|
oldpainless posted:In the first transformers when Optimus prime transforms for the first time it takes him like almost 30 seconds to do it. Any subsequent transformations are like five seconds. Why does it take you so long to transform the first time Optimus? I mean, I'd like to see you do it.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Transforming requires more steps (and therefore more practice) than tying your shoes of course it does you can't take a step if you haven't tied your shoes, you'll fall down
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Any movie that has any variation of "this is real life/this isn't a movie!" Even when it isn't played up for comedy, almost always you can tell you as am audience member are suppose to go "heh,oh but it is" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:In the first transformers when Optimus prime transforms for the first time it takes him like almost 30 seconds to do it. Any subsequent transformations are like five seconds. Why does it take you so long to transform the first time Optimus? It's slowed down so the audience can see that the film isn't going to rely on the older schema of pieces changing shape or vanishing during the transformation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:Any movie that has any variation of "this is real life/this isn't a movie!" Back when I read anything by Tom Clancy and anything even vaguely close to it, I remember reading a Dale Brown novel that included the dialogue "This isn't some Dale Brown novel!" I think that was the point where I stopped reading Tom Clancy or anything vaguely close to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Also, nearly every movie that includes it's title as dialogue is incredibly clunky if it's not a common word
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Also, nearly every movie that includes it's title as dialogue is incredibly clunky if it's not a common word https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWxiTPQv0ME
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Also, nearly every movie that includes it's title as dialogue is incredibly clunky if it's not a common word I'm just sick of all these matrix revelations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
What's your callsign, pilot? It's Rogue.... One... a star wars story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
"Are you mad, Max? Fury?" *grunting and pointing* "Road"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
It's very annoying in the Richard Pryor Brewster's Millions that his character has an arguement with John Candy's character and they split, then later the happy ending happens so fast that they don't get to reunite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
TF2 HAT MINING RIG posted:It's very annoying in the Richard Pryor Brewster's Millions that his character has an arguement with John Candy's character and they split, then later the happy ending happens so fast that they don't get to reunite. Was there a rule in Brewster's Millions that he couldn't just buy exorbitantly-priced objects and resell them at a micro-fraction of their cost? Or, like, construct a huge building then demolish it afterwards (like he sort of does with regards to the interior decorating, or something, muttering "okay, take it down" after it's all done)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It's slowed down so the audience can see that the film isn't going to rely on the older schema of pieces changing shape or vanishing during the transformation. It's MisterBibs, so I have no idea whether he really believes that, but just in case: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Was there a rule in Brewster's Millions that he couldn't just buy exorbitantly-priced objects and resell them at a micro-fraction of their cost? Or, like, construct a huge building then demolish it afterwards (like he sort of does with regards to the interior decorating, or something, muttering "okay, take it down" after it's all done)? Nah. He's not allowed to destroy inherently valuable items, and he can't just give the money away (except he could give 5% to charity). But he can hire anyone provided he gets value for their services. So hiring interior decorators to decorate and then saying "I changed my mind, undecorate" is fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Nah. He's not allowed to destroy inherently valuable items, and he can't just give the money away (except he could give 5% to charity). But he can hire anyone provided he gets value for their services. So hiring interior decorators to decorate and then saying "I changed my mind, undecorate" is fine. He was also only renting the furniture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Nah. He's not allowed to destroy inherently valuable items, and he can't just give the money away (except he could give 5% to charity). But he can hire anyone provided he gets value for their services. So hiring interior decorators to decorate and then saying "I changed my mind, undecorate" is fine. Pretty much. There's a whole scene near the start outlining the obvious limits like this - he's only allowed to gamble a certain amount, for instance. There are still any number of wacky exploitable loopholes to point out. Once they hit a critical mass they will lead to a remake of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Also, nearly every movie that includes it's title as dialogue is incredibly clunky if it's not a common word https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA3N2e5wTNA
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Brofessor Slayton posted:Pretty much. There's a whole scene near the start outlining the obvious limits like this - he's only allowed to gamble a certain amount, for instance. Can they spend money on a lawyer specifically to help them find loopholes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Can they spend money on a lawyer specifically to help them find loopholes? He couldn't tell anyone about the weird stipulations. It had to look like he was a crazy dumbass to everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I watched the Korean zombie movie Train to Busan the other day and while it is a good movie something did bug me. The zombie virus was spread by bites (so presumably fluids) but nobody thinks to clean the blood off themselves until near the very end of the movie. Also there was a scene at the beginning of the movie where a conductor uses a key to close the side door of the train but after that everyone just pulls them closed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:He couldn't tell anyone about the weird stipulations. It had to look like he was a crazy dumbass to everybody else. And from a quick look at Wikipedia, the law firm who's in the position to judge the stipulations has a clear incentive to strictly enforce them. Seems like the whole point is the protagonist has no idea what to do with the money and is specifically disallowed from getting any professional help on the matter, so he has to figure it out himself. I'd put extensive research into how celebrities have blown all their money and emulate it. Join Johnny Depp's wine club... does it count if you buy valuable food and drink and consume them as intended? Medical bills should take of the rest. I mean, the whole point of these kinds of movies isn't so much to demonstrate how to break the game, but how a more or less identifiable shlub put into an absurd situation deals with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Nowadays you could just join scientology or throw it all into a superpac or something maybe??
