|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Never going to hate Ben Stiller because of The Ben Stiller Show. Never going to hate Jack Black because of HBO's Tenacious D. This too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxfxfh9w44g
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Exactly. I kinda understand people who won't let go of Kevin Smith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Snak posted:The idea of the dino-stampede scene isn't bad, and if it was cut down it could work okay. It's just that they spend so long running among the legs of the dinosaurs that it ceases to be a "HOLY poo poo!" moment and is more like "wow this is still going on". A stampede is not a scary thing if all you have to do to not get hurt is be a main character and keep jogging. If it was like "Oh gently caress stampede! oh poo poo guy got stepped on! Oh holy christ raptors! whew the main characters made it!" in quick succession I think it would work a lot better. Instead it's like Adrien Brody immediately adapts to running through the stampede and then is able to fight the raptors without distraction. Jackson does the same thing in the Hobbit movies. See; barrel chase. There's a lot of 'woo what a close call' moments that work less and less the more they get shown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Peter Jackson is a man who has never been introduced to the concept of diminishing returns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Peter Jackson is a man who has never been introduced to the concept of diminishing returns. His pre Lord of the Rings stuff has a pretty good economy to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
it bugs me that in Peter Jackson movies, the characters appear in danger when i know they arent, unlike other movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
this roller coasters twists turns and loops are too close together imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:His pre Lord of the Rings stuff has a pretty good economy to it. But is it possible that is due to budgetary constraints? Paul W.S. Anderson's pre-Resident Evil franchise films are much better because he had to work with more limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Snak posted:But is it possible that is due to budgetary constraints? Naaaaaaahhhhh. Something like Dead Alive certainly wasn't made on LOTR money, but for a zombie splatter movie it was very high budget, and Jackson certainly didn't seem to allow lack of funds to hold back his imagination at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't really think "economy" when I think of Dead Alive. Stuff like the visit to the park is so goofy and digressive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Yeah, I don't really think "economy" when I think of Dead Alive. Stuff like the visit to the park is so goofy and digressive. As are large parts of Heavenly Creatures, which is still his best movie. I think the thing is that anything looks economical next to the Lord of the Rings movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Naaaaaaahhhhh. Something like Dead Alive certainly wasn't made on LOTR money, but for a zombie splatter movie it was very high budget, and Jackson certainly didn't seem to allow lack of funds to hold back his imagination at all. Viggo Mortensen has been throwing shade on Jackson recently, and basically said that he's just discovered computers and allowed it to rule over his imagination. The Lord of the Rings movies, particularly the first one, are drat near economical and tight compared to something like The Hobbit. He's done the Lucas thing and said that after LotR he wanted to go back and do a smaller movie, then came King Kong. Then he decided the 'smaller' movie was going to be The Lovely Bones which ended up as bloated as King Kong did in its own way. You give him a small budget I'm not sure Jackson would know what to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Guys this is going to be a really weird and general question, so tell me if it belongs in another thread: I was watching The Lego Movie the other day on a flight to Amsterdam, and really enjoyed it. As it was to Holland, there were Dutch subtitles. Now, there was a joke in the movie, possibly the name of something (not one of the artifacts, I don't think) based on a pun (there were probably a few), but what made me laugh was that the Dutch subtitles had a completely different pun that worked very well in that language - I don't speak Dutch, but could recognize the words. I don't think I'm going to get a chance to watch the movie with subtitles any time soon, and I know this is a loooong stretch, but does anyone have any idea what I may be talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Are you looking for that specific pun? Or just general discussion on the translation of puns in subtitles/dubs? I believe the latter was discussed earlier in this very thread. E: Re-reading, I guess you want the former. If you were to get your hands on the retail subtitles of the movie, you could probably find out that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:E: Re-reading, I guess you want the former. If you were to get your hands on the retail subtitles of the movie, you could probably find out that way. Yeah - I guess I may just watch the movie again, maybe with friends, wait for the pun, and see if I can find that section in some Dutch subtitles or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
What makes a movie a movie instead of say, multiple movies, a mini-series or a TV show? I was listening to Filmspotting and the host talks about some Polish "movie" set in an apartment building that is in 10 parts, each about a different Commandment. How is this classed as a movie? There are similar things in these threads all the time. People always say "x foreign movie from the 60's is an all time classic. It might be 12 hours long but I was riveted" To me, that's not a movie. That's 4 movies with the same characters watched back to back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Dekalog is a movie. What makes a TV show a TV show? COPS is a movie but so is The Price is Right. About the only thing they have in common is that they're broken up by commercials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Dekalog is a movie. But it's 10 movies yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
My point is that it's a movie because Kieslowski says it is, even controlling for the fact that it was shot on film (plenty of exceptions), released in theatres (same here), etc. To a certain extent, I agree, you are playing along with the assertion, because you could reject it and say "well, no, it's ten movies". IIRC Matthew Barney does not consider Cremaster Cycle films because he wants to keep it exclusively in the sphere of "art exhibition". I could be misinterpreting but that's always been my understanding.
