|
Cowslips Warren posted:Nope, 2D only. If you need 3D to make the movie actually enjoyable, it's a pretty poo poo movie. e: I was going to edit this to be less acerbic but ravenkult beat me to the punch. This was meanly phrased and you did not deserve that. Splicer has a new favorite as of 02:21 on Jan 21, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Splicer posted:People keep telling me Pleasantville worked better with the colour turned on but eh, what do they know. They also keep going on about Jaws' "iconic soundtrack", but from the audioless subtitled version I saw it couldn't have been that good. That's a pretty lovely thing to say. It's perfectly valid to criticize a film if it only works in 3D. It's film making, not a loving Disney attraction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:That's a pretty lovely thing to say. It's perfectly valid to criticize a film if it only works in 3D. It's film making, not a loving Disney attraction.  I stand by my general point that a piece of entertainment that's designed to work with a specific media component doesn't have to be bad to be significantly reduced by its absence. Most films will work just as well in colour as in black and white, but Pleasantville makes heavy use of the byplay between the two throughout the film, and many key scenes would be significantly altered, with the film suffering significantly as a whole. Of course a film that uses 3D as an integral component is going to suffer if it's removed. That doesn't make it a bad film, it makes it a 3D film.
Splicer has a new favorite as of 02:10 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
hyperhazard posted:The idea is that film technology was new and exciting back then, similar to how people view 3D now. Which I find hilarious, given that 3D movies have been around for nearly a century, and the modern polarized glasses have been in use for decades. It only got popular recently because the studios started pushing it to get more money from the pricier tickets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Hugo sucked balls even in 3D, guess that makes me Movie Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
People were talking about leaving doors open before. It's extra annoying when the character is sneaking into an office or something and they leave the door wide open. So now it's obvious someone is in there, and anyone who happens to wander down the hall can see them going through the desks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Splicer posted:People keep telling me Pleasantville worked better with the colour turned on but eh, what do they know. They also keep going on about Jaws' "iconic soundtrack", but from the audioless subtitled version I saw it couldn't have been that good. Pleasantville's visual motif works on a regular TV. I don't need super awesome directional speakers to hear the Jaws soundtrack. Hugo's schtick doesn't work outside of 3d. Having a 2d theatre version and home versions means that you need to take that into consideration and make the narrative work without the 3d gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
I saw Hugo in 2D in the theater and liked it just fine. Then again, I have a degree in film and therefore can be accurately called a movie geek, for better or for worse. I'm the sort of lame-o that eats up movies about movies. I haven't read the book (it's at my local library in the kids section and is like the size of a phonebook) but the Melies stuff is all interesting in the story because it's all true. I've seen photos of the actual toy shop he ran at the train station. That said, if that kind of circle-jerk filmmaking isn't your cup of tea, I can easily see why you wouldn't like the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:I really don't get all the acclaim for Hugo. I really don't. I've tried to watch it a few times and it's just so loving dragging boring. I managed to last right up to him going to get the automaton for Georges before it just blew itself down. Oh, wow, I wonder whatever could happen now? I bet he gets caught, I bet he does! I bet he gets caught and almost goes to the orphanage but gets saved in time! Jesus Christ kid, you bring the loving old man and his family to the drat station and SHOW THEM your place, because I'm drat sure Georges would have been impressed with all the work Hugo did recreating the thing and the actual clock work too. I was more interested in the inspector actually talking to the flower lady, or the dog lady's suitor finally finding a way to speak to her, than I was about the stupid kid and the automaton. This is The Irrationally Irritating Movie Moments Thread, not PYF Edgy Movie Opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
The most irritating thing about Hugo is that it's Scorcese's love letter to film preservation and history, he literally beats you in the face with it at the end, but it's shot on loving ARRI digital in 3D. It's the most hypocritical thing you could possibly make, and I totally understand all the reasons for doing it, but it pisses me off fiercely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:The original Star Wars movies' magical force poo poo was lovely anyways. It's like a lazy freshman level creative writing plot device. Luke can do some bullshit because wizard powers. Cool. If that poo poo showed up in a modern movie that wasn't explicitly about wizards you'd laugh your goddamn way back to the box office to get your money back. But Star Wars is explicitly about wizards. That's the whole point. That's like complaining about the magic in Harry Potter. "I thought this was supposed to be a movie about an ordinary kid, but then this big guy shows up and suddenly magic is real? What a lovely movie!" Cowslips Warren posted:Wait. For Bond movies, are we supposed to think every Bond is the same guy? I always thought there were several men called 007 at once to keep the bad guys guessing. Only in Casino Royale. ravenkult posted:That's a pretty lovely thing to say. It's perfectly valid to criticize a film if it only works in 3D. It's film making, not a loving Disney attraction. The problem is not that a film was made specifically for 3D, it's that they released a 2D version. Razorwired posted:Pleasantville's visual motif works on a regular TV. When Jaws came out for home viewing in 1978, how good do you think it would have looked and sounded on the average person's TV?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Probably better than "the scenes don't elicit a response because you didn't buy a 3D TV."
