|
Pierson posted:Someone mentioned Thor in a different thread and got me wondering: What good movies are there about ancient gods and myths that are about actual gods and myths and that aren't 'THE MUCH MORE REALISTIC AND GRITTY MAN BEHIND THE MYTH'-style adaptations like Hercules is? The last one I can really recall is Immortals and that had its own problems. Which movie was it that was an awkward mess in cinemas and became something a lot better in the director's cut? Was it Troy? It's not actually about Gods and myths but you could do much worse than HBO series Rome
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:eyyyy, Burton's Batman is alright. it's got a dogshit script, but Keaton and Nicholson salvage it and there's some rad production design. Batman is interesting as it's an early example of the modern calculated blockbuster model. Jaws and Star Wars started the blockbuster era, but they were flukes- nobody expected them to perform like they did. Batman was very much a studio planning a movie that was meant to be both very profitable and a platform for sequels, merchandise, etc. There are a lot of lines that seem to be there specifically because they'll sound good in ads, they promoted Prince to the extent that the first soundtrack album was all his songs, nothing by Elfman, and they're very careful about producing a look and feel that avoids the camp of the 60s series while still staying clearly within PG-13 lines. That said it's a good film, largely due to the visual style and the score, and Keaton really is great. But you can tell the story got a little buried under catchphrases and toyetic scenes. Returns is also a bit of a mess but it's so insane and unrepentantly freakish that I have to love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Batman is interesting as it's an early example of the modern calculated blockbuster model. definitely. beat for beat it's got one of the most programmatic, paint by numbers screenplays i can think of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Batman is interesting as it's an early example of the modern calculated blockbuster model. In fact the earliest, according to Tom Schatz. Schatz, 27-28 posted:The term “Big Six” was commonly used in the industry trade press to reference either the conglomerates or their studios, which were increasingly adept at coordinating their respective operations and objectives. Key to this effort, of course, was the Hollywood blockbuster, which was re-engineered to accommodate the changing – and steadily expanding – media landscape. That process began at the very outset of the conglomerate era with the “blockbuster summer” of 1989, when hit sequels to the Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon, Back to the Future, and Ghostbusters franchises were eclipsed by Batman (Tim Burton), the biggest box-office hit in a record year when the domestic box office surpassed $5 billion for the first time ever. Released just as the Time Warner merger took effect, Batman created a new paradigm for Hollywood blockbusters. In studio head Terry Semel’s words: “The first picture that blew us out [after the merger] was Batman. . . . It was the first time we utilized the whole machine of the company. The marketing, the tie-ins, the merchandising, the international.” (Brown, 1996). Despite the huge success in 1990 of more modest films like Pretty Woman (Garry Marshall, US), Home Alone (Chris Columbus, US), and Ghost (Jarry Zucker, US), the studios inexorably turned their attention away from mid-range star-genre projects in favor of event films and “tentpole” pictures – i.e., mega-hits that could carry a studio’s entire production slate and drive the parent company’s far-flung entertainment operations as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
I was wondering about scenes where there is a close face-to-face conversation between characters filmed from the side. I've noticed this a few times but the only example I can give is in Platoon in the scene where Chris and Rhah are arguing about Barnes in the bunker after Elias is killed and it looks like Francesco Quinn is actually closer to the camera than Charlie Sheen. In other words, it looks like the actors are pretending to be nose to nose but are talking over each others' shoulder. Just curious if this an actual filming technique to account for lighting difficulties? Or maybe I'm imagining things. Also this is a great thread. Just finished reading through the whole thing over the past several days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Pierson posted:Someone mentioned Thor in a different thread and got me wondering: What good movies are there about ancient gods and myths that are about actual gods and myths and that aren't 'THE MUCH MORE REALISTIC AND GRITTY MAN BEHIND THE MYTH'-style adaptations like Hercules is? Disney's Hercules. There are no "actual" gods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Keith Atherton posted:I was wondering about scenes where there is a close face-to-face conversation between characters filmed from the side. I've noticed this a few times but the only example I can give is in Platoon in the scene where Chris and Rhah are arguing about Barnes in the bunker after Elias is killed and it looks like Francesco Quinn is actually closer to the camera than Charlie Sheen. In other words, it looks like the actors are pretending to be nose to nose but are talking over each others' shoulder. Forced perspective is sometimes used to make actors heads appear the same size or to make actors appear to be the same height. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Keith Atherton posted:I was wondering about scenes where there is a close face-to-face conversation between characters filmed from the side. I've noticed this a few times but the only example I can give is in Platoon in the scene where Chris and Rhah are arguing about Barnes in the bunker after Elias is killed and it looks like Francesco Quinn is actually closer to the camera than Charlie Sheen. In other words, it looks like the actors are pretending to be nose to nose but are talking over each others' shoulder. I can't give any filmmaking thoughts, but Platoon is one of my favorite movies and the camerawork in that scene always bugged me. Maybe it is done that way to make Rhah seem more overpowering and intimidating, but it always looked unnatural to me how big his head is compared to Chris.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
There's no real reason to stage them at different distances lighting wise, and forced perspective would normally be balanced with a focal length that would hide it. It's hard to imagine a professional crew flubbing something like that. My best guess is the director wanted one character to feel more imposing in a surreal way maybe? I haven't seen Platoon in nearly 20 years though so I can't really recall the scene to comment very well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I can't give any filmmaking thoughts, but Platoon is one of my favorite movies and the camerawork in that scene always bugged me. Maybe it is done that way to make Rhah seem more overpowering and intimidating, but it always looked unnatural to me how big his head is compared to Chris. Bugblatter posted:There's no real reason to stage them at different distances lighting wise, and forced perspective would normally be balanced with a focal length that would hide it. It's hard to imagine a professional crew flubbing something like that. My best guess is the director wanted one character to feel more imposing in a surreal way maybe? I haven't seen Platoon in nearly 20 years though so I can't really recall the scene to comment very well. That makes sense. Thank you both. I have watched Platoon over 20 times and that scene and Elias's death scene where you can see the wires for his squibs sticking out of his uniform and the squib activator in his hand are the only things in the movie that put me into the mode of thinking about camera work or effects. I remember I had a job sweeping floors and drilling holes in a machine shop the summer Platoon came out and a guy I worked with was a Vietnam veteran. I knew he'd watched Platoon and asked him what he thought. He just said "Yeah, that's how it was."
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Keith Atherton posted:I was wondering about scenes where there is a close face-to-face conversation between characters filmed from the side. I've noticed this a few times but the only example I can give is in Platoon in the scene where Chris and Rhah are arguing about Barnes in the bunker after Elias is killed and it looks like Francesco Quinn is actually closer to the camera than Charlie Sheen. In other words, it looks like the actors are pretending to be nose to nose but are talking over each others' shoulder. it just looks like a normal shot to me. Charlie Sheen isn't facing straight at the guy, he's faced off to the left a little and looking at him out of the corner of his eye.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Lighting could be a factor, so the other actors head doesn't block the light source. I haven't seen the scene though so just going off experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Lighting could be a factor, so the other actors head doesn't block the light source. I haven't seen the scene though so just going off experience. This is what we are talking about. It looks to me like either Rhah is talking to somebody behind Chris' left shoulder, or he has a huge loving melon head. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
In End of Watch, Jake Gyllenhaal's character and his partner stop a guy in a truck, and he gives a 3 finger sign to another officer who shows up to the scene. A police helicopter flies over, and he gives them a 4 finger sign. Any idea what he's indicating? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:In End of Watch, Jake Gyllenhaal's character and his partner stop a guy in a truck, and he gives a 3 finger sign to another officer who shows up to the scene. A police helicopter flies over, and he gives them a 4 finger sign. Any idea what he's indicating? Thanks. Three fingers is LAPD Code 3 for emergency assistance required, four is Code 4 for no assistance required. The signals were also in the TV show Southland but they were keener to explain what they were doing there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:This is what we are talking about. It looks to me like either Rhah is talking to somebody behind Chris' left shoulder, or he has a huge loving melon head. Haven't seen it in a while but it also looks like sheen is just kind of ignoring him, looking at him out of the corner of his eye like a sullen teenager
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
