|
HopperUK posted:Are you thinking of Ladyhawke? That has Rutger Hauer, synthesizers and Middle Age things. I want to love it but goddamn the soundtrack drives me crazy. That's the one. I haven't seen it in ages but remember loving it as a child, synthesizer soundtrack notwithstanding. I have even dimmer recollections of Flesh & Blood, which might or might not have had a soundtrack like that, but definitely had Rutger Hauer and Middle Ages.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:All the posts about Movie Poker ignore the fact that the general run of people honestly believe that poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. That makes it perfect for a challenge of personalities or whatever the plot demands. One of the favorite movies of my childhood, Maverick, was all about poker. It's important to note that It doesn't matter how good you are at poker, you need good cards to win. My source is that I've been in the casino business (though never poker) for 5 years. They're also ignoring the fact that Texas Hold-Em is godawful boring to watch. There's a reason whenever it's televised they have non-stop color commentary and a poo poo ton of flashy graphics and poo poo (or at least they did when first got huge). Same thing with anything programming/hacking related; it's a subject the majority of audiences don't understand and even if they did it's not entertaining at all to watch someone do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:All the posts about Movie Poker ignore the fact that the general run of people honestly believe that poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. That makes it perfect for a challenge of personalities or whatever the plot demands. One of the favorite movies of my childhood, Maverick, was all about poker. It's important to note that It doesn't matter how good you are at poker, you need good cards to win. My source is that I've been in the casino business (though never poker) for 5 years. The thing is though, you aren't playing the house you are playing other people and everyone theoretically have the same quality of cards to deal with. Sure you need "good" cards to win but you also need to know how to get paid the most when you have those good cards and lose as little as possible when you don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They're also ignoring the fact that Texas Hold-Em is godawful boring to watch. There's a reason whenever it's televised they have non-stop color commentary and a poo poo ton of flashy graphics and poo poo (or at least they did when first got huge). Same thing with anything programming/hacking related; it's a subject the majority of audiences don't understand and even if they did it's not entertaining at all to watch someone do. Most hacking consists of phoning someone in HR up and telling them you're the password inspector.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
"Bond, this multibillionaire terrorist organization is going to transport this toxin across the border, and we need you to stop them. Now, we know the leader's greatest vice, and your greatest skill. So now, all that stands between us and a world filled with poison-laced bombs is your ability at Settlers of Catan."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
That last hand, nearly killed me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:All the posts about Movie Poker ignore the fact that the general run of people honestly believe that poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. That makes it perfect for a challenge of personalities or whatever the plot demands. One of the favorite movies of my childhood, Maverick, was all about poker. It's important to note that It doesn't matter how good you are at poker, you need good cards to win. My source is that I've been in the casino business (though never poker) for 5 years. In Rounders, Matt Damon's character even says, "Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?" In the 10 years prior to that movie coming out, only two people made it to the final table two years in a row. That said, it's obviously not purely luck, either. Knowing the odds is a learned skill, being able to read or manipulate people is a skill, etc. If it were purely luck you could just put everyone's cards face-up on the table and the win/loss ratio would be the same. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17023 quote:The Role of Skill Versus Luck in Poker: Evidence from the World Series of Poker
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
My
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
