|
Pixeltendo posted:In the Gremlins Billy's father is an inventor who tries to make the next practical appliance. And now-a-days we happen to have remotes for ceiling fans to dim them at least. Gremlins remains one of my favorite movies, might have to watch it again and see if there was any other subtle bits beyond the time machine one (only one I could remember).
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Professor Shark posted:And when things do happen that are out of the ordinary and might happen in dreams (a train running down the middle of a busy street, children playing in bar) they try to distract Cillian Murphy's character so he doesn't see them, iirc. Thinking about it the movie seems like it implies that you just can't do shared dreams where things are too outlandish. The mind doesn't like the fact that there is somebody else in there and so if it realizes this it attacks the invader. Even in the consenual training dream this happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Thinking about it the movie seems like it implies that you just can't do shared dreams where things are too outlandish. The mind doesn't like the fact that there is somebody else in there and so if it realizes this it attacks the invader. Even in the consenual training dream this happens. Yeah, if I recall Ellen Pages' character took a bridge that Cobb knew and made it infinitely long, which Cobb and his subconscious immediately recognized as being "wrong", and just like white blood cells it attacked whatever didn't belong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
1stGear posted:I think the main thing that bothers me about Inception is the introduction of the Limbo concept. There's really no reason someone in the planning stage couldn't have said "Oh, but if we're going that deep we'll risk running into Limbo" and Cobb brushes it by saying there won't be any dream security so nobody will be at any risk of dying. Instead, we get a really awkward, flow-breaking exposition dump right as the heist starts and the Japanese guy getting shot has no impact till like 10 minutes later. If you take the Ellen Page character at face value -in that she's a new recruit in training, (and not a metaphor or something) then so much doesn't make sense. There are so many things explained to her once they get inside that seem like maybe she should have been told that stuff, oh, I don't know...in training? I get that part of it is the irresponsibility of DiCaprio's character, but it's also sloppy tell-and-not-show story telling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Bavius posted:Gremlins remains one of my favorite movies, might have to watch it again and see if there was any other subtle bits beyond the time machine one (only one I could remember). I really love Gremlins 2. Because they understood that to try and make a legit horror movie about 1 foot tall monsters again wouldn't work...it was the 90's now, people viewed that style of horror as campy, etc...so they took that ball and ran with it. Everything being over the top and goofy just worked, IMO. One of the best bits was maybe 1/2 to 2/3 into the movie, it looks like the film breaks. Then Gremlin silhouettes appear and make it look like they are in the projection booth and messing with the movie. For the VHS release, they actually changed it just slightly so instead of looking like a filmstrip breaking, it looked like a tape getting worn out and turning into to static. And then there's Phoebe Cates' character re-hashing the "Santa in the chimney" story from the first movie a couple of times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
PersonalGenius posted:tell-and-not-show story telling. So every Chris Nolan movie ever made, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
It's more like show and tell in those scenes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
A cool subtle thing in Watchmen was how the camera leered in slow motion at the rape and violence like a horny dork whose sense of reality is so filtered through garbage culture that the horror of mortality no longer registers in his mind except as a comfortingly familiar plot mover. That was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
One really good bit of dialogue in The Dark Knight happens at the party Bruce throws for Harvey, when Harvey and Alfred meet and start chatting about Rachel: Harvey: So, you've known her her whole life? Alfred: Oh, not yet, sir! I probably don't have to spoiler this, but considering how things go, this exchange is very  in retrospect.A neat bit of trivia from that same scene: from what I've heard, Michael Caine originally had lines to say when the Joker interrupts the party, but that was the first time he saw Heath Ledger in full costume and makeup, so he completely blanked and forget to say them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
I don't believe that for a moment- Michael Caine is all professional and wouldn't pull such an amateur move 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:I don't believe that for a moment- Michael Caine is all professional and wouldn't pull such an amateur move Here's an interview about it, I was a little mistaken; apparently he forgot to say his lines during rehearsal, not when they were actually filming: http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/31/caine-on-heath-joker-role-60320/ Maybe they thought the scene went better without the dialogue and ran with it 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Oh I wasn't being serious, sorry! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Oh I wasn't being serious, sorry! Haha, no worries- actually, it's starting to seem more and more like that might not be completely true; I was curious to see what lines had been left out, and there weren't any in the draft of the screenplay I found. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I really love Gremlins 2. Because they understood that to try and make a legit horror movie about 1 foot tall monsters again wouldn't work...it was the 90's now, people viewed that style of horror as campy, etc...so they took that ball and ran with it. Everything being over the top and goofy just worked, IMO. Someone did a fairly amusing little take on this scene; obviously not professional, but surprisingly well-done for amateur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REGCV6z3VkM
