|
Trump posted:If the downmixing is done straight up, with no weird processing like virtual surround or presets like the "movie" or "music" option some TVs have, you won't be able to tell the difference. Downmixing doesn't remove channels, but simply throws the available sound out 2 speakers. The center channel will come out of both speakers. The downmixing that cable boxes, blu-ray players, and TVs do is almost always dreadful and absolutely buries the dialog, making it really hard for a lot of people to hear. You've never noticed this?
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
At the very beginning of Dallas Buyer's Club, what has McConaughey's character done to cause all the rodeo guys to chase after him violently?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:At the very beginning of Dallas Buyer's Club, what has McConaughey's character done to cause all the rodeo guys to chase after him violently? I haven't seen the movie yet, but based on the description of the movie and his character, maybe he slept with all their wives/girlfriends?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Does anyone know if we're getting a region-A blu-ray release of Bertolucci's The Conformist? Outside of paying $50-100 bucks for a used DVD copy, I'm sure I'm not alone in getting tired of waiting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:At the very beginning of Dallas Buyer's Club, what has McConaughey's character done to cause all the rodeo guys to chase after him violently? He's taking bets that the one guy will be able to stay on the bull past a certain time. When it doesn't work out, he runs with everyone's money, as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
friendo55 posted:Does anyone know if we're getting a region-A blu-ray release of Bertolucci's The Conformist? Outside of paying $50-100 bucks for a used DVD copy, I'm sure I'm not alone in getting tired of waiting. Raro Video is releasing it sometime this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Will Scanner every be on blu ray in the US for a decent price?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Will Scanner every be on blu ray in the US for a decent price? Criterion has the US rights and will be releasing it sometime this year along with The Brood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Has there ever been a B-Movie thread in CD? I love those schlocky movies and would love some discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Has there ever been a B-Movie thread in CD? I love those schlocky movies and would love some discussion. Sadly not. There should be though and I've thought about starting one myself. I used to frequent the one on the Chud boards and the only thing more amusing than the thread itself was other users getting angry that it was by far the most popular thread the site has ever had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
I am not sure where to ask this but do anyone her have recommendations for places to buy high-quality movie posters online? More specifically I'm looking for a poster for the 1959 version of 'On the beach' (this one) in large format (long side about 3 feet or so) and the two places I have ordered from so far have both sent me blown-up versions of a fairly low-res picture which looks like rear end. I'm not looking for a proper original or anything but I would like the smaller text on the image part of the poster to be fairly sharp at least. Naturally the poster places does not supply the highest quality pictures that they use to print from but maybe there is some place that specializes in posters for older movies or something that I haven't been able to Google my way to, or maybe someone has experience of a place that is good with answering questions about quality truthfully or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Qwentle posted:I am not sure where to ask this but do anyone her have recommendations for places to buy high-quality movie posters online? http://www.moviepostershop.com/on-the-beach-movie-poster-1959/IJ1226
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Thanks for the tip I'll check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
How do I get better at not being a complete idiot who either doesn't recognise obvious symbolism, or horribly over-analyses tiny pointless things that appear in every movie by accident?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:How do I get better at not being a complete idiot who either doesn't recognise obvious symbolism, or horribly over-analyses tiny pointless things that appear in every movie by accident? If you're looking for something like a concrete exercise, approach a film that you kinda like but which has some elements which puzzle you. Consider the things that you find puzzling. Instead of trying to either discount them as `errors' or whatever (on the one hand) or trying to shoehorn them into a sort of colour-by-numbers sophomore textbook essay on symbolism (on the other hand), just ask yourself what the hell it's doing in the film. Like imagine you're one of the filmmakers and imagine what you were thinking about when you put it in there. Maybe that's some big Grand Symbolic exercise. But maybe it's just the composition of the shot. Or pacing or something. Think about how it would change the text if you took it out. Would that make the viewer reinterpret something else, suggest something else, or even just shift the emphasis on a character or event or whatever? What would that mean? And so on. In most narratives, once you start tugging at the elements this way, all of the ways that they're connected to the other bits becomes more important. And that's really what all that `symbolism' poo poo is---the skeleton and tendons and poo poo that hold the narrative together, and that control how the fit together---the shape they make---and the way they move in concert with each other. That is, it's not some sort of abstract intellectual exercise (or at least one hopes it is not), but rather a sort of pedestrian, nuts-and-bolts matter of the mechanics of the narrative. And at this point you might, if you've been paying attention, start scratching your head and point out that I started out saying that analysis is something that you're projecting on the text and then I leapt immediately to comparing it to a skeleton that controls how the work moves, with no apparent segue. Because that is in fact what I just did. And if you sense some conflict between these apparently disparate characterisations of analysis: yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
