|
It's not imposing an anachronistic genre to call Frankenstein science fiction. It's definitely science fiction, a hell of a lot of 19th century science fiction was written in the mold of Frankenstein. That being said, it doesn't mean there can't be fantasy elements, because that poo poo has always been in science fiction too. Also I, Frankenstein looks really lovely.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Trying to get into a fuss about "this is sci-fi but that is fantasy" is thin ice to begin with, since unless you're talking really hard science fiction it's basically fantasy in space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:It's not really an adaptation of Frankenstein is it? I thought it was just "this character in an action movie," like Van Helsing or something. Pretty much, Frankenstein is becoming a new movie favorite since its public domain so anybody can just chuck the name on there for recognition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Dr_Amazing posted:Best goosebumps one was in the book where the guy gets brain switched with a bee. The chapter ends with him getting bit in half by a bigger bug. then the next chapter starts with him admitting it didn't happen and he only imagined it. Start of next chapter, turns out the hero needs to wash his face and shave a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
I predict Frankenstein Romance will overtake Vampire Romance in popularity within two years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Amistad is not a movie about the British Navy. In fact, the scenes featuring Captain Fitzgerald could all very easily be cut from the film (aside from the fact that he's the one who happens to be on the stand during one of the movie's emotional climaxes). That said, as a gigantic naval nerd, it drives me insane every time that I watch the movie and see the ending scenes of the Captain destroying the Lomboko Slave Fortress. He's on this ridiculously tiny ship with a series of maybe 6-lb cannons mounted on the main deck and he walks along ordering each one to fire in turn. And, of course, his wee little pop guns cause this huge stone fortress to just explode in an orgy of Hollywood effects. Why couldn't they use just a few of those to give the poor guy a proper ship with a reasonable broadside? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Cn-btAkeI
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Death of the Author is one essay and my irrational irritation is that it gets thrown around every time you want to call an author on an opinion. I want to carry around a bunch of neatly typed little cards that read "Death of the Author is one of several approaches to literary criticism and not universally subscribed to", and just hand them out wordlessly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
The reason Death of the Author is so widespread is that most people haven't actually read the essay but understand it to mean 'what the author says about their work after I've read it is not necessarily correct'. And whilst its possible to argue the opinion of that, it appeals to a lot of people because so many authors are dicks or racists or homophobic and openly discuss those issues. If you like a book, only for the writer to release some horrible rant or a vicious interpretation, it's comforting to be able to say 'I disagree'. It also leads to another jump of dissociation whereby you can like an author's work without liking them, and in a world with popular writers like Orson Scott Card and Martin Amiss in it, that can only be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
How does death of the author work with satire? Doesnt that require you to know the author isn't being sincere, that Swift doesn't want to eat the Irish, that Dredd isn't endorsing facism, that (allegedly) Farcry 3 isn't dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
There are complications with sattire and parody anyway. For instance, can something be accidentally satirical? If you read a piece that perfectly encapsulates an extreme opinion or concept without knowing if it is genuine opinion or parody, can it be either? Do you have to be aware that a piece was written satirically for it to act as a sattire?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 11:31
|
|
|
Pneub posted:I predict Frankenstein Romance will overtake Vampire Romance in popularity within two years. No, the future is monster secret agents. The government decides to use the dead bodies of ex-secret agents to create a team of reanimated spies using bits and pieces of said dead agents: Frankenspies. Eventually, it's revealed that the Russians are working on a similar plan and have a team of "Vampspyres". Oh, the British? Spycanthropes. Finally, when we start running out of things, we'd have to start digging into more obscure monsters like Asian Spycubbus and Middle Easter Secret A-Djinns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Wait is that what Mission Impossible: ghost protocol was about? Now it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:No, the future is monster secret agents. Been done 33 years ago. About time for a remake  A werewolf, vampire, a gorgon and Frankenstein's monster (and occasionally a robot) team up to fight the nazis.  And it was awesome 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:No, the future is monster secret agents. This is what I'm hoping we get to see whenever the Discworld City Watch TV series actually ends up coming out. Hell if they want to include your requisite TV-Only-Way-Too-Attractive-Woman they could add an Igorina to the cast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
