depending on what rank Ash is. This is assuming they use the same rank structure as the US Army, which seems to be the case based on the names of the ranks and Hicks' promotion in Aliens. Skunkduster fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
Yeah, you're right. Ash was the science officer, Kane was the one who got face huggered, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:You can find some really crazy shiit in that bin. I found an 8 pack of lovely, lovely horrors movies in one. The highlight was evil bong, about a bong that steals souls. There was also a mediocre submarine movie, but it has Zach Galifinakus, and we were drunk so wewatched it to the end. Watching the credits, we realized it was written by Darren Arronofsky. I have not only watched Evil Bong, but I have watched the rest of the trilogy. I am not proud of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 03:52
|
|
|
They had no idea that there was anything science related they just believed it was a normal distress call, and why would you send your science officer for that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Are you getting Kane and Ash mixed up? I'm just going from wikipedia, but it says that Kane was the XO, Ripley was the warrant officer, and Ash was the science officer. That would put Ripley 3rd or 4th in command depending on what rank Ash is. This is assuming they use the same rank structure as the US Army, which seems to be the case based on the names of the ranks and Hicks' promotion in Aliens. That would assume that the military has the same ranking system as the Corporation's shipping division.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Are you getting Kane and Ash mixed up? I'm just going from wikipedia, but it says that Kane was the XO, Ripley was the warrant officer, and Ash was the science officer. That would put Ripley 3rd or 4th in command depending on what rank Ash is. This is assuming they use the same rank structure as the US Army, which seems to be the case based on the names of the ranks and Hicks' promotion in Aliens. Ripley's third in command, she tells Ash something to the effect of: "when Dallas and Kane are off the ship, I'm in command."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 05:51
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They had no idea that there was anything science related they just believed it was a normal distress call, and why would you send your science officer for that? I figure anytime you are on an alien planet you would bring a science officer. How else would you know what the gently caress poo poo was? It's not like they have tricorders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:I have not only watched Evil Bong, but I have watched the rest of the trilogy. There are 2 more? Time to hit up the 5 dollar bin. What is Neil Blomkamp up to these days? I loved District 9 and I haven't heard anything about a follow up or Neils next movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:There are 2 more? Time to hit up the 5 dollar bin. He's doing Elysium with Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. Comes out in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
Do foreign films get their bad voice acting dubs from whatever local can come closest to an English accent or are they actually sought out and cast from some pool of generic sounding Americans ? I'm no voice actor but I feel like I hear so many Godawful dubs that I could put together a demo-tape and it would take minimal effort to "audition" for these things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:Do foreign films get their bad voice acting dubs from whatever local can come closest to an English accent or are they actually sought out and cast from some pool of generic sounding Americans ? I'm pretty sure that most of the time its the studio that bought the license for the film that actually dubs it, and they use American actors. I know this is the case for animated films, but I'm not 100% sure about live-action. Also, dubbing tends to be so bad, because for some reason there is a big taboo against dubbing in America that you don't find in foreign countries. Its kind of why I find the whole idea of Americans being dumb for disliking subtitles stupid. I'm sure foreign films would be much more popular if people could watch them dubbed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
I can't believe anyone would watch a dubbed film. I'll take subtitles any day. It boggles my mind that essentially everything in Germany is dubbed. I'm in Denmark and there's no way you would find anything dubbed becoming popular here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
