|
escape artist posted:Anyone interested in a film school, film making and film dissecting thread? So far only one member is in. always
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
I just watched the original The Day The Earth Stood Still, and I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around the ending. Aliens tell humanity to stop being so violent and destructive? Okay. Aliens tell humanity to stop being violent and destructive, under threat of having their planet destroyed? The hell? I almost want a sequel done, based off a short story I once read. Martians tell humanity to stop launching nuclear rockets. Humans agree. Martians make plans to invade Earth. Humans drop bombs onto each Martian city through some other scientific device. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jan 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
It's an ultimatum. His race realizes humanity is on the verge of space travel and is chock full of nuclear weapons and paranoia. Rather than have humans zooming through the stars nuking other races because they're ooky, he tells them they need to shape up or they'll just deal with the problem before it occurs. The implication is that every starfaring race hits this point in their evolution and must make a similar decision or get wiped out. Edit: Reading the Wikipedia summary it notes that he specifically mentions they'll destroy humanity if they bring violence into space, implying his race doesn't give a rat's rear end if humanity nukes the Earth to oblivion as long as it's not in their backyard. I'll have to rewatch the movie to see if that's actually the case. Wild T fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jan 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
It's Plan 9 From Outer Space only with robots instead of zombies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Wild T posted:The implication is that every starfaring race hits this point in their evolution and must make a similar decision or get wiped out. Right, but he's saying promoting his society, saying its a peaceful society, free of aggression and violence... except for the aggressively violent robots keeping everyone cowed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Right, but he's saying promoting his society, saying its a peaceful society, free of aggression and violence... except for the aggressively violent robots keeping everyone cowed. Mankind is incapable of governing itself, so it creates gods to do so for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Wrong thread
CV 64 Fan fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jan 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Right, but he's saying promoting his society, saying its a peaceful society, free of aggression and violence... except for the aggressively violent robots keeping everyone cowed. The particularly self-righteous countries are the ones that start the most wars. Usually in the name of righteousness. live with fruit fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jan 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
I remember an old IMDb board post asking if George W Bush was inspired by Klaatu's speech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Just watched A Nightmare Before Christmas, and the visuals and music were great, but as far as the story goes, is there some kind of 'lesson' I missed? I know not all children's entertainment has to be didactic but it seemed like they were building towards something regarding the meaning of Christmas, but in the end Jack and the residents of Halloween Town remain ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Tre Past Cool! posted:Just watched A Nightmare Before Christmas, and the visuals and music were great, but as far as the story goes, is there some kind of 'lesson' I missed? I know not all children's entertainment has to be didactic but it seemed like they were building towards something regarding the meaning of Christmas, but in the end Jack and the residents of Halloween Town remain ignorant. "Don't try to be something you're not," I think...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
And also not being too self-absorbed to notice those who care about you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Snak posted:"Don't try to be something you're not," I think... Kind of ironic coming from Tim Burton. . .
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
Why does Dr Strangelove look like poo poo? Kubrick is my favorite director. My top 3 favorite movies are Kubrick movies. But I've never been able to watch Dr Strangelove all the way through, partly because it looks like poo poo. It's not low-key photography: it's dark and muddy. It's low-contrast. Zero details in the shadows. Most screencaps you could make of the movie have no shape because of this. It obfuscates composition and even being able to see what's going on. I've seen his earlier and later movies, and I can't make sense of this outlier. Can somebody tell me that it's just a bad transfer, and this isn't what it looked like in the theater?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Why does Dr Strangelove look like poo poo? What were you watching it on? Because that movie looks gorgeoussss. This is what it's supposed to look like:  Stark, high contrast. penismightier fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jan 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Why are you allowing him to see the big board?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
penismightier posted:What were you watching it on? Because that movie looks gorgeoussss. I watched it on DVD and saw some of it on tv last night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Mescal posted:I watched it on DVD and saw some of it on tv last night. I think the DVD transfer was supposed to be bad but my Blu-Ray copy is perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Yeah, a lot of the scenes are probably kind of dark since they're all indoors, bit otherwise it looks great. Maybe the DVD wasn't good, but the bluray is actually a transfer of a 4k restoration. So I guess the answer is: watch the bluray version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