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
xcore posted:What makes a movie a movie instead of say, multiple movies, a mini-series or a TV show? So, the reason Dekalog is a movie is because everyone calls it a movie. Your reason for disagreement is that you think movies can't be more than X hours long, where X is something like 3 (although I suspect we could get you to budge from 3 if we pointed out, say, Schindler's List and asked you if it's a movie or a movie plus a short film). This is a requirement for movies that you've pulled straight out of your rear end, though, hoping to find confirmation from us that it or something like it is written in the magical movie sky book. But because there's no magical movie sky book, the only evidence anyone can ever give for the fact that something is or isn't a movie is that everyone calls it a movie (except I guess you). Thus you can either shape up and call movies movies like the rest of us, or keep making up your own special rules about what gets to be a "movie" and thus keep using the English word "movie" incorrectly whenever an actual movie doesn't match up with your special rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Is it right to say a movie used to be considered something that premiered in a theatre? Even a TV movie is specifically called a TV movie to explain that it's not a theatrical release. Nowadays there's no distinction because of the Internet but the definition could have worked for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
No, because trailers premiere in theaters too (plus newsreels, back when those were a thing), and some movies never made it to theaters (like that Bill Murray one everyone is talking about lately). Like I said before, there's no magic bullet definition that lets you pick out all and only movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
What was Quentin Tarintino up too in between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:What was Quentin Tarintino up too in between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
I suspect he was doing some uncredited script work during that time too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
xcore posted:To me, that's not a movie. That's 4 movies with the same characters watched back to back. I've had the same thought but as has been said there's no real classification. Anything over 2.5 hours I usually don't watch in one sitting due to time constraints and because it feels like a gorge. So all those 3-4 hour films I usually break up over a couple of days and I call them "two sitting films." Those 5+ hour ones become a weeklong affair: Heimat Berlin Alexanderplatz Out 1, noli me tangere Shoah Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks Dekalog Sátántangó Hitler: A Film from Germany Vampires, Les War and Peace Fantomas
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:He actually spent a good deal of time working on Inglorious Basterds before moving onto Kill Bill. Yeah, for years the news on QT was that he was working on a script about Jews hunting Nazis in WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:So, the reason Dekalog is a movie is because everyone calls it a movie. Your reason for disagreement is that you think movies can't be more than X hours long, where X is something like 3 (although I suspect we could get you to budge from 3 if we pointed out, say, Schindler's List and asked you if it's a movie or a movie plus a short film). This is a requirement for movies that you've pulled straight out of your rear end, though, hoping to find confirmation from us that it or something like it is written in the magical movie sky book. But because there's no magical movie sky book, the only evidence anyone can ever give for the fact that something is or isn't a movie is that everyone calls it a movie (except I guess you). I pulled nothing out of my rear end and i wasn't disagreeing with anything. I was just asking for a definition of the term. I wouldn't have thought it was that much of a stretch to think there was some "magical movie sky book" because nearly everything in this world has a definition. I appreciate the clarification though. It's interesting that it seems to be all about what the author wants it defined as and not what we choose to define it as. I was of the thought it would be defined by some sort of international body like The Academy or Cannes or something. Does this mean that the LOTR trilogy would be classed as one movie if Peter Jackson deemed it to be? Ditto for Kill Bill etc? The whole reason I asked this, was that Dekalog made it on to Ebert's all time Sight and Sound list and I was curious as to how it qualified. Would he have been able to nominate Band of Brothers to that list too or was there is fact, some "rules"? I was especially confused today once someone clarified the title that it's called a movie "because everyone says it is" yet: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092337/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekalog
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
The thing that made me wonder about the definition of a "movie" recently was the most recent season of Louie with all those multi-part episodes that were essentially short films. Anyways I dunno like all genre classifications there is no hard line and there's sure to be points of disagreement, like the one you've come up with. So yeah, if you want to draw a hard line in the sand and say "by my standards that isn't a movie" then, y'know, nobody's gonna stop you.
