|
...of SCIENCE! posted:But Robocop 2014 is totally the former and not the latter? It's about as different a direction as you could go from the original while still being about a cop named Alex Murphy that gets turned into Robocop, yet it's completely faithful to the original by being a satire of the law enforcement and corporate culture of the time period the movie was made in. I finally watched Robert Cop 2014, and I didn't mind it. I stopped paying attention after like 40 minutes, but the beginning was good. I gotta stop listening to RLM so much.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Re robocop i thought id post as ive just finished seeing it like 5 mins ago. There were loads of callbacks, the 'duh da da da duhh da da da duhhhhh' music and 'dead or alive you are coming with me' etc. Cant really think of anything much more subtle in there. It was alright if you have a couple of hours to waste. The loads of ed-209's were quite cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
In Entrapment, when Katherine Zeta Jones puts in the code to steal the Rembrandt from the skyscraper in the opening scene it's 1007, which could stand for 'LOOT' in leetspeak. Or I could be reading too much into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
The '1007' might just be as simple as noticing the '007' part. Sean Connery. James Bond.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Linus Balto posted:The '1007' might just be as simple as noticing the '007' part. Sean Connery. James Bond. Wow. I feel more dumb than usual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:"uh, they won't be able to see that mouth thing your doing in the movie" I watch RLM more for entertainment than I do for their reviews, although their BotW impressions are pretty spot on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:But Robocop 2014 is totally the former and not the latter? It's about as different a direction as you could go from the original while still being about a cop named Alex Murphy that gets turned into Robocop, yet it's completely faithful to the original by being a satire of the law enforcement and corporate culture of the time period the movie was made in. I think the best description of it is that the original is about a robot realising it's human, and the recent one is a human realising he's a robot. quote:One subtle thing I loved about Robocop 2014 was the way that they handled the Robocop suit. For filming they actually had the dude wear a suit so you get the benefit of both him and the people he's acting with having a physical prop to interact with, but they also used the suit for performance-capture and did a CGI composite so that his dimensions are subtly inhuman and too narrow to be a guy in a suit. It's a seamless effect that they pulled off really well. That's a really nice, subtle effect. I think Weller did the movements better though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
My favorite thing about the new movie was hearing Keaton bitch out the lead guy for whining about wearing a segmented rubber costume where he could at least turn his head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Q for people who like subtle stuff in movies: Django Unchained. From reading interviews and reviews, I understood that the thing with the Candyland plan was that they weren't planning to actually buy a fighter - they were going to make that suggestion, get a "freebie" in the person of Django's wife, then run away. Is that something that's actually explained in the movie, or just an implication someone read into it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
That was Dr. Schultz's scheme and he explicitly states it. He explains it with the metaphor about pretending to buy a farmer's farm when you only want the horse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
RJWaters2 posted:That was Dr. Schultz's scheme and he explicitly states it. He explains it with the metaphor about pretending to buy a farmer's farm when you only want the horse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I don't recall the "pretending" part. IIRC, the speech went "you offer to buy the cow and horse both" or whatever, without ever going into "once you have the horse, you ride it off into the sunset". Then rewatch it I guess? This is literally one of the major plot points. In some ways it could be seen as the main it of the movie and it is explicitly stated. It's the literal opposite of a subtle movie moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
If I remember the plan well enough, they were going to promise to buy the fighter for a ridiculous sum but the large amount of money would require several days' wait while Schultz's (probably nonexistent) lawyer worked out the details. In the meantime, they would pay the relatively small kicker for Broomhilda in cash and immediately abscond with her leaving Candy to realize he's never going to see a dime from them for his fighter. They knew Candy would never just sell Broomhilda for the amount of cash they were offering because such a small transaction wouldn't be worth his time*. By making him an offer he couldn't ignore they got their foot in the door. * That and he's a manipulative rear end in a top hat who needs to feel in control of everyone around him, much like Schultz's character in Inglourious Basterds. The irony is that really he's being controlled behind the scenes by Stephen and is generally too stupid to realize it. The scene where they chastise Schultz for speaking French around him because it would embarass the self-professed Francophile who doesn't even understand the language or know fact one about his favorite French author says it all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:Then rewatch it I guess? Yes but where is it explained that he was a slave is this mentioned in some subtle moment or is it just some crazy fan theory also why do people call him Django as if that was his name?