|
space-man posted:i had no clue there were toys. although i do remember seeing some sort of prequel book in the library once ...how old are you?
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Snak posted:...how old are you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Timby posted:Probably the only time Bill Pullman was made into an action figure: You're forgetting all of the Spaceballs moichendising.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:People who weren't born when ID4 came out can vote. Yeah, I was actually curious, because then I would have context for their statement. I am aware that the wheel of the world continually turns over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Timby posted:Probably the only time Bill Pullman was made into an action figure: It's a bummer Lost Highway didn't have a Hot Wheels tie-in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
When Tim Burton's Batman came out, would Bruce Wayne's backstory have been common knowledge? I ask because it feels like the opening of the movie is supposed to be a fakeout, with a couple and their child walking into a dark alley and getting attacked by criminals. But then the movie treats it as something of a reveal later on when Vicki Vale uncovers the murder of the Waynes. I don't think the Adam West series tackled the murder at all, and that probably would have been the main source of Batman osmosis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Comic books were always popular and any self respecting comic book nerd would know the Batman origin. There was "osmosis" from that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:Comic books were always popular and any self respecting comic book nerd would know the Batman origin. There was "osmosis" from that. There's still a lot of people who wouldn't have know though. I mean, because of that movie, a lot of people thought that the Joker was canonically the guy who who killed batman's parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Everyone has always known Batman's origin. He and Superman are kind of in another category when it comes to pop culture. Are you sure that the movie didn't just treat the reveal as a surprise to Vickie--as a character note?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
pre-Tim Burton's Batman, there were probably lots of people who didn't know Batman's origin. yeah everyone knows now, but now there have been more than half-a-dozen huge blockbuster films, at least five animated shows, and a major video game franchise featuring Batman. We're talking about back when there were comics and Adam West and probably a radio show and possibly some black and white Adam-West precursor I've never heard of, and that was it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
space-man posted:i had no clue there were toys. although i do remember seeing some sort of prequel book in the library once There was also a prequel comic that revealed that yes, Randy Quaid actually was abducted by the aliens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:There was also a prequel comic that revealed that yes, Randy Quaid actually was abducted by the aliens. Did it answer the question of whether the aliens did things to him? Sexual things?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Randy Quaid actually was abducted by aliens. This explains a lot, actually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:I don't think the Adam West series tackled the murder at all, and that probably would have been the main source of Batman osmosis. The Adam West series references the murders once in the first episode but there is no overt connection to it being the reason Bruce Wayne became Batman. Also, it's not like it was routinely brought up in the comics. The best stories usually delve into the drives and wants of characters but, month to month, it was just another adventure solving crimes. For a lot of casual fans, they probably just thought Batman was Batman because he was Batman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Snak posted:...how old are you? 32. think it has more to do with i live in south africa and so we didn't get all the cool toys. :/
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Timby posted:Probably the only time Bill Pullman was made into an action figure:
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
SubG posted:The hauntingly complete listings at Figure Realm concur. A good reference if you're anxious to find out if your collection of Billy Barty and Burt Young action figures is complete. I hope when REVOLUTION comes about we can bury this as a secret shame when we reshape society. In the vein of dystopian scifi, but the hidden knowledge is more shameful than anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
I've got some Night of the Hunter questions for SubG: What, exactly, is going on with John? There's the watch, which seems to tie him to the preacher, and his late night commiserating with Lillian Gish and the apple. I can't quite figure it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
space-man posted:32. think it has more to do with i live in south africa and so we didn't get all the cool toys. :/ ...that makes sense!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've got some Night of the Hunter questions for SubG: I came across an essay that talks about this a bit back when I first saw it quote:And the Virgin is associated with a variety of trees, the palm, the olive, the plantain. Miz Cooper tells us, “I'm a strong tree with branches for many birds.” She and John exchange apples. In many paintings of Mary she or the Child holds an apple, a sign of man’s fall and the need for redemption by her son. John gives her an apple for Christmas and she calls it, “the richest gift a body could have,” our humanity. http://www.asharperfocus.com/Nightof.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
