|
Lobok posted:I don't know where it started but is it really a trope? A girl riding a horse is sexy because it looks like she's loving. See Jennifer Connelly in Career Opportunities for a blunt example. I just asked in the context of late 80s early 90s movies. What really set off my question was Gene Siskel mentioning that the lampooning of such a scene in Hotshots! "would put an end to more scenes like this". leaving me to believe it was a real popular thing.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Mescal posted:Watch out though equestrian babes be hosed up Somebody post rhudahorses.txt
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
I have a question. About the plot of Inception  These are spoilers if you haven't seen it, I guess.I've seen Inception like a half dozen times, most recently this weekend after my wife and I saw Interstellar. There's one thing that's always bothered me about the three stage dream that is set up, and I'm wondering if anyone else has the same thought. This was probably brought up in the Inception thread itself back when the movie came out, but that was years ago and I wasn't reading CD partially thoroughly back then. The question is in two parts: 1.) The original plan was for the Kicks to be perfectly synchronized. Eames blows up the fortress as Arthur takes out the floor of Room 528 as Yusuf drives the van off the bride. But Yusuf has no choice to drive off the bridge early to avoid getting killed by Fischer's projections. This results in Arthur's dream losing its gravity and it causes an avalanche in Eames's dream. They miss the first kick and have to catch the second kick, which is the van hitting the water. But what I've always wondered is this: Why didn't the first kick wake Arthur up? I can understand the rest of the cast, since their consciousnesses were one level down in Eames dream, but Arthur was still awake in the hotel, so I feel like the van driving off the bridge should have woken him up, which would have destabilized the Hotel dream and brought the entire plan crashing down. 2.) What was the point of Eames blowing up the fortress? By the time he sets off the charges, everyone in the fortress is already awake except for Saito, who is dead, and Cobb, who is in Limbo trying to find Saito. When Cobb and Saito meet, it's shown that they only way they can escape is to kill themselves, so it isn't as if creating a kick in the fortress would bring them back. So why bother if Arthur's kick is designed to bring them back to the Hotel dream? Please forgive me if these questions seem excessively persnickity. If the answer is "Don't think about it too hard, Nolan didn't really care about that aspect of the plot" then I can appreciate that and it won't harm my appreciation of the film. I'm just wondering if there's some logic that I'm missing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Snak posted:That's about as far into that movie as I've seen. I actually love that part, even though there are many reasons why it would never work. Nah, the most ridiculous part of that movie is when they recruit Ice Cube as "the new XXX" acting like it was a government code name when in the first movie it was just a tattoo on the character's neck that he had before any of it started.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Nah, the most ridiculous part of that movie is when they recruit Ice Cube as "the new XXX" acting like it was a government code name when in the first movie it was just a tattoo on the character's neck that he had before any of it started. The codename is named after XXX. He's been genericized, like kleenex, escalator, or heroin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Nah, the most ridiculous part of that movie is when they recruit Ice Cube as "the new XXX" acting like it was a government code name when in the first movie it was just a tattoo on the character's neck that he had before any of it started. It's like Lebron James was said to be "the next Michael Jordan"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Snak posted:
I haven't seen it in like 15 years. Maybe is wasn't that good. My memory of the first time I saw Starship Troopers is this amazing action movie with a subtle anti war message.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Snak posted:Content: What is up with the movie Hook having an abysmal rotten tomatoes score? Do critics just hate fun? That movie rules. It's pretty cornball for Steven Spielberg. Most critics tend to go by relative scores to the directors. And when somebody as high profile as Spielberg makes something less than perfect, it gets a lot of flak. My wife and I find ourselves quoting some of the silliest lines ever written for that movie. "Have to fly. Have to crow. Have to save Maggie, have to save Jack. Hook is back." *black kid places his hands all over Peter's face, feeling it as if he were a blind kid reading brail* "Oh there you are, Peter." "Smee, I'm really going to do it this time. I'm going to kill myself. Don't try to stop me this time, Smee-stop me, Smee." "I want a toy. I want a cookie. I want, I want, I want. Me, me, me. Mine, mine, mine." "Peter Pan's my.....dad?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Re: Hook, I think it also benefits from some nostalgia for the generation that were kids when it came out. As a movie aimed at kids, it probably was generally well received, but I would think the mid/late teens to 20s/30s crowd probably didn't care for it much overall.. Also, did it come out before or after Schindler's List? If after, maybe it was more easily dismissed by virtue of that?FrostedButts posted:"Smee, I'm really going to do it this time. I'm going to kill myself. Don't try to stop me this time, Smee-stop me, Smee." I love that part. The exchanges between Hook and Smee are my favorite parts of the movie. "I've just had an apostrophe."
