|
I'M SORRY
echoplex fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 29, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
SO SORRY
echoplex fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
I just got done watching Mars Attacks! on TV a few minutes ago. I don't think I've seen it since it was in theaters as a kid. I still think it's a good movie, though clearly one of the lesser Tim Burton films. I guess my question is, did this movie go through some kind of development hell back in the day? It's really poorly edited and some of the dialogue outright makes no sense. Jack Nicholson strangely plays two roles, the POTUS and a scummy casino developer. Jim Brown is clearly killed by the martians when he attempts to box a whole crowd of them but then shows up at the very end like its nothing. Christina Applegate has a 2 second cameo as some lady getting banged in a trailer. Is there just whole chunks of this movie missing or what? Is there anywhere I can read more about this goofy rear end movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
echoplex posted:WELCOME TO PAGE 222 I have a strange fondness for that number. Unfortunately the only movie film titled 222 is not very engaging. Also it was a television series and could have been an apartment across from Sherlock Holme's home. And if you google said number you will find a bunch of wack rear end numerologists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
The Duke posted:I just got done watching Mars Attacks! on TV a few minutes ago. I don't think I've seen it since it was in theaters as a kid. I still think it's a good movie, though clearly one of the lesser Tim Burton films. I guess my question is, did this movie go through some kind of development hell back in the day? It's really poorly edited and some of the dialogue outright makes no sense. Jack Nicholson strangely plays two roles, the POTUS and a scummy casino developer. Jim Brown is clearly killed by the martians when he attempts to box a whole crowd of them but then shows up at the very end like its nothing. Christina Applegate has a 2 second cameo as some lady getting banged in a trailer. Is there just whole chunks of this movie missing or what? Is there anywhere I can read more about this goofy rear end movie? Isn't the movie intended to be a, purposefully awful, modern day sci-fi b-movie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I have a strange fondness for that number. WRONG THREAD, KILLING SELF IN SHAME
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
cloudchamber posted:Isn't the movie intended to be a, purposefully awful, modern day sci-fi b-movie? It's a parody of 50s sci-fi, yes. I don't know about being "purposefully awful".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
The Duke posted:It's a parody of 50s sci-fi, yes. I don't know about being "purposefully awful". I was tying to say that the film editing problems you highlighted were done in homage to said sci-f movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
The Duke posted:I just got done watching Mars Attacks! on TV a few minutes ago. I don't think I've seen it since it was in theaters as a kid. I still think it's a good movie, though clearly one of the lesser Tim Burton films. I guess my question is, did this movie go through some kind of development hell back in the day? It's really poorly edited and some of the dialogue outright makes no sense. Jack Nicholson strangely plays two roles, the POTUS and a scummy casino developer. Jim Brown is clearly killed by the martians when he attempts to box a whole crowd of them but then shows up at the very end like its nothing. Christina Applegate has a 2 second cameo as some lady getting banged in a trailer. Is there just whole chunks of this movie missing or what? Is there anywhere I can read more about this goofy rear end movie? I think the thing with Jim Brown is just supposed to be a melodramatic fake-out heroic ending, like in all those sci-fi movies where it looks like somebody dies and then they show up alive at the end. Burton just dials it up to 11.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
That said, Mars Attacks! started development as Dinosaurs Attack, also based on a Topps series- they changed it when Jurassic Park came out because they didn't want to be seen as ripping off Spielberg. So of course they went and made Mars Attacks! and the summer before it's released, Independence Day makes all the money in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
-edit oh wait, I missed something said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link to the Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode Film Review podcast? There's ten years worth of shows I want to get a chunk of! And are there any other good, amusing podcasts about films in general that I should look up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
I am looking for a thread about costumes in film and a post about the design development of the delorean in back to the future. I tried using the search function but I couldn't find it. Can any kind goons help?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
The DeLorean writeup was by Echoplex, in the science fiction cars thread. You'll need archives: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3486972
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Page 2. (thanks for remembering me brother)
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
The Duke posted:Jim Brown is clearly killed by the martians when he attempts to box a whole crowd of them but then shows up at the very end like its nothing. It's clearly lampshading this trope which happens all the time in these kinds of movies. For an example of the trope played straight, watch the Tom Cruise "War of the Worlds" and try to construct any scenario where the son could have actually survived. And yet he does!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:It's clearly lampshading this trope which happens all the time in these kinds of movies. For an example of the trope played straight, watch the Tom Cruise "War of the Worlds" and try to construct any scenario where the son could have actually survived. And yet he does! Ugh, I hate that ending. Having Cruise's son and entire familie not just survive, but even be magically together and just around the corner, just deflates the entire thing. I mean, one of the awesome things about that film was how Spielberg showed the utter chaos and disaster that follows the invasion, and Cruise not only learns to be less selfish, but also that sacrifices are sometimes inevitable. Selfishness is making that sacrifice yourself, but it cannot prevent that others are sometimes lost despite of this. Surviving this as a ethically good person is the real challenge, to continue even if you suffer loss. But luckily, the price Cruise paid is zero. Humanity is torn apart, but he is just dandy. He even has a house to live with his family! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Sobatchja Morda posted:But luckily, the price Cruise paid is zero. Humanity is torn apart, but he is just dandy. He even has a house to live with his family!