I've been rewatching Hannibal and it's a thoroughly great show but a scene I just watched reminded me of something I hate in shows. When two characters sleep together and one slips away during the night to commit a crime and then returns to bed before the other person wakes up. This gives them a "X was with me the whole night" alibi. Maybe I'm a really light sleeper but I always wake up when a girl(read: my pets) gets out of or into bed with me. It's such a risky thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:All the posts about Movie Poker ignore the fact that the general run of people honestly believe that poker is a game of skill, not a game of luck. That makes it perfect for a challenge of personalities or whatever the plot demands. One of the favorite movies of my childhood, Maverick, was all about poker. It's important to note that It doesn't matter how good you are at poker, you need good cards to win. My source is that I've been in the casino business (though never poker) for 5 years. Uh, what the gently caress? Poker is actually about skill, if you play a whole game with a long enough time to really go through your chips. A single given hand is luck but the overall game is skill. Did you say that backwards, that the public believes its about luck, not skill? Because it is about skill. That's the whole point. THAT's the movie flaw. You're completely not getting it dude. The whole point is that the scene was set up to show bond's skill and they came close to doing it but hosed it up. Just SLIGHTLY changing the hands would have made the whole scene make perfect sense to poker players while at the same time giving the same exact drama for non-poker players. Lol "I've been in the casino business (though never poker)" CJacobs posted:Yes, but in most situations it's presented in during movies, the goal isn't specifically only to win, but to either win or make everybody else forfeit through bluffing so that, technically, you win anyway. Although I think in the Bond example he needed to win for some pretty specific reason I don't remember. All he needed was for LeChiffre to lose. Although ideally he didn't want to lose all of the CIA's money in the process, but losing it to catch LeChiffre would probably be a fair deal? Hulebr00670065006e posted:The thing is though, you aren't playing the house you are playing other people and everyone theoretically have the same quality of cards to deal with. Sure you need "good" cards to win but you also need to know how to get paid the most when you have those good cards and lose as little as possible when you don't. This. This is why poker is a better game to play than blackjack, and why its not just "luck". Its not about playing against the house. The whole loving point of the scene was that Bond could read people's emotions and exploit that. Zaphod42 has a new favorite as of 16:17 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Does anyone know where the movie thing of *sad thing happens* then a female chorus sings out in a foreign language started? I feel like it comes from the late 90's/early 2000's. First really memorable instance of this for me was Gladiator, which was kind of like Inception in terms of its score's influence. See 2m here, it happens throughout though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4XtFeUZ5M8
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They're also ignoring the fact that Texas Hold-Em is godawful boring to watch. There's a reason whenever it's televised they have non-stop color commentary and a poo poo ton of flashy graphics and poo poo (or at least they did when first got huge). Same thing with anything programming/hacking related; it's a subject the majority of audiences don't understand and even if they did it's not entertaining at all to watch someone do. No it isn't. That's why the movie skips most of the poker and has Mathis explaining things to Vesper. That's no reason to not have the little poker you do show in the movie make sense. Again, if there was no way to have a dramatic scene that made sense, fine. But the scene they had in the movie would make completely the same amount of drama while making more sense if they'd just literally changed a couple of the cards in the hands. That's it. It wouldn't make it worse for people who find poker boring. It was nothing more than lazy writing, stop defending it. If Casino Royale spent 30 minutes showing hands being dealt and people re-raising over the turn, that'd be bad. But they didn't do that. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:I've been rewatching Hannibal and it's a thoroughly great show but a scene I just watched reminded me of something I hate in shows. When two characters sleep together and one slips away during the night to commit a crime and then returns to bed before the other person wakes up. This gives them a "X was with me the whole night" alibi. Maybe I'm a really light sleeper but I always wake up when a girl(read: my pets) gets out of or into bed with me. It's such a risky thing to do. I believe it was clarified he drugged her last glass of wine, to ensure she'd stay out
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:"Bond, this multibillionaire terrorist organization is going to transport this toxin across the border, and we need you to stop them. Now, we know the leader's greatest vice, and your greatest skill. So now, all that stands between us and a world filled with poison-laced bombs is your ability at Settlers of Catan." The sooner we have a Bond movie where he says "I have Wood for Sheep" the sooner the world becomes a better place
