|
Which part does Jack mess with under the hood of the Snowcat in The Shining?
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
WastedJoker posted:Why isn't there a thread for The Great Gatsby movie? This is for the book I know, but it might interest you anyway in case you decide to start the thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3543416
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Which part does Jack mess with under the hood of the Snowcat in The Shining? In the movie I think it's the distributor cap. Kubrick kinda took a left turn to the book so, oh hey wait this is CD not TBB. Distributor cap.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Thanks. Can anybody link me to an insiders perspective/expose of "Hollywood accounting?" That stuff sounds interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Thanks. I think Steven Seagal's career speaks for itself but here you go. Truthfully I don't know much about the subject but I always thought that making unwatchable poo poo over and over again as a way to launder money for the mob was funny.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
I thought Hollywood Accounting refered to the methods where you juggle the numbers so it looks like huge hit films only made a tiny net profit, to avoid having to pay out so much on royalties.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Thanks. The NPR podcast Planet Money did a rather accessible episode on Hollywood Accounting: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html If you want to go more in-depth, you can check out the book they mention: Edward Jay Epstein's The Hollywood Economist: The Hidden Financial Reality Behind the Movies.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
Also look into the aftermath of Forrest Gump, at the time one of the biggest grossing movies ever, but the auhtor of the book apparently never saw any residuals and that's why the sequel was never filmed. As I recall, mind you.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Carthag posted:Also look into the aftermath of Forrest Gump, at the time one of the biggest grossing movies ever, but the auhtor of the book apparently never saw any residuals and that's why the sequel was never filmed. I haven't read it but I think he wrote a sequel that was intentionally unfilmable. Read Better Times Than These instead as an alternate view into the way the Vietnam Police Action sucked rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
Carthag posted:Also look into the aftermath of Forrest Gump, at the time one of the biggest grossing movies ever, but the auhtor of the book apparently never saw any residuals and that's why the sequel was never filmed. Another good example is how Peter Jackson had to sue New Line to get his share of LotR money.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
I am pretty sure I read somewhere that they claimed that Harry Potter lost money. There is also shifting money, so Superman Returns looks like it lost money due to them placing all the failed attempts to restart Superman into the budget.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:I am pretty sure I read somewhere that they claimed that Harry Potter lost money. There is also shifting money, so Superman Returns looks like it lost money due to them placing all the failed attempts to restart Superman into the budget. Yep, that's where this famous image comes from: 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Why in Iron Man 3 why did Tony need to keep charging his armour? I thought the whole point of the second movie was him upgrading his mini arc reactor in his chest and that powered his armour. Yet later on we see him charging it with what looked like a car battery?
Robot Uprising fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Did one of the dolphins in Life Aquatic have a name? A friend swears there was a named dolphin in that movie but gently caress if I remember anything like that
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
Robot Uprising posted:Why in Iron Man 3 why did Tony need to keep charging his armour? I thought the whole point of the second movie was him upgrading his mini arc reactor in his chest and that powered his armour. Yet later on we see him charging it with what looked like a car battery? Every Iron Man movie has changed how the arc reactor/suit thing works... IN IM3 though I thought it was just his fancy new mk42 suit where all the individual pieces could fly around that needed constant charging. It makes sense that a suit where each piece can also fly autonomously would need A LOT more power...
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Thanks. Read any, ANY, book on accounting. It's the same thing. People make a big fuss because it's Hollywood, and movies, and whatever, but the practices are the same as ANY OTHER BUSINESS. It just doesn't grab as big headlines when it's "Welding Accounting"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
What was the first comic book Superhero movie?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Did one of the dolphins in Life Aquatic have a name? A friend swears there was a named dolphin in that movie but gently caress if I remember anything like that I don't think they're given names, and a quick scan of the script backs that up.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Did one of the dolphins in Life Aquatic have a name? A friend swears there was a named dolphin in that movie but gently caress if I remember anything like that There was the sub named
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
MisterGBH posted:What was the first comic book Superhero movie? Edit: Wait, no. Superman is an earlier comic book, but there was a Captain Marvel serial that came before the Superman serial, in 1941, and several other superhero serials were made by Republic in the '40s. I think Superman and the Mole Men is the first superhero feature film though. SubG fucked around with this message at 18:44 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
SubG posted:If serials count, it's probably the original Superman serial starring Kirk Alyn, which began in 1948. If serials don't count, then it's probably Superman and the Mole Men (1951), which was basically a theatrical pilot for the television series starring George Reeves. Nope it would be Captain Marvel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Captain_Marvel
