|
bows1 posted:Also don't go on RLM. It's trash for trash people They're funny when they're watching trashy movies/random VHS tapes from grandma's attic, but Half in the Bag can get real emperor's new clothes-y.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Actually red letter media owns
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:Actually *cut to hooker murder* red letter media *cut to pizza bagels* owns
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Their Boyhood review made me realize they have really bought way too into the mainstream Hollywood narrative zeitgeist if they think that movie has poor storytelling and characterization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
I like the Plinkett reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
This may be the wrongest opinion in the history of this forum, but I get the impression from watching that trailer for Young Einstein that Yahoo Serious is a decent comedic screen presence, and probably could have developed into a bankable actor if he had been in something with a funny script/wasn't so off puttingly broad/played better outside of Australia. He's light years better than Paulie Shore, and how many garbage comedies did that fucker get into theatrical release? Fake edit: I just saw that he cowrote the script, but a bunch of successful comedic actors have also fallen into that trap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:This may be the wrongest opinion in the history of this forum, but I get the impression from watching that trailer for Young Einstein that Yahoo Serious is a decent comedic screen presence, and probably could have developed into a bankable actor if he had been in something with a funny script/wasn't so off puttingly broad/played better outside of Australia. I think the wrongest possible opinion on film would be that Leni Riefenstahl was an incompetent director, but her message was important enough to make up for it. I haven't seen Young Einstein since I was a kid, but I remember thinking it was kinda funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I think the wrongest possible opinion on film would be that Leni Riefenstahl was an incompetent director, but her message was important enough to make up for it. Jeez. Was he that out there? I assume by "important message", you don't mean he was a Nazi apologist? I vaguely remember lurking when someone was arguing that what she did wasn't that impressive technically, but she had a ton of resources at her disposal. (to be fair she did have a sort of access and coordination with her subject that pretty much nobody else had, but I don see how that should detract from the technical achievement. It's almost hard to make a comparison to her contemporary filmmakers because her work was so far removed from what other directors were aiming to accomplish.) Leni Riefenstahl lived pretty close to where I lived and worked in her last years. I wonder if our paths ever crossed. We almost certainly dived in some of the same reefs. Kind of spooky to think about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:Jeez. Was he that out there? I assume by "important message", you don't mean he was a Nazi apologist? I vaguely remember lurking when someone was arguing that what she did wasn't that impressive technically, but she had a ton of resources at her disposal. (to be fair she did have a sort of access and coordination with her subject that pretty much nobody else had, but I don see how that should detract from the technical achievement. It's almost hard to make a comparison to her contemporary filmmakers because her work was so far removed from what other directors were aiming to accomplish.) I think you misinterpreted Skwirl's joke, which was pretty drat funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
I see. I totally connected his post with the dude who was saying Triumph should not be considered an important work. Now that I think of it, I may be combining that conversation and another conversation about whether Birth of A Nation or Intolerance is the more important film that should be taught in film classes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:This may be the wrongest opinion in the history of this forum, but I get the impression from watching that trailer for Young Einstein that Yahoo Serious is a decent comedic screen presence, and probably could have developed into a bankable actor if he had been in something with a funny script/wasn't so off puttingly broad/played better outside of Australia. He also did the music for his movies. It seems like he just wanted to do his own thing and write/direct/act rather than focus on his career and trying to become a star. And by the time his 2nd and 3rd movies bombed it was too late to capitalize on the small success of Young Einstein even if he wanted to. Something I've noticed is if you look at practically any old movie that makes money, the lead actor will almost always have tons more credits, even if it's doing Lifetime movies. Pauly Shore being a shining example of that. It seems like there's a ton of work for male actors with any degree of fame and if he wasn't working it was his own choice to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Might be better suited for the "Identify a Movie For Me" thread, but since we're on the subject... Maybe around 2000 or so with Yahoo Serious. Don't remember if it was a trailer or a short comedy thing, but it was a short clip and it had something to do with him on an island or a beach and it was funny as hell. Any idea what it might have been? edit: I think it was a commercial on MTV. Skunkduster fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Jun 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
For the record I don't think Yahoo Serious was a Nazi apologist, and apologies to him if anyone took that meaning away from my previous post. I'm also not quite clear on how that happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
I definitely notice how all of the examples I can think of where a star actor takes a calamitous turn at script writing(and sometimes directing) the result is at worst a setback to their career that can be overcome as long as they aren't unwilling to see their error. I'd be curious if there was a place to find a list of films that had wide releases and where the writer or director was much more established as a talent in front of the camera. Somehow Eddie Murphy keeps cashing pay checks even after writing Harlem Nights, Another 48 Hrs. (maybe; it is a story credit with a ton of other writers), Vampire in Brooklyn, and Norbit. Dan Aykroyd was mostly forgiven for writing the screenplay for one of the worst movies ever, Nothing But Trouble and then wrote the utterly limp Blues Brothers 2000. I think any time he reveals his vision for what Ghostbusters should have been, it also reveals how much he needs a guiding hand. Actually, I'd be curious to know how much you can take away from looking at writing credits on a Hollywood film, given what I've heard in brief of the arbitration process. Heteroy fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jun 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:I definitely notice how all of the examples I can think of where a star actor takes a calamitous turn at script writing(and sometimes directing) the result is at worst a setback to their career that can be overcome as long as they aren't unwilling to see their error. As much as I've come to loathe Aykroyd Nothing But Trouble is a pretty fun movie. I mean, it's a hot mess but it has its moments and the man himself plays, eh, himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