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Also, did it come out before or after Schindler's List? If after, maybe it was more easily dismissed by virtue of that? Before. Hook was 1991, Schindler's List was 1993. If I remember correctly, it was also one of Spielberg's worst box-office openings until 2004's The Terminal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Re: Hook, I think it also benefits from some nostalgia for the generation that were kids when it came out. As a movie aimed at kids, it probably was generally well received, but I would think the mid/late teens to 20s/30s crowd probably didn't care for it much overall.. Also, did it come out before or after Schindler's List? If after, maybe it was more easily dismissed by virtue of that? Dustin Hoffman seemed like he had a great time chewing the scenery in it. There was also that random Glenn Close cameo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Hook was the first film I saw in theaters so I have a huge affinity for it BUT nostalgia doesn't really hold up as well as I'd like. It's a very weak film, espeically for Spielberg. You can feel him going through the family adventure film motions. I think the issue is Hook is the kind of film Spielberg would have normally produced and not directed (ala The Goonies) but he took the job and just painted by the numbers. That said, Dustin Hoffman is amazing as Hook. He's got the right combo of charming and funny and actual scary bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
I rewatched it recently and the banter between Hoffman and Hoskins was the only bearable part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
It's a very cheap looking film too, one of the few films I can think of that ALWAYS looks like it's taking place on a small set. I can't tell if that's deliberate, but if it is it doesn't fit the larger than life adventure the script is pitching at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's a very cheap looking film too, one of the few films I can think of that ALWAYS looks like it's taking place on a small set. I can't tell if that's deliberate, but if it is it doesn't fit the larger than life adventure the script is pitching at all. EDIT: Basically the sets needed to suddenly transform in the same way that the empty table turns into a feast when Peter rediscovers his imagination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:EDIT: Basically the sets needed to suddenly transform in the same way that the empty table turns into a feast when Peter rediscovers his imagination. This would've been awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:I always thought it was deliberate because it represents that the adult Peter doesn't fit into a world that exists for children. Naturally this means that the film should have taken on a grander scale when Peter regains his memories and nature as Pan but that never happens. Maybe it was the timing or the skateboarding in Hook, but I always thought the Lost Boys hideout was reused from this set: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2MDHO8Bfg
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:It's a very cheap looking film too, one of the few films I can think of that ALWAYS looks like it's taking place on a small set. I can't tell if that's deliberate, but if it is it doesn't fit the larger than life adventure the script is pitching at all. For a movie where all the Peter Pan stuff was actually supposed to be "real" everything comes off as extremely fake looking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:For a movie where all the Peter Pan stuff was actually supposed to be "real" everything comes off as extremely fake looking. I kind of disagree here, because to me one of the core concepts of the film is that the type of world children imagine is real, but it's just as they would imagine it. I don't actually think for example, that the imaginary food is somehow composed of complex carbohydrates and is rich in vitamins. The Neverland in the film is a place composed of things that children believe in, and I think that effect is achieved quite well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Anyone know where I can find the infamous "Stranger in the Alps" USA TV edit of Big Lebowski? I've seen clips, but not the whole thing. We think bad edits are funny and also have a kid who is waaaay too young to see the real version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
What's the general consensus on Smaug in the Hobbit films? I think he's a pretty ugly design and rarely looks believable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
I thought the dragon design was the only good thing about those films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:What's the general consensus on Smaug in the Hobbit films? In terms of critical reviews they all love the dragon even if they hate the movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Was Lloyd Kaufmann a prisoner for half a second in Guardians of the Galaxy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Ariza posted:Was Lloyd Kaufmann a prisoner for half a second in Guardians of the Galaxy? Yep. James Gunn got started writing Tromeo & Juliet so this was a thank you, like Corman in Silence of the Lambs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Yep. James Gunn got started writing Tromeo & Juliet so this was a thank you, like Corman in Silence of the Lambs. one of my favorite of these type of things is how the three senators in The Godfather Part II are Phil Feldman, Roger Corman and Richard Matheson
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Matheson is unconfirmed but I love that as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:What's the general consensus on Smaug in the Hobbit films? It's not a terrible design, but it's on screen waaaaaaaaaay too long. Rule #1 of having a monster in your movie: Don't show it on screen for too long. Smaug occupies almost half of the picture, perfectly lit and subtly moving. You spend that much time with a creature on screen, even the most detailed and well-textured, you're going to get bored and find the flaws. I was just about ready to start pinpointing the UV map coordinates of that thing until the final chase/fight started up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
