|
twistedmentat posted:That's just weird. That's like making a movie about Oscar Wilde or Liberace and just ignoring the gay part. Well, I guess Liberace would make a point of him denying it, but still. They probably would want to avoid mentioning the gay thing with Oscar Wilde, because he was kind of a pedophile. -Oh he was sent to jail for it? All, I remember is being wierded out that Oscar Wilde is considered a great role mode as a gay author, even though his homosexual relationship was really creepy. IShallRiseAgain fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 20, 2012 |
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:They probably would want to avoid mentioning the gay thing with Oscar Wilde, because he was kind of a pedophile. So the end of his life he was sent to jail for ????
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
I'm going to defend Capote by stating that him being gay had really nothing to do with the purpose of the movie. The film is not about his gayness, it's about his conflict between his connection with the killers and his commitment to his novel. Yes, the movie is called Capote, but that doesn't mean it needed to focus on every detail of his life. And it's not like it's trying to hide anything from us. Just one glimpse of the guy and you know he's gay. If I see someone using their left hand in a film, does that obligate the film to focus on how left-handed they are?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Not in this version. He meets Perry Smith and kinda looks at him for a while and you're supposed to decide whether he's in love with him or he's just ultra-sympathetic towards him. I wish we could have gotten a movie with Infamous' script and Capote's filmmakers. Capote is a superbly made film but you're right in that it holds back alot in the name of being more accessible and Oscar worthy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
caiman posted:I'm going to defend Capote by stating that him being gay had really nothing to do with the purpose of the movie. The film is not about his gayness, it's about his conflict between his connection with the killers and his commitment to his novel. Yes, the movie is called Capote, but that doesn't mean it needed to focus on every detail of his life. And it's not like it's trying to hide anything from us. Just one glimpse of the guy and you know he's gay. If I see someone using their left hand in a film, does that obligate the film to focus on how left-handed they are?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:They probably would want to avoid mentioning the gay thing with Oscar Wilde, because he was kind of a pedophile. Wait what? How was he kind of a pedophile? As far as I know he may have liked younger men and used rent-boys both of which is a little creepy I guess but far from being a pedophile and he went to jail simply for committing sodomy not for kiddy fiddling. Sorry if I'm wrong but I'm sure he never touched anyone under 16, off to wikipedia I guess to find out. Krypt-OOO-Nite!! fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Mar 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
therattle posted:This is a troll, right? No...?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
caiman posted:No...?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
I'm watching the new Conan movie, which sucks by the way, but the whole "needing the blood of a pure person" made me think of a funny gag in another movie, where it turned out all they needed was a single drop. They pricked the girl with a pin or something, and then were pretty much done with her, an ld she says something along the lines of "that's it?" I can't for the life of me remember what the movie was though, so i figured here is as good a place as any to ask. Edit: it was pirates of the caribbean. AFewBricksShy fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Mar 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Please point me to the right thread if this isn't it, but I searched a bit and couldn't find anything... I want to start purchasing digital High Def movies but I'm having a hard time finding anywhere to do that. Here are my 1. DRM Free 2. High Def 3. Playable on Mac or PC 4. Allow me to download and save on my computer 5. Standard format So I think this rules out itunes (not DRM free, not standard format) and Amazon (not playable on Mac). Does anything out there exist currently? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
therattle posted:If the movie is at least partly about his relationship to the killers, the fact that he was gay might have affected that relationship in quite fundamental ways. You can't just ignore that he was gay as it plays a significant role in colouring his interactions both with the killers and with the townspeople. It does show him with his boyfriend. The reason Oscar Wilde was considered a role model is in he was prosecuted for being gay and he was out when it was a crime. bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Mar 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:I'm watching the new Conan movie, which sucks by the way, but the whole "needing the blood of a pure person" made me think of a funny gag in another movie, where it turned out all they needed was a single drop. They pricked the girl with a pin or something, and then were pretty much done with her, an ld she says something along the lines of "that's it?" I enjoyed it, but I really hope Jason Momoa becomes one of the next big action stars. He's just got much a powerful presence. But this reminds me of a question that i've had for a while; in Die Hard two, McClane stabs a terrorist in the eye with an icicle, looks at it an is grossed up by it. Is there any other movie where an action hero kills someone in an unpleasant way and then is grossed out by it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