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Nope it would be Captain Marvel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Captain_Marvel Edit: There's also Mysterious Doctor Satan (1940), a serial that was originally planned as a Superman serial but rewritten when DC changed their mind. Its hero is The Copperhead, a new masked hero that didn't actually appear in any comics. So I don't know if that counts. For whatever it's worth, it is the first appearance of the Republic Robot, a parody of which shows up in Star Trek: Voyager, although I Edit: Nope. The show calls it `Satan's Robot'. SubG fucked around with this message at 19:18 on May 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Is Powaqqatsi any good? I started watching Naqoyqatsi on Netflix and had to stop because it was so retarded. I really want Koyaanisqatsi but Criterion seems to only be offering it as a trilogy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Read any, ANY, book on accounting. It's the same thing. I wonder why it's always such a big deal that Hollywood companies are sleazebags compared to how recently that it's become A Mainstream Thing that like Wall Street companies are also fuckers cum laude. I mean I guess the recent depr-/recession had some play in it, but it's not like any of this is news in the mainstream narrative either. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say the narrative was planted by anti-unionists, since Hollywood is (to my knowledge) one of the bastions of unionism (the latter is a good thing aside from the union requirement for work; the benefits should follow the employers who made agreements with unions, and unions should refuse work with employers that don't: This way all workers get benefits, and the union still has the power to negotiate). Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 03:22 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Is Powaqqatsi any good? It's a bit unclear if you've seen Koyaanisqatsi, but it's definitely worth watching.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Yeah, I have it on VHS and got an itching to see it in HD after this was posted in GWS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9UWjr-rrc
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Yeah, I have it on VHS and got an itching to see it in HD after this was posted in GWS: That soundtrack is inspired. I cannot watch the full thing, but well done!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Read any, ANY, book on accounting. It's the same thing. part of it is different from accounting, like the term "gross" might mean "gross, after paying principles & shares to participants & the studio's %age"-- but that's all a contract thing, not really a reporting issue.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
EDIT: *sigh* sorry, I thought I clicked on General Chat. I've made that mistake several times in the past few days, but this was my first mistake post doing that. Cinnamon Bastard fucked around with this message at 05:11 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Is Powaqqatsi any good? Powaqqatsi is more closely related to Koyaanisqatsi and more comprehensible than Naqoyqatsi at least. I'm a fan of only the first film however. The second one was lesser in most respects (the score, themes etc.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Read any, ANY, book on accounting. It's the same thing. I don't agree with this. Film (and music and TV) have far more third-party participants than most other industries. A car company buys parts for a price, assembles them (incurring further costs) and then sells the product, hopefully for a profit. It pays for goods and services. Entertainment contracts have a much more frequent use of contingent compensation, which is where the jiggery-pokery comes in.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Also we are blitzed with advertising for these larger-than-life film offerings which continue to break box office records, but hear next that the film was a commercial "failure." I think it's known as Hollywood Accounting not just for what the poster above me added, but also that the movie industry/Hollywood has been so overtly prominent in the practice for a good while, in the public perception.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
FreshFeesh posted:Also we are blitzed with advertising for these larger-than-life film offerings which continue to break box office records, but hear next that the film was a commercial "failure." Video games are indulged in similar shady practices at the moment. Take the curious case of Square. Square Japan writes off the losses they've been making by predicting that 'Tomb Raider' and 'Hitman' will essentially be the best selling games of all time. This of course doesn't happen, so the failure of Square Japan (And Final Fantasy et al) is then shifted over to two over games that were actually very successful. They basically put out a release lamenting the 'disappointing' sales. For the record, in its first month TR sold over 3 million copies, but Square had forecast that it would sell close to 7. Historically the most Hitman has ever really sold is about 2.4 million copies, yet Square for some reason decided they'd be able to more than double that.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
What's a (the?) movie where the villan has some kind of purple virus spreading through his body and he needs to kill (or do something similarily villainous) to get the serum to cure/prevent the virus from spreading further? Sorry, I know that's a vague description but can someone help me out here?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Spydey posted:What's a (the?) movie where the villan has some kind of purple virus spreading through his body and he needs to kill (or do something similarily villainous) to get the serum to cure/prevent the virus from spreading further? Wrong thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2177344
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Wrong thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2177344 Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
I'll preface this by saying that I do not have a term paper coming up. This is just for my own curiosity. What's a good book, or books, about the history and background of film in the 1970s? I'm interested in learning about it due to a conversation I had in another forum.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Easy Riders, Raging Bulls is sort of sensationalistic (everyone went around doing drugs and sleeping with pre-teens, apparently) and it was written in the 90s so the author is really dismissive of a bunch of really good films but it's a pretty absorbing history of the New Hollywood era nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:I'll preface this by saying that I do not have a term paper coming up. This is just for my own curiosity. These are probably more entertaining than educational, but Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and The Kid Stays In The Picture are good reads.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Easy Riders, Raging Bulls is sort of sensationalistic (everyone went around doing drugs and sleeping with pre-teens, apparently) and it was written in the 90s so the author is really dismissive of a bunch of really good films but it's a pretty absorbing history of the New Hollywood era nonetheless. I remember loving the book at the time but yeah a whole lot of it needs taking with a pinch of salt. He insists that Spielberg got the Mothership idea for Close Encounters while being stoned and doing headstands on the hood of his car. Spielberg countered that anyone who knows him knows that he can't drink a glass of wine without getting drunk, so why would he try smoking weed? It's also incredibly dismissive of a lot of good work that people did. Yet despite all that it's still a fun read, you just need to try and parse all the bullshit. I've never read his one about the Miramax era but I'm assuming that's similarly sensationalistic. Also, while 'The Kid Stays in the Picture' is great. The audiobook, read by Evans, is loving astounding.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 21:26
|
|