NBT is like Saw directed by Carpenter, how can you not love the idea? (That doesn't mean it's fun to watch though.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
It's pretty amazing that someone with the purse strings at Warner Bros. read the script or talked to Aykroyd, or however things went, and thought it would be a smart investment to allot 40 million in 1990 dollars to make Nothing But Trouble. I'm curious how far along in the writing/production process did the Digital Underground performance get added in. As much as I like them, it's a bizarre turn for the movie to take. Almost as weird as Goodie Mob showing up kind of as themselves in Mystery Men, even though they were pretty obscure and next to nothing was in there to indicate who they were. I wonder if they had a song on the soundtrack that they performed and was cut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Nothing But Trouble is the kind of movie that exists solely because of cocaine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Nothing But Trouble is the kind of movie that exists solely because of cocaine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
What are some major movies that actually have plot holes? I googled for info, but it turns out everyone on the internet think a plot hole is just a character acting stupidly or a movie not explaining something. I thought Cypher being able to get into the Matrix by himself, but thinking about it, if you were working with the robots you wouldn't really need an operator. You could just have a little program that sends you into the Matrix at a specific time and then calls a specific phone with the exit signal at a specific time. So I don't think that really counts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What are some major movies that actually have plot holes? I googled for info, but it turns out everyone on the internet think a plot hole is just a character acting stupidly or a movie not explaining something. I mentioned this in another thread, but for old-timey noir The Big Sleep makes zero sense if you stop to think about it for a moment. No one knows who killed the chauffeur, no one in the movie and certainly no one in the audience. But it's a classic Bogart/Bacall flick and I love it all the same. The Matrix thing, I though he was actually not in the Matrix, but interacting via the programming screen they showed earlier, they just have that scene to make it obvious what he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What are some major movies that actually have plot holes? I googled for info, but it turns out everyone on the internet think a plot hole is just a character acting stupidly or a movie not explaining something. The Stepford Wives with Matthew Broderick makes zero sense. One minute the wives are robots dispensing cash out their mouths and the next they're actually the original wives who have been augmented.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:The Stepford Wives with Matthew Broderick makes zero sense. One minute the wives are robots dispensing cash out their mouths and the next they're actually the original wives who have been augmented. It's true, they even show that there is a robot body of Nicole Kidman's character being fabricated, which means that the "wives" are robots and the originals are murdered. Except that is also directly contradicted in the film. That film has a fantastic opening credits scene and not much else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:The Matrix thing, I though he was actually not in the Matrix, but interacting via the programming screen they showed earlier, they just have that scene to make it obvious what he's doing. That would make his little monologue about the steak pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:That would make his little monologue about the steak pretty weird. I'll admit I haven't seen the first one since sometime before the sequels came out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'll admit I haven't seen the first one since sometime before the sequels came out. Wash their taste from your brain and eat the Matrix steak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
effectual posted:Wash their taste from your brain and eat the Matrix steak. The best way to watch the movie is the DVD with composer commentary. Everything except the soundtrack is muted and the ccomposer only talks in the silent parts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What are some major movies that actually have plot holes? I googled for info, but it turns out everyone on the internet think a plot hole is just a character acting stupidly or a movie not explaining something. The AI's plan in The Matrix to use humans as batteries is a plot hole. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says you never get as much energy out of a system as you put into it, so the AI would have been better off using what energy was used to keep people alive into directly powering themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:The AI's plan in The Matrix to use humans as batteries is a plot hole. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says you never get as much energy out of a system as you put into it, so the AI would have been better off using what energy was used to keep people alive into directly powering themselves. Arguably, that's not a plot hole. It's not realistic, but it's part of the established premise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Snak posted:Arguably, that's not a plot hole. It's not realistic, but it's part of the established premise. If The Matrix is set in a universe where the laws of thermodynamics don't exist, much more than just the human battery thing is undermined. Perpetual motion machines that create infinite amounts of free energy exist in such a universe, so there's no need at all for human batteries. It's difficult to appreciate just how different such a world would be. As an analogy, consider a movie set in a universe without gravity. "Cool", you say. " Everyone will be floating around". No, because stars and planets could not even form in such a reality. A universe without the second law of thermodynamics would be at least that different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