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Has any Spielberg film ever ended where things aren't just peachy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Has any Spielberg film ever ended where things aren't just peachy? Munich comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Has any Spielberg film ever ended where things aren't just peachy? I was looking through his credits just to be contrary and I can assure you there is an episode of Tiny Tunes (he was an executive producer on that apparently) where Plucky, Buster and Hampton do some underage drinking, steal a cop car and drive it off a cliff to their untimely graves. Oh, and I guess Amistad, I don't remember that ending well. And A.I. admitted that in the end everyone dies even cute robot boys and their mommies. Actually there are probably a lot of real exceptions to that if you include the immense number of things he's credited on. He's producing for the Stephen King adaptation Under the Dome and I read a spoiler earlier that suggests it might not end very well at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Has any Spielberg film ever ended where things aren't just peachy? I'm pretty sure Schindler's List could have had a happier ending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Saving Private Ryan doesn't really have a happy ending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Has any Spielberg film ever ended where things aren't just peachy? I'm actually asking here. I actually think that it's wrong to read the ending of War of the Worlds (2005) as a happy ending; I think the fact that everything seems to work out for Ray is intentionally problematic. If he was a great guy and did nothing but noble deeds then everything working out for him would be a classic Hollywood happy ending. But he's a shitheel, and the film goes out of its way to call our attention to this. I don't love the film or anything, but I think that one of the things that's interesting about it is how much ambiguity it goes out of its way to embrace within the confines of a familiar genre that prefers to avoid it. Sorta like The Searchers (1956), which also has an ending that you could just write off as cheerful treacle at first glance, but gets more and more problematic the more you look at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
There's a decent chance that Minority Report isn't particularly peachy. It depends on the reading, though.Baron von Eevl posted:I'm pretty sure Schindler's List could have had a happier ending. Ahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
It really is important to note that Ray starts off as a poo poo and actually manages to get worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Has any Spielberg film ever ended where things aren't just peachy? Lincoln gets assassinated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
The opposite of Spielberg (in that hypothesis) is Terry Gilliam. All his movies I can think of have an unfulfilling anti-ending of some sort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:The opposite of Spielberg (in that hypothesis) is Terry Gilliam. All his movies I can think of have an unfulfilling anti-ending of some sort. I was thinking about Gilliam the other day when listening to the news. A reboot of Brazil would be so insanely relevant right now, people's heads would explode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
schwenz posted:I was thinking about Gilliam the other day when listening to the news. Most people didn't give it a look then and could hardly be bothered to now. It would be another superhero movie about Dream Man defeating the evil Samurai Stewie with whacky antics featuring Steve Carell rooting his iFridge and his mother Paula Deen who's been thinking about plastic surgery. I swear I can't get anyone over the age of ~30 to give a drat about Brazil. tl;dr I totally agree
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I swear I can't get anyone over the age of ~30 to give a drat about Brazil. Okay, try me. What's so good about brazil? I thought its bureaucratic dystopia thing was pretty tired.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Okay, try me. What's so good about brazil? I thought its bureaucratic dystopia thing was pretty tired. The faux terrorism. Getting a whole society up in arms about something that isn't worth a hill of beans. The fascist state that arises out of said "terrorism". The disconnect between actual human contact and yeah bureaucratic dystopia. The scene with the nuns looking at the impressive military hardware. I don't mean to sound like a libertarian nutter but we've veered pretty hard to the right in recent history but this is not the place for LF nonsense I guess. I like the parts with Michael Palin.  e: and the funny little three wheeled car. Oh Europe. e2: I realize the 'faux terrorism' make me sound like a truther but that's in the movie. syscall girl fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jul 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
To me Brazil's appeal is more personal than political. It's not about terrorism or fascism or socialism (it's theoretically a very centralized government), it's about how life drives you crazy and makes you cruel and callous and cynical and sometimes it seems like going insane is your only true escape. Which is not to say the politics aren't there, but it's unique among dystopias in that the specific policies of the rulers are not the point. The point is that the world as a whole is brutal and unkind, and it's reflected in everything from the politics to consumerism to a handicapped pregnant woman having to stand up on the subway because nobody will give up their seat (not even Sam.) It's a blazing catharsis of a movie. Gilliam is exorcizing a lot of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Has any Spielberg film ever ended where things aren't just peachy? Close Encounters of the Third Kind is at the very least ambiguous, since he abandons his family totally to go on the spaceship with the aliens/god).
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Okay, try me. What's so good about brazil? I thought its bureaucratic dystopia thing was pretty tired. The production design is pretty much the best and it's a really pretty movie in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
I went into my local video shop yesterday and there was a whole shelf dedicated to these Hamilton movies that I'd never heard of before. Is it a new big franchise in Europe?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
The point of the scene with the son in War of the Worlds is about Ray letting him go. It cements their relationship and also points out that his son has grown up and become a man far quicker than his father did. And as for the end, it's not happy. It's bittersweet. He gets them home, but that's it. He's not a part of the family. They thank him and they're grateful, but they leave him out on the street at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
That wasn't a Spielberg change though, the kid survives in the book too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:e2: I realize the 'faux terrorism' make me sound like a truther but that's in the movie. My favorite reading of the terrorism in Brazil is that the violence and sabotage are actually just duct-work going wrong because the infrastructure is falling apart but the brilliance of it is nobody realizes this, including the government. The system is literally unknowable to itself; there's no one around who can comprehend the state of things so the powers-that-be just figure it's Bad Guys trying to bring civilization down. It fits nicely with the general theme of bureaucracy devouring everything everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:That wasn't a Spielberg change though, the kid survives in the book too. The novel's narrator is cut off from his wife and reunited at the end. Don't recall any mention of son though. Fidelity to the text is an odd thing to argue anyway, in reference to an adaptation that's already relocated the story over 120 years and 6000 km
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 22:11
|
|
