|
Pilchenstein posted:The trailers for all of Paul Feig's films make them look dire, whoever's putting them together clearly doesn't know what they're doing. Either that or some marketing idiot thinks they know better than him because ~focus groups~.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
food court bailiff posted:I don't think I've ever been so pleasantly surprised by a movie as I was at Spy. The trailers made it seem like the whole movie was jokes about her weight but it's kind of the exact opposite. Ditto. Not to mention it flipped expectations to the point that all the main characters were well rounded women while the men were largely two dimensional supporting roles. It really demonstrated that you can put a lot of women in a film without making it all about the fact that you have a lot of women in a film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
BioEnchanted posted:I think generally Paul Feig is Good at Entertainment. He was pretty funny as Science Teacher Gene Pool on Sabrina The Teenage Witch (Although IMO standout performances in that show went to Late-Series Harvey who suddenly had really funny subplots when no longer relegated to boyfriend status, Willard Kraft who was a delightful rear end in a top hat, and Libby Chessler who had great reaction shots and generally sold that character) and now he's bringing out the best in Melissa McCarthy et al, so good on him for a strong career trajectory. I enjoy his role in Heavyweights
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:I don't think I've ever been so pleasantly surprised by a movie as I was at Spy. The trailers made it seem like the whole movie was jokes about her weight but it's kind of the exact opposite. I saw it and Central Intelligence as a double feature the other night. They both surprised me in very different ways. But I think I'd like to see a sequel to Spy but not Central Intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
300: Rise of an Empire is generally a smarter film than its predecessor, but the thing I appreciate the most about it is how it humanizes the Persians. When you watch the original film, Dilios's narrative exaggeration is used as justification for how utterly ridiculous and inhuman the Persian warriors look. In Rise of an Empire, there is no narration during the battle scenes, and the Persians are much more grounded and realistic looking. No leper-stormtrooper-ninjas. It's a nice touch that emphasizes the difference between the Athenian approach to war and diplomacy and the Spartans' out of control xenophobia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:300: Rise of an Empire is generally a smarter film than its predecessor, but the thing I appreciate the most about it is how it humanizes the Persians. When you watch the original film, Dilios's narrative exaggeration is used as justification for how utterly ridiculous and inhuman the Persian warriors look. In Rise of an Empire, there is no narration during the battle scenes, and the Persians are much more grounded and realistic looking. No leper-stormtrooper-ninjas. I still hold that 300 is a pretty great movie one you realize most of the story is fake and it's just ancient Spartan propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
300: Rise of an Empire had a woman whose back story was that when she was 5 or 6 her family was slaughtered by soldiers and she was taken as a slave by those soldiers and constantly gang raped for the next decade or so until she was rescued. The movie wants us to believe she and the man who rescued her are the villains, and the army that had a six-year-old sex slave are the heroes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:I still hold that 300 is a pretty great movie one you realize most of the story is fake and it's just ancient Spartan propaganda. Hang on, people thought 300 was real?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Joey Freshwater posted:Hang on, people thought 300 was real? I hope not. I mean that the story is presented as real in the movie but at the end it's revealed that the one Spartan is telling a story to rile up the troops. Given the narrative, he wasn't around to know what happened in the last 50% or so. So the Spartans view themselves as perfect fighting gods and paint the Persians are grotesque "others".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Joey Freshwater posted:Hang on, people thought 300 was real? I think "real" could mean different things when talking about 300. People could have thought, "Oh, this is how it happened!" Or people could have interpreted it as, "This is cool and stylized, I dig it." Or you could think, "Oh ya, the crazy villains and stylization is because it's actually a story being retold by a guy who wants to get everyone riled up." Has Snyder ever said if it's 2 or 3?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:300: Rise of an Empire had a woman whose back story was that when she was 5 or 6 her family was slaughtered by soldiers and she was taken as a slave by those soldiers and constantly gang raped for the next decade or so until she was rescued. Does the movie want you to believe that, or is the director making a more significant point by portraying them that way? I haven't seen it, yet, but it's a Frank Miller adaptation so I guess it could be either one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