SubG posted:-snip- I see what you're saying. That you very much for taking the time to post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Would it be valid advice to say "read more?" More poetry, more literature? Work the same sort of parts of your brain via different inputs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Would it be valid advice to say "read more?" More poetry, more literature? Work the same sort of parts of your brain via different inputs? Everyone should always read more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Would it be valid advice to say "read more?" More poetry, more literature? Work the same sort of parts of your brain via different inputs? Broaden your horizons, generally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
SubG posted:just ask yourself what the hell it's doing in the film. This pretty much sums up my answer to his question. Just ask "why did the filmmaker include this scene/shot/dialog?". In the vast majority of competently made films, the director/writer had a reason for including it. Sometimes it serves the plot, sometimes it serves the themes, and sometimes it's there to simply enhance the "voice" of the movie, but it's rarely an arbitrary decision. Understanding the language of film is all about understanding the whys. Also, listen to audio commentaries of movies you enjoy. Seriously, doing this has taught me so loving much about movies it's unbelievable. Director and film expert/historian commentaries are the best. They're great at shedding light on the "whys" you're looking for, and often let you in on stuff you hadn't even thought about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
caiman posted:Sometimes it serves the plot, sometimes it serves the themes, and sometimes it's there to simply enhance the "voice" of the movie, but it's rarely an arbitrary decision. Even if it was arbitrary, so to speak, that line of questioning will still lead you to examine what effect the scene has on the film. Like, maybe it's there for NO REASON but it's still there. You still watched it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
You can also just watch your favorite movies and, because you're already familiar with them, try to focus on why things happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Thanks for the nice responses folks. New question though: How do I now deal with the fact that giving a poo poo about reading movies is distancing me from the people I hang out with who still only think about them in sheer 'everything wrong with x in y minutes' tactical realistic terms? Because someone just told me that the first Harry Potter film is poorly-made because Ron doesn't just get off the horse before it gets destroyed (in his own heroic sacrifice) - "how unrealistic!" - and there is no response I can give that will not come off as completely offensive to his entire idea of what movies are and how they work. Film studies is part of my degree and I cannot find any people who actually give a poo poo about studying films. Is there a secret codeword-class for actual film studies that I missed or should I consign myself to being an internet weirdo? Edit: Also, how illegal is it to film a found-footage movie and hide the DV Tape in a public library? Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Thanks for the nice responses folks. If you really wanted to make the effort to get through to them, I'd try to explain that the two mediums are different and so what works in one won't work in another. If Rowling had wanted Harry Potter 1 to be a movie instead of a book, she would have written a screenplay instead of a manuscript. As the medium changes, so must the message; obviously, portraying characters thoughts is much much more difficult in a movie, but movies have their own strengths that books lack, and so just as there are changes when translating from one language to another (i.e., a literal word-for-word translation of "ma petite ami" from French to English will rather miss the meaning) so will there be changes when going from book to movie. This isn't a weakness, it's an inevitible part of the process and can add to the final product when done well. Alternatively, ask them if there is a music video they really like. Pick it apart as not being a literal interpretation of the song lyrics and then ask them how they can like the video when it's not a literal interpretation. For your edit, I don't think it would be illegal at all (unless it shows illegal activities, in which case maybe something like disturbing the peace could apply?). I wouldn't go with a dv tape though -- burn that poo poo to dvd, otherwise someone will just grab the tape and end up throwing it in the junk drawer. e: maybe I misunderstood what you said about your friend(s). If their issue isn't the changes from book -> movie but that there are things that couldn't happen that way IRL ... well, what are they watching a movie about kid wizards for? My response would be to one up them and take a massive poo poo on any movie they watch or like. "Uh, Hobbits don't even exist in real life, who are they trying to fool?" "Heh, 'the force', nice try Lucas." regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Thanks for the nice responses folks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:e: maybe I misunderstood what you said about your friend(s). If their issue isn't the changes from book -> movie but that there are things that couldn't happen that way IRL ... well, what are they watching a movie about kid wizards for? My response would be to one up them and take a massive poo poo on any movie they watch or like. "Uh, Hobbits don't even exist in real life, who are they trying to fool?" "Heh, 'the force', nice try Lucas." I have a sister who has a really