The main actor from Drug War, a Chinese flick, got dubbed over in Mandarin, which prompted this question: Do people from Hong Kong not speak Mandarin? The article I read doesnt speak why he was dubbed, just treated it as if it was something that was regular business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:The main actor from Drug War, a Chinese flick, got dubbed over in Mandarin, which prompted this question: Do people from Hong Kong not speak Mandarin? Mandarin is the official language of China (and technically it might be several languages depending who you ask) but it originated in the Northern part of China. There are a variety of languages in Southern China but Hong Kong speaks some variety of Cantonese. The main reason that this is still a thing is that Hong Kong wasn't officially part of China until 1997, and the British (who owned the area until then) didn't completely stamp out the native language. Here is a (kinda simplified) map to illustrate this concept: 
computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Aug 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
That poo poo is wack; and interesting. I knew Hong Kong wasnt part of china till the 90s, but still, to have a guy need to be dubbed in for Mandarin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Toebone posted:I came across an essay that talks about this a bit back when I first saw it The stuff about the transition from Old Testament to New is something that was easy to pick up, but the real turn was the recreation of the opening scene. "There were two kings." What a drat movie, by the way. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Aug 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've got some Night of the Hunter questions for SubG: So I'm going to start by taking a step back to look at just the visual grammar Charles Laughton and DP Stanley Cortez use to tell the story. We start out with the opening titles, which are superimposed over a star field (all the images are links to larger versions, which might help because the Criterion blu is dark for most monitors):  This gives way to an empty star field:  ...into which is introduced a disembodied Lillian Gish, who we do not yet know as Rachel Cooper, who begins the opening narration.  There are dissolves between Rachel and a group of equally disembodied children:  Rachel is addressing the children. She is also addressing us, the audience. So we're encouraged purely by these visual elements to associate ourselves with the children. Disembodied children floating in space. So probably not literal children. It's worth pointing out that this is what the film dumps on us right up front. It doesn't give us anything else to contextualise any of this, to tell us how we should be interpreting it or whatever. Anyway. Rachel's opening narration shifts to a series of exterior shots. We start out moving over the countryside (moving right to left). We then focus in on a town, still floating above everything (and still moving right to left). We settle on an individual house, where there are children playing. We're still flying and we're still drifting right to left. We finally focus our attention on the interior space of a house.     We've now had our first brush with death. The reason why I call out this sequence is not because I think it's overwhelming important thematically or whatever, but rather because it gives us much of the film's visual grammar right up front. Our first glimpse of the world is structured similarly to the intro to Psycho (1960) five years later. We start out with an omniscient overhead view, indifferent, unfocused, wandering, and arrive almost as if by random selection on the scene in which the narrative proper begins. It suggests that we could look in almost any window (in Psycho) or door (in Night of the Hunter) and find a similar story. It also calls out a deliberate distinction between the phenomenological world---which is just a fancy word from metaphysics that means the everyday world, where we care about poo poo like cause and effect---and a transcendent world---where cause and effect and everyday rules about `realism' might be violated...or, more strongly, where they don't even count. Point being that we're dividing the visual space of the film, right from the start, into a safe place where rules of `realism' don't loving count and a place where everything works like it does in the everyday world, and our introduction to the latter is a corpse. The framing of the shot is one that will be re-used throughout the film---the phenomenological world is a place where you get dead, and you get dead in this tight vertical oubliette in the middle of the screen. Anyway, now that we're knocked out the nuts and bolts of visual storytelling for the entire rest of the film, we can meet some of the characters we're actually going to be spending time with. We pull back from the corpse in the cellar and meet Harry Powell, our villain. He's driving into town. I won't bother to post a bunch of screenshots because we've already been introduced to most of the visual elements. I'll just point out that Harry shows up driving from screen right to screen left---he's coming from the some other place just like we are, and he's heading in the same direction. After we meet him and learn a little about him we helicopter away from the walls of a prison and dissolve to another overhead shot of a town, which in turn dissolves to our other principles:  They're in the open, no human structure encompassing, fencing, or framing them. They're children in a field of flowers. They're near but not quite in the shade of a tree. We should probably pay attention to them, because the film's already told us that we, the audience, are like children. Although we're disembodied and floating in a field of stars instead of flowers. But the film ain't fooling me. I think it counts. Anyway, even though these kids, our protagonists John and Pearl, are floating in a field of grace like the disembodied space kids which we're apparently like, it isn't going to last. I'm going to just skip over the arrival of their father and the setup of the `actual' plot because, again, it doesn't really introduce more of the visual grammar I'm talking about. At any rate it isn't long before our heavy is showing up to blot out the natural state of grace our protagonists are in:  Big man blotting out the tree(s) and looming over a little woman, Willa (John and Pearl's mother). And it isn't long after he's inserted himself into the scene like that that our protagonists are...   ...trapped in those visual oubliettes that are where the film's already told us corpses are. In case we were in any doubt about this, Harry manufactures another corpse for us:  ...crossing from screen right to screen left. Soon (after I handwave through the intervening narrative) the kids are trapped in one of those enclosed screen-spaces with Harry. Underground. In a cellar.  But they escape. Because Harry can come down to get them (screen right to screen left) but while they flee (screen left to screen right) Powell becomes actually comically inept when he tries to follow the same way. It's like he's playing a side-scroller and his d-pad sticks in one direction. After slipping on a banana peel (actually a bottle) and getting his fingers slammed in the door (actually getting his fingers slammed in the door) John and Pearl flee to the nearby river. Powell meances them, ineffectually, literally stuck in the muck as John moves the boat off (screen left to screen right):  Powell's not that far away, but unfortunately for him the current is moving left to right. So there's no way for him to catch them.  John apparently knows he's entered a safe place; as soon as Powell is off screen he puts down his paddle and immediately dozes off:  This is obviously a serious transgression against tactical realism, but it also means that the river is one of those places outside the phenomenological world where that poo poo just don't count. Perspectives are all hosed up. I'm not even going to try to cover all of the poo poo in this sequence. I'm sure you can find literally shot by shot analyses online. But I'll point out a couple things. Here's the first place the kids go ashore:  That looks like the real world. That's probably bad news. Let's see:   Yeah. One of those loving vertical spaces. The kids start out in the background, dwarfed by the kids that are already occupying the space. And when John and Pearl move into the foreground there's no room for them. loving phenomenological world. Let's see what the next place they stop looks like:  Sheep. That's good. It's also foreshadowing if you've peeked ahead and know our kindly floating space woman is named Rachel and happen to know that Rachel means `ewe' in Hebrew (I ain't even going to go off on the story of Rachel, Jacob, and Joseph, but totally drop this here to prove I know all about that poo poo). Anyway....  Yeah. Look at all those diagonal lines telling us that's where they go. And it's all negative space. It's not an enclosed internal space, it's an exterior space bounded on either side by interior spaces. And one of them contains something I think might be a metaphor.  That's not where they're going. They're going to the  The kids take to the river again. Those diagonal lines are gone and blackness has swallowed all that negative space. No more room at the  They flee down the river, which has become turbulent. John struggles to steer the boat.  CHAOS REIGNS!  Then in the next set of shots John and Pearl have fallen asleep again. No transition. gently caress you, don't need a transition. The river is not the phenomenological world, remember. Look at all those angles and shadows and poo poo! Anyway, the rowboat goes aground unguided by human hands.  Time passes. We pan up to...wait, where have I seen this before?  Anyway, dawn comes. The sun parts the clouds with  He also misses the kindly old lady who has snuck up on him:  We've got the same shot that we entered the river on, swapping night for day, Powell for Cooper, and we've moved back to give John and Rachel plenty of breathing room in there compared to the claustrophobic framing of John and Harry. Anyway, after the trip down the river, away from the phenomenological world and the looming Harry Powell, the first thing Rachel does is grab a switch and use it to drive John and Pearl to her place. Right to left.  She's not here to take them to paradise or something. Although in order to reach her the kids had to flee the everyday world, she's protecting them in the everyday, phenomenological world.  GET OFF MY PHENOMENOLOGICAL WORLD! I mean just look at this loving shot. She's just looming over him and he's this tiny little dark warty thing in the corner, literally lower than the rear end of the horse he rode in on. Anyway, the film makes sure we know that we're in the not-safe space of the real world. Harry's lurking outside the house. The kids are trapped in a space just like the one Willa died in:  ...but it's not as claustrophobic as Willa's space because:  Rachel is there. There's a bunch of poo poo here where we're encouraged to draw additional parallels between Rachel and Harry (like them singing together) but this poo poo's getting long. Point being that Rachel is more than Harry's equal and so Harry ends up:  Oh no. He doesn't end up committing suicide by cop, which is kinda looks like where that's leading, but John can see the signs as well as we can. Harry's doomed. Anyway. Yeah. So where I'm going with all of this is that the film uses these visual cues to tell us a few things. We the audience are like the children, the children in the story aren't capable of saving themselves (either like Pearl through passive faith or like John through striving). Both Rachel and Harry come from some outer Other Place, but they're also in and of the everyday world (Harry getting wounded and boxed in that barn is like Anton Chigurh getting into a car crash---you might be an avatar of a higher power but everything in the world is subject to the same implacable laws). John gives Rachel two apples. One after he first arrives. He's ritually cleansed (more like deloused) and his flesh is mortified (he gets a spanking from Rachel's stern right hand when he tried to get out of the bath). He's gone on this strange not-entirely-logical journey to get here, but he's still basically the same person he was when he left. Rachel leaves her apple on her lap while John eats his. Later, when Harry is surrounded by those cops and it looks like he's about to be sent sprawling back to whatever dark space he came from John intercedes. He doesn't care about the money anymore, throws it at Harry's prostrate form. He's become a different person. When that different person gives Rachel a second apple, she recognises it for what it is and praises John and by praising him encourages us, also children and therefore also unable to navigate the phenomenological world by ourselves, to do what John has done. Which, if you want to think of it that way, is what the story is about. And now I will say `phenomenological' several more times. Phenomenological , phenomenological, phenomenological. Phenomenological. I may also use the phrase `immanentise the eschaton', even though I'm not sure it has anything to do with answering your question. Which I hope some of the rest of this does. SubG fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