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:Then rewatch it I guess? They don't believe Candace is going to sell them Brumhilda, so they're going to pretend to be interested in Mandingo fighting, offer to buy a fighter and get a "free" slave thrown in. This is not the part I didn't understand, just in case you're confused. I can't spot the part where they're not planning to actually pay for the fighter, and are planning to abscond with Django's wife instead, either in the script or the movie. In fact, doing so seems a bit counterproductive, as she would then be considered a runaway slave, rather than lawful property for them to set free at their leisure. Xander77 has a new favorite as of 17:46 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I have. Just now. (Wow, so much unwarranted smugness from everyone replying) No. They get the signature for her freedom. It happens right in the scene before everything goes to poo poo. Candy signs and has to goad Schultz again to prove he's better than him and forces him to shake his hand. They get her under the promise they'll come back and buy a prize fighter. Candy signs the document marking her as a free woman. Candy, Django and Broomhilda would've left and just never come back and there was nothing that Candy could do. Django and Broomhilda would both be considered free people. It's one of the darkest jokes in the movie for me that they're able to obtain her so easily. Candy literally couldn't give a poo poo about Broomhilda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:No. They get the signature for her freedom. It happens right in the scene before everything goes to poo poo. Candy signs and has to goad Schultz again to prove he's better than him and forces him to shake his hand. Just to be sure, is that something mentioned in the planning "buy a farm" stage, or just implied when they're about to leave with Broomhilda?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Its an issue I never thought about because once they have the paperwork for Broomhilda what reason would they have for coming back and giving Candie jack-poo poo? I just made the assumption that of course they were going to rip him off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Oh. I re-watched / read the wrong part then. I don't think Django or Schultz ever says it explicitly, but Stephen actually does when he tells Candie he's been duped. DrVenkman posted:No. They get the signature for her freedom. It happens right in the scene before everything goes to poo poo. Candy signs and has to goad Schultz again to prove he's better than him and forces him to shake his hand. Yeah, the original plan was to say "Okay, we'll be back in a few days with an official contract and $12000. Meanwhile here's some petty cash for this slave that reminds me of my home country." Stephen clues Candie in, and he then demands the $12000 right then and there for Broomhilda only. Schultz actually agrees to this and all the proper papers are signed. Then Candie continues to push him and it all goes bad. The papers exist and are signed by the proper parties though, so after the events of the movie she's still not a runaway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Yea they are pretty much about to walk out of there with Broomhilda but then Candie can't resist rubbing it in Schultz' face, and Schultz can't bring himself to just shake his hand and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
It was really the most suspenseful moment in movie history for me. : I found out your plan give me the money! : Ok.: Thank you.I was worried that the main characters who had wealth beyond measure wouldn't be able to afford such a price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea they are pretty much about to walk out of there with Broomhilda but then Candie can't resist rubbing it in Schultz' face, and Schultz can't bring himself to just shake his hand and leave it at that. What's great is that earlier in the film Schultz had hammered home to Django that they needed to fully occupy their parts to get what they wanted, and Django took that to heart while Schultz repeatedly fucks up and breaks character - the flogging scene in particular. If he'd swallowed his pride and let Candie one-up him then they could have left peacefully with Broomhilda and it wouldn't have taken them long at all to build up their money again given the excellent working relationship he and Django had as bounty hunters. But no, he just couldn't bring himself to do it, while the guy who had the legitimate grievance - Django - is able to maintain his composure and was more than willing to play along with Candie in order to get his wife back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:...If he'd swallowed his pride and let Candie one-up him ... I'm not convinced it was a pride issue- I always got the sense that Schultz had simply reached his limit on how much horror he could witness and that Candie's sadism made him a monster he had to kill. His discipline held out only until he had to treat Candie with respect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Django spent his life as a slave, of course he knows how to play along with poo poo and keep his head down. Schultz is a free white man and has never had to do that. No wonder Django comes out on top when it comes to dealing with a slave owner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
It's not exactly all that subtle, but in Gran Torino, Clint reads his horroscope out of the paper. "our birthday today, Daisy. This year you have to make a choice between two life paths. Second chances comes your way. Extraordinary events culminate in what might seem to be an anticlimax. Your lucky numbers are 84, 23, 11, 78, and 99. What a load of poo poo." Which of course is exactly how the movie turns out
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:What's great is that earlier in the film Schultz had hammered home to Django that they needed to fully occupy their parts to get what they wanted, and Django took that to heart while Schultz repeatedly fucks up and breaks character - the flogging scene in particular. If he'd swallowed his pride and let Candie one-up him then they could have left peacefully with Broomhilda and it wouldn't have taken them long at all to build up their money again given the excellent working relationship he and Django had as bounty hunters. But no, he just couldn't bring himself to do it, while the guy who had the legitimate grievance - Django - is able to maintain his composure and was more than willing to play along with Candie in order to get his wife back. I like the actual shooting bit for this exact reason. Django has been able to hold it together under incredible pressure, while Schultz just breaks because Candy is such a loving poo poo - and apologises for it, and dies for it. Schultz has a legitimate grievance, but it's not personal, it's ethical and moral. At that moment, he simply cannot let Candy live. Not because he doesn't want to get the better of him, but because Schultz finds Candy's existence a personal insult to his morality. Same with shooting the proto-klan. edit: burnsep posted:I'm not convinced it was a pride issue- I always got the sense that Schultz had simply reached his limit on how much horror he could witness and that Candie's sadism made him a monster he had to kill. His discipline held out only until he had to treat Candie with respect. Yes, this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