300 presents everything rather matter of factly, but it's not hard at all to realize you're dealing with exaggeration from the one survivor, and that he couldn't have possibly actually seen how it all ended given he was sent away before the final attack. Treating it as the ancient grecian equivalent to a WW2 action movie from the '50s makes the most sense, but it's also pretty easy to just say its all exaggerated and stylized for the sake of coolness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Zebulon posted:300 presents everything rather matter of factly, but it's not hard at all to realize you're dealing with exaggeration from the one survivor, and that he couldn't have possibly actually seen how it all ended given he was sent away before the final attack. Treating it as the ancient grecian equivalent to a WW2 action movie from the '50s makes the most sense, but it's also pretty easy to just say its all exaggerated and stylized for the sake of coolness. I don't know if this counts as a derail, but: I always took it as just stylized for coolness at least. I never really considered it being an exaggeration for the same of propaganda or whatever because I don't think it matters. I knew people that loved it, but the style just felt flat to me. Everything past the style just rendered a, "So what?" from me. And even if it's supposed to be a propaganda-style story, it still doesn't really help. Granted, I only saw the movie once in theatres, but still, I don't think there's anything deeper than that. Also, it's Zack Snyder, so I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
It's both. They wanted to make it super stylized for coolness and also came up with an in-story justification for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:So the Spartans view themselves as perfect fighting gods and paint the Persians are grotesque "others".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Paper Diamonds posted:I'm not super up on my history but as I recall this is 100% correct. Spartans were super racists who were basically tribal warriors at a time while the rest of Greece was busy developing one of the earliest civilizations. Heck I'm pretty sure the Spartans didn't even like the rest of Greece that much. You are correct. The Atheneans had some very choice words about their arrogant and backwards cousins. They were insular, xenophobic and exploited slaves far longer than most cultures at the time. The Persians, from what I remember, actually had a pretty decent thing going. Much like Genghis Khan (unless I'm mixing up my history) they would pass through an area, tell people that they got to keep their religion and way of life but they had to pay a tax to the Persian king. They killed anyone that refused but left people alone to be themselves if their local leader swore allegiance. The Spartans knew that they couldn't win in a fight against this massive empire and thought the rest of Greece were weak for kneeling to Xerxes just to stay alive. Hubris, downfall and all that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
The recent Chapo Trap House episode where they framed 300 as a propaganda piece that laid out the alt-right agenda ahead of its time is pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Coming just in the wake of the Iraq War and a few years after 9/11, '300' was widely interpreted as pro-Western propaganda where the awesome elite white warriors defend their Freedom from brown invaders from Iran, especially knowing Frank Miller's neocon leanings. I did appreciate that the coolest lines in the movie ("tonight we dine in hell", "then we'll fight in the shade", "come and take them") are straight out of Herodotus though. Imagined has a new favorite as of 18:56 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
The Spartans were definitely dicks but even in the history books they were like a race of witty action heroes. For example a Persian King wrote a threatening letter to the Spartans saying "if my armies come in to your land blah blah blah..." and the Spartan King just wrote back a one word reply: "If." "Laconic wit" is named after the Spartans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
An ironic thing about 300 is that dilios's character is based on a real spartan who fought at both thermopylae and plataea. This actual spartan was not a hero and was actively scorned by his comrades for surviving the battle. He fell fighting at plataea when he went on a suicidal charge against the Persian lines to atone for his shame. Instead of being honored for his sacrifice he was still disregarded because he broke ranks to seek death. Considering how often in 300 the Spartans fight individual duels, I thought it was funny that this same attitude would receive mockery from actual Spartans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Yeah it's too bad they couldn't include more hoplite style warfare in that movie because hot drat it looks so cool. The film has Leonidas make a big deal about how important their shields are in covering each other and then aside from a few moments they basically ignore that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Imagined posted:The Spartans were definitely dicks but even in the history books they were like a race of witty action heroes. For example a Persian King wrote a threatening letter to the Spartans saying "if my armies come in to your land blah blah blah..." and the Spartan King just wrote back a one word reply: "If." "Laconic wit" is named after the Spartans. It was Philip II, Alexander the Great's father. The reality though was that Sparta had been totally shattered by an earlier war and were no threat to anyone then by then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:It was Philip II, Alexander the Great's father. Thanks, I was going off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Imagined posted:The film has Leonidas make a big deal about how important their shields are in covering each other and then aside from a few moments they basically ignore that. Well they hardly need phalanx formation to deal with the respawning persians who are trickling in rather than grouping up at the entrance to the pass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Most people know about the visual parallels between the Prequel and OT Star Wars films. Some are quite obvious, while others are not so much. Here's a small moment of the parallels that isn't mentioned very often. Trading broadsides during a large space battle.   