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
While we're on Jurrasic Park, where did the whole 'T-Rex can't see you if you don't move' thing come from anyway? Was that what was generally believed at the time? Even as a kid I called bullshit and wondered how the hell you could figure that out just from fossil remains.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Just re-watched The Aviator. I think the super saturated colors in the later part of the movie (that were supposed to be like Technicolor) was a really cool effect. But I think the extremely limited blue-red filtered beginning of the film (that was supposed to be like two-strip film color) looks absolutely horrible.  It goes on and on and on for like the first 40 minutes, every scene is blue and red, its like you're watching a cheap Anaglyph 3D movie or something. I know they wanted it to look like a period film but gently caress, its not worth ruining the movie and killing the eyes of the audience for christ's sake.If it was one little scene that'd be perfect, but its 40 loving minutes. It goes on and on and on. I'd rather watch it in black & white! The more I really focus on it, the more I think Scorsese is just a bit of a hack of a Director and people just worship him because he made Raging Bull and Goodfellas. Everybody's been saying yes to him for so long he doesn't know how to restrain himself. Also holy poo poo was the CG in The Aviator terrible. Clear bluescreens everywhere, and the scene where Howard Huges crashes his spyplane into a Californian neighborhood looked completely garbage. The plane was moving at like 5 mph, you could tell it was on a big rig and wasn't actually crashing out of the sky at speed. It was 2004 which is older than I remembered but still; the movie doesn't call for anything that traditional effects couldn't handle pretty well. And yet there's huge CG flyovers constantly that look like rear end. Feel free to disagree with me, but I feel like Scorsese has gone up his own rear end and his cinematography has suffered for it. The_Master posted:While we're on Jurrasic Park, where did the whole 'T-Rex can't see you if you don't move' thing come from anyway? Was that what was generally believed at the time? Even as a kid I called bullshit and wondered how the hell you could figure that out just from fossil remains. Probably what was believed at the time Crichton wrote the book. Yeah its bunk. "how the hell you could figure that out from just fossil remains" is incredibly naive, though. There's a loving ton you can work out backwards starting from fossils. Its called Science, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Just re-watched The Aviator. Yes, I'm aware of that. If it's not true my assumption was correct though wasn't it. But thanks for making me aware of this Science thing. It explains a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
The_Master posted:While we're on Jurrasic Park, where did the whole 'T-Rex can't see you if you don't move' thing come from anyway? Was that what was generally believed at the time? Even as a kid I called bullshit and wondered how the hell you could figure that out just from fossil remains. It was a remnant from the book that got thrown into the movie and changed a little bit. In the book, Grant actually figures out that the Rex can't see him if he's still during the vehicle attack, not the beginning. It, along with the gender-changing stuff, is part of the subplot about how the dinosaurs aren't really dinosaurs since they've been so genetically modified with the frog DNA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:My IIMM with this scene is the brother who decided that his time would be better spent just watching her on the computer rather than, I dunno, HELPING THE ADULTS KEEP A VELOCIRAPTOR FROM ENTERING THE ROOM AND EATING THEM. Like, Sam Niell even tells Laura Dern to give him the shotgun that's just of reach, but somehow this little shithead can't run over and kick it closer to them. How did they get back to being chased after they've locked this door. iirc there's a scene where they're on the phone with Hammond/Malcolm and you hear Grant scream 'It's coming through!' and then gunshots. Whats it coming through, the tiny window in the door?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Presumably it battered the door down/busted the lock? It's been a long time since I saw that movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They're also ignoring the fact that Texas Hold-Em is godawful boring to watch. There's a reason whenever it's televised they have non-stop color commentary and a poo poo ton of flashy graphics and poo poo (or at least they did when first got huge). Same thing with anything programming/hacking related; it's a subject the majority of audiences don't understand and even if they did it's not entertaining at all to watch someone do. Just imagine having Bond play *bridge* with the villain like he does in Moonraker (book version). Not that it's boring, it's just I don't know how they'd present it....