csidle posted:I can't believe anyone would watch a dubbed film. I'll take subtitles any day. It boggles my mind that essentially everything in Germany is dubbed. I'm in Denmark and there's no way you would find anything dubbed becoming popular here. I used to think like this, but now I actually prefer dubs. Think about it. Subtitles are a new, invasive layer of text that was never meant to be there. If the audience for which the film was made and the filmmakers themselves followed the plot with their ears, why is it bad that I want to do the same? Besides, subtitles always summarize the text, cut a lot of words, and use less slang to make them easier to understand. People who oppose dubs say that the nuances of the actors voices are lost in translation, but if you're not familiar with the source language, you'll be missing out on those nuances anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Spermando posted:I used to think like this, but now I actually prefer dubs. Think about it. Subtitles are a new, invasive layer of text that was never meant to be there. If the audience for which the film was made and the filmmakers themselves followed the plot with their ears, why is it bad that I want to do the same? Besides, subtitles always summarize the text, cut a lot of words, and use less slang to make them easier to understand. People who oppose dubs say that the nuances of the actors voices are lost in translation, but if you're not familiar with the source language, you'll be missing out on those nuances anyway. Often you can tell a lot from someone's tone and the way they talk, and when you have a subtitle telling you exactly what they are saying, a good performance can be very well appreciated. Dubbing is almost always terrible and creates a huge disconnect between what we see and what we hear. The lines are no longer being delivered but the actor playing the character and a lot is lost. You say that subtitles ad something extra that was never meant to be there, while I feel that dubbing not only removes the original dialog audio, it adds new audio that was never meant to be there. Once I get used to subtitles I often forget they are even there and I have to think if a movie was in english or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
A good part of movies are "dubbed" anyway. I think Das Boot did it right, they dubbed the English version with a lot of the original German actors speaking in English.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:A good part of movies are "dubbed" anyway. I think Das Boot did it right, they dubbed the English version with a lot of the original German actors speaking in English. Yes, but ADR is usually the same actor essentially continuing the same performance. Das Boot did everything right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Snak posted:Often you can tell a lot from someone's tone and the way they talk, and when you have a subtitle telling you exactly what they are saying, a good performance can be very well appreciated. Dubbing is almost always terrible and creates a huge disconnect between what we see and what we hear. The lines are no longer being delivered but the actor playing the character and a lot is lost. You say that subtitles ad something extra that was never meant to be there, while I feel that dubbing not only removes the original dialog audio, it adds new audio that was never meant to be there. Once I get used to subtitles I often forget they are even there and I have to think if a movie was in english or not. Subtitles don't say exactly what the original text says. A guy who's famous in the AV translation field in my country wrote an article on this. He estimated that up to 40% of the words had to be cut to keep the subtitles short and readable: swear words, nicknames, adjectives... Basically all the words that give character to the plot. The original performance may not be as transparent as you're making it out to be. A man from Texas doesn't sound like a man from Tokyo when he's trying to be sarcastic or flirty. If I'm not familiar with the way the Japanese speak, I'm probably missing a lot of little details in their tone that could be easily conveyed in a competent dub.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 17:37
|
|
Spermando posted:Subtitles don't say exactly what the original text says. A guy who's famous in the AV translation field in my country wrote an article on this. He estimated that up to 40% of the words had to be cut to keep the subtitles short and readable: swear words, nicknames, adjectives... Basically all the words that give character to the plot. If I'm watching a movie about a man from Tokyo, why would I want to hear him speak with a Texas accent?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Spermando posted:Subtitles don't say exactly what the original text says. A guy who's famous in the AV translation field in my country wrote an article on this. He estimated that up to 40% of the words had to be cut to keep the subtitles short and readable: swear words, nicknames, adjectives... Basically all the words that give character to the plot. The worst thing that can happen is watching a movie with subtitles where you know just a little of the language. Not enough that you can just watch the movie without them but just enough to spot those differences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
I was reading a random Ebert review (Fatal Instinct) and he calls Armand Assante "one of the best movie actors of his generation." I mostly know him from bit parts in schlock and some tv roles; is there an Assante classic out there worth seeing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:If I'm watching a movie about a man from Tokyo, why would I want to hear him speak with a Texas accent? Maybe it's a Japanese movie about a guy from Texas?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
