|
CzarChasm posted:A specific movie question about BTTF 3 Doesn't one of the cars (the one that can fly) now run off of melted batteries or something, as seen in the end of BTTF?
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:The Hunt for Red October had a slightly different approach that I enjoyed -- the Russians initially spoke in Russian with subs then there was a zoom-in transition and they started speaking English with a Russian accent, with the understanding that they were in fact still speaking Russian. Was that approach original to that movie? And are there any other methods that have been tried to deal with the issue of foreign language in an English language movie? It's not a great example, but all I can think of is The Last Starfighter. And pookerbug, your avatar is going to give me nightmares.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:The Hunt for Red October had a slightly different approach that I enjoyed -- the Russians initially spoke in Russian with subs then there was a zoom-in transition and they started speaking English with a Russian accent, with the understanding that they were in fact still speaking Russian. Was that approach original to that movie? Valkyrie (the Tom Cruise Nazi flick) does this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Doesn't one of the cars (the one that can fly) now run off of melted batteries or something, as seen in the end of BTTF? At the end of the first one, when Doc comes back, he has a Mr. Fusion fitted onto the back of the car. It can run on trash, like banana peels and aluminum cans and whatever. However, the Mr. Fusion only ran the time circuits and the flux capacitor. They still needed gas to run the combustion engine of the DeLorean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:At the end of the first one, when Doc comes back, he has a Mr. Fusion fitted onto the back of the car. It can run on trash, like banana peels and aluminum cans and whatever. However, the Mr. Fusion only ran the time circuits and the flux capacitor. They still needed gas to run the combustion engine of the DeLorean. Yeah, the Mr. Fusion was the eco-friendly replacement for the raw plutonium he bought from those Libyans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Detective Thompson posted:At the end of the first one, when Doc comes back, he has a Mr. Fusion fitted onto the back of the car. It can run on trash, like banana peels and aluminum cans and whatever. However, the Mr. Fusion only ran the time circuits and the flux capacitor. They still needed gas to run the combustion engine of the DeLorean. Although you could question why they wouldn't just switch the car itself over to electric as well at that point, which seems like a smarter idea for a TIME MACHINE that might go to times where they don't have gasoline. Like what happens in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Although you could question why they wouldn't just switch the car itself over to electric as well at that point, which seems like a smarter idea for a TIME MACHINE that might go to times where they don't have gasoline. Like what happens in the movie. Considering that they had to waste the first act of BttF2 undoing all the poo poo they tacked onto the end of the original BttF as a joke before they could actually get started I am totally cool with them making whatever rationalizations they needed to get poo poo moving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:For English language movies that have foreign characters who are supposed to be speaking their own language, usually their dialogue is conveyed in subtitles (if it's not a Hollywood blockbuster movie and/or the amount of foreign language is minimal) or they just speak English but with an accent, and the audience understands that they are supposed to be speaking their native language. The Hunt for Red October had a slightly different approach that I enjoyed -- the Russians initially spoke in Russian with subs then there was a zoom-in transition and they started speaking English with a Russian accent, with the understanding that they were in fact still speaking Russian. Was that approach original to that movie? And are there any other methods that have been tried to deal with the issue of foreign language in an English language movie? I actually never get that impression, I always just see it as them speaking English.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
JebanyPedal posted:I actually never get that impression, I always just see it as them speaking English. Why would a bunch of Soviets in a Soviet sub with no one on the sub except other Soviets be speaking English?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Why would a bunch of Soviets in a Soviet sub with no one on the sub except other Soviets be speaking English? I believe there's also a scene where some Americans intercept their communications and they're clearly speaking Russian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:For English language movies that have foreign characters who are supposed to be speaking their own language, usually their dialogue is conveyed in subtitles (if it's not a Hollywood blockbuster movie and/or the amount of foreign language is minimal) or they just speak English but with an accent, and the audience understands that they are supposed to be speaking their native language. The Hunt for Red October had a slightly different approach that I enjoyed -- the Russians initially spoke in Russian with subs then there was a zoom-in transition and they started speaking English with a Russian accent, with the understanding that they were in fact still speaking Russian. Was that approach original to that movie? And are there any other methods that have been tried to deal with the issue of foreign language in an English language movie? Valkyrie does that, too. Farewell to Arms (1932) has shots of French language newspapers which dissolve into English versions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Why would a bunch of Soviets in a Soviet sub with no one on the sub except other Soviets be speaking English? Because it's a movie and I pretend the characters are operating by the rules of the film and not the rules of the real world, it essentially accomplishes the same thing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
JebanyPedal posted:Because it's a movie and I pretend the characters are operating by the rules of the film and not the rules of the real world, it essentially accomplishes the same thing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