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Lotish posted:Presumably it battered the door down/busted the lock? It's been a long time since I saw that movie. In the last shot of that room, it shows the phone laying on the table. You can clearly see individual bullet holes in the windowed wall, made by that shotgun. Must have been using slugs, tiny little slugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
f#a# posted:First really memorable instance of this for me was Gladiator, which was kind of like Inception in terms of its score's influence. See 2m here, it happens throughout though. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Gladiator may have started it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:This is exactly what I'm talking about. Gladiator may have started it? I liked Dead Can Dance at the end of Gladiator and the end of The Mist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j4izMPijhI I'm kind of a softy that way, I love Vangelis just wailing away on soundtracks, &c
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:The more I really focus on it, the more I think Scorsese is just a bit of a hack of a Director and people just worship him because he made Raging Bull and Goodfellas. Everybody's been saying yes to him for so long he doesn't know how to restrain himself. No dude he was one of the pivotal figures in American film for around 20 years. He's one of those people who's so important that he's lost his uniqueness over time because so many movies bear the mark of his influence. Most of his 2000s work doesnt exactly blow me away but neither do the last ten Rolling Stones records, you know what I mean? To go "well this guy could only stay at the head of the pack for two decades so I guess he's a fuckin hack now" seems crazy to me. cheerfullydrab posted:Does anyone know where the movie thing of *sad thing happens* then a female chorus sings out in a foreign language started? I feel like it comes from the late 90's/early 2000's. I know what you mean but this strikes me as funny because that is also from every greek tragedy and like half the operas
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
The_Master posted:While we're on Jurrasic Park, where did the whole 'T-Rex can't see you if you don't move' thing come from anyway? Was that what was generally believed at the time? Even as a kid I called bullshit and wondered how the hell you could figure that out just from fossil remains. Things like ratio of eye socket to cranial cavity size, or how pronounced the eyebrow ridge and orbital bone protrusion are on the skull can tell you how well developed the animal's eyesight was. Ratios of spinal cord space to cranial cavity can tell you how much they relied on their somatic reflex arc compared to actually synapsing in the brain to respond to stimuli. Or, and this is probably vastly more likely, you could spend several months studying your dinosaurs that you had just vatgrown to determine how they hunt and all of the other behaviours that are actually of interest to researchers. Making dinosaurs for a tourist attraction sells them so very short as to their actual value to science. Also, it's complete bullshit that the in-universe T-Rex couldn't see you if you didn't move, because if so, how did it eat the chained up goat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
The_Master posted:While we're on Jurrasic Park, where did the whole 'T-Rex can't see you if you don't move' thing come from anyway? Was that what was generally believed at the time? Even as a kid I called bullshit and wondered how the hell you could figure that out just from fossil remains. I like the part in the Lost World novel where a character calls that theory retarded. "Deer freeze as soon as they see you. Rexes would be the worst predators ever."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:No dude he was one of the pivotal figures in American film for around 20 years. He's one of those people who's so important that he's lost his uniqueness over time because so many movies bear the mark of his influence. Most of his 2000s work doesnt exactly blow me away but neither do the last ten Rolling Stones records, you know what I mean? To go "well this guy could only stay at the head of the pack for two decades so I guess he's a fuckin hack now" seems crazy to me. American Hustle was, I thought, a pretty good example of why even now nobody else can quite match up to Scorcese as a director - O'Russell tried but he couldn't quite pull it off. Scorcese has had a few duds for sure, but even those (Hugo, arguably Gangs of New York) are still incredible feats of filmmaking (ESPECIALLY Gangs of New York).