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Another neat bit of trivia from the dinner scene is that the guy who says (paraphrased): "The people of Gotham aren't going to get pushed around by thugs like you!" and then nearly gets a Glasgow Smile is Vermont senator Patrick Leahy. Leahy is a big Batman fan, and had some non-speaking cameos in a couple of the previous movies, too. Edit: V V V Yeah, that MPAA/RIAA/SOPA poo poo sucks. Like...I still like him and will vote for him when he runs, because he's pretty liberal about just about everything else, but I wish he didn't cater to them. I mean...they can't all be as awesome as Bernie Sanders, I guess:  Shine on, you crazy old coot.  Oh, and to bring this back around to movies, Bernie had a small cameo in a terrible, VT-made movie called The Wedding Band as a Rabbi. DrBouvenstein has a new favorite as of 01:34 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:Another neat bit of trivia from the dinner scene is that the guy who says (paraphrased): He is also one of people in Congress that is pretty tight with the MPAA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:A cool subtle thing in Watchmen was how the camera leered in slow motion at the rape and violence like a horny dork whose sense of reality is so filtered through garbage culture that the horror of mortality no longer registers in his mind except as a comfortingly familiar plot mover. That was awesome. I know this is sarcastic, but I actually liked this about the movie. The leering, nauseatingly graphic violence felt like it was channelling a comic dork's inner urges, and made the movie About Comics in a different way to how the graphic novel was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:So every Chris Nolan movie ever made, then. Haha, yeah. Basically. I still think he's great at plot outlines and (obviously) visual effects. But he needs a co-writer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:I know this is sarcastic, but I actually liked this about the movie. The leering, nauseatingly graphic violence felt like it was channelling a comic dork's inner urges, and made the movie About Comics in a different way to how the graphic novel was. If anything I feel like the violence should have been sped-up. Show us the bloody aftermath and the horrific carnage these guys do, but the focus shouldn't be on the act, because the characters don't focus on the act. Nite Owl doesn't need slow mo speed-ramping when he shatters a dude's ulna, because for him it's not a big deal. Edit: Actually, maybe for Nite Owl it is a big deal (  ) but not for anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I really love Gremlins 2. Because they understood that to try and make a legit horror movie about 1 foot tall monsters again wouldn't work...it was the 90's now, people viewed that style of horror as campy, etc...so they took that ball and ran with it. Everything being over the top and goofy just worked, IMO. The cinema version also had Hulk Hogan yelling at the gremlins to restart the film, the VHS version had a John Wayne impersonator. Some subtle moments, cribbed from imdb: quote:For the special effects, Joe Dante turned to Rick Baker when Chris Walas and Rob Bottin had to turn it down. quote:In the scene where Mohawk drinks a potion which enables him to change into a centauroid spider, the pulsating sound effect from Tarantula can be heard. The effect was originally recorded for the Martian war machines in The War of the Worlds. Warner Bros currently have a Gremlins reboot in production. Seth Grahame-Smith (of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Dark Shadows fame) is producing, and he's also working on a Beetlejuice sequel. Burton and Keaton say they'll come back for BJ2 if the script is good enough even though Keaton is now 62. I'm apprehensive about all of the above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:If anything I feel like the violence should have been sped-up. Show us the bloody aftermath and the horrific carnage these guys do, but the focus shouldn't be on the act, because the characters don't focus on the act. Nite Owl doesn't need slow mo speed-ramping when he shatters a dude's ulna, because for him it's not a big deal. ) for both of them. If I remember correctly that's another point the movie missed. There the brutal slo-mo violence is just brutal slo-mo violence without any impure thoughts, nicely separate, and there's plenty of that in the comic as well but if you make that into a movie Dan and Laurie are entirely the wrong characters to represent that if you have Rorschach and the Comedian running around.e: vvv yeah, there is that and other things - it's not so much that Dan never becomes violent, just that he usually doesn't, certainly not as readily as his friends. My Lovely Horse has a new favorite as of 07:55 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
On Nite-Owl II and violence, one of my favorite moments was him losing his poo poo in the bar and Rorschach, of all people, having to restrain him. Apparently it was a deleted scene in the original Two minutes into this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdJHIE8Na4s
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
Wow that is an amazingly terrible version of a really important scene. Kind of my point exactly, too. Comic Dan yells at the guy and grabs him but when it comes to physical revenge his thoughts are with the airship and its firepower rather than immediate physical violence against an innocent guy. Movie Dan is no different from Rorschach here. Loving closeups on broken teeth hmm yes the essence of Watchmen right there. Uploader's comment how the scene was badass and they should have cut the sex scene instead is pretty priceless too (they should have though).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
Your nuance is appreciated but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Even in the comic, Rorschach pulled him away with the same dynamic of "let's not murder anyone.. in public". The graphic violence may be enhanced here but the point is, Nite-Owl goes berserk and it's important to see that he still can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
I remember reading lots of press stuff around the time the movie was coming out and I'm sure Snyder said that that scene was literally the very final thing they cut and that it was a gut-wrenching decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
I don't remember how subtle it is since I haven't watched the movie in a long time, but I love the scene in Apollo 13 when they're told they might not be able to make it home, and they have a conversation where the implication is they could land on the moon anyway, despite it being a death sentence. Always thought it was one of the coolest parts of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
I watched Now you See Me last night and as you might imagine the film wasn't nearly as clever as it wants you to think it is. But I did appreciate one part where an agent dashes out of his command module and you can see him putting in the code to lock the door after him, and it's 1234. The area never gets broken into or otherwise compromised (as far as we see) but it emphasises nicely how even though the FBI know that they're up against a team that will take advantage of every opportunity and exploit every weakness - especially technologically - they still don't think to come up with secure codes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:And then there's Phoebe Cates' character re-hashing the "Santa in the chimney" story from the first movie a couple of times. Holy poo poo, I just got that! You're talking about her Abe Lincoln story, right? Where Billy is pretty much "honey, we don't have time for this".