This one has bothered me for awhile, especially since it seems to be the sort of spergy nitpicking of a beloved movie that should have showed up all over the internet by now: In Raiders of the Lost Ark, why exactly is there a giant Nazi military encampment in the suburbs of Cairo? Yes, it was between wars, and I could see some sort of joint archeological dig "in the spirit of international cooperation and peace," but the Germans have a whole military base there with planes, trucks weapons and soldiers. IRL, one of the most well-known theaters of WWII was all about the British (and eventually American) forces trying to keep the Wehrmacht the hell away from Cairo. Surely, at the very least, Spielberg & Lucas would have seen Patton, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:Please point me to the right thread if this isn't it, but I searched a bit and couldn't find anything...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
cemaphonic posted:This one has bothered me for awhile, especially since it seems to be the sort of spergy nitpicking of a beloved movie that should have showed up all over the internet by now: But that didn't start happening until the 40s, no? When the movie takes place (1936), war hadn't officially been declared yet, so they might have been allowed there if given permission by the Egyptian government. But I'm not sure how friendly everyone was that far from the start of the actual war. (Also, it's just an adventure movie, not a historical document)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:It does show him with his boyfriend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 08:53
|
|
|
Useless Rabbit posted:But that didn't start happening until the 40s, no? When the movie takes place (1936), war hadn't officially been declared yet, so they might have been allowed there if given permission by the Egyptian government. But I'm not sure how friendly everyone was that far from the start of the actual war. In '36, war between Britain and Germany wasn't a forgone conclusion, but both Churchill's and Chamberlain's factions were worried enough about it. Besides, the Suez was the jugular of the British Empire, they weren't going to let their best buddies set up a camp within striking distance, let alone a suspicious and newly aggressive rival. As for Egypt, they were firmly under the thumb of the Brits (in terms of foreign policy and military anyway), and at any rate, they had just seen Libya and Ethiopia conquered by Italy. I don't think they would have been too thrilled about a Nazi military camp just outside their capital, even if the Brits would have tolerated it. And yeah, I know it's not a documentary - everyone knows the Ark is hidden in Ethiopia, not Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 10:49
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:I think DRM free pretty much kills this from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:They probably would want to avoid mentioning the gay thing with Oscar Wilde, because he was kind of a pedophile. Some paedophile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 12:36
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:So if I take out DRM free, what are my options? The most legal way to get files that satisfy all 5 criteria is to buy and rip blu-rays, which is still sort of illegal (DMCA violation in the US) and leaves you with a bunch of plastic discs lying around but at least your money goes to the content producers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Unless I'm remembering things wrong, Wilde was convicted of sodomy & gross indecency for his relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas - a guy in his twenties. Ya this is right, also it was victorian times and people got married at a really young age so the age of consent was lower then it is now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
wiki with cited source posted:Robert Ross had read Wilde's poems before they met, and he was unrestrained by the Victorian prohibition against homosexuality, even to the extent of estranging himself from his family. A precocious seventeen year old, by Richard Ellmann's account, he was "...so young and yet so knowing, was determined to seduce Wilde". Wilde, who had long alluded to Greek love, and – though an adoring father – was put off by the carnality of his wife's second pregnancy, succumbed to Ross in Oxford in 1886. IShallRiseAgain fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Mar 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Ya this is right, also it was victorian times and people got married at a really young age so the age of consent was lower then it is now. age of consent laws are entirely a construct of social norms so i don't see how it's at all relevant when the law at the time was dictated by the same norms to ban homosexual acts at any age? IShallRiseAgain posted:He also had sex with a 17 year old when he was 32, so technically he was an Ephebophile, but does the distinction really matter that much? I'll drop the topic though, since its really a matter of opinion. having sex with one 17 year old probably doesn't indicate a preference for adolescents though. Cerv fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Mar 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
What does any of this have to do with movies again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:What does any of this have to do with movies again? movies are sexy! e: i really enjoyed the 2009 dorian gray adaptation. are any of the other million versions generally well regarded and worth checking out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
^ How is the 2009 Dorian Gray? I really would like to see a decent movie version but the 2009 movie looked a little like it was trying to play up the romance which put me off. And having sex with a 17 year old makes him a practiced pedophile? Really?? Might I suggest IShallRiseAgain you don't got around randomly calling people pedophiles. Also Oscar Wilde isn't well regarded because of who he liked to gently caress but because when being threatened with punishment for being homosexual he didn't back down and try to find a way out instead he made a impassioned speech in which he attacked those who were punishing him and stood proudly and defiantly. (Enough Oscar Wilde chat I guess)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