FrostedButts posted:Peter Jackson films are waaaaaaaaaay too long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
FrostedButts posted:It's not a terrible design, but it's on screen waaaaaaaaaay too long. Rule #1 of having a monster in your movie: Don't show it on screen for too long. Smaug occupies almost half of the picture, perfectly lit and subtly moving. You spend that much time with a creature on screen, even the most detailed and well-textured, you're going to get bored and find the flaws. I was just about ready to start pinpointing the UV map coordinates of that thing until the final chase/fight started up. That would be true if Smaug was the monster. He's more of a character in his own right. That said, I loved his design and found it significantly more terrifying than I would've given it credit for. Jackson's films are too long though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:That would be true if Smaug was the monster. He's more of a character in his own right. When a dragon is lurking in the shadows hissing at you with fire and crass, it's terrifying. When he's out in the open monologuing for 30 minutes as he swishes and sways around piles of gold, the effect wears off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
FrostedButts posted:When a dragon is lurking in the shadows hissing at you with fire and crass, it's terrifying. When he's out in the open monologuing for 30 minutes as he swishes and sways around piles of gold, the effect wears off. You make him sound like Liberace in Behind The Candelabra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
FrostedButts posted:When a dragon is lurking in the shadows hissing at you with fire and crass, it's terrifying. When he's out in the open monologuing for 30 minutes as he swishes and sways around piles of gold, the effect wears off. He's not supposed to be terrifying in a monster movie sense. He's terrifying because he can have you killed at any time and doesn't really care if you live or die. He's the other side of the rich nobleman that Dracula (the book and really vampires in general) fails to cover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Ok, so, for actual, how did they do those silhouette shots in Gone With The Wind? Is it just a giant lit-up painting? It looks amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Ok, so, for actual, how did they do those silhouette shots in Gone With The Wind? Oh I know this one. That's actually some really impressive work with an optical printer. The sky was photographed in LA, the landscape and the tara are painted, the foreground is high contrast black and white photography shot against a white backdrop. Some interviews say the tree is a painting but some people think it's a miniature since it has some subtle movement. The entire thing is assembled with some damned fine optical printing. American Cinematographer had a really detailed writeup on the film's visual effects written by Slifer himself. It's not part of their free online archive, but if you look on google scholar there are some sites that provide the full article for a small fee, if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
therattle posted:You make him sound like Liberace in Behind The Candelabra. That'd be a hell of a take on the character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
In Saving Private Ryan , each of the privates in Captain Miller's squad foreshadows how they will meet their death. When the soldiers are pinned down by a German sniper in the French village, Private Jackson notices a bell tower in the distance and says "That's where I'd be". Private Jackson is later killed by a tank round while in a bell tower during the final battle in the third act Private Mellish is handed a Hitler Youth knife shortly after the soldiers have secured the beachhead in the opening invasion sequence. He says "..yeah and now its a Kaballah cutter". Private Mellish is later stabbed to death by a knife When the squad is first debarking across the French countryside to search for Ryan, Private Caparzo tells Corporal Upham to never salute Captain Miller because it makes his a target for sniper fire, "especially when I'm standing next to him" he adds... Caparzo is later killed by a sniper bullet During the beach invasion, Wade the Medic is seen frantically trying to patch up a badly wounded soldier on the beach. He tells the soldier not to look at the wound . Wade is later shot and cannot address his injury because the round exited through his back and he can not see the exit wounds Can anyone think of any other instances of this in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Maybe you could look at Upham's refusal to kill others throughout the film somehow foreshadowing that he wouldn't be killed as well? I admit it is a stretch, especially since Upham actually kills someone later one, but it is all that comes to mind after having not seen the film for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Shatter Map posted:Private Mellish is handed a Hitler Youth knife shortly after the soldiers have secured the beachhead in the opening invasion sequence. He says "..yeah and now its a Kaballah cutter".
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:As for a real question, can somebody give me some more examples of uses of pop songs in contemporary film that blur the line between diegetic and non-diegetic? Not a pop song, but this scene from Coffee and Cigarettes features semi-diegetic music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FYLkBcJBys
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 15:55
|
|