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Memento posted:Things like ratio of eye socket to cranial cavity size, or how pronounced the eyebrow ridge and orbital bone protrusion are on the skull can tell you how well developed the animal's eyesight was. Ratios of spinal cord space to cranial cavity can tell you how much they relied on their somatic reflex arc compared to actually synapsing in the brain to respond to stimuli. As a goat I can confirm that we're loud and smelly. The lawyer's fear poo poo was smellier. Smell is one of the most primal senses after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:As a goat I can confirm that we're loud and smelly. Story checks out, T-Rex' had really advanced senses of smell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:American Hustle was, I thought, a pretty good example of why even now nobody else can quite match up to Scorcese as a director - O'Russell tried but he couldn't quite pull it off. Scorcese has had a few duds for sure, but even those (Hugo, arguably Gangs of New York) are still incredible feats of filmmaking (ESPECIALLY Gangs of New York). Funny enough I actually love Gangs of New York.  Taxi Driver was good but I think its kinda overrated too. But then again maybe I just wasn't there and I don't appreciate how much he advanced things for his time. Casino is enjoyable but its a strictly worse knockoff of Goodfellas. The Departed was just okay in my opinion. Not bad, but I dunno, it just was. Some people seemed to love it and I dunno. Just seemed okay. Now that I think about it Shutter Island was pretty good too, so maybe I should rethink my stance. Less "overrated hack director" and more "made good movies and then became inconsistent" ? That seems more accurate. Its really just Wolf of Wall Street, The Aviator and Hugo which are bothering me, which looking at his overall works isn't so bad. So even then I'm probably being too harsh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Funny enough I actually love Gangs of New York. The Wolf of Wall Street was Goodfellas with bankers switched with gangsters. The middle third is always fun because you can imagine yourself with all the drugs and rear end and then things take a sharp turn towards Dante's Inferno. You don't get to see him digging a hole in a cornfield but it's really satisfying. The Aviator was just kind of sad because the dude had tertiary syphillis or something and his last big project turned out to be a huge failure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
IIMM: Leonardo DiCaprio did such a good job with Wolf of Wall Street that he made everybody else in that entire movie look like dog poo poo. Jonah Hill looked like a hack compared with the overpowering awe of Leonardo On Steroids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
You didn't like 'Movie about fellating early days of movies and comparing the awe inspiring yawns of REAL3D(tm) to how shocking seeing moving pictures at all was, that was marketed as a fantasy movie about a boy and his toy robot' AKA Hugo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Funny enough I actually love Gangs of New York. Parts of that movie are absolutely incredible, but I found it struggled to maintain a good sense of flow, which was surprising because it's not even the longest movie he's made (And Wolf of Wall Street's 3 hours just flew by) but it felt like it couldn't maintain its pace at all. DiCaprio is pretty good in it but hadn't really come into his own yet like he would in (arguably) The Aviator and (definitely) Wolf of Wall Street, so he and everybody else are basically completely overwhelmed by Day-Lewis' performance. The Departed is a movie I really enjoy, but it also feels pretty conventional so I was really surprised when he finally won a Best Director Oscar for it. "Martin Scorcese wins Best Director for The Departed but actually really all those other movies he made.  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
I'm a sucker for any good period piece so that's probably why Gangs gets a pass. It does definitely have pacing problems but I'm so happy to be deep in period costumes and sets that I don't mind. And yeah, getting the Oscar finally for Departed of everything seemed weird. But whatever, all's well that ends' well I guess. Leo's performance in Wolf was undoubtedly great but something about that movie, I dunno. It felt like rambling. A bunch of fun scenes that didn't really add up to anything. But the 3 hours did just fly by, no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I liked Dead Can Dance at the end of Gladiator and the end of The Mist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Care for a game of Mario Kart, Mr. Bond?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I'm a sucker for any good period piece so that's probably why Gangs gets a pass. It does definitely have pacing problems but I'm so happy to be deep in period costumes and sets that I don't mind. If they had cut the number of speeches and monologues that Leo alone makes they could have cut off about 45 minutes of movie and nobody would have noticed the difference. Still a pretty good movie though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
EmmyOk posted:I've been rewatching Hannibal and it's a thoroughly great show but a scene I just watched reminded me of something I hate in shows. When two characters sleep together and one slips away during the night to commit a crime and then returns to bed before the other person wakes up. This gives them a "X was with me the whole night" alibi. Maybe I'm a really light sleeper but I always wake up when a girl(read: my pets) gets out of or into bed with me. It's such a risky thing to do. Similarly, serial killers in shows don't need sleep. Any sleep. At all. People like Dexter will get home sometime between 2 and 3 in the morning, get up at 7 and make their opening credits breakfast and then work through a 10-hour day and then do it all over again. No way does someone like that live like this for more than one year before simply dropping dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 10:37
|
|