|
There have been at least 2 lost boys sequels. I didn't watch them, but from the trailers they misunderstood everything that made the original good.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Lost Boys is really good but Near Dark is the superior 80s film about young vampires in love.
FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
TBH the love story was the weakest part of the film alot of it was just the "feel"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
drat, they really went all in on that "it's just like Twilight!" redesign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
street fighter 2 the anime movie just cmae out on blu ray ive never watched it do i watch the japanese one or the english one the blu ray has both
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
The music was the main difference from memory. The American version was more rock orientated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Am I wrong in feeling like there are few, if any, notable feature-length films made between 1915 and 1920? It seems like there's Birth of a Nation followed by a half-decade lull, and then all the classic silent movies start around 1920. What am I overlooking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
A lot of silent movies of that era are just gone, either through the film stock degrading or purposeful destruction by the studios themselves. Nobody really cared about preserving movies in the early days of film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Yeah, the LoC estimates about 75% of films before the 30s I think are lost. So really, it's hard to say what might be notable to us now since we can't be sure what those films were like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:The music was the main difference from memory. The American version was more rock orientated. thanks i watched it and hated it anyways so
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Are you sure you really want to see all those cat boxing movies Thomas Edison made with Edison Studios? There's a drunk history episode about it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27CiI-zMsRA. I doubt there was anything made then worth watching.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
where does amazon streaming x-ray thing pull its trivia from? imdb? cuz i watched spectre just now and one of the trivia things mentioned people believing jaws would be in the movie (turned out they misinterpreted having a villain as iconic as jaws or oddjob). why i ask is about midway through the film bautista's character is yanked out of the train with a rope attached to barrels in a very obvious homage to the film jaws and it isn't commented on in the x-ray for that scene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
spooky like this! posted:A lot of silent movies of that era are just gone, either through the film stock degrading or purposeful destruction by the studios themselves. Nobody really cared about preserving movies in the early days of film. Film preservation was a bad joke until the late '70s, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Empress Brosephine posted:thanks i watched it and hated it anyways so Yeah it's not good at all, sadly. We had it when it came out and we were about 13 and the only scene anyone ever mentioned was the Chun Li in the shower one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yeah it's not good at all, sadly. We had it when it came out and we were about 13 and the only scene anyone ever mentioned was the Chun Li in the shower one. yeah that scene was still in there but even that was pretty pointless. the whole movei was entirely pointless actually
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Am I wrong in feeling like there are few, if any, notable feature-length films made between 1915 and 1920? It seems like there's Birth of a Nation followed by a half-decade lull, and then all the classic silent movies start around 1920. What am I overlooking? Unfortunately, a lot of early features from 1914-1920 just aren't as well known today, even when they exist. Griffith kept making solid films through the 20s, even if few are as notable as BOAN. Intolerance (1916) is probably the most important feature film ever made because it inspired a generation or two of filmmakers around the world. Broken Blossoms (1919) was not just successful, but also an important social film (and surprisingly progressive for the time). William S. Hart's Hell's Hinges (1916) is a great western. Barely over an hour, but it has a really good story and some stunning photography. There's also Louis Feuillade's serials, which are somewhere between shorts and features since most episodes were feature-length. Les Vampires (1916) and Judex (1917) are both fantastic and way more entertaining than you would expect. Erich von Stroheim made his first two features - The Devil's Passkey, his first, is lost, but his second one Blind Husbands is quite fun. You also have the first films from Ernst Lubitsch, Cecil B. DeMille, and Victor Sjostrom. There's also some important films that are forgotten today, but made a huge impact originally. Examples would be Lois Weber's Where Are My Children? (one of the earliest fictional films about birth control) and Different from the Others (a German drama dealing with homosexuality). Abel Gance's J'accuse is an anti-war film made during WWI. But a lot of the highest grossing features from this time are either lost or barely known. There's only a few seconds of the Theda Bara version of Cleopatra that survive and it was one of the most popular films of that decade. The thing to really look out for are the short films. Chaplin made his 12 Mutual comedies from 1916-1917 in addition more than a dozen more for other studios. Fatty Arbuckle made over a hundred from 1913-1920, including the dozen or so co-starring Buster Keaton. Harold Lloyd made his first "glasses character" comedies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Different from the Others (a German drama dealing with homosexuality). This is actually a huge one because not only did it deal with homosexuality, it actively campaigned against its criminalization and stated openly that homosexuality was natural, normal, and good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Is Bad Santa 2 going to be a good movie?