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Light Gun Man posted:Nowadays you could just join scientology or throw it all into a superpac or something maybe?? Modern day Brewster's Millions ends 10 minutes in when he spends it all paying off his student loans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Also, nearly every movie that includes it's title as dialogue is incredibly clunky if it's not a common word Bond films always seem to do this but I can't remember or imagine how they worked Quantum of Solace in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Bond films always seem to do this but I can't remember or imagine how they worked Quantum of Solace in. "Its the smallest amount of comfort possible." "Whats the smallest amount a thing can be?" "A quantum." "Ah, so its like..a quantum...of solace?" Thats not a direct quote but pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
The worst one is A View To a Kill - it's done in the scene where Christopher Walken is flying a blimp over the Golden Gate Bridge and when Grace Jones comments, "What a view!" he replies, "To a kill!" which makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT8646Nx2C0
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Game of Thrones and how to end a marriage in Westeros. So everyone knows that Jon Snow is really the son of Rhaegar TeenRapist and Lyanna Stark. At what loving point does it MATTER that he secretly had his marriage to Elia Martell annulled and then married Lyanna? Because it clearly was a secret; history is written by the winners and all, but only in one old forgotten book has it been written down. And that aside, it's pretty loving hard to annul a royal marriage when the line of succession is involved. Had Rhaegar been open about it, then Elia would have been banished back to Dorne, and her kids, well, maybe they would have too. Either way, dick move from a huge dick character. I just don't see why it matters, it's not like 20 years of being known as a bastard is gonna change overnight if Jon finds out his real parents were married but hosed over thousands of people just to make him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Because now he's first in the line of succession. Even over Dany. ^ GoT spoilers ^
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDH8eKlRb-8
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Game of Thrones and how to end a marriage in Westeros. So everyone knows that Jon Snow is really the son of Rhaegar TeenRapist and Lyanna Stark. At what loving point does it MATTER that he secretly had his marriage to Elia Martell annulled and then married Lyanna? Because it clearly was a secret; history is written by the winners and all, but only in one old forgotten book has it been written down. And that aside, it's pretty loving hard to annul a royal marriage when the line of succession is involved. Had Rhaegar been open about it, then Elia would have been banished back to Dorne, and her kids, well, maybe they would have too. Either way, dick move from a huge dick character. I just don't see why it matters, it's not like 20 years of being known as a bastard is gonna change overnight if Jon finds out his real parents were married but hosed over thousands of people just to make him. It doesn't matter. That's the point. All the complicated stuff that really happened gets buried under Robert's cartoon revisionist history of "Rhaegar bad man". The king is whoever people say is the king, right of succession be damned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:"Its the smallest amount of comfort possible." Yeah, the original short story at least made some amount of sense because the guy that told Bond that took time to explain it. It was still stupid, but it wasn't like the A View to a Kill example mentioned above. SPECTRE: Related: I understand the whole thing about Spectre's rights finally being wrapped up, but it's really terrible how Quantum was used as this big bad organization in Quantum of Solace, but then was just side-lined as a subsidiary of Spectre or somesuch. Hell, Greene as the villain from that movie wasn't even dignified by being shown in the opening credits in Spectre. Also how Blofeld (spoiled but it's a really obvious fuckin' reveal. Even worse than Star Trek Into Darkness) was deferred to as a giant fuckin' dictator like that scene in the data centre where all the lackeys stand up in unison. And how somehow he was also behind Silva from Skyfall, even though he worked much better as a standalone villain like Goldfinger. A lot of that movie really bugs me as a Bond fan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Because now he's first in the line of succession. Even over Dany. How? Daenerys is the daughter of the previous King. Jon is the previous king's grandson and Daenerys' nephew.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Something something patriarchy. Daenerys Targaryen, Westerosi SJW