escape artist posted:Anyone interested in a film school, film making and film dissecting thread? So far only one member is in. Definitely interested, I've been waiting for someone to post a thread like that, but didn't want to request it since I don't really post in CD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Would it be possible to create a visual diagram that accurately depicts the timeline of events in Primer in a way that visually explains what happened in the film? I guess to clarify, If I started to make a diagram that accurately depicts the timeline of events in Primer am I going to realize that the timeline is full of plot holes and can't be completed? I read through this but my brain still isn't making all the connections. Odd question I know, but for some reason I really want to make this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Would it be possible to create a visual diagram that accurately depicts the timeline of events in Primer in a way that visually explains what happened in the film? Something like this? (Linked so as not to spoil anything for anyone.) http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/primer-chart.jpg (Edited to fix link)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Yeah the Primer diagrams get a little convuluted. The basic loop in this... http://jaced.com/blogpix/2012/primertimetravel.jpg ...makes this diagram a little easier to comprehend: http://badscifi.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/primer-timeline.gif It's only a timeline though and doesn't show the events as they happen. Linked so they don't spoil anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Knightmare posted:Yeah the Primer diagrams get a little convuluted. I don't think it's possible to spoil Primer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Knightmare posted:Yeah the Primer diagrams get a little convuluted. When I watched it I got the impression that the audience was supposed to get a little lost and overwhelmed, illustrating just how hosed the guys were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Mescal posted:I watched it on DVD and saw some of it on tv last night. Dr. Strangelove has always looked kind of ratty until the 4K restoration used for the Blu-Ray. The old DVD used a 1992 transfer made from a duplicate negative that wasn't in the best shape. Sony's 40th anniversary DVD used Kubrick's archival 35mm print. The Blu-Ray used a new 4K digital restoration created from a mix of a fine-grain positive (high quality duplication-only print made from the negative), the duplicate negative, and Kubrick's print. You can hardly tell it used a mix of elements since it looks like a brand new movie. But a grainier dark look actually works in the film's favor. They couldn't use the negative since it was lost in the 1960s after being shipped to Europe after the US release.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
I religiously read the "Rate the Latest Movie You've Seen" thread and envy each and every one of the posters able to write about subtext and cinematography as I'm a very shallow viewer. Are there any (good) books or anything else that would help me appreciate the finer details of film?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Would it be possible to create a visual diagram that accurately depicts the timeline of events in Primer in a way that visually explains what happened in the film? Primer operates under the same principles as those Calvin and Hobbes comics where Calvin just writes the words "time machine" on the side of a cardboard box and then it works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
any movie with dinosaurs also has to have someone pronounce "dinosaur" like Mr. DNA. Dino-sauwer!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
gmq posted:I religiously read the "Rate the Latest Movie You've Seen" thread and envy each and every one of the posters able to write about subtext and cinematography as I'm a very shallow viewer. Not film, but this works as a decent primer on subtext etc. http://www.amazon.com/Literary-Theory-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/B007SRWUL0
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
gmq posted:I religiously read the "Rate the Latest Movie You've Seen" thread and envy each and every one of the posters able to write about subtext and cinematography as I'm a very shallow viewer. I'm not a CD regular. That said, know that most everything in a film, no matter how early it's introduced, is intended to be soaked into your knowledge for later in the film. Rarely is information shown to you that doesn't have any impact on the rest of the film. They are trying to take a huge story/character/plot-line and present it to you in a limited time. They reward those who pay attention to subtle clues. Or sometimes they just give an explanation. It probably varies for everyone but I got a greater appreciation once I actually paid attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
gmq posted:I religiously read the "Rate the Latest Movie You've Seen" thread and envy each and every one of the posters able to write about subtext and cinematography as I'm a very shallow viewer. This comes up a lot but seriously, pay attention to commercials. By definition they have to cram visual information into less than a minute, usually accompanying dialog which may have almost nothing to do with what's on the screen. If you can figure out what a commercial is trying to imply or associate with their product, you can "get" practically any movie beyond the plot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Quick question: I know I've seen a trailer for a brutal medieval action movie that not that old about a couple of dudes that have to defend a castle from an invading army. Ring any bells? Been on my mind for awhile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Hellbunny posted:Quick question: Probably Ironclad, with Paul Giamatti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-tpqF-zXuU
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Probably Ironclad, with Paul Giamatti: Yep, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
I'm glad to see Rotten Tomatoes has removed the ability to comment on reviews. While i'm all for free speech, I know I wasn't the only one sick of seeing all fresh reviews having 0 comments, and the 2 rotten reviews having 30 comments of people saying "gently caress you" "You suck!" "You're too stupid to get this movie!".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
What's the deal with Frank Darabont? The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile are both pretty huge movies, obviously Shawshank is the no.1 on iMDb and The Green Mile was a big Tom Hanks movie that got a few Academy Nominations as well. Now he's mostly just producing TV shows, I mean I guess the Walking Dead is a big deal, but it's just surprising the guy hasn't done more movies. The last movie he directed was the Mist, which aside from being also based on a Stephen King novel, doesn't have that much in common with his other movies in style at all (I know he intentionally wanted that "grubby, documentary" look, so this must have been intentional). It was alright, but not really a huge deal. The only answer I can see is that The Majestic tanked in 2001, but lots of directors have failures and still have a fairly strong career, so I'm just wondering if there's something else to this story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:What's the deal with Frank Darabont? Darabont is a bit of an egotistical jackass, especially after all the praise he got for Shawshank and Green Mile, and he's got a reputation for being rather difficult to work with (which is why AMC fired him from The Walking Dead).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:What's the deal with Frank Darabont? The Mist didn't have a "grubby, documentary" look, it was shot like an episode of The Twilight Zone. The Bluray even has a B&W version on it that is way better than the color version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 21:50
|
|