|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:yeah George Washington and All the Real Girls are both great Ill go to bat for Joe as well. I'd love to rewatch it but I adored it when it came out. The natural acting of some of the side characters were incredible.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Ill go to bat for Joe as well. I'd love to rewatch it but I adored it when it came out. The natural acting of some of the side characters were incredible. yeah that one was good, underrated in the Cage Canon. it kinda feels like a precursor to Mandy as far as "Nicolas Cage playing a recovering alcoholic logger in the pacific northwest" goes
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 01:33
|
|
|
I'm rarely disappointed by movies, even ones that I know or feel are 'bad', but I might just be easily amused. I know I actually like something when I cannot stop talking about it. I suppose I got the particular internet poisoning of liking interesting movies, whether they're good or bad by conventional metrics. Things that are fun to talk about and think about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 02:47
|
|
|
The more you know about movies the more you can find individual elements to praise or consider or discuss. Like maybe the writing was underdeveloped or obvious but the performances still worked for you, or maybe the last act dragged but the score was so cool that it carries you through emotionally, or maybe it was visually stunning even though you don't agree with the directors central thesis. If you don't have any kind of moviebrain (i.e. understanding of the components of filmmaking or ability to articulate these things), then people tend to respond to a movie like  or  .Kinda the same with talking about music, I don't need a functional harmonic analysis of every song but it enriches the experience when you understand harmony, syncopation, modal interchanges, metric modulation, polyrhythms, timbre, chord voicings, polyrhythms, vocal techniques, orchestration, production tricks. I can still hang with someone just saying "this song slaps", but to have a discussion you need to be able to effectively communicate some of these concepts Failed Imagineer fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Jan 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 11:24
|
|
|
I play alot of music and saying a song slaps is a pretty fun discussion for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 11:41
|
|
|
Knowing what a groove is and explaining what a groove is are two disparate skills. Same goes for understanding movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 11:43
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I play alot of music and saying a song slaps is a pretty fun discussion for me. I mean, that's also 90% of my comments about songs, but I don't see how it's a discussion
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 11:43
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I mean, that's also 90% of my comments about songs, but I don't see how it's a discussion The modal thing just twinged something in me. If I'm talking about new music Im excited about with other musicians or even the music threads on SA I don't really have to get into music theory to get why I like it across. Usually I mention the genre, what it sounds like ir similar too, chat about the musicians history and previous projects, then link it to see what they think. Kinda like the film discussions here. Modulations, chord voicings, etc just brought me back to a place where I'm cornered and someone is trying to talk me into liking a very esoteric form of jazz. And I like jazz! Well, bands like Dinner Party and Robert Glasper, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 13:53
|
|
|
I don't think we're talking about different things. I also mostly just talk about music in terms of stuff I like and don't, much as I do with films. But I also appreciate actual discussion about what makes art good, whether it's with similarly -informed people or good critical analysis
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 14:12
|
|
|
Cool! I tend to be very analytical when watching bands live.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 14:49
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmm ‘Top Gun 3’ In The Works At Paramount Following Tom Cruise Warner Bros Pact https://deadline.com/2024/01/top-gun-3-tom-cruise-1235722328/ This article just lists "reports" and "the word" so its basically rumors at this point. Maverick was incredible so I guess there is a chance a third one could be just as thrilling if they maintain the verisimilitude of the fighter jet action scenes and Cruise takes more of a backseat role, but ehhhh
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
The more I watched, read, and wrote about movies the more I understood story craft and cinematography and how everything is put together which made it a lot easier to put it into words why certain movies were good or bad. A lot of things that are considered "bad" by the mainstream are actually good and vice versa. Does a movie speak to you? Were you entertained? Then it's probably closer to good then bad, even if it involves chicks jello wrestling alien robots.Sirotan posted:Hmmmmmmmm Tom Cruise in an office calling the Top Gunners on an office phone while they are dogfighting and yelling inspirational speeches, The Movie Quick movies not mentioned yet here because I am busy and also writing an OP: New Star Trek movie - except this time it is a prequel set during the founding of Starfleet. Like JJ Abrams Enterprise? No one seems to really know, and he is just producing. I expect this to get cancelled/reworked into a different Trek movie that also gets cancelled when Paramount and Discovery merge into a grey goo studio 28 Years Later - they are going ahead with this zombie movie sequel, if you are keeping notes it has only been 22 years since the original so congrats on going near light speed and doing time dilatation, movie! The Mandalorian & Grogu - I think this was announced vaguely as a Mandalorian movie but now it has an official title and John Faveau will direct. No clue on which samurai/western movies they will copy beyond Lone Wolf and Cub. People online were scoffing this as yet another movie you have to watch tv shows about but everyone and their mom who doesn't watch Star Wars knows who Baby Yoda is so I don't think this will have a problem converting viewers unless it looks like garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Tom Cruise in an office calling the Top Gunners on an office phone while they are dogfighting and yelling inspirational speeches, The Movie They just pay for his likeness and use unused/test shots from Top Gun: Maverick and a double with their back to the camera for all his scenes. Tars Tarkas posted:New Star Trek movie - except this time it is a prequel set during the founding of Starfleet. Like JJ Abrams Enterprise? No one seems