The scene from Jedi also has one of the few goofs in an otherwise superbly shot space battle. The corvette at the front of the frigate is much too small, and when the film is playing, the corvette doesn't actually move, instead sliding across the matte lines of the Frigate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Most people know about the visual parallels between the Prequel and OT Star Wars films. Some are quite obvious, while others are not so much. Here's a small moment of the parallels that isn't mentioned very often. What the hell am I supposed to be looking at?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Pope Corky the IX posted:What the hell am I supposed to be looking at? A side by side comparison of two broadside duels taking place during each film's respective space battle? If you're looking for the blockade runner, it's in the bottom left of the top image. While the scene is in motion, there is an animation goof that the blockade runner doesn't move while the rest of the film plays around it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:A side by side comparison of two broadside duels taking place during each film's respective space battle? Holy poo poo, that's the same shot? This is part of the reason as to why I haven't watched the first trilogy, original or special edition, in almost twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
The biggest difference is that, in the first shot, the audience gives a gently caress!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
There's a YouTube of the space battle with all the ewok scenes cut out
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:There's a YouTube of the space battle with all the ewok scenes cut out Here is the scene from Return of the Jedi. (Note how large the blockade runner is in the pilot's cockpit, and how big it appears in the next shot of the broadsides engaging.) Contrasted against the scene from Revenge of the Sith
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
The one thing I desperately hope we eventually get in a Star Wars film is one capital ship destroying another capital ship with a broadsides. In all eight film so far every capital ship that has been destroyed has done so through strange circumstances, or a Death Star laser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:The one thing I desperately hope we eventually get in a Star Wars film is one capital ship destroying another capital ship with a broadsides. In all eight film so far every capital ship that has been destroyed has done so through strange circumstances, or a Death Star laser. Well, in Revenge of the Sith, I can think of two moments. The first comes when a Star Destroyer snipes a Separatist ship with a dorsal mounted laser (like the ones used by the artillery walkers in Episode 2), and another scene a few minutes later where a Separatist ship coming out of hyperspace collides with a friendly ship and they both go up in flames.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Well, in Revenge of the Sith, I can think a Separatist ship coming out of hyperspace collides with a friendly ship and they both go up in flames. I think this fits quite comfortably in the "strange circumstances" category, and is most certainly not a broadsides. I want this in space: https://youtu.be/wNQUeeF6hso
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
In The Grand Budapest Hotel the film's aspect ratio changes depending on the year a scene is set in. The 1985 scenes are shot in 1.85, the 60s scenes are shot in 2.35 cinemascope, and the 1937 shots are in 1.37 Back to Star Wars, one of the limitations of the special effects of 1977 actually had a positive impact on the film. Whenever a starfighter is destroyed, the explosion travels with the debris, like it would in real life. Because the film created the flying scenes by moving the camera past the model rather than moving the model itself, this couldn't really be helped, due to the rear projected images of the Death Star zipping by. Arc Hammer has a new favorite as of 00:42 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
That movie had four time periods, no? Were the two most modern the same?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:That movie had four time periods, no? Were the two most modern the same? The modern day scene is also in 1.85. It shares the Author's video diary's square visuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:The one thing I desperately hope we eventually get in a Star Wars film is one capital ship destroying another capital ship with a broadsides. In all eight film so far every capital ship that has been destroyed has done so through strange circumstances, or a Death Star laser. When Darth drops outta hyperspace in RO, you can see his star destroyer nuking a neb b with a broadside in about 10 seconds. Also, a couple other ships. Not all of them died from ramming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:When Darth drops outta hyperspace in RO, you can see his star destroyer nuking a neb b with a broadside in about 10 seconds. Also, a couple other ships. Not all of them died from ramming. That scene FINALLY showed why the rebels never took on star destroyers with anything bigger than fighters. The whole final battle you're like, "why are the big ships hanging back?" Then, "Oh."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:That scene FINALLY showed why the rebels never took on star destroyers with anything bigger than fighters. The whole final battle you're like, "why are the big ships hanging back?" Then, "Oh." It's not really stated in the film because the operation was technically successful, but the Battle of Scarif was an absolute disaster for the Rebellion in terms of manpower lost. The entire fleet got their poo poo pushed in by three destroyers, barely more than a picket line by Imperial standards. They have thirty starfighters in A New Hope because that is pretty much all that is left of their forces after the battle. A few small transports made it out, but pretty much all their capital ships were wrecked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 02:23
|
|