I always liked the theory that humans are a) stupid and b) trying to piece things together on their own, and really the computers were just using them for neural computing power. Even fits in with the line that the machines were willing to accept some sacrifices when it came to their operations, in the event of catastrophe/sabotage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
FreshFeesh posted:I always liked the theory that humans are a) stupid and b) trying to piece things together on their own, and really the computers were just using them for neural computing power. Yeah, the battery thing always seemed like a quick and dirty rewrite to make it easier for the average audience member to understand, not a plot hole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
FreshFeesh posted:I always liked the theory that humans are a) stupid and b) trying to piece things together on their own, and really the computers were just using them for neural computing power. Yeah I kinda retconned it in my head that Morpheus actually doesn't have a clue what he's jabbering on about. The sequels make it much clearer that he is actually kind of an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:If The Matrix is set in a universe where the laws of thermodynamics don't exist, much more than just the human battery thing is undermined. Perpetual motion machines that create infinite amounts of free energy exist in such a universe, so there's no need at all for human batteries. I just mean that if we start counting the unrealistic things in scifi as plot holes, we aren't talking about plot anymore, we're talking about realism. I do think it's stupid, and I wish they had not done it, but if that counts as a plot hole than using space shuttles in Armageddon is a plot hole. The actual plot hole in Armageddon is that there's no way it's harder to train astronauts to drill than it is to train drillers to astronaut. When I think of plot holes, I don't think of unrealistic premises, I think of internal inconsistancy. Like The Usual Suspects. This is a pretty popular movie, but I think it's garbage. The acting is great, there's no doubt, but the story is predicated on two facts: Kaiser Sose is an evil genius, and Kaiser Sose is a moron. When the you get to the end of the movie, it's revealed that the entire plot was part of Kaiser Sose's plan to find and kill the only person who knows what he looks like. He epicly fails at this, so that the only difference between before the beginning of the film and after then end is that instead of one person knowing his identity, everyone does. it's a film that's more concerned with the "gotcha" than whether the story makes any sense. For a much, much worse example of this same problem, see Basic, starring John Tavolta and Samuel L. Jackson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What are some major movies that actually have plot holes? I googled for info, but it turns out everyone on the internet think a plot hole is just a character acting stupidly or a movie not explaining something. Skwirl posted:The Matrix thing, I though he was actually not in the Matrix, but interacting via the programming screen they showed earlier, they just have that scene to make it obvious what he's doing. I think the thing that people refer to in this instance is "How does Cypher meet with Agent Smith in the restaurant inside the Matrix without someone on the ship to put him in, pull him out, and without anyone else noticing?" Jacking in is not a solo operation and not the kind of thing someone does with their downtime. And it's probably not something someone does without permission from the ship's captain. Maybe he's good enough to code something to get himself in/out and he can just jam the giant needle into his skull on his own and also...pull it out? But again, that's kind of risky when pretty much anyone could walk in and see what he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:" Jacking in is not a solo operation and not the kind of thing someone does with their downtime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:For the record I don't think Yahoo Serious was a Nazi apologist, and apologies to him if anyone took that meaning away from my previous post. I'm also not quite clear on how that happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
FreshFeesh posted:I always liked the theory that humans are a) stupid and b) trying to piece things together on their own, and really the computers were just using them for neural computing power. I prefer to think that Morpheus is deluded, and is trying to construct a narrative that the machines are "stealing" from the humans when the real story is that humanity is a bunch of shits. Humans are bad parents who poisoned the relationship with their offspring, squandered their birthright and continue to refuse to acknowledge any fault. The Matrix is shoving your abusive dad in a cheap home: it's out of a sense of filial piety clouded under deep resentment. They hate us, but they owe us, so they can't just let us die, even though every single interaction we have is a miserable experience ending with one of us lashing out at the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:I think the thing that people refer to in this instance is "How does Cypher meet with Agent Smith in the restaurant inside the Matrix without someone on the ship to put him in, pull him out, and without anyone else noticing?" Jacking in is not a solo operation and not the kind of thing someone does with their downtime. And it's probably not something someone does without permission from the ship's captain. Maybe he's good enough to code something to get himself in/out and he can just jam the giant needle into his skull on his own and also...pull it out? But again, that's kind of risky when pretty much anyone could walk in and see what he's doing. Of course it's risky, he's a traitor conferring with the bad guys. That happens in real life, and every time the guy doing it runs the risk of someone walking in and seeing what he's doing. And he could pull out the needle no problem, there's nothing on the chair blocking him from reaching around the back and doing it. And the coding something to do the Operator stuff for him wouldn't be a big deal, it seems like the operator's tough jobs are watching for suspicious activity in the Matrix code, and finding a landline close to their position on the fly, neither of which would be an issue for Cypher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Every film will eventually come to seem incomplete if you subject it to enough pressure, because films are fictions assembled from a box of scraps. Alfred Hitchcock said he left loose ends in his films all the time and called "ice-box" talk the thoughts you have later when, long after the drama is over, you realize that there are things that didn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 00:00
|
|