In regards to Django Unchianed, I wondered about the fact that there's an American who is a complete Francophile and a German pretending to be one and whether that was a commentary on the relations that those populations had, throughout the 20th (Germans) and 21st (Americans) centuries. Probably just me reading too much into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
It's because the director is so juvenile about his casting choices that he allows them to dictate major elements of his movies, mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
juche mane posted:It's because the director is so juvenile about his casting choices that he allows them to dictate major elements of his movies, mostly. Well, those same casting decisions have also resulted in two Academy awards, so it's hard to argue they don't get results. E: Also,  at the dude who made up a fake poop story to troll the medical advice thread calling someone else "juvenile" 
Nikaer Drekin has a new favorite as of 06:05 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Schultz's presence in the movie isn't too out of place. Around that time, central Texas had a large community of German immigrants, many of which were anti-slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
juche mane posted:It's because the director is so juvenile about his casting choices that he allows them to dictate major elements of his movies, mostly. What are you talking about? You can throw a lot of shut at Quentin Tarantino but his casting is always great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 11:23
|
|
Krypt-OOO-Nite!! posted:What are you talking about? I don't think he was making GBS threads on Tarantino's casting. I think he was saying that the movie and plot elements are built around the actors Tarantino has already decided to cast, rather than writing a movie then finding actors who fit the roles. I am not sure why this is supposed to be juvenile or bad in some way. If that's what Tarantino is doing, I wish more people would do it, because his movie's are generally awesome.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:07
|
|
|
Except Tarantino didn't write all those roles for certain actors. Django is actually kind of famous for its casting issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
I kinda put Tarantino and Seth MacFarlane in the same category of people that are personally twats, but professionally really incredible at what they do. The end of Something Somethign Dark Side where they poo poo on MacFarlane is so on the nose, he really is just a someplete whore with his intellectual property but god damnit he writes some funny TV and movies. Tarantino is just bug-gently caress crazy in person but makes some of the most iconic, gripping cinema. For content, I just watched the first Back to the Future last night, and there are so many little jokes in there. The Twin Pines Mall becoming Lone Pine Mall, is probably the most subtle because it's a two-part blink-and-you'll-miss-it on opposite ends of the movie. Also holy poo poo Lea Thompson is a stone cold fox.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Maybe I'm late to the party realizing this but in The Shawshank Redeption when Andy's cell gets tossed he's already started digging his way to freedom. The Warden mentions that he's happy to see a bible in Andy's cell and they chit chat about it. On their way out, the warden almost forgets to give Andy his bible back passing it through the bars saying "Salvation lies within"; which is where Andy keeps his digging tool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Except Tarantino didn't write all those roles for certain actors. Django is actually kind of famous for its casting issues. What? What's wrong with the casting? I've never heard a bad word about it. Do you mean how it was gonna be Will Smith, but he dropped out? Movies get recast all the time, bro.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Unmature posted:What? What's wrong with the casting? I've never heard a bad word about it. Recasting can pose its own set of problems, so you could call those problems 'casting issues'. I don't think muscles like this? implied it to reflect badly on Tarantino or the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Ruse posted:Maybe I'm late to the party realizing this but in The Shawshank Redeption when Andy's cell gets tossed he's already started digging his way to freedom. The Warden mentions that he's happy to see a bible in Andy's cell and they chit chat about it. On their way out, the warden almost forgets to give Andy his bible back passing it through the bars saying "Salvation lies within"; which is where Andy keeps his digging tool. This is so subtle that they included an entire scene where he opens the bible and there is a message written from Andy that says "You were right, Salvation did lie within" you obtuse gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Unmature posted:What? What's wrong with the casting? I've never heard a bad word about it. I mean stuff like how Kurt Russel, Kevin Costner, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Sacha Baron Cohen were all supposed to be in the movie, bro. Or how Jonah Hill was in the movie, quit and then came back. Or how Tarantino got so tired of people quitting the movie that he started cutting and combining characters instead of recasting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Unmature posted:What? What's wrong with the casting? I've never heard a bad word about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:41
|
|