Hat Thoughts fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:What was Quentin Tarintino up too in between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill? Also, you make it sound like 3 years is a long rear end time between productions, but it really isn't. Especially considering he did his segment in Four Rooms and wrote & starred in From Duck Till Dawn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Trump posted:Also, you make it sound like 3 years is a long rear end time between productions, but it really isn't. Especially considering he did his segment in Four Rooms and wrote & starred in From Duck Till Dawn. It was six years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:It was six years. I read it as between pulp fiction and jackie brown....
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
xcore posted:I pulled nothing out of my rear end and i wasn't disagreeing with anything. I was just asking for a definition of the term. I wouldn't have thought it was that much of a stretch to think there was some "magical movie sky book" because nearly everything in this world has a definition. LOTR wouldn't be one movie as they each had separate credits and were released at different times. I don't know if Dekalog does. Comparing BOB to LOTR picks up some relevant differences between film and TV: 1) Length, 2+ hours vs 50mins 2) Financing: Warner Bros (film studio) v HBO (TV channel) 3) Intended primary release: theatre vs TV. But apart from that, on most cases you just know if something is a theatrical feature film or TV. I think that 1 and 3 above are key determinants though. There isn't a set definition. therattle fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for the responses. I was just finding it hard to get my read around hearing someone say "This is my number one movie 1989" and following it up with "I have scene all 10 installments but I have only really analysed and dug deep on the first one" As someone that has never seen any of these classic epic sagas it's all new to me and I was just trying to clarify.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I suspect he was doing some uncredited script work during that time too. Wouldn't surprise me. He that early in his career, not sure if it still continues though. He most famously worked on Crimson Tide, but it's not known if he did much else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Trump posted:From Duck Till Dawn. Wanna see this movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
When did filmmakers first start making period-pastiche films? Like, we have movies nowadays that purposefully imitate, you know, film noir, or silent film, and that kind of thing. But who first went back and imitated a previous, out-dated film style?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:When did filmmakers first start making period-pastiche films? Like, we have movies nowadays that purposefully imitate, you know, film noir, or silent film, and that kind of thing. But who first went back and imitated a previous, out-dated film style? I know Mel Brooks did Silent Movie and there was Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid but I can't think of anything earlier than those. I'm sure someone will though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
So, I've recently been getting more into looking at film critically and am trying to write my first screenplay and I'm suddenly really regretting not talking a film history or appreciation class in college. I feel like I have some gaps in my knowledge. Does anyone know of a good book on film history that will give me a thorough background? Ideally something with a list of what films to watch for the purposes of illustrating whatever point (though that might be obvious).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Watch "The Story of Film" on netflix. There's a movie list to accompany it somewhere. You really can't do much better for a free 11-hour film overview course. We were talking about it in another thread and I'll repeat my thoughts: It does a really good job of demonstrating, rather than just talking about "this movie was revolutionary. It did stuff that hadn't been done before." You'll get to see side-by-side comparisons and juxtapositions of style and all sorts of cool stuff, especially in the early parts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 22:24
|
|
