|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:I like your example (and I certainly had never heard of that "Journey Back to Oz" movie), but I wouldn't really call The Wiz a remake of The Wizard of Oz in the same way that Evil Dead is a remake. I assume since the new Evil Dead was such a big hit, there's going to be a direct sequel to that as well, along with the new Army of Darkness movie, which would mean that the original and remake series would be ongoing at the same time - that's what I'm asking about more specifically, because it seems unprecedented though I might be totally wrong. I totally get what you mean. Another example would be Romero's Living Dead films although the remakes haven't actually had sequels as of yet and Romero doesn't like calling them sequels because none of the characters carry over. So again you just get into a semantics debate over whether or not they are sequels. Romero's films are just plain weird that three of them have been remade by three different sets of people but still in the same order as the original films. *son of a bitch Boinks beat me to it.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
^Thanks for this, I hadn't thought about that. Romero claims that all of his movies are re-imaginings of the same event though so as you say, there is a semantics debate. At least shows that Raimi isn't the first to do it but it's definitely rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
I think Raimi actually said the original and remake would crossover in film at some point. I read it on AICN so I didn't really believe it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:For sure. Jaws and The Exorcist have ignored sequels as well; still, no remakes in the middle to throw a spanner in the mix. It's been awhile since I've seen any of the jaws sequals. How are some of the films ignored by the others?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:It's been awhile since I've seen any of the jaws sequals. How are some of the films ignored by the others? Four ignores the third one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Four ignores the third one. And Michael Caine ignores the fourth one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Double Happiness posted:Hey Guys, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embracing_Defeat and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light/Black_Rain:_The_Destruction_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki are great works on how the bomb has effected the Japanese people as a whole; I'm sure you could make conclusions about the film industry from that starting point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Double Happiness posted:Hey Guys, I may be way off, but wasn't the Godzilla series started and created as a direct response to the bombing and nuclear weapons in general? They were heavily anti-nuclear weapons and anti-war in general, and researching the earlier Godzilla movies might make for a good start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:And Michael Caine ignores the fourth one. How can he when it got him a nice house?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
The house was for his mother wasn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Are there any murder mystery movies where it's set up like a quaint procedural (Marple-esque) in a cute British village, then it goes crazy? And it turns into a mass murderer horror movie? EDIT: I know there's an "everybody dies" plot in some classic whodunits, like And Then There Were None but I'm talking about a movie where there's a total genre change in the middle. Like a Poirot episode, but Poirot, Hastings, and Japp are all tortured and killed by the end. If there's no movie that fits this description, I guess I'll have to write a script. Mescal fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:I may be way off, but wasn't the Godzilla series started and created as a direct response to the bombing and nuclear weapons in general? They were heavily anti-nuclear weapons and anti-war in general, and researching the earlier Godzilla movies might make for a good start. You're not off-base at all, the original Gojira is totally a product of anxieties about nuclear fallout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Are there any murder mystery movies where it's set up like a quaint procedural (Marple-esque) in a cute British village, then it goes crazy? And it turns into a mass murderer horror movie? Hot Fuzz is almost like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Universal Soldier: Regeneration fits into a weird place, because it's both a sequel and a reboot/reimagining/retcon. Whatever you want to call it, it's a sequal to the first Universal Soldier, and it acknowledges the premise of Universal Soldier: The Return, but completely ignores the fact that Van Damme's character was completely different in the second movie. While it builds on some of the themes of the original, the tone is so vastly different it feels like a remake. Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning, which is kind of a sequal to Regeneration, goes way out there is basically a criticism of action movies and a nihilistic terminal expression of the themes from the previous film. Also, I didn't see a warning when I watched it, but Day of Reckoning literally tries to give you a seizure at least two times during the film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Mescal posted:EDIT: I know there's an "everybody dies" plot in some classic whodunits, like And Then There Were None but I'm talking about a movie where there's a total genre change in the middle. Like a Poirot episode, but Poirot, Hastings, and Japp are all tortured and killed by the end. If there's no movie that fits this description, I guess I'll have to write a script. I love this post because that's the worst possible use of a spoiler bar but there's probably no other way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Snak posted:Also, I didn't see a warning when I watched it, but Day of Reckoning literally tries to give you a seizure at least two times during the film. I think the copy I saw actually did have a warning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Daybreakers goes from interesting spin on post-apocalyptic scifi to lovely Matrix/Resident Evil-esque schlock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Snak posted:Universal Soldier: Regeneration fits into a weird place, because it's both a sequel and a reboot/reimagining/retcon. Whatever you want to call it, it's a sequal to the first Universal Soldier, and it acknowledges the premise of Universal Soldier: The Return, but completely ignores the fact that Van Damme's character was completely different in the second movie. While it builds on some of the themes of the original, the tone is so vastly different it feels like a remake. Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning, which is kind of a sequal to Regeneration, goes way out there is basically a criticism of action movies and a nihilistic terminal expression of the themes from the previous film. Is Day of Reckoning a direct sequel to Regeneration? At the end of Regeneration he just jogs the gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I think the copy I saw actually did have a warning. I must have missed it. Hollis posted:Is Day of Reckoning a direct sequel to Regeneration? At the end of Regeneration he just jogs the gently caress off It's not really a direct sequel, no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