That's exactly what it is, my brain doesn't think "Oh they're speaking a different language but it's translated into English," my brain says "They were speaking Russian, now they're speaking English." There doesn't need to be any sort of register in your brain that makes the separation, that's why the whole thing with Romans having British accents work, there's no need to make certain that the audience is aware that this is, in some sort of abstract way, something other than English, they just need to give it some foreign or alien air to know that it is different. That's why the Russian exists in the background, not to give the cue that that's what they're normally speaking, but to give the impression that this is a Russian sub, the rest is just gravy filling and the English is exactly that, English, not a contrivance. These things all work on a more basic level, you establish the alien, and then once that's established the audience can comfortably sit there and think "This is Russian." as an adjective. despite that absolutely not being the case. It's not a translation thing or a language thing, but an ambiance thing. Look at the interior of the ship, its construction, the lighting, the props, all work towards establishing the Soviet "feel." I think it's kind of going in the wrong direction to think that the language segues are a thing trying to address the people bothered by the idea of a film with foreigners speaking English, it's actually more to give the idea that these people are foreign in the first place. It's shallower than people are making it out to be, and that's why it works as well as it does. The rules of the film are, as most have been since the inception of the medium, that there is nearly always a universal language regardless of the nationality or ethnicity of its subjects, that's why films like Babel are so effective, because they eschew that general rule. Adjust the rule to fit the country of origin and there it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
Does anybody know the name of a film made in Europe where a woman's father rapes her boyfriend? I think it might have been a Serb film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Ebjan posted:Does anybody know the name of a film made in Europe where a woman's father rapes her boyfriend? I think it might have been a Serb film. You might be slightly misremembering details from A Serbian Film; I think that might the one single permutation of relationship rape that isn't featured in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
you are right and thank you!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Ebjan posted:Does anybody know the name of a film made in Europe where a woman's father rapes her boyfriend? I think it might have been a Serb film. I feel like we just dodged a really weird "Who's on first" variation here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Ok, obscure movie question time. Looking for the name of a movie... I saw it when I was about 6 or 7, so it must have been early eighties I think. It was a monster/horror movie and it scared me so much then that I just saw 5 minutes of it. In the start of the movie a couple of kids were playing on a beach (I think?). Throwing each other a ball, which flies off into the bushes. Right next to a .. hatching egg? Brooding lizard? Somewhere after this, the animal/monster/lizard/komodo gets bigger and starts killing people. Then somewhere later there is a big zoom in on the monster's eye, and that's where little me stopped watching.. Does anyone have a clue?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
I watched Dredd the other night and it was pretty impressive. I was unsure of one thing though: When Kay steals Anderson's gun why doesn't she know that it has a DNA scanner that will cause it to not work or malfunction? Why is being disarmed a failure if the gun cannot be used by anyone but a judge?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I watched Dredd the other night and it was pretty impressive. I was unsure of one thing though: When Kay steals Anderson's gun why doesn't she know that it has a DNA scanner that will cause it to not work or malfunction? Why is being disarmed a failure if the gun cannot be used by anyone but a judge?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I don't think there's a good answer to the first question, although when I brought it up in the Netflix thread people said Judges respond to so few incidents that knowledge of their weaponry is not widespread in the criminal underworld. That sounds silly to me because the first time someone steals a Judge gun and it blows the gently caress up, that story is going to be told forever. But whatever. As to the second question, I take it the idea is that if you lose your gun you're too lovely to be a Judge. The issue isn't that they're worried about criminals having one more gun, because who the gently caress cares. The issue is that you don't lose your gun. To address the first point It makes sense that 'that story would be told forever' but the question is by who? In the case that happens in the movie, there are no living witnesses. I don't think it's a stretch to say that while there could be a rumor about it, many criminals may think it's just superstition, making the judges out to be scarier than they are. Look at the myths about the US military (USMC specifically) that have cropped up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
I'm not really sure why this continues to be such a sticking point. Kay didn't know about the Judges' guns. Welp too bad for Kay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
I was wondering why Anderson didn't just get her weapon right back. Was it destroyed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
crimedog posted:I was wondering why Anderson didn't just get her weapon right back. Was it destroyed? It tends to be pretty difficult to get a gun back that just exploded with enough force to blow a man's arm off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Are japanese ghosts corporeal? I just watched Seance and it is very evident in that movie that the ghosts occupy physical space and can interact with it. Just curious as to whether that was unique to that movie or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
foodfight posted:Are japanese ghosts corporeal? I just watched Seance and it is very evident in that movie that the ghosts occupy physical space and can interact with it. Just curious as to whether that was unique to that movie or not. Are European ghosts not corporeal? http://bscw.uni-duesseldorf.de/pub/nj_bscw.cgi/d3498878/Simpson%20%22Repentant%20Soul%20or%20Walking%20Dead%3F%22.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