GimpChimp posted:Three fingers is LAPD Code 3 for emergency assistance required, four is Code 4 for no assistance required. The signals were also in the TV show Southland but they were keener to explain what they were doing there. Thanks for this. Never saw Southland- would you recommend it? FWIW I loved End of Watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Thanks for this. Never saw Southland- would you recommend it? FWIW I loved End of Watch. I would actually say give it a try if you were into End of Watch, it's at its best doing similar street-cop / partner-dynamic stuff and takes the characters in some pretty interesting directions over the course of the series. Season one is mediocre and stumbles badly on the home life sideplots, but it's also only seven episodes, so if you find that alright you'll definitely enjoy what's down the line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
GimpChimp posted:I would actually say give it a try if you were into End of Watch, it's at its best doing similar street-cop / partner-dynamic stuff and takes the characters in some pretty interesting directions over the course of the series. Season one is mediocre and stumbles badly on the home life sideplots, but it's also only seven episodes, so if you find that alright you'll definitely enjoy what's down the line. Michael Cudlitz was great as gay pill-head cop. He was on Life as well and I could pretty much watch him in anythi—oh poo poo he's on Walking Dead now  e: spoilers just in case
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
GimpChimp posted:I would actually say give it a try if you were into End of Watch, it's at its best doing similar street-cop / partner-dynamic stuff and takes the characters in some pretty interesting directions over the course of the series. Season one is mediocre and stumbles badly on the home life sideplots, but it's also only seven episodes, so if you find that alright you'll definitely enjoy what's down the line. Cheers, will check it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
I know it's fun to joke about how terrible it is, but is there an explanation from Nolan or anyone else involved justifying the creative choice for Bale's batman voice? That voice is loving BAD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
xcore posted:I know it's fun to joke about how terrible it is, but is there an explanation from Nolan or anyone else involved justifying the creative choice for Bale's batman voice? That voice is loving BAD. It was Wayne's way of "disguising" his voice since he was a minor celebrity in Gotham. I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:It was Wayne's way of "disguising" his voice since he was a minor celebrity in Gotham. Bale just felt like the suit required a more animalistic performance and that it fit with Batman's penchant for the theatrical, so he did the voice during the audition and Nolan liked it. I'm not sure if Nolan has ever given his reasoning within the narrative. I thought it worked okay when he was just barking short lines as the seldom speaking Bat, but when he started having full conversations it got dumb fast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Is there an alternate universe where "gritty" superhero movies that are supposed to be taken seriously don't explode in the 21st century? Where superhero stuff is just for children, and grown rear end people talking about it is kind of not okay? This is partially based on my disgust for the whole thing and actually being interested by stuff based on those posts about the 80's Batman being engineered as such a huge blockbuster. Is there a way that studios and such could have hosed up in the late 80's or the last 20 years that would have kept comic book stuff more confined to the world of children or weird nerds?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Yes; much of the 90s shift in consumer culture (which laid the foundation for what you're talking about) had to do with the perceived increase in the buying power of young teenage males and thus studios wanted to chase their money, which went not only to the films but to ancillary products (home video, toys, novelizations, comic books, video games, etc.) Superhero movies lend themselves easily to that kind of monetization. The grit-shift is probably both influenced by that hyper-analyzed market segment getting older and 9/11. So if the Soviets won the Cold War and consumerism were suppressed, that would probably do it on all fronts Edit: I mean, if you hung around old money and the literati, superhero movies would also probably not be "kind of not okay" CharlieFoxtrot fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Is there an alternate universe where "gritty" superhero movies that are supposed to be taken seriously don't explode in the 21st century? Where superhero stuff is just for children, and grown rear end people talking about it is kind of not okay? This is partially based on my disgust for the whole thing and actually being interested by stuff based on those posts about the 80's Batman being engineered as such a huge blockbuster. Is there a way that studios and such could have hosed up in the late 80's or the last 20 years that would have kept comic book stuff more confined to the world of children or weird nerds? The world resisted this for a long time. The magical world of 1997 was a wonderful place where "comic book movie" meant the Dolf Lundgren Punisher, the Ronny Cox Captain America, and Joel Schumacher. It was x-Men and Spider-Man that legitimated comic movies, but maybe it was only a matter of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Is there an alternate universe where "gritty" superhero movies that are supposed to be taken seriously don't explode in the 21st century? Where superhero stuff is just for children, and grown rear end people talking about it is kind of not okay? This is partially based on my disgust for the whole thing and actually being interested by stuff based on those posts about the 80's Batman being engineered as such a huge blockbuster. Is there a way that studios and such could have hosed up in the late 80's or the last 20 years that would have kept comic book stuff more confined to the world of children or weird nerds? Not really given that the whole reason it happened was that they perfected a business model that involved little to no risk. Luckily for you and me, the world of contemporary cinema is not all big-budget toys fighting toys. Just gotta go exploring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