Trance or Place Beyond the Pines tonight. Both just opened at our indie theater. edit: Argh, this isn't chat thread. Still a general movie question I guess though but feel free to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
We just watched I, Robot last night and one thing I just can't figure out is the irrational attention that's drawn towards Will Smith's sugar consumption; he's deliberately shown eating a sweet-potato pie on four separate occasions and twice shown putting an inordinate amount of sugar into his coffee (one of the other characters even furrows his brow in confusion at the act). Is this a remnant of a dropped plotline, or explained somewhere outside the canon of the film? One idea I had is that he is providing fuel for his robot arm, but the hamfisted exposition and complete lack of subtlety elsewhere in the film means that I'm probably reaching a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
It just goes well with his Converse, Vintage 2004 (or whatever the hell he says.) Sorry. That's like Wayne's World style product placement right there. It always annoyed me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
plainswalker75 posted:We just watched I, Robot last night and one thing I just can't figure out is the irrational attention that's drawn towards Will Smith's sugar consumption; he's deliberately shown eating a sweet-potato pie on four separate occasions and twice shown putting an inordinate amount of sugar into his coffee (one of the other characters even furrows his brow in confusion at the act). Is this a remnant of a dropped plotline, or explained somewhere outside the canon of the film? My favorite thing about I, Robot is that Will Smith's character reminds me of Denzel Washington's character in Virtuosity, which is a much better better movie about an angry cop with a robot arm fighting evil artificial intelligence. I don't hate I, Robot, though. It's watchable, if forgettable. Alan Tudyk's performance is great. The product placement really doesn't bother me, because even thought it's blatant, it's relatively obtrusive (except for the converse). I really loving love Virtuosity, and I'm not sure why it's not more popular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Snak posted:I really loving love Virtuosity, and I'm not sure why it's not more popular. Same here. It sure isn't the lack of star power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Same here. It sure isn't the lack of star power. I guess people think it's really cheesy, but I think Denzel totally sells real emotion in the character. The scene where we finally see the whole flashback of when he lost his arm is burned into my brain it's such a powerful image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
I love when he beats the poo poo out of the guy in prison, he plays that almost a little too real for like, future SuperMax space alloy moon colony prison. Russel Crowe is a delight in it, too, I prefer watching him in that than in L.A. Confidential.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
plainswalker75 posted:We just watched I, Robot last night and one thing I just can't figure out is the irrational attention that's drawn towards Will Smith's sugar consumption; he's deliberately shown eating a sweet-potato pie on four separate occasions and twice shown putting an inordinate amount of sugar into his coffee (one of the other characters even furrows his brow in confusion at the act). Is this a remnant of a dropped plotline, or explained somewhere outside the canon of the film? Maybe it's to illustrate that he is still somewhat of our time, rather than a presumably-healthier future?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
Maybe it's to show that in the future you can have a but like Will Smith's and still eat as much sweet potato pie as you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
It's possible he's actually one of the bug monsters from Men In Black.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I love when he beats the poo poo out of the guy in prison, he plays that almost a little too real for like, future SuperMax space alloy moon colony prison. Russel Crowe is a delight in it, too, I prefer watching him in that than in L.A. Confidential. I love how there's a brief section where "Shut ahp!" almost becomes Russell Crowe's catchphrase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Snak posted:I really loving love Virtuosity, and I'm not sure why it's not more popular. I haven't seen it since it first came out on video but I distinctly remember commenting on how great the no-name guy that played the villain (Russel Crowe) was fantastic and would probably be famous someday. I guess Gladiator was only a few years after.