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Yeah, the original short story at least made some amount of sense because the guy that told Bond that took time to explain it. It was still stupid, but it wasn't like the A View to a Kill example mentioned above. That stuff was (one of) the biggest let downs for me about the Craig bond era. I don't give a single poo poo about it being some interconnected conspiracy web, I'm perfectly happy with a single megalomaniacal genius billionaire trying to destabilize the world order, that poo poo worked for literally decades worth of movies! Even if you want to make it a smaller, more personal (or even realistic) set of stakes like Casino Royale or Skyfall, that can still be plenty exciting and compelling, it doesn't need to all be part of increasingly bigger schemes. See also: NBC's Chuck, and their progressively bigger, more powerful evil conspiracy organizations each season.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I was really hoping/expecting they were going to go with a Solid/Liquid Snake thing, but SPECTRE just got dumber and dumber as it went on with wasted potential. Apparently the third act got rewritten a ton. I mean, say what you want about Metal Gear, it knows how to make a memorable ending. (final boss, anyway)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:That stuff was (one of) the biggest let downs for me about the Craig bond era. I don't give a single poo poo about it being some interconnected conspiracy web, I'm perfectly happy with a single megalomaniacal genius billionaire trying to destabilize the world order, that poo poo worked for literally decades worth of movies! Even if you want to make it a smaller, more personal (or even realistic) set of stakes like Casino Royale or Skyfall, that can still be plenty exciting and compelling, it doesn't need to all be part of increasingly bigger schemes. Yeah, Chuck made the mistake of making Fulcrum part of The Ring (which made no sense either. At least the later villains were separate from that). Like, I'd be willing to cut it some slack because it was obvious that Quantum was made because they couldn't get Spectre but then they got it. But the way it was handled was terrible. And why did they make Blofeld part of Bond's childhood? Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation did a similar story, but much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Bond movies really don't need to have some kind of overarching continuity and it's one of the things that's hampered Craig's run in the role. Being standalone stories never hurt them too much in the past (even the Blofeld trilogy with You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever all work well enough as standalone features). See also: Sherlock. Does it really need to have a big byzantine arc where Moriarty is behind everything from beyond the grave? None of the Sherlock Holmes stories had them (Moriarty's only properly in "The Final Problem" and his role in The Valley of Fear gets blown out of proportion a great deal) and it wasn't to their detriment. I suppose it's what people expect now. I'm probably overestimating things, but I feel like Hollywood's littered with the corpses of failed franchise starters and would-be "<insert IP here> Avengers-style cinematic universes".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:The most loving awesome one is A View To a Kill - it's done in the scene where Christopher Walken is flying a blimp over the Golden Gate Bridge and when Grace Jones comments, "What a view!" he replies, "To a kill!" which is super rad. Fixed your bad post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Bond movies really don't need to have some kind of overarching continuity and it's one of the things that's hampered Craig's run in the role. Being standalone stories never hurt them too much in the past (even the Blofeld trilogy with You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever all work well enough as standalone features). The whole over-arching storylines are part of the reason why I stopped watching Doctor Who. I miss just episodes being fun instead of having to constantly set up arcs. As for Bond, it worked insofar as he just kept running into Spectre because they were pulling off more and more plots. Having it all be controlled from the beginning was just terrible. It's also tough as gently caress to do properly and you can tell they had no idea they planned that in Casino Royale. It makes Diamonds Are Forever even funnier because Bond wanting vengeance on Blofeld but never really hits why because they were trying to gloss over On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2017 17:57
|
|