As a real life Frankenstein who's not really joking anymore about taking that term back, I find this whole business offensive.  (Also, I thought the Howling Commandos made a comeback already.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Captain_Indigo posted:The reason Death of the Author is so widespread is that most people haven't actually read the essay but understand it to mean 'what the author says about their work after I've read it is not necessarily correct'. And whilst its possible to argue the opinion of that, it appeals to a lot of people because so many authors are dicks or racists or homophobic and openly discuss those issues. If you like a book, only for the writer to release some horrible rant or a vicious interpretation, it's comforting to be able to say 'I disagree'. It also leads to another jump of dissociation whereby you can like an author's work without liking them, and in a world with popular writers like Orson Scott Card and Martin Amiss in it, that can only be a good thing. It's good when looking at works like Fahrenheit 451, which Ray Bradbury later insisted was not about censorship. Censorship may be the obvious interpretation of the novel's events, but it's a valid one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
I hate it when I load up a stand up comedy dvd and there's like 10 mins of random bullshit before the actual stand up comedy. Kevin Hart is the worst at this for the 45 mins before his routine actually starts. You are a funny man Kevin, but I don't give half a gently caress about your family or whatever else you have going on. I want to watch you be funny, not this behind the scenes bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:I hate it when I load up a stand up comedy dvd and there's like 10 mins of random bullshit before the actual stand up comedy. Kevin Hart is the worst at this for the 45 mins before his routine actually starts. You are a funny man Kevin, but I don't give half a gently caress about your family or whatever else you have going on. I want to watch you be funny, not this behind the scenes bullshit. Buy the DVD to support the artist then watch the actual show on YouTube, because it will be way less hassle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:I hate it when I load up a stand up comedy dvd and there's like 10 mins of random bullshit before the actual stand up comedy. Kevin Hart is the worst at this for the 45 mins before his routine actually starts. You are a funny man Kevin, but I don't give half a gently caress about your family or whatever else you have going on. I want to watch you be funny, not this behind the scenes bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:Death of the Author is one essay and my irrational irritation is that it gets thrown around every time you want to call an author on an opinion. If you're looking to analyse an author using their work that's a perfectly valid approach, but the reason it gets brought up so much around here is that reading of the works themselves are overwhelmed by poster's opinions of the author e.g. The Lord of the Rings shouldn't be considered racist because Tolkien wrote a letter to the Nazi party telling them he had no problem with Jews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I can deal with this if the scene skip button skips that scene and brings you straight to the actual comedy, but if the whole DVD is treated as one scene then that's just wrong. On a more general note, if I'm watching a TV show on DVD, the second chapter should begin immediately after the end of the intro/opening credits sequence so that I can scene-skip straight past it and not miss any content.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
I can't stand the fact that nobody (I've come across) has ever had the thought - 'huh, this tv show is long and complicated in plot, so if people haven't seen it for a while they might want a little reminder of what has happened in previous episodes...however, some people will be marathoning this on DVD and not only will they not need reminding of what happened - they might want to avoid the obvious spoilers that previously sections include*...if only there was a way that I could help them out by including an option to switch them on/off...oh well, what can I do, I just design the features for DVDs' *I hate this. 24 was the worst. "Previously on 24, stuff from last episode, also remember when that guy died twelve episodes ago and it's not been mentioned on any other previously sections since then...yep...just reminding you of him for no reason...he's definitely still dead, OR IS HE?!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Captain_Indigo posted:I can't stand the fact that nobody (I've come across) has ever had the thought - 'huh, this tv show is long and complicated in plot, so if people haven't seen it for a while they might want a little reminder of what has happened in previous episodes...however, some people will be marathoning this on DVD and not only will they not need reminding of what happened - they might want to avoid the obvious spoilers that previously sections include*...if only there was a way that I could help them out by including an option to switch them on/off...oh well, what can I do, I just design the features for DVDs' Netflix sort of does this. Unless there's an opening sting it'll skip the "previous on..." and opening credits and just start the show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Captain_Indigo posted:I can't stand the fact that nobody (I've come across) has ever had the thought - 'huh, this tv show is long and complicated in plot, so if people haven't seen it for a while they might want a little reminder of what has happened in previous episodes...however, some people will be marathoning this on DVD and not only will they not need reminding of what happened - they might want to avoid the obvious spoilers that previously sections include*...if only there was a way that I could help them out by including an option to switch them on/off...oh well, what can I do, I just design the features for DVDs' The Supernatural DVDs have the option to turn the "last time" bits off. After watching them over a couple months, going back to other series which don't do the same thing really displays how much it's a quality more shows should adopt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:Netflix sort of