to really know, and he is just producing. I expect this to get cancelled/reworked into a different Trek movie that also gets cancelled when Paramount and Discovery merge into a grey goo studio Of all of these I'm most interested in 28 Years Later, will the date matter like will it take place in the near future? It's enough of a time gap that ideally they could do something interesting. Mandalorian and Grogu, Like if they want to do just do slice of life "here's the crazy poo poo they got into this week" stuff set in between parts of the show or something it could be fun to see Mando action with a theatrical Star Wars movie budget, but IIRC these Filoni joints are all going to be continuations of what's on the shows and there'll be a movie that ties them together also? I was so loving hype for another Star Trek movie after Beyond, which I absolutely loved. Hopefully they're able to capture that again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:New Star Trek movie - except this time it is a prequel set during the founding of Starfleet. Like JJ Abrams Enterprise? No one seems to really know, and he is just producing. I expect this to get cancelled/reworked into a different Trek movie that also gets cancelled when Paramount and Discovery merge into a grey goo studio This is being described as the origin of Starfleet in the Kelvin timeline, which makes no sense because Starfleet was already established when the Kelvin timeline broke off. Best case is that this is just a reworking of the Romulan War script from twenty years ago. Tars Tarkas posted:The Mandalorian & Grogu - I think this was announced vaguely as a Mandalorian movie but now it has an official title and John Faveau will direct. No clue on which samurai/western movies they will copy beyond Lone Wolf and Cub. People online were scoffing this as yet another movie you have to watch tv shows about but everyone and their mom who doesn't watch Star Wars knows who Baby Yoda is so I don't think this will have a problem converting viewers unless it looks like garbage. The rumors about this are that there is going to be a shortened Mandalorian S4, and then the movie will serve as the season 4 finale, which definitely shows that Disney has learned all the right lessons from the last few Marvel movies that needed you to watch however many seasons of TV beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
I have zero expectation that another Trek movie will get made There have been like 5 directors attached to a JJTrek sequel, plus the whole Tarantino thing that was a separate project I just don’t think Paramount has the $100 million+ to sink into a new Trek film. They didn’t promote Beyond at all until like a month before release and it bombed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
At least we have Lower Decks. Which is the only Star Trek thing I've ever liked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:Hmmmmmmmm In every single way (theme, execution, response, subtext, metastory), Maverick was as valedictory a film as Tom Cruise could ever hope for. It's literally "Tom Cruise is the Last American Movie Star" the movie, and audiences and critics said "Yes, this is gospel." Dump trucks of money aside, he would be a fool to risk another trip to that well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
Pope Corky the IX posted:At least we have Lower Decks. Which is the only Star Trek thing I've ever liked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I have zero expectation that another Trek movie will get made Probably the most likely to get made is the Section 31 straight to streaming movie with Michelle Yeoh, and even that has been in development for half a decade now without even a director attached. Also I can't really imagine who is getting excited for that, it's something that seems like it will appeal to about half of the fandom of Discovery which already has a pretty limited reach by this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well I’m glad you enjoy it because it’s a good show, but as someone who has watched every Trek series at least twice, it hits a lot harder when you get the deep cut references to past shows I've been watching it with a Trek fan and she's been explaining references and such as we go along. Though of course it's not the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Probably the most likely to get made is the Section 31 straight to streaming movie with Michelle Yeoh, and even that has been in development for half a decade now without even a director attached. Also I can't really imagine who is getting excited for that, it's something that seems like it will appeal to about half of the fandom of Discovery which already has a pretty limited reach by this point. I’m also talking about an actual theatrical release
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
Pope Corky the IX posted:At least we have Lower Decks. Which is the only Star Trek thing I've ever liked. As a very casual Trek fan I really dig Strange New Worlds too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:This is being described as the origin of Starfleet in the Kelvin timeline, which makes no sense because Starfleet was already established when the Kelvin timeline broke off. Kirk and the gang constantly time-travelled to the past and hosed things up, changing the future in the process. This would affect future time-travel missions to the past and, therefore cause even more changes to both future and past - which would cause more changes, and more changes…. A different Kirk means a different history of the entire universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 02:42
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Probably the most likely to get made is the Section 31 straight to streaming movie with Michelle Yeoh, and even that has been in development for half a decade now without even a director attached. Also I can't really imagine who is getting excited for that, it's something that seems like it will appeal to about half of the fandom of Discovery which already has a pretty limited reach by this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:07
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Kirk and the gang constantly time-travelled to the past and hosed things up, changing the future in the process. This would affect future time-travel missions to the past and, therefore cause even more changes to both future and past - which would cause more changes, and more changes…. A different Kirk means a different history of the entire universe. They mentioned that in an episode of Strange New Worlds. All the time travel poo poo they've done led to Khan's birth and the Eugenics Wars being shifted back by several decades, so a pissed off Romulan time assassin ended up stuck in Toronto for 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:13
|
|
|