Spermando posted:Subtitles don't say exactly what the original text says. A guy who's famous in the AV translation field in my country wrote an article on this. He estimated that up to 40% of the words had to be cut to keep the subtitles short and readable: swear words, nicknames, adjectives... Basically all the words that give character to the plot. I understand this is true, but I guess I just haven't had much experience with competent dubs. I'm curious now though, are dubs a lot more accurate about the dialoge? I figured most dubs also changed a lot for convenience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Coming at this as a Godzilla fan- good live action dubs are rare. Some of the 60s kaiju films have decent dubs, because the characters are broad and AIP would have the voice actors do sort of broad voices, with faked-but-not-hugely-OTT Japanese accents. But for a lot of later films, Toho in particular would use some international dubbing entity to quickly get the film into English, with little concern for the niceties of voice acting or sounding anything like the guy speaking (or indeed like any voice anyone has used for conversation ever.) There's one, "Godzilla vs. Spacegodzilla", where an evil mad scientist villain clearly in his 40s or older is made to sound like a teenager. On top of that, cheaper dubs won't often pay attention to subtle sound mixing issues, so it never sounds like the voices are coming from the people in the scene- they're usually always at the same volume and aren't affected by the sound environment. With animation it can work, because everything is "dubbed" to start with, and the characters are abstracted so it's easier to match a voice to them. The Ghibli dubs are mostly good, because the guys at Disney/Pixar who supervise them are huge Miyazaki fans and want to do right by the original and put a lot of effort into the translation and writing the new dialogue. Obviously you can have terrible subtitles as well, but I find those less distracting. I saw Let the Right One In on DVD with the infamous "bad" titles, and never noticed- as far as I was concerned it was an amazingly good movie. tl,dr: It's not that you can't do a good dub, or that subtitles can't be bad, but I find bad dubbing so much worse than bad subtitles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Bad dubbing is more annoying because it's so intrusive. Bad subtitles are just kind of aggravating because you get the sense that you're only getting bits and pieces of the dialogue, but at least you don't have to listen to some rear end in a top hat mangle a performance. Also, for my money the worst subtitles I've seen are on Kino's The Mirror DVD, there's not a conversation that goes by in which entire sentences simply aren't transcribed. It's like they decided to cut everything that wasn't pertinent to the plot. A typical exchange: "blah blah blah...blah blah... [no subtitle] ...blah blah blah" [Where were you born?] "blah blah blah... [no subtitle] ...blah Moscow blah blah blah" [Moscow]
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I was reading a random Ebert review (Fatal Instinct) and he calls Armand Assante "one of the best movie actors of his generation." I mostly know him from bit parts in schlock and some tv roles; is there an Assante classic out there worth seeing? When Assante did Fatal Instinct, he had been starring or supporting movies that Roger Ebert was rather fond of. Hoffa, Q&A, and Mambo Kings for example. Then he started doing movies that critics panned heavily like Judge Dredd (Which I still think is an enjoyably over-the-top performance) and Striptease. Faster than you can say Cuba Gooding Jr, he was doomed to the direct-to-video/TV movie business. EDIT: As an aside, I always preferred subtitles for lower budget or poorer actors because you can't really tell if they are wooden, monotone or have poor speaking ability. So the glitches of a poor voice actor aren't present in your mind. I guess if you spoke the language then you would prefer to hear it a different way. Specifically any of the French horror films, they always have the worst sounding and most unconvincing voice actors, but if you watch it subtitled. Not an issue at all. What's even worse is when they take a dub that isn't that bad and make it worse for no reason at all, I.E Akira. I'm beginning to think that someone out there doesn't like Cam Clarke voice from the 90s since he was either replaced or Metal Gear: Twin Snakes had him redo it. Mouser.. fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Nov 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Snak posted:I'm curious now though, are dubs a lot more accurate about the dialoge? I figured most dubs also changed a lot for convenience. It depends on who is doing the translation and localization. I find it interesting how some accents are represented when dubbed into a new language. For example, if you are watching a Japanese film with a character that has an Osaka accent, most dubs will translate that into an American southern accent because Osaka is in the southern part of Japan. Sometimes, though, you'l find some anime that decided that a Brooklyn accent is a better fit, for how the viewer is supposed to react to someone who has that accent. I'm not sure about most of this, myself. I haven't studied Japanese cultures and sub cultures as deeply as many others