|
Parachute posted:does NOTLD and its adjacent movies count or is it like an "in name only" sort of thing? they aren't really sequels I guess but if they are counted then ROTLD is my favorite and is way better than the original. its hard to take that one in to account without considering the legacy the original left though imo. RotLD is one hell of a fun watch
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:How is Hulk Hogan a flaw in Gremlins 2? That's straight-up one of the funniest scenes in the film. Honestly, the John Wayne interlude is way better, and much more in line with the rest of the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:bladerunner 2049. Rude that they skipped over a theatrical release of the first 2,047 sequels imo
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
Return of the Living Dead kicks rear end. It's one of those movies where you can tell everyone was having an absolute blast making it and it really shows.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:Rude that they skipped over a theatrical release of the first 2,047 sequels imo Nah, they're just prequel comics:  I assume we'll get one per year until 2048.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
What is the first appearance of what I am calling, for lack of a better term, the "Lampoon Shot" on box art? You know the one: Earliest I could find was Slumber Party Massacre in 1982.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
I'm sure there's earlier, but For Your Eyes Only was in 1981: e: and Barbarella looks to be an ancestor. ynohtna fucked around with this message at 19:27 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:What is the first appearance of what I am calling, for lack of a better term, the "Lampoon Shot" on box art? You know the one: I actually stumbled across this Letterboxed list the other day which has Three Bad Sisters from 1956 as its earliest example: 
feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 19:50 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Just watched Terry Gilliam's The Fisher King and have one question Did Robin Williams ever find out that Jeff Bridge's character is responsible for his wife's murder? I kept waiting for Bridges to confess but it never happened, unless I missed it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Parachute posted:does NOTLD and its adjacent movies count or is it like an "in name only" sort of thing? they aren't really sequels I guess but if they are counted then ROTLD is my favorite and is way better than the original. its hard to take that one in to account without considering the legacy the original left though imo. There was a really good YouTube video a goon made a few years back showing how they all connected in great detail. I can't find it though. Maybe someone else remembers the title or channel. Krispy Wafer posted:Dark Knight 2, Batman 2, Superman 2, Iron Man 2, Captain America 2, Spider-Man 2...really any superhero movie once you've lifted the burdensome yoke of an origin story. This reminds me of my indecision on watching Superman II or Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. ruddiger posted:Just watched Terry Gilliam's The Fisher King and have one question Did Robin Williams ever find out that Jeff Bridge's character is responsible for his wife's murder? I kept waiting for Bridges to confess but it never happened, unless I missed it. IIRC it was ambiguous. Almost as if Robin Williams character could've discovered off-screen and that's what led to one of his breakdowns.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Zogo posted:This reminds me of my indecision on watching Superman II or Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Theatrical cut. Even if it's the result of two directors' work, it is of one piece in a way the re-edit just isn't. I'd say maybe watch the 2006 version later if you're still interested (it gives a lot of insight into what was refilmed and why), but as a movie it's not particularly worthwhile. Also, it's got some 2006-era direct-to-video effects work which seriously clashes with the aesthetic of rest of the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Almost Blue posted:Theatrical cut. Even if it's the result of two directors' work, it is of one piece in a way the re-edit just isn't. OK I'll go with theatrical then.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
How often do actors know when they're in a bad movie? I don't mean the ones doing SyFy originals or Z-movies, who know what kind of schlock they're putting out; I'm talking about like, Wild Wild West, Stealth, Battlefield Earth, movies like that. Are the actors aware the movie sucks, or do they think they're making a worthwhile product?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
I have to imagine Bill Murray knew he made a mistake when he realized it wasn't the Coen brothers making Garfield.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
I think for most actors, the money is enough to look past it. I'm imagining the running gag on the Flintstones where the animal they are using for a trash compactor looks to the screen and says "it's a living" except it's Denzel.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
And it can be hard to read a script and know that budget concerns or something will torpedo it Actually acting on a set, without the snappy editing and soundtrack, is really silly anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I have to imagine Bill Murray knew he made a mistake when he realized it wasn't the Coen brothers making Garfield. Michael Caine knew Jaws: The Revenge was garbage. Michael Caine posted:I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
The Bill Murray Coen thing has always come over as a gag to cover him making an easy paycheck on a lovely movie.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Yeah, if you're shooting a Jaws sequel then you know it's going to be crap. Big budget high concept movies like Wild Wild West or Lone Ranger have such high expectations that everyone just assumes it's going to be a hit. Ego plays a big part in that.EL BROMANCE posted:The Bill Murray Coen thing has always come over as a gag to cover him making an easy paycheck on a lovely movie. I know, but I like to believe otherwise. Garfield 2 is probably all the proof anyone needs that it was just a quick paycheck. Krispy Wafer fucked around with this message at 15:49 on May 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Will Smith in a high concept action comedy 2 years after Men in Black seems like it should be a no brainier.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:How often do actors know when they're in a bad movie? I don't mean the ones doing SyFy originals or Z-movies, who know what kind of schlock they're putting out; I'm talking about like, Wild Wild West, Stealth, Battlefield Earth, movies like that. Are the actors aware the movie sucks, or do they think they're making a worthwhile product? Unless they really need the money or know they are working for a pay check most actors don’t believe that the film they’ve signed up to will be bad. Most actors of reasonable stature have enough roles to choose from that they’ll pick ones that they think are going to be good (or pay them a lot). Less well-known actors might know that the film is bad but they’re just doing their job.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
bill cosby told everyone leonard part six was terrible when he did the interview rounds.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Jeremy Irons when asked about doing Dungeons & Dragons ".... welp, we all have taxes to pay, so sometimes we had to do jobs we don't like."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Michael Caine when asked about Jaws: the revenge "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Christopher Eccleston: “Working on something like GI Joe was horrendous,” he says, emphasising that the responsibility was his and not anyone else’s. “I just wanted to cut my throat every day. And Thor? Just a gun in your mouth. Gone in 60 Seconds was a good experience. Nic Cage is a gentleman and fantastic actor. But GI Joe and Thor were … I really paid for being a whore those times.”