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Is Bad Santa 2 going to be a good movie? I don't know. Bad Santa one is a fantastic movie though. Trying not to get my hopes up for the sequel. Not sure how it could possibly live up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Is Bad Santa 2 going to be a good movie? Ask yourself how many good comedy sequels there have ever been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Crank 2 was good also Gremlins 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
It looks poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Crank 2 was good also Gremlins 2. And Jump Street 22. That's about it though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:And Jump Street 22. That's about it though. Addams Family Values.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Timby posted:Ask yourself how many good comedy sequels there have ever been. It's like you're deliberately ignoring the Police Academy franchise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:And Jump Street 22. That's about it though. A Shot in the Dark Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey Christmas Vacation Drunken Master 2 Hot Shots Part Deux Naked Gun 2 1/2 Most of the Muppets sequels I'm sure there's more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Wayne's World 2?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Neighbors 2. It's just that Bad Santa is one of my favorite and most-watched movies and I don't want it to have a terrible sequel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Ace Ventura 2?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Neighbors 2. If you didn't think Neighbors 2 was bad, you should be ok at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
A Very Brady Sequel is a Very Good Sequel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
I've tried googling this to no avail. I've been watching Star Trek TOS and Kirk (maybe others I'm not sure) frequently is shot with his face in shadow and only his eyes lit up, it's jarring in some scenes where Kirk is talking to someone and it goes from a fully lit face to Kirk's mostly in shadow face and I can't think of a single reason for it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Empress Brosephine posted:street fighter 2 the anime movie just cmae out on blu ray ive never watched it do i watch the japanese one or the english one the blu ray has both English. It's just not the same without KMDFM over the Chun-Li/Vega fight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Austin Powers 2 was still decent
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
donquixotic posted:I've tried googling this to no avail. I've been watching Star Trek TOS and Kirk (maybe others I'm not sure) frequently is shot with his face in shadow and only his eyes lit up, it's jarring in some scenes where Kirk is talking to someone and it goes from a fully lit face to Kirk's mostly in shadow face and I can't think of a single reason for it The original series used a lot of theatrical-esque lighting (the women actors were frequently shot with the focus just a bit soft with one direct light source, and a lot of rimlighting). They were also careful with how they shot Shatner because 1) they didn't want to show his toupee and 2) his weight was constantly fluctuating throughout the show's entire run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Just a bit soft? Sure you don't mean very very soft focus
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
The second Addams Family movie was funny? I think?? But it's been like decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Timby posted:They were also careful with how they shot Shatner because 1) they didn't want to show his toupee and 2) his weight was constantly fluctuating throughout the show's entire run. Ahahaha that makes so much sense in hindsight it's like Hasselhoff sucking in his gut and getting favourable angles but with Shatner (I'm still on the first series) it looks really weird. Thanks for the explanation, much of it I can attribute to well it's the 60s
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:The second Addams Family movie was funny? I think?? But it's been like decades. It's considerably funnier than the first. The main thing about the first is the lush, Toys-esque production design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
donquixotic posted:Ahahaha that makes so much sense in hindsight it's like Hasselhoff sucking in his gut and getting favourable angles but with Shatner (I'm still on the first series) it looks really weird. Thanks for the explanation, much of it I can attribute to well it's the 60s Color TV was also really, really new when TOS was being made, so the directors and the cinematographer (Jerry Finnerman on the first two seasons) liked to get creative with color and lighting. As for Shatner, according to Bob Justman he only had "a few odd tufts" of hair on the top of his head when they were shooting the second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Shatner was always incredibly sensitive about that (and he eventually started wearing a girdle early on during production of the second season when Justman and Roddenberry realized he simply would not control his weight).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 23:44
|
|