Robot Style posted:They mentioned that in an episode of Strange New Worlds. All the time travel poo poo they've done led to Khan's birth and the Eugenics Wars being shifted back by several decades, so a pissed off Romulan time assassin ended up stuck in Toronto for 30 years. Some Trek stuff needs to have a forelorn T-800 sitting in the background, just staring at its hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:15
|
|
|
It would not make sense for Luke since he's a main character with a complete arc, but Section 31 is something mysterious few Trek media actually covers so they technically can write more about it. I think it also reflects how pessimistic people have gotten about the future. Because even the supposedly utopian Star Trek universe has basterds in the government trying to mess things up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Kirk and the gang constantly time-travelled to the past and hosed things up, changing the future in the process. This would affect future time-travel missions to the past and, therefore cause even more changes to both future and past - which would cause more changes, and more changes…. A different Kirk means a different history of the entire universe. Technically, all of Star Trek from TNG onwards is set in an alternate timeline, because of the events of Yesterday's Enterprise meaning that Tasha Yar is living on Romulus 20 years before TNG even starts and her daughter, who otherwise wouldn't exist without Tasha going on the Enterprise-C, is a driving force of Romulan foreign and military policy towards the Federation and Klingons. The MSJ posted:It would not make sense for Luke since he's a main character with a complete arc, but Section 31 is something mysterious few Trek media actually covers so they technically can write more about it. I mean, Star Trek Into Darkness, which prominently featured Section 31 doing a false-flag terrorist attack on Starfleet HQ in order to start a war, was co-written by a 9/11 Truther, Roberto Orci.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I have zero expectation that another Trek movie will get made Paramount could go back to the old (post-TMP but before JJ) ways and make a really cheap Trek movie with recycled FX footage and reused sets!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:37
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:I think it also reflects how pessimistic people have gotten about the future. Because even the supposedly utopian Star Trek universe has basterds in the government trying to mess things up. That's been the case since the original series
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
There are like 100 Admirals on The Next Generation that are all up to no good
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 05:58
|
|
|
NorgLyle posted:Part of my brain thinks that the reason Star Trek is struggling right now is that, ultimately, TNG, DS9 and Voyager were all part of the same 'era' of Trek and were generally well received by people, made decent money and developed a fairly okay universe for stories. But Star Trek: Voyager went off the air literally 23 years ago; all of the actors, writers, producers and creators have gotten a lot older and so have the fans. Section 31 was first created for a random episode of DS9 that aired in 1999. Who cares about Section 31 at this point? It's like when the Star Wars books were still trying to write exciting new Luke Skywalker adventures some thirty years after Return of the Jedi came out. And even then most people complain about Section 31 these days as an excuse for the writers to get drunk on grimdark and ruin everything Star Trek is meant to be about, while also forgetting basic things about it like how it was shown as a deliberately nebulous organisation that acts primarily through agents and sympathisers rather than as full on Space CIA. (and Starfleet Intelligence is already a thing that does CIA stuff like when O'Brien went undercover!) FlamingLiberal posted:There are like 100 Admirals on The Next Generation that are all up to no good There's a lot of jokes about how Janeway is the only Star Trek captain to be promoted to Admiral and stay there because she was already qualified by virtue of being insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 06:43
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:They just pay for his likeness and use unused/test shots from Top Gun: Maverick and a double with their back to the camera for all his scenes. In a tragic and ironic turn of events, now Admiral Maverick also developed the same kind of cancer as Iceman conveniently only requiring his lines to be done via text and AI voice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 11:25
|
|
|
It wouldn't be too hard to build an in-universe explanation for how they all got HPV...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 11:32
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:The more I watched, read, and wrote about movies the more I understood story craft and cinematography and how everything is put together which made it a lot easier to put it into words why certain movies were good or bad. A lot of things that are considered "bad" by the mainstream are actually good and vice versa. Does a movie speak to you? Were you entertained? Then it's probably closer to good then bad, even if it involves chicks jello wrestling alien robots. The 28 ______ Later movies were stuck in rights hell, it doesn't surprise me that it took them this long to get all that sorted out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
It’s crazy how good the ending to the first one was considering the mini doc they added to the dvd where they admitted they had no idea what to do and included storyboards of the (super boring) alternate third act.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
We Got Us A Bread posted:The 28 ______ Later movies were stuck in rights hell, it doesn't surprise me that it took them this long to get all that sorted out. Did they make a 28 Months Later? I've only heard of days and weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
Maigius posted:Did they make a 28 Months Later? I've only heard of days and weeks. There was a stalled 28 Months Later project in development for years almost immediately after the second movie came out, but stalled due to the rights issues. It seems like that Months project is what evolved into 28 Years Later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
28 years later: Cillian Murphy is gonna drop da bomb on Paris
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
I thought the whole point of 28 Days Later was that the "Zombies" were all still alive, just lobotomized to the point where all they could do is vomit blood everywhere and skullfuck anyone within arms reach. They were so pissed they literally couldn't think about eating, meaning they were all going to die out in a few weeks due to starvation, exposure, etc. In other words, why the gently caress is this getting another sequel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2024 01:19
|
|
