|
weekly font posted:One of my favorite trivia questions to give was name the Best Picture winners with animals in the title. Man, I can't think of one. weekly font posted:I've been enjoying the lovely Shot of the Day but this is the first one I disagree with. That shot does make me feel uneasy and disoriented. So without any of the context, because I can't remember where that happens, the shot at least does SOMETHING which is a huge step up from everything else thus far. It's a fun game to play, I want one to be posted that I will defend.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Do Stan Lee's cameos in the Marvel movies make him (technically) the highest grossing actor in cinema history? No, because I'm fairly certain SLJ and Frank Welker top him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Man, I can't think of one. Spoiled for those trying to take a stab at it and apologies for derailing comics chat. Silence of the Lambs Deer Hunter Slumdog Millionaire Dances With Wolves One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest People will inevitably say "Dog Day Afternoon."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
The only I could come up with was Dog Day Afternoon, but really the problem is that I just can't recall Best Picture winners before Forrest Gump without looking them up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Spoiled for those trying to take a stab at it and apologies for derailing comics chat. I'm not sure I would count number 3
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:"When you take away the context of this shot that heavily relies on what context it's in, it looks weird and bad!" Out of context, Thor looks hella drunk. In context, Thor and the other characters are just being abnormally arrogant. They're not hallucinating. "Bad on purpose" is a tricky game to play. A mistake, repeated deliberately, becomes a technique and all that. But in this case, none of the other shots are bad in the same way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Agreed, definitely never saw a dutch angle shot of Thor before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
aBagorn posted:I'm not sure I would count number 3 Yeah, I would count the other four for full points. Three is bonus and if you argue Rain Man because Man is an animal I like you and you get a point. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Out of context, Thor looks hella drunk. See, I feel the opposite. The shot makes me feel like my world is going tospy-turvy while Thor is laughing about it. Like he just drugged my drink at a frat party. In context, that's still not great. weekly font fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I'm writing a pub film trivia quiz. If you've got a cinema question you'd like to see a drunk crowd tackle let me know and I'll put it in. I recently read that the real answer to that question was Samuel L Jackson and that Gary Oldman might have overtaken him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:"When you take away the context of this shot that heavily relies on what context it's in, it looks weird and bad!" The shot should provide the context. This is called cinematography. I assumed that shot was from an outtake where ThorMan fluffed his lines, or was impersonating the bruce campbell freakout scene in evil dead 2. Similarly, a lot of other Avengers shots look like car commercials with people in front of them. The shots are lovingly arranged but not of the people, like they didn't block them in advance. I made this exact mistake a whole bunch of times and the only film I ever directed was Shrek 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Agreed, definitely never saw a dutch angle shot of Thor before. The angle alone is not what's under contention. It's that the yellow wire is the most prominent part of the image. The composition would make a bit more sense if Thor were holding up some important object in front of the wire, or if the wire were a timebomb or other element of narrative tension to go with the visual tension. The composition, as it stands, strongly deemphasizes Thor's face, but doesn't emphasize anything else. weekly font posted:See, I feel the opposite. The shot makes me feel like my world is going tospy-turvy while Thor is laughing about it. Like he just drugged my drink at a frat party. You're right; that's more accurate. Since his expression is deemphasized, it's the cameraman who appears drunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The shot should provide the context. This is called cinematography. I know what cinematography is you condescending prick. And that shot does give context when it is in the film. It is one of many Dutch angle shots that shows, through this magical cinematography thing I somehow missed in film school, that the staff is manipulating our characters. It is, in fact, a less over the top version of that Evil Dead scene. Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:I know what cinematography is you condescending prick. And that shot does give context when it is in the film. It is one of many Dutch angle shots that shows, through this magical cinematography thing I somehow missed in film school, that the staff is manipulating our characters. Not being an rear end in a top hat, I'd actually like to hear an explanation. This whole cinematography chat actually helped me enjoy Guardians more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
You know I actually love Avengers. I rewatched it last night, and I think it's a great, fun movie with an excellent cast, a really smooth pace and a lot of very clever, snappy writing. But the cinematography really is very rotten for large parts of the movie. I think it's way worse in the first half - the entire opening scene where Loki steals the tesseract just looks atrocious. Here's a shot that really stood out to me: This is the second shot of Hawkeye in the film, and the first one where he actually does anything other than just sit still. Why does it look like this? Why is it framed this way? Why is it so weirdly lit? What does this tell us about anything in the movie? That Hawkeye likes high places and he's good at rappelling down from stuff? You can't see it in this picture, but the camera slowly rotates as he's going down, and it's just confusing and nonsensical to look at. The cinematography doesn't so much look like TV-direction to me, it looks more like bad action direction from the 90s. Like Batman & Robin only without any of the camp or flamboyancy. I wouldn't call it an ugly movie, but it's not very exciting or creative to look at, and it mostly coasts by on budget alone. Despite all these crappy shots, it still manages to not look cheap for the vast majority of the movie, and that's probably the best thing I can say about the cinematography. Hakkesshu fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Why is Thor only like the far right third of the shot? Why is that panel lit up more than anything else in there? Why does it look like the cameraman/viewer is on a gurney looking up at Thor like he's an EMT? TetsuoTW posted:Why is Thor only like the far right third of the shot? Why is that panel lit up more than anything else in there? Why does it look like the cameraman/viewer is on a gurney looking up at Thor like he's an EMT? TetsuoTW posted:Why is Thor only like the far right third of the shot? Why is that panel lit up more than anything else in there? Why does it look like the cameraman/viewer is on a gurney looking up at Thor like he's an EMT? I'm on my phone at work but if no one else answers these by the time I'm off I'll give my thoughts on all of them when I get to a real keyboard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Its because the director was like, this shot has to be weird, because something weird is happening, so lets move the camera to a weird place. thats it. the lighting is weird because it wasnt adjusted from the wide shot
scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Reading a review of the new Turtles movie. Not surprising it's a bad movie, but I'm always surprised by just how bad a movie can be. Sometimes I feel like Hollywood is just a place where people try to one-up each other with dumb ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Reading a review of the new Turtles movie. Not surprising it's a bad movie, but I'm always surprised by just how bad a movie can be. Sometimes I feel like Hollywood is just a place where people try to one-up each other with dumb ideas. so...... you didnt see it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Reading a review of the new Turtles movie. Not surprising it's a bad movie, but I'm always surprised by just how bad a movie can be. Sometimes I feel like Hollywood is just a place where people try to one-up each other with dumb ideas. My review for this review of a review: 0 stars
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Everyone knows reviews are the objective truth, duh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Reading a review of the new Turtles movie. Not surprising it's a bad movie, but I'm always surprised by just how bad a movie can be. Sometimes I feel like Hollywood is just a place where people try to one-up each other with dumb ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Why do people keep referring to TMNT as though Michael Bay directed it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
AnonSpore posted:Everyone knows reviews are the objective truth, duh. It's not about if the reviewer liked the movie or not, but what the reviewer shares regarding the content of the movie, and that is objective truth. Unless they're just making the stuff up, but unless there was a hoax and advance screenings were a joke movie, or all the journalists are lying about the turtles and Splinter being April's pets that were part of a experimented on by April's father and Shredder, then yeah this movie sounds kinda dumb to me. Colonel Whitey posted:Why do people keep referring to TMNT as though Michael Bay directed it? Because the studio did a hosed job at presenting this movie properly, so Michael Bay is the only one who gets any recognition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Unless they're just making the stuff up, but unless there was a hoax and advance screenings were a joke movie, or all the journalists are lying about the turtles and Splinter being April's pets that were part of a experimented on by April's father and Shredder, then yeah this movie sounds kinda dumb to me. Who could possibly care?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:It's not about if the reviewer liked the movie or not, but what the reviewer shares regarding the content of the movie, and that is objective truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Who could possibly care? You guys have been spending dozens of pages entertaining SMG's Avengers fetish. I think I'm allowed to call out a movie for some stupid storytelling and not have anyone point fingers about caring too much about things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:You guys have been spending dozens of pages entertaining SMG's Avengers fetish. I think I'm allowed to call out a movie for some stupid storytelling and not have anyone point fingers about caring too much about things. Oh no, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' incredibly important origin story has been ruined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure in the current comic the turtles and Splinter were subjects of experiments that April was helping to work on and were her de facto pets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Oh no, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' incredibly important origin story has been ruined. Yep they removed Matt Murdock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:
Holy poo poo, I didn't notice Hawkeye in the shot until you pointed it out! This is the focal character in the scene!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:You guys have been spending dozens of pages entertaining SMG's Avengers fetish. I think I'm allowed to call out a movie for some stupid storytelling and not have anyone point fingers about caring too much about things. Nobody gives a poo poo what you think about a movie you haven't even seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:You guys have been spending dozens of pages entertaining SMG's Avengers fetish. I think I'm allowed to call out a movie for some stupid storytelling and not have anyone point fingers about caring too much about things. Guys the new TMNT's origin story is ridiculously stupid. Instead of a trained ninja being turned into a rat and training his pet turtles as ninjas, he
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Donatello wears goggles like some kind of drat nerd. 0/10, childhood ruined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Also I believe in the comic they are reincarnated Japanese warriors. So stupidity is kind of the name of the game when it comes to TMNT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Oh no, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' incredibly important origin story has been ruined. It's not about MY PRECIOUS CHILDHOOD. It's about how dumb it is. April can run into and befriend the turtles, and the turtles can fight Shredder, without them all needing some mysterious past connecting them all through destiny or some poo poo. That's bad writing. That's all I'm talking about here. Posting in the comic book movie thread about a comic book movie, and how this sounds dumb because it is dumb. If you want, I could go all SMG and discuss the Oedipal Complex of the turtles wanting to gently caress their "mother" if that makes you feel better about me talking about this. Mechafunkzilla posted:Nobody gives a poo poo what you think about a movie you haven't even seen. I think I've seen you in YouTube comments before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:If you want, I could go all SMG and discuss the Oedipal Complex of the turtles wanting to gently caress their "mother" if that makes you feel better about me talking about this. Is this what SMG does?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Is this what SMG does? I tune in and out. I just remember something about Jurassic Park and Dr. Manhattan's penis or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Interesting, I hadn't realized that characters having a shared backstory was inherently bad writing. Guess you learn something every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Interesting, I hadn't realized that characters having a shared backstory was inherently bad writing. Guess you learn something every day. At least he agrees that the Avengers sucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Is this what SMG does? He is into psychoanalysis. Jamesman, perhaps you could post a link to the review you read, and then we could all decide for ourselves how dumb the movie sounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:03
|
|