That paper is very good but seems to suggest that the Icelandic draugar are always walking corpses which isn't really the case. Most draugar aren't even corporeal and limited to driving people insane, appearing in peoples dreams or just making odd noises in the dark instead of beating them to death, dragging them into graves and possibly drinking their blood. Also wrestling them into submission then decapitating and burning them isn't always the correct solution. Sometimes you might have to carve a magical rune into some leather or wood, put blood on it and recite a spell while spitting all over the place. The usual and fool-proof way of dealing with draugar is however is to yell insults at them if they as much as look at you funny. It's almost as if folklore isn't very big on consistency sometimes. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I've read about movie names (or maybe it was book names?) that have to be changed because a prior work by that name already exists. But sometimes the movie goes forward with a name that's already been used -- there's a movie called Rush in theaters now but there was a 1991 movie of the same name. Do they have to get permission to use the name from the other studio, pay a licensing fee, or is it nbd?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:I'm pretty sure I've read about movie names (or maybe it was book names?) that have to be changed because a prior work by that name already exists. But sometimes the movie goes forward with a name that's already been used -- there's a movie called Rush in theaters now but there was a 1991 movie of the same name. I think in general it's fair game until someone pops up with a complaint. The whole "The Butler" thing was pretty much Warner Bros. trying to dick over Weinstein.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:I'm pretty sure I've read about movie names (or maybe it was book names?) that have to be changed because a prior work by that name already exists. But sometimes the movie goes forward with a name that's already been used -- there's a movie called Rush in theaters now but there was a 1991 movie of the same name. No. You cannot copyright a title. The only time the original user would be able to bring a claim is for passing-off; i.e., the second film was trying to pass itself off as the first film and take advantage of its name and good will. I worked for the producer who made Cronenberg's 1996 Crash; there was nothing we could do about the Haggis piece 'o crap Crash. If you're a member of the MPAA then they have a title protection scheme but I think it applies to members only. Not sure about specifics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
therattle posted:No. You cannot copyright a title. The only time the original user would be able to bring a claim is for passing-off; i.e., the second film was trying to pass itself off as the first film and take advantage of its name and good will. I worked for the producer who made Cronenberg's 1996 Crash; there was nothing we could do about the Haggis piece 'o crap Crash. If you're a member of the MPAA then they have a title protection scheme but I think it applies to members only. Not sure about specifics. Not to mention the existence of the film was probably fabricated. IMDB is the only place it's listed - it's not on SilentEra.com's comprehensive listing: http://silentera.com/PSFL/indexes/index.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
I love Italian movies that try to bait people by using the same name as some famous movie except with some number behind it to fool people into thinking it's a sequel. Like how Bruno Mattei's Aliens ripoff Shocking Dark (AKA Alienators AKA Contaminator) was called Terminator II in some countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
therattle posted:No. You cannot copyright a title. The only time the original user would be able to bring a claim is for passing-off; i.e., the second film was trying to pass itself off as the first film and take advantage of its name and good will. I worked for the producer who made Cronenberg's 1996 Crash; there was nothing we could do about the Haggis piece 'o crap Crash. If you're a member of the MPAA then they have a title protection scheme but I think it applies to members only. Not sure about specifics. Didn't a recent film have to change its' title because of a film from the silent era?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I love Italian movies that try to bait people by using the same name as some famous movie except with some number behind it to fool people into thinking it's a sequel. Like how Bruno Mattei's Aliens ripoff Shocking Dark (AKA Alienators AKA Contaminator) was called Terminator II in some countries. Is there something specific about Italian law that lets them do this, or is this just something that exploitation filmmakers in other countries never got in the habit of doing? What's weird is that they've done this to films that aren't Italian. I spent some time pointlessly browsing through video stores in Venice and Rome and Silent Running is titled "2002", while Martians Go Home is "Spaceballs 2".
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Didn't a recent film have to change its' title because of a film from the silent era? I heard "The Butler" went through something like this, but I don't know the details.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
DetoxP posted:I think in general it's fair game until someone pops up with a complaint. The whole "The Butler" thing was pretty much Warner Bros. trying to dick over Weinstein. Speaking of feel-good stories of human triumph turned into movies, didn't "Precious, based on the novel Push by Sapphire" have to take that title because an action movie about psychics had already called itself "Push"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Speaking of feel-good stories of human triumph turned into movies, didn't "Precious, based on the novel Push by Sapphire" have to take that title because an action movie about psychics had already called itself "Push"? I'm guessing they are both MPAA members, which is why they couldn't both use The Butler (or whatever). Here is a blog post about the law and titles. http://www.lawlawlandblog.com/2010/11/reuse_and_confuse_the_recyclin.html therattle fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Sep 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
therattle posted:I'm guessing they are both MPAA members, which is why they couldn't both use The Butler (or whatever). Here is a blog post about the law and titles. Thanks for the link, that was informative and legit interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
I usually don't mind titles being reused because I can't think of many that overlap in the same year. What I find humorous is the cable providers screwing up and putting the wrong info in the box. Hitchcock's Notorious on BET, Bing Crosby's Man on Fire, 1939 Jeepers Creepers on Syfy. It's clear they're using some kind of automation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 00:43
|
|