does this. Unless there's an opening sting it'll skip the "previous on..." and opening credits and just start the show. That depends on what platform you're using, unfortunately. My dad's smart tv netflix app won't skip, but my PS3 or PC will. I should see if they've added that feature to Battlestar Galactica, those previously on-s used to drive me insane when I was binging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Something that struck me is when a potentially major thing happens in a first/earlier film in a series, then never seems to be thought of or mentioned again or quickly written out to get us right back to the dynamic of the first film. I guess MIB2 is one example of this: The first film ends with K getting back with his old high school sweetheart and L comes to work for the MIB. The next film, she left him between films so we can get right back to pissed-off K again and L gets mindwiped and sent back to the morgue. Why?! It's not like you can't recast, or work that character development into a story or like you can't reassign them to support roles to keep J and K back as a team, again. It feels like one film builds to something, then another one throws it out instead of trying to just put it away nicely or build more from it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Something that struck me is when a potentially major thing happens in a first/earlier film in a series, then never seems to be thought of or mentioned again or quickly written out to get us right back to the dynamic of the first film. The worst part about MiB2 is that Will Smith dumps Patrick Warburton. gently caress you! Patrick Warburton is a national treasure and you should be honored to have him as a partner! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Ghostbusters II was loving terrible about that. At the end of the first movie, Peter and Dana are together, the Ghostbusters are heroes and everyone in the city was now aware that ghosts exist considering thousands were flying around Manhattan. Second movie begins with the Ghostbusters unemployed, broke and hated by everyone. Somehow the people of New York City no longer believe in ghosts despite a hundred-foot marshmallow man walking through Columbus Circle only five years ago. Oh, and not only are Peter and Dana estranged, but she had a kid with some other guy and none of it is ever really explained.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
In only partial defense of all that, they DID have their headquarters destroyed and with the Zuul/Gozer incident having been wrapped up, it's possible they saw a huge drop in business thanks to the PKE stuff falling back down to normal-sized Twinkee levels. I don't think the film even mentioned that as a notion, though. For the way they took Dana in the second film, too, as much as this is counter to my earlier post, just replace her with another character because in a lot of ways she sort of feels like she works better as a new character and just have 'Dana' not there. I could sort of accept Peter/Dana's relationship wasn't all that deep at the end of GB1 and just move on and accept she's gone from the franchise, but the K/Sweetheart one felt like they were ending that film with a more sincere, sweet "He's giving up everything for this, everything is going to be okay for these two"-vibe. Also, Both it and MIB also have the issue where between films they had pretty good animated series come out to expand the universe of stuff, both of which sort of ignored events from the movie for the sake of those series. (Don't even get me started on Beetlejuice...) Walking into GB2 after a few years of Real Ghostbusters always a bit weird because you're thinking, "They've been working, non-stop, all this time! What is going on!". (Even Knowing full well the 'film' versions of the GB is just a fictional account of the adventures of the Real Ghostbusters cartoon.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Pope Corky the IX posted:Ghostbusters II was loving terrible about that. At the end of the first movie, Peter and Dana are together, the Ghostbusters are heroes and everyone in the city was now aware that ghosts exist considering thousands were flying around Manhattan. I never understood why Dana's kid wasn't just Peter's kid too because her breaking up with him and then having a kid with another random guy is just weirdly complicated. Peter isn't exactly the kind of guy who likes responsibility so him being completely out of her life for a while because they had a kid isn't too farfetched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:In only partial defense of all that, they DID have their headquarters destroyed and with the Zuul/Gozer incident having been wrapped up, it's possible they saw a huge drop in business thanks to the PKE stuff falling back down to normal-sized Twinkee levels. I don't remember if it's explicitly mentioned but I definitely took it that way - they were so successful at fighting ghosts they put themselves out of business. It's also a commentary on how fickle society is, sure they saved the world but what have they done for us this week?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
My guess is that they didn't want Peter to look like a deadbeat dad that separated from Dana within a few years of her getting pregnant and a year or so of being born.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:I don't remember if it's explicitly mentioned but I definitely took it that way - they were so successful at fighting ghosts they put themselves out of business. It's also a commentary on how fickle society is, sure they saved the world but what have they done for us this week? I believe the explanation the movie takes is that everyone believes that the Ghostbusters faked everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
I always thought it was weird that Dana went from a proffessional musician to an art restoration expert in like 2 years
Your Gay Uncle has a new favorite as of 21:59 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