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
I just watched a doc on Malcolm McDowell (O Lucky Malcolm!) and he seems to sort of shrug off making bad movies because it's still work and he still has fun making them. Besides, if a good actor pulls off a good performance in a bad movie, they end up being the best thing about it. Sort of like how Street Fighter is terrible, but everyone remembers how amazing Raul Julia is in it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
I wanted to say, “what the gently caress’s wrong with Thor?” and then I saw he worked on The Dark World and yeah, now I can see his point. That was a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Both Kim Basinger and Whoopi Goldberg knew they were going to be bad movies (Boxing Helena and Theodore Rex) and tried to get out of them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I wanted to say, “what the gently caress’s wrong with Thor?” and then I saw he worked on The Dark World and yeah, now I can see his point. That was a bad movie. He was also under 80 pounds of makeup and prosthetics and spoke elvish the entire time, like what the gently caress was the point of having him?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Michael B. Jordan taking about Fantastic Four: “You never really know how a project is going to turn out with edits and cuts, and this and that,” he starts. “Cause everything we shot didn’t ultimately make the movie either. A lot of decisions were made after we filmed, after the reshoots, to make the best project that we could possibly do. "Working on set is always difficult when you’re doing a project of that size, with those many special effects and CGI. A lot of parts were involved. “Did it feel tough? Yeah, it felt tough, but you never know how it's going to turn out in the end." I'm sure sometimes they get a feeling that a project is going to be something special or a turd, but I bet they're wrong just as often as not.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:Michael Caine when asked about Jaws: the revenge "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific." 7 posts up, my friend.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
Being on set is pretty fun and it's not really your business if the film isn't good if you aren't the director. Obviously you do your job the best you can because that's just basic professionalism but if the whole doesn't add up to much then you've already been payed. Probably. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
on the acting front i could understand not knowing how something's going to turn out since you only have your slice of the production to judge off of. but how do the people at the higher levels who have a bird's eye view not realize it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:on the acting front i could understand not knowing how something's going to turn out since you only have your slice of the production to judge off of. but how do the people at the higher levels who have a bird's eye view not realize it. How many films get made that turn out to be really good compared to those that are ok, mediocre or bad? Not that many. But in almost every case the people involved thought it would be good from the outset. It’s really hard to know until you see the semi-finished product. Making a good film is very hard - there are so many elements that have to be right, and the way they interact has to be right - which is why there are very few producers and directors who can do it consistently. Even the greats often have a couple of misfires.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
I was location sound recorder for an independent film made here in  over ten years ago.I specifically remember seeing scenes being filmed that I thought were going to be amazing. They were not. Unfortunately this applied to almost every scene.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
therattle posted:How many films get made that turn out to be really good compared to those that are ok, mediocre or bad? Not that many. But in almost every case the people involved thought it would be good from the outset. It’s really hard to know until you see the semi-finished product. Making a good film is very hard - there are so many elements that have to be right, and the way they interact has to be right - which is why there are very few producers and directors who can do it consistently. Even the greats often have a couple of misfires. And also, as a business, even when they realize halfway through that ti's going to be bad... well... you can still make money off of it so just you just keep pushing forward!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:And also, as a business, even when they realize halfway through that ti's going to be bad... well... you can still make money off of it so just you just keep pushing forward! Yep. Plus if you stop halfway you’ve lost a good 60% or so of your budget already, and if it’s an independent film it would be very hard to get all the financiers and producer to agree to pull out. That money is then gone. I’ve never heard of a film that’s abandoned because it’s looking bad. therattle fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Bad films can make a poo poo ton of money. Even if you know it’s going to tank there are still ways to break even on the back end. Netflix has salvaged multiple bad films because they’re so desperate for content.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
therattle posted:I’ve never heard of a film that’s abandoned because it’s looking bad. Sounds like New Mutants might be in that neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Wasn't that the movie where the director wanted to make it a superhero horror film but the execs wouldn't let him but then IT was insanely popular so they backtracked and ordered reshoots to restore the horror elements?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 19:35
|
|