|
Cage plays it like a man losing his mind. Not a comedy. Director has no idea what he's doing. Still not a comedy Result: A very entertaining non-comedy.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Snak posted:Nicholas Cage says it is. So did Tommy Wiseau.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:So did Tommy Wiseau. Nicholas Cage is an academy award winning actor and Tommy Wiseau is an incompetent, sadly maladjusted quack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
In some ways its crazy that Neil LaBute directed the Wicker Man remake and in other ways its really not at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Is the Nicholas Cage Wicker Man a comedy? Cage's performance is almost absurdist. Sure, why not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
It seems to hate women and mormonism (a weird combination) too much to be all the way a joke, but Cage is amped to 11 from the minute he gets to the island. What are Molly Parker and Leelee Sobieski doing in that movie? I hope it paid for a house.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:In some ways its crazy that Neil LaBute directed the Wicker Man remake and in other ways its really not at all. It's very LaBute. It would be less surprising if Mamet wrote it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Yeah it is but it doesn't seem like it should be to me. Like why is this guy making this and then you watch it and it totally fits but it's still a crazy thing that exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
I want to see a Labute version of Oleanna now where Nic Cage starts screaming and breaks a chair over Debra Eisenstaedt's head after five minutes
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Snak posted:Nicholas Cage is an academy award winning actor and Tommy Wiseau is an incompetent, sadly maladjusted quack. All i was saying was that they both retroactively claimed that The Wicker Man and The Room were ironic/jokes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=h...horName=S+T+F+U
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:In some ways its crazy that Neil LaBute directed the Wicker Man remake and in other ways its really not at all. Holy poo poo! Did not know that. His first two films are almost perfect movies, and his third wasn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
In the Marvel movie logo, are the comic pages shown from actual comic books?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:In the Marvel movie logo, are the comic pages shown from actual comic books? Apparently it varies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:In the Marvel movie logo, are the comic pages shown from actual comic books? They are, but they're mostly super cropped and obscured so it's hard to tell. Here's a decent copy if anyone wants to try to go frame by frame. But you can clearly make out the "imagine that in the wrong hands" panel, which is definitely from New X-Men 117, so I assume all of them are real. There's a frame of a woman's lower half and she has fiery hands, I'm pretty sure that's Jean from a Dark Phoenix issue. There are also some bits that look very Simonson-y and are probably from his Thor, he has a real distinct style. I've always liked that logo though, it looks really slick. The guy who made it does a lot of cool titles, you've probably seen his work in other places: http://www.artofthetitle.com/designer/kyle-cooper/ edit: ^^^ I'm not sure if any of the variants actually have different pages flipping though, it seems like a lot of effort. Someone with more free time than me can check if they want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Ror posted:They are, but they're mostly super cropped and obscured so it's hard to tell. Here's a decent copy if anyone wants to try to go frame by frame. But you can clearly make out the "imagine that in the wrong hands" panel, which is definitely from New X-Men 117, so I assume all of them are real. There's a frame of a woman's lower half and she has fiery hands, I'm pretty sure that's Jean from a Dark Phoenix issue. There are also some bits that look very Simonson-y and are probably from his Thor, he has a real distinct style. The definitely mix it up sometimes because the often manage to get a panel of a relevant character in there. you can see a bunch of the variants here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7cYKt8RqY8 edit: Holy poo poo, Elektra's is like, all panels of her. It looks fittingly lovely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Snak posted:The definitely mix it up sometimes because the often manage to get a panel of a relevant character in there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Cage posted:Punisher 1989 didn't have one of those, did it? Its lumped in with the 2004 version and War Zone in that video. I'm a little confused by their labeling there. I wish it was made clear which specific film the logo was from, because there are cases like that where it obviously wasn't all of them. I don't think War Zone had it either, because it was released under the Marvel: Knights label. But independent of that, the video does show all the variations of the modern logo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Sticking with Marvel, how does the licensing agreement work with other studios such as Fox or Sony? Does Fox just pay Marvel comics a flat-rate fee for using the X-Men, or is the license based on the amount of revenue a movie generates?