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
hyperhazard posted:Did you get a chance to see it in 3D? It's the only movie I've seen that really loses something when it's watched normally (and I'm not a big 3D fan to begin with). Scorsese was able to draw some cool parallels between early movies and modern ones. You laugh at the audience who jumps when video of a train comes toward them, but then a few minutes later, the same thing happens to you. The video of Harold Lloyd dangling from a clock isn't scary, but when Hugo does it, you get vertigo. Without that 3D effect, it's pretty much pointless. The idea is that film technology was new and exciting back then, similar to how people view 3D now. I saw it in 3D and I didn't even realise that those scenes were meant to be parallels to the old movie scenes that were meant to elicit the same reactions in the audience as the old audiences until I came home and went to look at reviews to work out why everyone had been going on about what a classic masterpiece it was. I didn't have any sense of any of that when I was watching it, it was all just a movie to me and not a very good one at that. The fact that it has nice homages to old movies doesn't excuse the incredibly formulaic story and characterisation anyway. They could have made a movie about the history of film that was actually engaging on its own merits instead of just for people who are already film buffs. Also, was it just me or were we expected to spend most of the movie laughing at a disabled character for being disabled until we discovered how he was injured in a sympathetic way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Which leads me to anything irritating thing about skyfall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
jabby posted:In the books Bond was always a complete rear end in a top hat, just an rear end in a top hat that was very good at his job. For this reason, the FX series Archer is probably the best adaptation of the Ian Fleming books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
But archer is terrible at his job. Just terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:The most irritating thing about Hugo is that it's Scorcese's love letter to film preservation and history, he literally beats you in the face with it at the end, but it's shot on loving ARRI digital in 3D. It's the most hypocritical thing you could possibly make, and I totally understand all the reasons for doing it, but it pisses me off fiercely. How do you feel about The Artist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Which leads me to anything irritating thing about skyfall. He wins it off that guy playing poker in the hotel near the beginning of casino royale, then sleeps with his wife, she gets murdered and he goes off to do whatever. I guess he got the ejector seat etc. fitted later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Powerful Two-Hander posted:He wins it off that guy playing poker in the hotel near the beginning of casino royale, then sleeps with his wife, she gets murdered and he goes off to do whatever. Nah. Even M knows about the ejector seat. And where would he find someone to fit machine guns? It's essentially a completely impossible to explain thing put into the film to try and make fans happy. Really the best you can say about skyfall is that its extremely pretty and well-shot but makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
jabby posted:Nah. Even M knows about the ejector seat. And where would he find someone to fit machine guns? This is years after Casino Royale. He could have had MI6 put it in since he wants it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
I don't understand how this is a problem. The Daniel Craig is a James Bond whose chronology begins in Casino Royale. The other James Bonds may or may not have existed in this universe, but even if they didn't, M16 has existed continuously, and, in the '60s, used Aston Martins similar to those used by the Sean Connery Bond. They are still part of the institutional history of M16 in the Daniel Craig universe, even if Sean Connery Bond never existed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:This is years after Casino Royale. He could have had MI6 put it in since he wants it. I don't think MI6 works like Pimp My Ride.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I don't think MI6 works like Pimp My Ride. Spy cars are a mainstay of the Bond franchise, I don't think it's a stretch within that universe to have his own car was modified.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I don't think MI6 works like Pimp My Ride. They did modify his car in Casino. He is also rich and he is crazy enough to do that with his car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They did modify his car in Casino. He is also rich and he is crazy enough to do that with his car. I don't think James Bond is actually rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:I don't think James Bond is actually rich. Did you see his home he inherited?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
That's true. I'm kind of a Bond novice so I tend to believe what I hear about the character, but I heard on a podcast about the franchise that he isn't rich, just supplied with money/goods when he is on missions. Could be bs, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
I like the idea of Bond turning in his Aston Martin at the end of a mission and walks out to the parking lot and gets into a 2007 Nissan Altima. Also in the books its said that Bond only goes on like 2 missions a year and the vast majority of his time is spent studying politics and languages and reading in his office trying to learn as much information as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:I don't think James Bond is actually rich. Guy wears nothing but perfectly tailored suits and pretty nice shoes. The guy has to have some money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:That's true. I'm kind of a Bond novice so I tend to believe what I hear about the character, but I heard on a podcast about the franchise that he isn't rich, just supplied with money/goods when he is on missions. Could be bs, I dunno. In the books and movies he always has the best of the best. He comes from money and we have never been told that he was poor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
My bad then. That's what taking information from comedians gets you I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
So much in Skyfall makes no sense, and is what I call 'anti-engineering'. Anti-Engineering is when things in a movie seem to have been designed to fail in the most implausible ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:That's true. I'm kind of a Bond novice so I tend to believe what I hear about the character, but I heard on a podcast about the franchise that he isn't rich, just supplied with money/goods when he is on missions. Could be bs, I dunno. To be fair, MI-6 does supply him with that kind of stuff for his missions. But he's rich outside the company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Bond is also an inveterate gambler and he wins all the time (this is why he got the Le Chiffre job,) which probably also helps with his money issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Didn't Bond crash the Aston that he won trying to avoid running over a woman?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
My Bond theory is that it's one Bond over the many years, but the films aren't released in chronological order. So Casino Royale and Skyfall come either side of the Moore/Connery days, and ones with crazy tech like Moonraker or Goldeneye happen afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Didn't Bond crash the Aston that he won trying to avoid running over a woman? No that was the DB-9 that he crashed, not the DB-5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Elfface posted:My Bond theory is that it's one Bond over the many years, but the films aren't released in chronological order. So Casino Royale and Skyfall come either side of the Moore/Connery days, and ones with crazy tech like Moonraker or Goldeneye happen afterwards. Kindly explain how M can be the same person in both Skyfall and Goldeneye and a different person in between.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Didn't Bond crash the Aston that he won trying to avoid running over a woman? That's one of my irritating moments from Casino Royale. In the book, the bad guys drive around a corner and throw down a spike strip. In the movie, they... what, get out of the car, set her down on the road, and just kind of hope it causes a crash?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:Also in the books its said that Bond only goes on like 2 missions a year and the vast majority of his time is spent studying politics and languages and reading in his office trying to learn as much information as possible. Yup, definitely not wanking it to internet porn and posting on online message boards. Definitely not. All business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:37
|
|