The one with Angela Lansbury is really fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Movies are sexy, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Krypt-OOO-Nite!! posted:^ How is the 2009 Dorian Gray? Finding Ben Barnes was a massive stroke of luck as he manages to be beautiful enough to really sell the role, and still quite a good actor. Colin Firth as Wotton does steal the show a bit. Moving the story forwards in time a few years to tie the First World War in works really well on a thematic level. Although the changes to the story's ending don't really sit well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
^I might give it a watch then. I couldn't imagine Colin Firth being a good fit as Henry Wotton but he did surprise me in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Not to be harsh but as an actor he does seem to have one "mode" that he plays in more or less every movie I've seen him in. Ben Barnes is normally good and he's more than pretty enough for the role. the main thing putting me of this adaption was that Dorian just didn't seem to be portrayed enough as a bit of a oval office but I will try to see it first chance i get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The one with Angela Lansbury is really fun. This. You would think Hurd Hatfield is horribly miscast as Dorian at first, but he's great. And it's an unsaid rule that George Sanders makes any movie worth seeing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Krypt-OOO-Nite!! posted:Not to be harsh but as an actor he does seem to have one "mode" that he plays in more or less every movie I've seen him in. Check out Milos Forman's Valmont. It came out around the same times as Dangerous Liasons, and I prefer it (wonky accents aside).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
I've got a couple questions for the more technically inclined. First, is there a website or something that will allow me to compare DVD upscaling? I have a DVD player that upscales, a ps3 which will also upscale DVDs, and a TV with an upscaling function as well. I'd like to know which of the three (or some combination thereof) will give me the best DVD image. Secondly, I recently watched 50/50 and Contagion, and both had similar sequences where the camera's focal range was really shallow, but the focus itself kind of "drifted" across the image. (For those that have seen one or both, in 50/50 its the scene where JGL is walking the hospital hallways high from the pot cookie, and in Contagion its the flashbacks to Gwyneth Paltrow's dinner and gambling in Hong Kong). My question is, how do they get that floating focus effect? Is it just a matter of having the focal length so shallow that any movement of the camera or subject shifts the focus?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
A plot question about The Conversation (and SPOILERS): Did the couple know they were being recorded? I get that they were actually plotting to kill the director, but what I'm not sure of is whether the couple knew at that moment they were under surveillance. I would assume they did if not for the line "He'd kill us if he had the chance" (emphasizing "us", thus implying their plan to kill him). Seems an odd thing to say if they knew he was listening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
I don't think there was anything to suggest they knew they were being recorded. Its been a while since I've seen the movie, but the director suspected the pair was up to something and that is why he wanted them to be spied upon. The pair only found out about the recording later on, and they started spying on the main character after finding out that he knew something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:I don't think there was anything to suggest they knew they were being recorded. Its been a while since I've seen the movie, but the director suspected the pair was up to something and that is why he wanted them to be spied upon. The pair only found out about the recording later on, and they started spying on the main character after finding out that he knew something. But wasn't the recording the means by which the couple let the director know where to be so they could kill him? I thought the recording was the bait to get him to show up at the right hotel room at the right time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
caiman posted:But wasn't the recording the means by which the couple let the director know where to be so they could kill him? I thought the recording was the bait to get him to show up at the right hotel room at the right time. Wow, I never picked up on that. I just assumed he already had plans to be in the room, or they invited him over. Guess I'll be rewatching this soon. EDIT: what I took away was the couple planned to lure The Director to the room and kill him. They didn't know they were being recorded, but found out because Harrison Ford was their inside man, and went ahead and did it anyway, setting up a way to keep Harry quiet as they went along. Glass Joe fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
caiman posted:I would assume they did if not for the line "He'd kill us if he had the chance" (emphasizing "us", thus implying their plan to kill him). Seems an odd thing to say if they knew he was listening. This may have to do with this being sort of a cheat on the part of the filmmakers. When we first hear the line, it sounds like, "He'd kill us if he had the chance," but at the end it's, "He'd kill us if he had the chance." Maxwell Lord fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:This may have to do with this being sort of a cheat on the part of the filmmakers. When we first hear the line, it sounds like ,"He'd kill us if he had the chance," but at the end it's, "He'd kill us if he had the chance."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:This may have to do with this being sort of a cheat on the part of the filmmakers. When we first hear the line, it sounds like, "He'd kill us if he had the chance," but at the end it's, "He'd kill us if he had the chance." Yeah, this was the only part of the movie I had a problem with. But the movie's so loving good that I can't bring myself to care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 13:46
|
|