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:The body of the guy with the suitcase is up above the case, either scrunched up on some platform or attached to a backboard that looks like the fence. When Buster jumps through the guy drops into or is swung down into the dress and walks away. You can see when he does a spin that he grabs the dress to hold it together, though you can still make out a slit in the back of the it. Also, the part of the fence behind him is roughly person-shaped, which makes me think the strapped to a backboard and swung down into the dress thing is probably how they did it. It's pretty fast and hard to see, though, but I'm pretty sure it was all done at once and not editing. Last page but the video description backs you up on this: quote:For the scene where Sherlock Jr., escaping some gangsters, leaps headfirst through the body of his assistant, Gillette (who is disguised as an old lady selling neckties), and disappears, Buster Keaton used an old magician's trick. Prior to the trick, Gillette is seen standing with his back against a wooden fence. A section of the fence was sawed out and placed on hinges, so that it opened up and back like a garage door. Ford West (the actor playing Gillette) was then strapped to the underside of the cutaway section, so that when it was opened, West's body was hanging parallel to the ground, but his head and arms stuck out through the upper part of the opening in the fence. The dress and open suitcase were then hung from West's shoulders, so that they hung down in front of the fence, concealing the opening. Both the dress and the suitcase had holes cut in them. With the cameras rolling, Keaton leaped headfirst straight through the hole in the suitcase, the hole in the dress, and the opening in the fence. (He later recalled that he "landed face-first in the dirt" on the other side.) The cutaway fence section was then swung down to close the opening, so that West's body landed perfectly inside the dress. Attendants on the other side of the fence cut the straps holding West's torso and feet to the cutaway section, and West stepped away from the fence as if nothing had happened. In the film, you can see West reach behind his back to close the opening in the dress as he steps from the fence. If you look closely, you can also see the outline of the cutaway section in the fence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
Glass Joe posted:I haven't seen it since it first came out on video but I distinctly remember commenting on how great the no-name guy that played the villain (Russel Crowe) was fantastic and would probably be famous someday. To be fair Russell Crowe was already very famous in Australia (especially for Romper Stomper) before that movie. Not to say that local Aussie stardom compares to the international megastar he was by the time of Gladiator, but just that he wasn't a no-name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
L.A. Confidential was a couple of years later and made him a name, then came The Insider, then Gladiator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
What's a good film to start with for Terrence Malick, assuming I haven't seen any of his movies before? I had a hard time getting into David Lynch before someone told me to start with Blue Velvet, so I figured I'd check if there was an equivalent. For reference, a friend recommended him after I mentioned really liking Upstream Color.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:What's a good film to start with for Terrence Malick, assuming I haven't seen any of his movies before? I had a hard time getting into David Lynch before someone told me to start with Blue Velvet, so I figured I'd check if there was an equivalent. Days of Heaven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:Last page but the video description backs you up on this: Nice. I love how they had to come up these solutions in those old films, either from whole cloth or incorporating old stage tricks. Modern special effects can be spectacular, but the old timers, especially the comedians, had to pave the way and did some pretty amazing things in their time. Nolanar posted:What's a good film to start with for Terrence Malick, assuming I haven't seen any of his movies before? I had a hard time getting into David Lynch before someone told me to start with Blue Velvet, so I figured I'd check if there was an equivalent. Days of Heaven is really good, though I might suggest Badlands for an intro to Malick, then working your way from there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Why do I love how movies in the mid-late 90s looked so much? Something about the colors and the overall visual texture of movies has never been as pleasing to me as it was then. I'm watching Scream right now and it's gorgeous. A friend of mine who's a professional editor said filmstock was in a renaissance then, but could someone go more in-depth about what's changed since then? Another good example of a really cool looking movie is Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy. So unmistakably 90s, but not because of the fashions or timely references. It just feels like a certain time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Unmature posted:Why do I love how movies in the mid-late 90s looked so much? Something about the colors and the overall visual texture of movies has never been as pleasing to me as it was then. I'm watching Scream right now and it's gorgeous. A friend of mine who's a professional editor said filmstock was in a renaissance then, but could someone go more in-depth about what's changed since then? I remember watching a special feature on a dvd with the cinematographer talking about film stock at some point. He was talking about how some people will buy all of a certain type of film stock that they liked and hoard it if it was being discontinued. He went on a tangent about Kodak making new types of film pretty much continuously into the late 70s and then they kinda just stopped and only made a few new things in the 80s. Looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_stocks) seems to back that up, while also showing they started pumping out a lot of new film in the later 90s. While I'm sure that page isn't everything anyone ever made, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on in the 1980s other than a bunch of film stocks being discontinued in that decade. I also have no idea what the differences are in any of those film stocks or why they would start or stop production, so I cant possibly answer any in depth questions. Now, I wish I could remember what dvd it was or why I even remembered any of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
I am terrible at movies and don't get many references my friends and colleges make. For instance I didn't know the "Sharks Vs. The Jets" thing was movie based I thought it was in regard to people who don't care about sports and don't know that those two teams on a national level are in two different sports and not a movie. I still haven't seen that movie. I'm a 20 something and didn't go to the movies much growing up. So anything around the 70's-90's is lost on me. For example I am going to see Jurassic park 3d, not because I love the movie but because I have never seen it in theaters and I haven't been to see a movie in a long time and this seems like a safe loving bet. So if someone has time and wishes to help some better appreciate the art of film making please make a list or point me to one so I may start down this journey. tl:dr List of great cinema please? I'm dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 08:11
|
|