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
I just re-watched Let the Right One In. Aside from being the most hosed up tween vampire movie ever, the movie communicates the connection between Oskar and Håkan in some pretty neat ways. Both are the victims of being bullied and receive facial disfigurements as a result. During the ice skating scene where Oskar smacks Conny with the pole used by Håkan to dump Jocke's body and makes his ear bleed, a girl finds the Jocke's body where Håkan had dumped it earlier. The scene connects them in that Eli goads both into acts of violence, as earlier she had chided Oskar for not standing up to himself. Interestingly, this one act of defiance against the bullies only makes Oskar depend on Eli in the last scene of the movie. I also re-watched The Pink Panther, which on second viewing I didn't find as funny. One thing that made me laugh though was thinking about how awkward and clumsy Clouseau is makes me sympathize with his wife never wanting to have sex with him during the movie and going so far as to sabotage him every time he's in the mood. Because how awful would that be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Mr. Kurtz posted:I just re-watched Let the Right One In. Aside from being the most hosed up tween vampire movie ever, the movie communicates the connection between Oskar and Håkan in some pretty neat ways. Both are the victims of being bullied and receive facial disfigurements as a result. During the ice skating scene where Oskar smacks Conny with the pole used by Håkan to dump Jocke's body and makes his ear bleed, a girl finds the Jocke's body where Håkan had dumped it earlier. The scene connects them in that Eli goads both into acts of violence, as earlier she had chided Oskar for not standing up to himself. Interestingly, this one act of defiance against the bullies only makes Oskar depend on Eli in the last scene of the movie. Well on your last point, the film gave me the feeling that Eli was just setting Oskar up to be the next Håkan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Well on your last point, the film gave me the feeling that Eli was just setting Oskar up to be the next Håkan. In Lindqvist's sequel story Let The Old Dreams Die, which is set 20 years later, it's revealed that Eli made Oskar a vampire so they could always be together. It's not really a vampire movie, you see, just a movie with vampires in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
I only noticed recently that in Little Shop of Horrors (the movie musical), the three chorus girls arrive on Earth exactly the same way as the plant does, right in front of your eyes, and yet I somehow missed it for twenty years. Was this obvious to everyone else? As soon as the plant's brought into the film, we get that cartoony flashback scene. Seymour peers up at the solar eclipse, and behind him a bolt of lightning hits the table outside Chang's flower shop. The eclipse ends, the scene lights up, and now the plant's sitting there on the table exactly where the lightning hit. That's not a subtle movie moment, they make a point of it, that's how the plant first appears. But it took me until the bluray came out last year (or whenever) to notice the same thing happens in the opening shot of the film. After the intro text, the camera pans up to show the window of the shop in the pouring rain, and the title comes up. The shop front is lit up by sporadic lightning flashes. Then the camera moves across to where we can see the narrow alley running behind the shop. Now, we're distracted at this point by the conspicuous storm that's going on, you can see the lightning and hear the thunder very clearly, and you're also distracted by the fact that an obvious Opening Number has started, very upbeat and obvious. We're expecting someone to pop out of somewhere and start singing any second. So, if you're as unobservant as me, you totally accept or don't even register the flash of lightning that comes next, and you don't really think about it when the three girls come out of the alley singing the song. But pay attention, and you'll notice that this time the lightning doesn't light up the shop front, or the street, or anything else at all, in fact the light comes entirely from the alley behind the shop. In the same instant you see the shadow of the three girls - well, it would be the same instant, since the shadows are cast by the lightning flash, but it's a great trick because it introduces them in the same moment, but in a not entirely corporeal way. Then they come sashaying out of the alley and get on with the song. I say we just saw them lightning-down to Earth right in front of us. Less subtle is the fact that they never quite exist in physical space after that. Right from the next shot onwards they're able to just appear somewhere in whatever shot we're looking at, regardless of where they were just a few frames ago.