hard time getting into fantasy and scifi. So we simply don't usually watch those kinds of movies together. But I think the guy's problem is that Ron stays on the chess piece even as it's being taken out instead of getting away. If it isn't that then I don't get what the issue is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:e: maybe I misunderstood what you said about your friend(s). If their issue isn't the changes from book -> movie but that there are things that couldn't happen that way IRL ... well, what are they watching a movie about kid wizards for? My response would be to one up them and take a massive poo poo on any movie they watch or like. "Uh, Hobbits don't even exist in real life, who are they trying to fool?" "Heh, 'the force', nice try Lucas." The person in question honestly thinks this video is great for holding the movie up to a 'higher standard' than normal. The video doesn't simply get the film wrong and films wrong as a concept, it also misses the basic premise of sausages. This friend simultaneously 'doesn't care about the book, the film stands alone' and wants copious amounts of exposition to explain why Ron didn't/couldn't get off the horse instead of asking why for himself. TychoCelchuuu posted:If you're in college and you want to meet people in classes, take some literature classes. I study both English Lit and Film, so I kind of have it both ways. There are definitely a lot of smart people between the two courses, it's just weird being confronted with the ones who don't actually have any interest in learning about the medium beyond scriptwriting 101, is the action cool or whatever. Gotta Wear Shades posted:But I think the guy's problem is that Ron stays on the chess piece even as it's being taken out instead of getting away. If it isn't that then I don't get what the issue is. That's it, yeah. He simply assumes it is a plot hole - even though the entire purpose of the scene is to demonstrate Ron's willingness to sacrifice himself, it would be more tactically realistic if he got off the horse before sending it to its death. He also literally thinks Elrond should have just murdered his close friend the king of humanity just to destroy the one ring even though the war was already over. Plot, themes, characterisation - what are these things?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The person in question honestly thinks this video is great for holding the movie up to a 'higher standard' than normal. The video doesn't simply get the film wrong and films wrong as a concept, it also misses the basic premise of sausages. This friend simultaneously 'doesn't care about the book, the film stands alone' and wants copious amounts of exposition to explain why Ron didn't/couldn't get off the horse instead of asking why for himself. As an example, I like the movie Blade Runner (if not to the degree that many people here do), but I think the premise has an inherent flaw. The government is really worried about replicants passing as human. So why hasn't a law been passed dictating that they all have green skin, or an extra eye, or a big brand on their forehead that says REPLICANT. I mean sure, there'd be no movie then, but I think it requires such a suspension of disbelief that society has a huge problem and also doesn't make one simple and obvious change that would fix everything to be problematic. Perhaps the prime example is The Matrix, given that the machine's general plan violates the second law of thermodynamics. I've heard that in the original screenplay it's addressed much better (instead of using humans as "batteries", they use human minds as a kind of giant computer -- fixes all the problems but it made it "too confusing" or something). Don't get me wrong -- like I said I enjoy those movies still, but it's definitely a problem I have with them. Movies have to follow an internal logic or else it's just a collection of images, whatever the craft they're made with and arranged into.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:That's it, yeah. He simply assumes it is a plot hole - even though the entire purpose of the scene is to demonstrate Ron's willingness to sacrifice himself, it would be more tactically realistic if he got off the horse before sending it to its death. He also literally thinks Elrond should have just murdered his close friend the king of humanity just to destroy the one ring even though the war was already over. Plot, themes, characterisation - what are these things? I'd always thought (or just assumed) that Ron had to stay on the horse so the Magic Chess Game would play through to completion so Harry and Hermione could go on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:-snip- I do appreciate the idea you're getting across, but even 'internal logic' is something a good movie can violate for a reason, or to make a point. The movie never tells you how magical chess works when you're riding on one of the pieces, so surely it's best to assume that what happened is...what happens? I think Blade Runner is about symbolic differences. The whole point is that they are people, literally us, not even like us but humans too, to the point that it's still up in the air if the main character is one. The flawed definition of 'human' is what's creating the problem. You are sentient and have thoughts and feelings that are authentic to you, but if you answer this question and your eyes dilate wrong, I can kill you without conscience. It being super-obvious who the replicants are messes with Tyrell's goal, which was making accurate human replications. Also, there already is an obvious difference. They die in four years. This is not only a bad thing for these honorary humans but probably the underlying cause of all the strife the replicants bring about in the events of the film. Their only flaw is wanting to be more human. Gotta Wear Shades posted:I'd always thought (or just assumed) that Ron had to stay on the horse so the Magic Chess Game would play through to completion so Harry and Hermione could go on. Exactly, right? Like, it's a non-issue. It's the same school of cynicism behind "Everything wrong with," where there are simple solutions to problems because