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Sticking with Marvel, how does the licensing agreement work with other studios such as Fox or Sony? Does Fox just pay Marvel comics a flat-rate fee for using the X-Men, or is the license based on the amount of revenue a movie generates? The licensing gets kind of hairy and isn't really known to the public, but basically Fox & Sony bought the rights to X-Men and Spiderman movies respectively (and a whole bunch of other stuff), and the key thing was that if they didn't make a movie in a certain amount of time, the rights would revert back to Marvel. It gets hairy because there have been lots of renegotiations in the meantime. For example, Sony originally had Movie and TV rights for Spiderman, but Marvel got the TV rights back in exchange for some unknown tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:Sticking with Marvel, how does the licensing agreement work with other studios such as Fox or Sony? Does Fox just pay Marvel comics a flat-rate fee for using the X-Men, or is the license based on the amount of revenue a movie generates? I don't know for a fact but I'm pretty sure it's a combination: a budgeted fee plus a share of revenues (either from first dollar or on an adjusted gross basis, ie allowing for certain deductions by the studio first).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It gets hairy because there have been lots of renegotiations in the meantime. For example, Sony originally had Movie and TV rights for Spiderman, but Marvel got the TV rights back in exchange for some unknown tradeoff. I believe Marvel got the comprehensive (live-action and animated) television rights back for Spider-Man in exchange for Sony getting to keep the movie license in perpetuity as opposed to having to have a new movie in development every few years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
While the deals sound pretty lovely for Marvel it is because they were made back in the 90s when the company was in really bad financial shape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
cool that means theyre still bad deals until the 90s end, i think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
We just got an Alamo Drafthouse theater in Omaha recently, and it's pretty awesome how many great older movies they show. When they get something like Big Trouble in Little China, is it typically the old 35mm prints?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Sometimes. They'll usually mention when it is somewhere. (Go to video vortex if they do that there)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Great thread! Just stumbled across it.. BIt of a personal axe i like to grind, but apart from Romeros comments on the matter why is the "There is never a cause revealed" such a big part of the history of the Living Dead series? Night is my favorite film and every time i watch it i cant help but have the same conversation with myself "Its there, its right there, its the probe, its not a one off casually mentioned potential cause, its referenced 3 or 4 times, probe explodes, emits radiation, the dead get up, the radiation spreads the dead rise in those areas". Hell one of the TV broadcasts flat out says "The phenomenon will continue as the radiation spreads" I have noticed Romero is an unreliable source, pre internet i remember him contradicting himself on a few things, and im sure its worse as he has aged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Dawn Of The Dead has several sequences that specifically point out that you should never fully trust what you hear on the news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
I think the point of not revealing the cause is that, in doing so, you give the audience someone to blame for a disaster, rather than be absorbed in the existing allegory. Romero is a big fan of zombies representing aspects of our society, mindless consumerism, etc, and if one of his movies was about how scientists accidentally released a virus, or the military did something and cause the zombies, then it would seem like a cautionary tale against those things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Well yeah thats the popular thinking, but my point is it is explained, clearly, multilple times. Romero is VERY unreliable when it comes to remebering things, i vividly recall watching an interview where he insisted the alt ending to dawn of the dead WAS filmed despite the two actors involved saying they never did it.. He then goes on to tell a story of the exploding head meant to be used in that scene being used on another..
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
What I'd heard was that there were meant to be multiple scenes of various possible explanations for the dead walking, all contradictory, to convey that nobody knew for sure, but the probe stuff was the only bit they ended up using.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Want Romero drinking like a fifth a day by the time he made Day? I'm kinda shocked he can remember as much as he does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
It's pretty amazing that Romero is still alive and kicking at 76 since he's basically lived on nothing but coffee and cigarettes for the last 50 or so years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
They breed 'em tough in Pittsburgh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:It's pretty amazing that Romero is still alive and kicking at 76 since he's basically lived on nothing but coffee and cigarettes for the last 50 or so years. The only thing he's lost is two full feet from his height.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Is Punch Drunk Love meant to be a parody of other Adam Sandler films?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd call it a parody, more of a recontextualizing of Sandler's persona into a more hostile universe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Purple Monkey posted:Is Punch Drunk Love meant to be a parody of other Adam Sandler films? I think it's just Paul Thomas Anderson being Paul Thomas Anderson
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
How does the movie Baskin (2015) end?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
RandomPauI posted:How does the movie Baskin (2015) end? He meets Robbins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:55
|
|