I know. Most of my thoughts here come from things I have heard some of my friends complain about over the years. I just recently watched Princess Mononoke with both the English dub and the subtitles on at the same time to see what the differences were. For the most part, those differences fell into two categories: Dealing with things non-Japanese viewers wouldn't know and trying to have the characters speak enough to match up to the amount of time their mouths are moving. The first part is just adding some details about folk lore and history. The second one is often cited as the main source of all that is evil by a lot of anime nerds(though it seems to come up less these days) but I would still prefer that to the style of dubbing that was common with kung fu movies from the seventies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 20:10
|
|
|
Snak posted:I'm curious now though, are dubs a lot more accurate about the dialoge? I figured most dubs also changed a lot for convenience. From my experience, no. I've seen a few dubbed films on VHS and then watched them later on DVD with subtitles. The dubbed dialogue tended to confuse the story and stray from the plot more. When rewatching with subtitles things fell back into place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
I've wondered this since I was younger: do movies need to get permission from car companies to show their cars in movies? Some movies have hundreds of cars with discernible logos and things like that, so you can't just ignore them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
I had a question about Insidious: are the scenes in the attic a complete red herring? They don't seem to fit in at all with the film's explanation of the haunting's cause, but they still devote a fair chunk of screen time to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
Not quite, the geography of the old house is set up in the first third of the movie to be revisited in the final third of the movie. You're meant to see a connection between the disused furnace and the portal/workshop where Dalton is being held. That reminds me of a great line in Insidious: "What are you talking about? I switched houses for you!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Crozier Saves posted:I've wondered this since I was younger: do movies need to get permission from car companies to show their cars in movies? Some movies have hundreds of cars with discernible logos and things like that, so you can't just ignore them. If the car isn't a focus or recurring image then its generally a fair use of products. If the main character is always puttering around in it on a television show, you can almost guarantee its from a product placement deal. One that springs to mind recently is Walt White's Aztek in Breaking Bad. If the company suddenly didn't like how easy it is to run someone over and kill them then Walt would have to rent a nondescript car for that one scene. Coke has halted production on movies for displaying its logo in a context they don't agree with. The solution is that if you watch closely when a character drinks a soda or beer, their hand is covering the label or on reality show, the label has been blacked out. Heres a link to Philip Morris stance on product placement for a pretty common view of the legality of product depiction. Philip Morris Product Stance Mouser.. fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Nov 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
The Breaking Bad Aztek is such a weird bit of product placement because they haven't made the Aztek for at least five years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
I've seen Ducati's in many films lately. Just offhand I can think of The Matrix Reloaded, Yes Man, TRON: Legacy. I'm forgetting some others as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The Breaking Bad Aztek is such a weird bit of product placement because they haven't made the Aztek for at least five years. I don't think it's product placement exactly. They use it to date-stamp the whole thing, and to reinforce how dull Walt's life was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I don't think it's product placement exactly. They use it to date-stamp the whole thing, and to reinforce how dull Walt's life was. Otherwise likely that it was a soon-to-be phased out vehicle that GM wouldn't have much trouble associating with it's roomy trunk space perfect for hauling meth equipment. Pontiac is a dead brand now too so I'd agree that it was this or the PT Cruiser and The Office already got to that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I don't think it's product placement exactly. They use it to date-stamp the whole thing, and to reinforce how dull Walt's life was. It made me laugh when he traded up (or rented) a Yaris. Walt is such a square.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:Pontiac is a dead brand now too so I'd agree that it was this or the PT Cruiser and The Office already got to that one. Walt Jr. actually got a PT Cruiser for his birthday later on in the series 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
Klungar posted:Walt Jr. actually got a PT Cruiser for his birthday later on in the series A purple one, at that. Skyler, you dork.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 08:06
|
|