* That's a cool trick to use in a film with a narrator, but I think it's made more interesting in this film, especially when you compare it to how they were presented in the stage show that the film's based on. In the show, they spend a lot more time on-stage as the three street urchins you see them as briefly in the film, and that's more or less who they are, with a bit of sparkly-dress-narrator thrown in as well. Well, if you look at what was changed or removed from the stage show to make the film, a lot of it has to do with the three girls interacting with Seymour. Lots of fans of the show dislike Some Fun Now, because it's a drastically altered version of a song from the stage show. But, by changing it, plus other bits here and there, Frank Oz made a version of the story in which Seymour, as far as I can remember, never interacts with those three girls. Audrey does, and Mushnik does, but Seymour never does, even though they actually shared songs together in the stage version. In the show, the girls were local street urchins who served as the show's narrators. In the film, they come part and parcel with the plant, and by the time you get to Suppertime it starts to feel as if they're part of it, or at least eager to see it do its thing. The plant's manipulating Seymour (and others) all the time, and as the film goes on you get this sense that even the story is on its side, with the narrators apparently enjoying what Seymour's becoming, which creates this sense of hopelessness. But it's funny at the same time. It's a good film, that. * Their dance is also choreographed in time with the lightning, making them part of the storm in a filmey sort of way (like when they sing "in the air," and pose with their hands reaching up to the sky, and the lightning flashes in time), and it's a well-known bit of trivia that they never get wet during that storm scene even though everyone around them does. Personally I'm not sure what people are looking at for that one, it's a bit tricky to see what's getting wet and what isn't, but the story goes that great lengths were gone to to make sure they didn't get wet, so I'll believe it. Buml0r has a new favorite as of 00:38 on Aug 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
This one may be obvious, but I missed it the first time around. Later on there is a similar scene (or maybe it's the same one?) where George Michael is going to get some lunch, and there is only one can of ____ in the cupboard. I think with AD I focus so much on what the characters are saying that I don't see the visual jokes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:This one may be obvious, but I missed it the first time around. I don't even get how good that show is.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
There is a whole thread about subtle Arrested Development moments. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3301111
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
I was just watching Jaws and after the reward notice is posted the fishermen of Amity Island go shark crazy on the docks. The main focus is on the doofus amateurs overloading tiny fishing boats however there is a brief shot of a grey haired old lady shouldering her way past Brody whilst clutching a reed thin fishing rod. It's a funny little extra that adds to the general 'these people are money crazy' vibe. I like to think she went off and had some mad fuckin' adventure on her own that we'll never know about. Also, not really uber subtle, but when Cooper is getting into the shark cage he makes a comment about how he's got no spit. I really liked that as scuba divers use saliva in their masks to stop them fogging up so it's customary to unload a great big gobbet of spit into your mask before going under. Cooper is unable to dredge up enough for his own mask because he's got poo poo-scared-dry mouth going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
I noticed in The Prestige that the Great Danton takes off his wedding ring before he steps into Tesla's machine on stage. It could be because it's metal and he's about to step into a violent electrical field, but he doesn't remove his belt which would also presumably have metal. I interpreted it that the wedding ring was a sentimental connection he had to his dead wife, and he didn't want it duplicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:Your nuance is appreciated but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Even in the comic, Rorschach pulled him away with the same dynamic of "let's not murder anyone.. in public". The graphic violence may be enhanced here but the point is, Nite-Owl goes berserk and it's important to see that he still can. The distinction was undercut by the movie showing Dan and Laurie shattering ulnas in slow motion with their superhuman fighting powers. In the comic, Dan is a genuinely nice guy you just wouldn't want to pick a fight with. He's also the closest we have to a relatable character in Watchmen. So when Nite-Owl goes apeshit on some random schmo at a bar, it's a bit shocking, but we understand why he does it. So having Rorschach be the guy stopping the violence is fairly significant. Rorschach intervened to prevent Night Owl from going into his own 'two dogs with their heads split open' moment. thrakkorzog has a new favorite as of 12:02 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Jaws Hooper. Matt Hooper. He's got city hands. He's been countin' money all his life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 12:41
|
|