xcore posted:I know it's fun to joke about how terrible it is, but is there an explanation from Nolan or anyone else involved justifying the creative choice for Bale's batman voice? That voice is loving BAD. I really don't understand the hate for it. The whole premise of Nolan's Batman is that he is intimidating as gently caress and if that doesn't work he literally beat the loving poo poo out you and break your bones until you do what he wants. A bestial growl seems wholly appropriate, with the added fact that Batman seems fueled by rage half of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Snak posted:I really don't understand the hate for it. The whole premise of Nolan's Batman is that he is intimidating as gently caress and if that doesn't work he literally beat the loving poo poo out you and break your bones until you do what he wants. A bestial growl seems wholly appropriate, with the added fact that Batman seems fueled by rage half of the time. I think that's part of it though. The Batman that we've seen in other media will disguise his voice, or at the least change the way in which he speaks, but he's always collected and calm, even when intimidating someone. Intense, but focused. Batman isn't the guy who goes Beast Mode to scare the poo poo out of you. He can scare you by popping up out of no where and dropping a room full of armed goons just to single out one guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Batman's voice in the movies is trying, and somewhat suceeding, to be gruff and scary, but also ends up being goofy and dumb. Just like Batman himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 21:36
|
|
amusinginquiry posted:Batman's voice in the movies is trying, and somewhat suceeding, to be gruff and scary, but also ends up being goofy and dumb. Just like Batman himself. That's what Bale was going for. He thinks Batman as a concept is really stupid and that's reflected in his performance because he gets into the mindset of someone who's doing this Batman poo poo and taking himself seriously. Such a person would not drop the dumb growly voice in casual conversation.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
I don't mind the Bale voice at all. It's a different interpretation from other performances, but I think it's an equally valid one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:It was Wayne's way of "disguising" his voice since he was a minor celebrity in Gotham. People can call on all sorts of other anecdotes about Bale's choices or whatever but if he didn't do the voice nerds would be all "Uh how does nobody notice that it's just their friend Wayne talking from inside a batsuit"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Zesty Mordant posted:People can call on all sorts of other anecdotes about Bale's choices or whatever but if he didn't do the voice nerds would be all "Uh how does nobody notice that it's just their friend Wayne talking from inside a batsuit" No you just need an actual actor edit: also that voice actor did it in the batman cartoon and it was just different enough without being hilarious. You could tell it wasn't just a split personality it was like Bruce was his fake image and batman was where he felt comfortable. thehandtruck fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Snak posted:I really don't understand the hate for it. The whole premise of Nolan's Batman is that he is intimidating as gently caress and if that doesn't work he literally beat the loving poo poo out you and break your bones until you do what he wants. A bestial growl seems wholly appropriate, with the added fact that Batman seems fueled by rage half of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Even if you buy into it, he gets pretty mushmouthed when he speaks quickly. Yeah, but that's like, what happens when you try to talk like that. I guess I'm just glad they went the route they did. Can you imagine if Batman used a voice changer? He would sound like SAW...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Snak posted:Yeah, but that's like, what happens when you try to talk like that. Should've used a voice changer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Is the Japanese remake of Unforgiven any good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
It's pretty. Seeing a sword version of the final gunfight is cool. It doesn't add anything over the original though, and it doesn't pack as much of a punch to the gut.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIaF0QKtY0c Probably one of the best examples of switching between the man and the hero. The change is subtle and yet not at the same time. Man he was great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:04
|
|