you took the film literally. If the harry potter films have problems worth talking about, Ron being on the horse is not one of them. I really liked that scene as a kid, not being able to enjoy it because of such a silly thing is really depressing to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I do appreciate the idea you're getting across, but even 'internal logic' is something a good movie can violate for a reason, or to make a point. The movie never tells you how magical chess works when you're riding on one of the pieces, so surely it's best to assume that what happened is...what happens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Exactly. Why aren't the replicants in Blade Runner bright green with "REPLICANT" written on their forehead? Because then there wouldn't be a movie. Anyone who gets bent out of shape because a movie violates its "internal logic" needs to ask themselves why they think airtight internal logic is important to a good film. I get that, I really do. That said, there must be some semblance of logic, at least for most movies. If you're watching Saving Private Ryan and all of a sudden a giant Optimus Prime appears and stomps Hitler to death, that would be rather disconcerting and ruin the show. (cue the "Id watch that it sounds awsum" crew. It'd be cute once, and only *because* most movies follow their rules for their internal universe and so a movie can come along that subverts it. If no movies had internal consistency, it would quickly lose its appeal. Or, for example, Tim and Eric only works *because* most shows have an internal logic and so a show that doesn't, has a novelty factor going. If every show and movie were like that ... well, movies would be a lot less popular than they are). Sure, you can point to exceptions like Un Chien Andalou as a purely surrealistic collection of images without internal logic or structure but it would get pretty tiresome if every movie said "logic doesn't matter, anything can happen, there are no rules in our universe". Or, just as bad, a movie that has rules that differ from ours but does not explore what that means. If the second law of thermodynamics really doesn't exist in The Matrix, that's a loving HUGE change. Like literally the world would be completely different. But oddly, it appears exactly like our world. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. "More human than human" is our motto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
echoplex posted:Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. "More human than human" is our motto. Commerce is the goal of any business. That hasn't stopped laws being passed to eliminate child labor, institute a minimum wage, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
and people break those laws all the time let's assume that the first thing the escaping replicants did was acquire realistic skin to replace their neon green. the tech clearly exists given the realistic animals, etc. so this added complication to the movie has added nothing in the end. may as well not bother.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Cerv posted:and people break those laws all the time e: Thinking about it, I suppose it could be handwaved away via "It's legal in other countries", just as Apple et. al can pay wages in China and Malaysia that would be criminal in the US but are a-ok overseas. quote:let's assume that the first thing the escaping replicants did was acquire realistic skin to replace their neon green. the tech clearly exists given the realistic animals, etc. On the contrary, I think that would add a lot. They want to pass for human, why? Do they desire to emulate humanity, or is it to pass unnoticed for nefarious purposes? If every replicant ever has been clearly marked as such and now there are some that aren't ... scary stuff imo. In any event, reasonable people will disagree. e2: vvv one of the major issues I see brought up occasionally that I *don't* have a problem with is if Deckard is a replicant, how come he's so weak? He gets his rear end beat by every replicant he goes up against. In the scene where he's shown the escaped replicants on a display, they list traits of each of them -- intelligence, strength, and maybe something else? I just figured that for some reason he was a model with low strength. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Blade Runner's a weird movie for me. There are a few things with Deckard that really bug me but I like the rest of it so much that I almost feel bad for what I disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Commerce is the goal of any business. That hasn't stopped laws being passed to eliminate child labor, institute a minimum wage, etc. If it bothers you that much, just assume that Tyrell used his money and influence to prevent any legislation from passing. Not only does it clear up the issue, it also fits with Cyberpunk's general theme of private corporations controlling society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:New question though: How do I now deal with the fact that giving a poo poo about reading movies is distancing me from the people I hang out with who still only think about them in sheer 'everything wrong with x in y minutes' tactical realistic terms? If you have a fundamentally different viewpoint from someone on film (or anything), you can just talk about other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Not openly and without repercusssions. I may be wrong, however; I'd be interested in reading a list of major corporations who openly use illegal child labor and don't pay minimum wage. http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2014/01/west_springfield_ihop_operator_fined_100.html quote:On the contrary, I think that would add a lot. They want to pass for human, why? Do they desire to emulate humanity, or is it to pass unnoticed for nefarious purposes? If every replicant ever has been clearly marked as such and now there are some that aren't ... scary stuff imo. but then you're back to it's a different movie now. maybe better, maybe worse but definitely not the movie that scott wanted to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:32
|
|