That's a pretty good answer
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Night of the Hunter is a beautiful loving movie and that post is really good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
SubG in the house! I haven't seen the movie but if those caps are representative, that is a very well-shot movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Snak posted:some black and white Adam-West precursor I've never heard of, and that was it. TCM has been showing the 40's batman episodes sporadically this summer. They're...not good, but better than you might expect. Kind of weird but boring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:I haven't seen the movie but if those caps are representative, that is a very well-shot movie. But it's worth pointing out that it isn't a film that's photographed entirely in eye-catching shots. There's a lot of completely by-the-books composition and editing---shot reverse shot, two shots, that kind of poo poo. Which is part of the schtick. The whole thing doesn't look like an Expressionist fantasia because the parts that do look like an Expressionist fantasia look that way to draw our attention to something, to make a narrative distinction. Those stylistic flourishes don't encompass the entire visual aesthetic the way the unrelenting beauty or rectilinear desolation of Miyagawa's photography in Ozu's Floating Weeds (1959) and Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961), respectively, do with absolute, frame-by-frame consistency, or the way Tarr Béla's camera builds relentless, seamless visual involutions. Because Laughton and Cortez are not creating a single diegetic world, they are---intentionally, overtly---creating several distinct worlds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:SubG in the house! They are, it is and get on that poo poo son.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Sirs, thank you, and I will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
effectual posted:TCM has been showing the 40's batman episodes sporadically this summer. They're...not good, but better than you might expect. Kind of weird but boring. I knew it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
I read Illuminatus! too, SubG. Thank you. Also, I think there's something cool going on with The Preacher getting stuck in riverbank muck. His journey is about his freedom to do lots of things kids can't: trade on faux religiosity, seduce widows and what have you. He is undone because he's so bound to money (he gets Willa to testify that her husband robbed banks to buy her nice things) that he cannot appreciate his life without coveting. What would he even do with the ten thousand? The children on the other hand, helpless as they are, can appreciate freedom from responsibility. They get chastened for the potatoes but wretched children deserve charity. They're like empty vessels anything can go in (see Ruby). So at the beginning, John's taught an oath, and by the end of it realizes the meaning of oaths. They're not yet bound by their choices. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Two of my favorite shots in Hunter: - The iris-in with Harry stalking outside the house. Mitchum's inflection of "Children? Children?" sends a chill up my spine. - Near the end, Icey Spoon pathetically yelling for justice. Harry isn't the only evil character in the film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:- Near the end, Icey Spoon pathetically yelling for justice. Harry isn't the only evil character in the film. Icey Spoon is not evil, she just confuses knowledge for wisdom. Because she knows something, that is all she needs to know. She is prejudiced, not evil. The fact that John forgives Harry in a fit of empathetic guilt shows that the film is about the kind of confrontation good will have with evil. At the same time, though, the film is almost rabidly satirical this way, playing the characters back and forth. Ruby is the perfect example, she fakes sewing lessons to dally with boys, only for us to be reminded subtly that she's been orphaned by The Great Depression: she's been prostituting herself since she was a child just to survive. The boys in the alley don't stand a chance. Also, check this out:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXY23gsHXXo
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
effectual posted:TCM has been showing the 40's batman episodes sporadically this summer. They're...not good, but better than you might expect. Kind of weird but boring. 'not good' is charitable for overtly racist batman as a wartime government agent rather than a crime fighting vigilante. who drives a cadillac because they can't afford a batmobile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Can anyone confirm that Tom Hardy voiced the narrator in "Equilibrium"? I'm 99.9% positive but there's nothing on the internet I can find. (It's on netflix and you can hear his voice in the first minute, by the way.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
FaradayCage posted:Can anyone confirm that Tom Hardy voiced the narrator in "Equilibrium"? I'm pretty sure Kurt Wimmer did the narration in that movie. I tried to find a source and found this AV Club article which mentions it
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Could someone explain what the gently caress was going on in Naked Lunch? I just watched it and I'm lost. Admittedly I'm horrible at reading films but this one seemed so obtuse and dense I just nothing out of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 04:08
|
|