The Ghostbusters also get sued for all the destruction that takes place at the end of the first movie. It's mentioned after the kid's birthday party. They also have a restraining order or something placed on them from being paranormal investigators which the Judge recedes when the ghosts attack during the court case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Disney's latest animated film, Frozen, has that loving irritating snowman in it. The comic relief that is hideous and creepy as gently caress. But the movie also has a huge plot point about the idea of true love/meeting the prince for the first time, like Cinderella, Snow White, Ariel, etc and falling in instant true love. And Frozen turns that poo poo around because the handsome prince who totally is in love with one of the princesses, and wants to marry her, and somewhat does, attempts to loving murder her so he can become the king. Hell, the entire reason the movie gets started is because the older sister is aghast her little sister wants to marry someone she met literally an hour or so ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Slavik posted:The Ghostbusters also get sued for all the destruction that takes place at the end of the first movie. It's mentioned after the kid's birthday party. They also have a restraining order or something placed on them from being paranormal investigators which the Judge recedes when the ghosts attack during the court case. Yes. I'm not completely sold on how they could go from massive heroes to absolute losers so quickly, but the movie at least addresses it. I understand it as such: 1: Ghostbusters are busting ghosts and becoming legitimate celebrities 2: The EPA forces the GB crew to open their containment unit and unleashes hell on New York. Later, the story will be mainly portrayed in the news that the ghosts were not being kept in a safe fashion. The EPA's involvement will be downplayed in favor of sensationalism. 3: Gozer shows up, and people are happy that the GBs are there to fix the problem. 4: People see the Ghostbusters go into the tower but don't see Gozer. It's made aware (based on dialogue in the 2nd film) that people do know that Ray summons Stay-Puft somehow. 5: Ghostbusters "fix" the giant marshmallow problem by blowing it up and showering a city block in melted sugar. This would certainly cause a lot of damage and personal injury. 6: Briefly following the event, Ghostbusters ride a high wave of media coverage and endorsements. 7: Within a year, the rest of the country questions the validity of exactly what happened. Film footage is shaky and rare in this decade. New Yorkers know the truth but the remaining states are pessimistic. 8: Lawsuits arrive from damages to property and persons hurt during the ghost release and subsequent Gozer incident. People want to get paid! 9: The GB HQ is damaged beyond repair and no lender will provide money for repairs or insure them due to high risk nature of business. 10: Government demands complete openness about all GB equipment and property. It must be relinquished to be evaluated for safety and potential liability. 11: With no more ghosts to bust, the GB crew becomes apathetic about trying to comply with new environmental, ethical, philosophical, and legal concerns. They start to try parlaying their fame into other projects. 12: New projects hurt their credibility and start to make people forget the work that was done several years prior. Nationwide pessimism and disbelief makes its way into NYC's consciousness. People remember less about the "saving the day" business and more about the "Didn't they let all those ghosts out and then summon a marshmallow demon? I never did get reimbursed for my car's upholstery... Hey, screw those guys!" 13: People move on with their life. 14: Who ya gonna call? He-Man!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Pope Corky the IX posted:Ghostbusters II was loving terrible about that. At the end of the first movie, Peter and Dana are together, the Ghostbusters are heroes and everyone in the city was now aware that ghosts exist considering thousands were flying around Manhattan. One thing that struck me watching the first movie again is how much of a creep Peter comes across as. Dana barely knows him and agrees to a date after he bugs her for one repeatedly--they don't even have that date before she gets mind controlled for the rest of the movie. Once she's back in her right mind it would not surprise me at all if she decided he wasn't really someone she could stick with, even if he did save her life. I don't remember enough about how the second film starts, but really rewatching the first film made me completely understand why she wouldn't stick with him, even if they're still kind of friends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Lotish posted:One thing that struck me watching the first movie again is how much of a creep Peter comes across as. Dana barely knows him and agrees to a date after he bugs her for one repeatedly--they don't even have that date before she gets mind controlled for the rest of the movie. Once she's back in her right mind it would not surprise me at all if she decided he wasn't really someone she could stick with, even if he did save her life. It's hard to imagine now, especially depending on what generation you're from, but wooing using persistence was not abnormal or invasive and was even seen as romantic (and encouraged, often) until probably the mid-1980s. I can see how someone young would see it as creepy, but that's not how it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Slim Killington posted:It's hard to imagine now, especially depending on what generation you're from, but wooing using persistence was not abnormal or invasive and was even seen as romantic (and encouraged, often) until probably the mid-1980s. I can see how someone young would see it as creepy, but that's not how it was. This is the most depressing post I have read in a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2013 00:18
|
|
